| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21148 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:12 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Republican are back to give tax cuts to the rich rather then democrats trying to redistribute wealth.The Dow is way up. 1300 points. I guess someone thinks the Trump win and his policies will be good for the USA. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States15963 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:13 Gorsameth wrote: The knowledge gap seems to be entirety of the experts knowledge. As in the average working man has absolutely 0 clue how anything economic works. And yet it's those working men you need to convince to vote for your economic plan, or else win their vote some other way. How's the old saying go? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? This is how it works. It doesnt have to make sense. But it's the reality of the system we've chosen for ourselves. | ||
|
Jealous
10074 Posts
On November 06 2024 20:32 EnDeR_ wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote: I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. I will direct the same question to yourself as I did to L_master. Do you have any evidence that modern science is being misled by these perverse incentives and that the self-correcting nature of the scientific consensus is not working? I would genuinely like to look at this. On November 06 2024 20:28 Uldridge wrote: + Show Spoiler + On November 06 2024 19:59 L_Master wrote: I agree with all of that. But if the incentives are bad enough, it can lead to all kinds of bodies of horrible research, founded and built upon more horrible research, that people try to shoehorn into ever more aggressively. Evolution wise, even if a civilization stuck to that, it's likely it would be outcompeted by a civilization that did better science in due course. At it's worst, you're talking about essentially the next scientific dark age. (No, I don't think this is happening or will happen) But it can easily set progress back a decade or three. And cause tremendous pain and wasted energy and resources trying solutions based on science built on a house of cards. Not to mention the issues with creativity and the fact that funding very strongly rewards immediate results doing in paradigm science and shows less interest in studies that accept the null. I believe we're in the dark ages of scientific research because it's all to do with funding and clout and unwillingness to reflect on biases. Replication crisis, predatory journals, actual fraudulence in papers (made up data etc), peer reviews being shit at times because reviewers don't like the research due to it clashing with their work or they want to publish that type of research first. It's crazy. People lose faith in the framework because people abuse everything that's built on the solid foundations. In this aspect I don't think science a self correcting thing any longer. + Show Spoiler + More fundamentally I think it's one of the narratives on how we can shape society, just like religion. It's important becuase it's useful. Make science useless and it's existence stops. As far as reality goes, a thing I wanted to mention that is very apt right now: no matter the facts, if people feel a certain way, you won't change that by flaunting numbers in their faces. Example: people feel unsafe in public spaces, even though empirically speaking, the crime rate has gone down. Saying this won't make a difference. "Reality" in this case is that people, through a variety of paramaters, feel less safe than it actually is. The idea is the find out why that is, not saying that they're wrong. Disclaimer: This is going to be a big block of text and it's barely relevant to the topic at hand (election), so if you're not interested in following this line of discussion, just scroll down now. A lot of what I'm going to be writing about in this post is based on my experience in the field of psychology. While I absolutely think that research in psychology is usually a science (as in, adhering to the scientific method), there are also situations where I believe it is not a science so it may not be the best fit for this line of discussion opened by @Ender. However, enough people believe in the validity of the field without digging into whether a "consensus" is reached through scientific or unscientific means, and I will be providing some examples which apply to the sciences at large. I would also like to disclose that I absolutely have a chip on my shoulder about how research is conducted in certain areas of psychology and how conclusions within those fields are arrived at, but I will try to present my position as objectively as possible. --- 1. Grievance studies affair Taking place over 2017 and 2018, their project entailed submitting bogus papers to academic journals on topics from the field of critical social theory such as cultural, queer, race, gender, fat, and sexuality studies to determine whether they would pass through peer review and be accepted for publication. Several of these papers were subsequently published, which the authors cited in support of their contention. 2. Sokal affair The Sokal affair, additionally known as the Sokal hoax,[1] was a demonstrative scholarly hoax performed by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University and University College London. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions."[2] 3. Elite researchers in China say they had ‘no choice’ but to commit misconduct “I had no choice but to commit [research] misconduct,” admits a researcher at an elite Chinese university. The shocking revelation is documented in a collection of several dozen anonymous, in-depth interviews offering rare, first-hand accounts of researchers who engaged in unethical behaviour — and describing what tipped them over the edge. An article based on the interviews was published in April in the journal Research Ethics1. Based on my personal experience, this issue is definitely not exclusive to China or Chinese researchers. I could speak about this topic at length but the TL;DR here is that there are situations where social, societal, hierarchical, professional, and financial pressures all lead to "bad" science. "Bad" science here being research done in bad faith, more specifically methods which reject data that goes against a hypothesis that is socially beneficial to espouse. 