• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 08:13
CET 14:13
KST 22:13
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
RSL Revival - 2025 Season Finals Preview8RSL Season 3 - Playoffs Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups C & D Preview0RSL Season 3 - RO16 Groups A & B Preview2TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners12
Community News
ComeBackTV's documentary on Byun's Career !8Weekly Cups (Dec 8-14): MaxPax, Clem, Cure win4Weekly Cups (Dec 1-7): Clem doubles, Solar gets over the hump1Weekly Cups (Nov 24-30): MaxPax, Clem, herO win2BGE Stara Zagora 2026 announced15
StarCraft 2
General
When will we find out if there are more tournament ComeBackTV's documentary on Byun's Career ! Weekly Cups (Dec 8-14): MaxPax, Clem, Cure win RSL Revival - 2025 Season Finals Preview Weekly Cups (Dec 1-7): Clem doubles, Solar gets over the hump
Tourneys
Winter Warp Gate Amateur Showdown #1 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship RSL Offline Finals Info - Dec 13 and 14! Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 504 Retribution Mutation # 503 Fowl Play Mutation # 502 Negative Reinforcement Mutation # 501 Price of Progress
Brood War
General
Klaucher discontinued / in-game color settings BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ How Rain Became ProGamer in Just 3 Months FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle screp: Command line app to parse SC rep files
Tourneys
Small VOD Thread 2.0 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL21] WB SEMIFINALS - Saturday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO8 - Day 2 - Sunday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Game Theory for Starcraft Current Meta Fighting Spirit mining rates
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Mechabellum PC Games Sales Thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
Mafia Game Mode Feedback/Ideas Survivor II: The Amazon Sengoku Mafia TL Mafia Community Thread
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI YouTube Thread
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece Movie Discussion!
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TL+ Announced Where to ask questions and add stream?
Blogs
The (Hidden) Drug Problem in…
TrAiDoS
I decided to write a webnov…
DjKniteX
James Bond movies ranking - pa…
Topin
Thanks for the RSL
Hildegard
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1387 users

Liberal Press Bias - Page 24

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 22 23 24 25 26 31 Next All
aRod
Profile Joined July 2007
United States758 Posts
December 08 2008 06:11 GMT
#461
How are IQ tests biased in any direction towards any race? I've never really studied this and I ask sincerely.
Live to win.
fight_or_flight
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States3988 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-12-08 06:20:13
December 08 2008 06:19 GMT
#462
On December 08 2008 15:11 aRod wrote:
How are IQ tests biased in any direction towards any race? I've never really studied this and I ask sincerely.

Cultures have different "mindsets" when it comes to things like numbers. For example, some tribes in africa don't have the concept of "27" or counting, instead they say things like "a lot" and "a little".

Or instead of saying "5 miles south then 4 miles west" they may say "across the river when the trees become smaller" or something.
Do you really want chat rooms?
aRod
Profile Joined July 2007
United States758 Posts
December 08 2008 06:44 GMT
#463
It is easy to see how this could produce such a dramatic effect. What about locally, are there inherently any biases in IQ testing in the US?
Live to win.
ZERG_RUSSIAN
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
10417 Posts
December 08 2008 06:57 GMT
#464
http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceCulturalBias.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity

The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity, or BITCH-100, is an intelligence test created by Robert Williams in 1972 oriented toward the language, attitudes, and life-styles of African Americans. White students perform more poorly on this test than blacks, suggesting that there are important dissimilarities in the cultural backgrounds of blacks and whites.[1][2] Some argue that these findings indicate that test bias plays a role in producing the gaps in IQ test scores.[3] Similarly to the Williams test, the Chitling Intelligence Test [4] is another example of a culturally biased test that tends to favor African Americans.[5] Both of these tests demonstrate how cultural content on intelligence tests may lead to culturally biased score results. Still these criticisms of cultural content may not apply to "culture free" tests of intelligence. The BITCH-100 and the Chitling test both have explicit cultural assumptions, while normal standardized tests are only theorized to have implicit bias. The fact that a test can have bias does not necessarily prove that a specific test does have bias. However, even on cultural free tests, test bias may play a role since, due to their cultural backgrounds, some test takers do not have the familiarity with the language and culture of the psychological and educational tests that is implicitly assumed in the assessment procedure.[6] Beverly Daniel