4. Highly cited researcher banned from journal board for citation abuse A US-based biophysicist who is one of the world’s most highly cited researchers has been removed from the editorial board of one journal and barred as a reviewer for another, after repeatedly manipulating the peer-review process to amass citations to his own work. As mentioned above, there is a lot of politics and ego involved in science, because science is conducted by humans who are often bound by politics and ego. This isn't as egregious as submitting entirely fake research and having it published, but it is still a factor in terms of what gets published, who gets published, etc. 5. As Uldridge mentioned, there is also the Replication crisis, which basically infers that a lot of the research we have been relying on for decades has been tainted by the aforementioned "bad" science. The replication crisis[a] is an ongoing methodological crisis in which the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially call into question substantial parts of scientific knowledge. 6. At this point I'll go into one of the areas of psychology/psychological research which I was most familiar with due to my work as a research assistant within it. It is also what exposed me to the aforementioned elements of politics, ego, personal sentiment, social pressures, etc. being involved in science. This was shortly after the reclassification of Gender Identity Disorder (GID) into Gender Dysphoria (GD). I was conducting literature analysis on the presentation of GID and GD in new editions of textbooks in order to determine whether they have changed structurally in order to accommodate this reclassification. In short, my research was inspired by what I would consider to be a "pro"-trans position held by the head researcher, as it sought to evaluate whether the stigma of their condition being a "disorder" was appropriately being mitigated. This is something that I was on board with, because I believe that textbooks should present the most accurate and up-to-date information. For example, if one textbook simply changed the title and text of the subchapter GD without moving it out of the "Disorders" chapter, or if GD was squished firmly between the topics of drug addiction and gambling, then perhaps that publisher is not doing their best in understanding and presenting this change from GID to GD. At some point, a question arose in my mind: "Why was this change made in the first place?" While the explanation offered by one of the people who was allegedly on the board* which made this decision does a great job of outlining the logic behind it, the underlying reason is even more simple: it offended people. *I did some cursory research to try to see if I can conclusively place this person on the DSM panel which made this decision, but was unable to do so. However, this is because I'm not finding any comprehensive list anywhere. As it stands, I am inclined to believe that this person was indeed on this panel. It should be noted that the person who posted this is transgender, which may present a conflict of interest, but it's not a claim I will try to argue here. For example, I'm not sure that we should bar people who have an anxiety disorder from doing research on anxiety disorders. However, when it comes to classification and the writing of definitions, I think that there may be a greater possibility of bias seeping in. Anyway, from Natalie Walker's explanation, emphasis mine: The reclassification from an identity issue to a dysphoric issue was a direct result of the stigma and psychological distress of the idea that being transgender was a type of psychiatric disorder, and it absolutely is not. On the surface, this seems very much in line with the removal of homosexuality from the DSM back in 1973. I could discuss the differences between these two decisions, but this is not the crux of the issue for me. The crux of the issue for me is that because the old classifications offend people, they are changed. What were the studies conducted to support this outcome? I can't imagine that there were any real experiments being conducted (due to obvious ethical restraints). As such, I find this to be - within the context of this discussion - not scientific. Yet, research within this field seems to be at least somewhat curated by the governing bodies that be. In other words, if your research goes against the grain of the consensus, that research might not be supported by your university, funded, or published. Even if it is published, it may then be removed or censored. In my personal experience, even broaching the topic of conducting research on what may be a sensitive topic for the transgender community can at the very least be heavily discouraged by your research advisors. For an example beyond my own experience, this article was written by a researcher whose research was allegedly censored because it went against the narrative. Naturally, this is a first-hand source and is thus almost assuredly biased, but I wanted to provide one concrete example within this specific field of research. I'm not saying that research on these topics doesn't happen. After all, there have been some incendiary studies published which report on the prevalent comorbidity of narcissism and GD, as well as some research looking into the hypothesis that there is a prevalent comorbidity with autism (and thus that autism may be a contributing factor to GD). My point is that this type of research is difficult to get off the ground, raises eyebrows, and can receive significant negative backlash. I believe it was Uldridge that mentioned that publishing certain kinds of research can end a person's career. There are many self-reported cases of "blackballing" in various fields of academia for this very reason. I want to be clear that this is not exclusive to the hot button issue of GD and transgender rights. For example, studies on the performance of women vs. men in various disciplines are also affected. I can't find the article now, but one researcher had their research approved for publishing but then the governing body retracted it before publication, meaning that the researcher cannot publish it in a different journal and that no one can read it, either. They were then fired from their position at a western university, which they alleged was because female researchers at their university went on a warpath against them. Why? Because they went against the currently established narrative that women are equal to men in all ways, and thus any findings which purport that women might perform worse in math-related subjects is seen as actively harmful to women, and thus the research has effectively been sealed. I wish I could find this article but I have to head out soon and am running out of time; I'm sure I have it saved somewhere, so if I run into it later I will add it here. Now, I'm not saying that I believe that men are superior to women in math. I just find it unscientific that research which supports this position doesn't see the light of day due to politics and individual feelings, while research supporting absolute equality is incredibly well-represented. Science, in my opinion, should not be constrained by optics. Anyway, I'll circle back to ask: why is GD present in the most up-to-date DSM while something like Body Identity Dysphoria/body integrity identity disorder - roughly, the desire to have a limb amputated - is not? Why do we perform gender-affirming surgeries on people and give them hormone treatments, while the idea of operating on someone with BID/BIID is generally dismissed? Representation, politics, and bias are almost certainly contributing factors - and this is almost assuredly the case in other areas of academia as well. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21148 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House.But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? See the deficit under Trump increasing every year. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16092 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? Hey, if Trump can run around in Reagan's 1980 red baseball hat maybe he can bring back the Laffer curve? 😀 | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21148 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:15 Vindicare605 wrote: That's why the guy who just lies and shouts bullshit won.And yet it's those working men you need to convince to vote for your economic plan, or else win their vote some other way. How's the old saying go? The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter? This is how it works. It doesnt have to make sense. But it's the reality of the system we've chosen for ourselves. You don't need to explain it to them, in fact explaining it just makes them more confused. Just lie, its easier and you don't get punished for it. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada16092 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:15 Gorsameth wrote: Republican are back to give tax cuts to the rich rather then democrats trying to redistribute wealth. As Warren Buffett stated more than a decade ago.. it is time to stop coddling the super-rich. | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States15963 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:18 Gorsameth wrote: That's why the guy who just lies and shouts bullshit won. You don't need to explain it to them, in fact explaining it just makes them more confused. Just lie, its easier and you don't get punished for it. No see this is the part the Democrats don't understand. Republicans already have a lock on the party of liars. They're in bed with the Christian Right. They will NEVER lose that block of voters ever as long as they continue to promise to promote conservative judges. That's the only thing the Christian Right needs to keep voting for them forever. Democrats need to be the party that explains things, that makes them make sense. If they are just the guys shouting bullshit to counter the Republicans' bullshit then that causes voter turn out among moderates and more educated liberals to crater. Democrats need to win the game correctly. It's difficult but it's the only way they will ever win. Getting into mud throwing contests with the Republicans benefits them and ONLY them. | ||
|
oBlade
Korea (South)4957 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:14 EnDeR_ wrote: But wouldn't that massively increase the deficit? Isn't that supposed to be bad for the economy? The cost of that tax relief is miniscule compared to the budget at large if you don't cut spending, which only one candidate ran on. On November 07 2024 01:15 Gorsameth wrote: Republican are back to give tax cuts to the rich rather then democrats trying to redistribute wealth. The market is responding to an abatement of a period of uncertainty because an election finished with a single night result. It would have gone up today if Harris had won last night as well because it projects continuity into the future and a continued safe place for corporate interests in essentially Obama's 4th term. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5895 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:17 Gorsameth wrote: Republicans only care about the deficit when a Democrat is in the White House. See the deficit under Trump increasing every year. Democrats need to 1000% embrace the Republican tactic of using whatever you can find to bludgeon the other party over the head at all times, regardless of the hypocrisy or the facts. Don't give them room to breathe. The only reason R's get any airtime when they bang on about hypocrisy is because we let them. Jump down their throats and don't let them breathe in the rhetorical space. Democrats have policy that makes things better and they know it. But people don't give a shit about policy, they respond to charisma and "fight". Democrats have been so scared of looking like they might be fighting back that they left the floor open to Trump. They should be rallying and holding addresses to the nation on a weekly basis. Call Republicans out for the fucking spineless cowards they are and stand up on their own two feet as a party. But also, they should've been doing this since January 2021. If we forget about January 6th it's because the Democrats decided it wasn't that big of a deal. Fuck. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4395 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21148 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:23 Vindicare605 wrote: Just get the US electorate who have consistently and repeatedly rejected policy to embrace policy and just explain things better.No see this is the part the Democrats don't understand. Republicans already have a lock on the party of liars. They're in bed with the Christian Right. They will NEVER lose that block of voters ever as long as they continue to promise to promote conservative judges. That's the only thing the Christian Right needs to keep voting for them forever. Democrats need to be the party that explains things, that makes them make sense. If they are just the guys shouting bullshit to counter the Republicans' bullshit then that causes voter turn out among moderates and more educated liberals to crater. Democrats need to win the game correctly. It's difficult but it's the only way they will ever win. Getting into mud throwing contests with the Republicans benefits them and ONLY them. How is that working out for the Democrats? They lost to pure bullshit twice, and would have probably lost in 2020 if not for Covid. Why are you afraid to lose the moderates and educated liberals when they don't come out to vote anyway? Trump is going to win the fucking popular vote. A lying rapist felon has just been elected President. Where are all the sane voters? they don't win you elections and proven by the election Democrats just lost while running against a rapist felon. If the electorate gave a shit we would not be here today. Clearly they don't give a shit. Democrats need to stop pretending like Idiocracy wasn't a documentary. (tho those people were smarter then Americans today, they saw the worlds smartest man and recognised they needed to put him in charge) | ||
|
Timebon3s
Norway566 Posts
Mabye it won’t be as bad as people think. As far as Europe is concerned, he actually made NATO stronger, which is good for my country at least. He’s also said he will try to stop the war between Ukraine and Russia. If that means Ukraine need to give up territory to Russia, and then get membership in NATO, that sounds like a good long term solution. And he also managed to get a dialogue going with North Korea. Let’s hope for a positive future instead of only focusing on the negative. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland22647 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:03 Uldridge wrote: What is the average knowledge gap between economic experts and your average working man? I fear the gap is so large that whatever they may say just doesn't matter. Trump is "getting stuff done". Forget macro economic cycles that take 20 years to play out or whatever the fuck, they want stuff done NOW. And he did that and Biden didn't. That's how you lose I guess. Huge, but easily bridgeable. It just needs a bare bones, logical cliff notes breakdown, somebody who’s a good communicator, and somebody listening with good faith. The real nitty gritty mechanics get complicated sure, the real basics not so much. Brexit, case in point. We will lose free trade access, and freedom of movement and labour to the world’s largest free trade bloc. Which incidentally is also geographically closest to us, so just the cost of physical logistics is also cheaper than elsewhere. The UK cannot possibly offset these advantages leaving the EU, certainly not for decades. Hard to get decent, consistent estimates. Covid and the Ukraine conflict have somewhat interrupted regular service as it were, so it gets to be rather tricky to calculate. One figure I saw, and this is now, further along after exiting and dealing with the mechanics of that are in many cases sorted. 100 billion quid a year, just one figure but as I said, there’s variance That’s 100 billion a year down, for nothing. At least in terms of tangible economic or service benefit. Pick any public service you want, some are less popular than others. They’re still a better use of cash, no matter how inefficient or ‘undeserving’ the recipient than well, nothing. IIRC a couple of years of that, ballpark equals the entire Western aid package to Ukraine. Expenditure which is growing in unpopularity but trying to prevent Putin’s Russia from subsuming a sovereign nation on the EU’s borders? Pricey but I think again, better than literally nothing. These things aren’t all complicated to break down for a layman, for me there are only two explanations why one would disagree. 1) The layperson doesn’t trust the expert or institution and rejects their conclusions out of hand. 2) They think Brexit desirous policy for any number of reasons, but it isn’t for economic ones. Or, perhaps on a micro level it financially benefits them directly in some manner. 2 is fine, but from experience people will outright lie about why they support a particular policy, if they think it reflects badly on them. Or alternatively just to temporarily smooth an interaction. If DPB put in the hard yards with Harris’ platform, and previously Biden’s on these hallowed pages, and did a bang-up job, I did something similar in various platforms over Brexit. I think it’s laudable to try and detoxify political discourse, but much of my cynicism and general jadedness stemmed from those very experiences. I totally get where you’re coming from but I really think you underestimate the practical difficulties in actually doing so | ||
|
Zambrah
United States6918 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:27 NewSunshine wrote: Democrats need to 1000% embrace the Republican tactic of using whatever you can find to bludgeon the other party over the head at all times, regardless of the hypocrisy or the facts. Don't give them room to breathe. The only reason R's get any airtime when they bang on about hypocrisy is because we let them. Jump down their throats and don't let them breathe in the rhetorical space. Democrats have policy that makes things better and they know it. But people don't give a shit about policy, they respond to charisma and "fight". Democrats have been so scared of looking like they might be fighting back that they left the floor open to Trump. They should be rallying and holding addresses to the nation on a weekly basis. Call Republicans out for the fucking spineless cowards they are and stand up on their own two feet as a party. But also, they should've been doing this since January 2021. If we forget about January 6th it's because the Democrats decided it wasn't that big of a deal. Fuck. I remember when people thought the justice system would play out over time, I wonder how those people feel now lmao To anyone who wasnt down with me when I said to prosecute him and the insurrectionists ASAP I'm gonna take this moment to I-Told-You-So at you | ||
|
Razyda
448 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And for that reason, Democrats need to be able to better communicate the context and voters need to be willing to listen and/or learn. Democrats failed at communication, and voters failed at understanding how this works. As was cited before, all of the ideal policies in the world unfortunately don't matter if the optics are inferior. (Also, Harris didn't run on GDP growth; she ran on reducing the costs of groceries and medicine and childcare and housing, etc. oBlade brought up GDP growth.) bolded - This is partially right, I think they failed at more things Italic - this perspective always amuses me, it is pure superiority complex. (unless you mean Kamala voters because objectively they are the ones that failed, as Kamala lost) On November 07 2024 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yes, a lot of voters are fucking stupid. But they still vote. And they'll vote next time, and the time after that. I don't want Republicans to win forever, so I think it's important for Democrats to figure out what the best strategies are for 2028. Again superiority complex, if you "don't want Republicans to win forever" (for what is worth I think next election goes to Democrats by default almost) then maybe dont refer to voters as stupid? Crazy idea, but maybe treat them (or at least pretend to) as your equals (you know all that DEI stuff)? In general for "I think x is better for me": argument "no you are wrong here is why..." is less effective than " but dont you think that x may result in y which will affect you negatively?" | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22280 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yes, a lot of voters are fucking stupid. But they still vote. And they'll vote next time, and the time after that. I don't want Republicans to win forever, so I think it's important for Democrats to figure out what the best strategies are for 2028. Bold of you to assume that a democracy destroying dictator is going to have 2028 elections | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28455 Posts
On November 07 2024 00:17 WombaT wrote: Brexit IDK, it was effectively a vote on policy itself, rather than parties or candidates, of course there’s parties involved. So I think the fear/anger dynamic is a bit different then The messaging was more mixed than that between benefits/downsides of leaving than people recall now. The messaging wasn’t even that bad Here's a relevant article! https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/4758/2546 + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://tl.net/staff/LiquidDrone/graphs/emotionalappeals.png) Like not to detract from the discussion but it's very rare that I have a this good source of knowledge of something as specific as the emotional appeals of various brexit politicians.  While UKIP has a bit of fear to their posts, you can see a pretty stark contrast between say, Farage/BoJo and David Cameron, or Labour. | ||
|
Slydie
1845 Posts
| ||
|
r00ty
Germany1022 Posts
On November 07 2024 01:37 Timebon3s wrote: Now that the dust has settled and Trump won by a landslide, why wasn’t there more voters in favor of him here on this forum? Is this a very left-leaning forum, or are people simply afraid of saying they support Trump? Mabye it won’t be as bad as people think. As far as Europe is concerned, he actually made NATO stronger, which is good for my country at least. He’s also said he will try to stop the war between Ukraine and Russia. If that means Ukraine need to give up territory to Russia, and then get membership in NATO, that sounds like a good long term solution. And he also managed to get a dialogue going with North Korea. Let’s hope for a positive future instead of only focusing on the negative. How is Trump in any way responsible for Norway joining NATO? He gets credited for so much stuff he doesn't have anything to do with or even counteracted against. It's crazy. If he would be have been at the helm when Putin invaded we would be in a very different world. He basically wants to abolish NATO to get better deals i guess? Dialogue with North Korea? Are you kidding? | ||
| ||
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
Biweekly #22
Astrea vs threepointLIVE!
ByuN vs TBD
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games tarik_tv11254 summit1g10198 hungrybox2754 Grubby1670 shahzam660 JimRising  638PiGStarcraft500 C9.Mang0287 ToD186 Maynarde178 Mew2King173 ViBE117 JuggernautJason107 Trikslyr75 Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Invitational
OSC
OSC
Replay Cast
SOOP Global
Trap vs GuMiho
Classic vs Cure
SOOP
GuMiho vs Zoun
SC Evo Complete
PassionCraft
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
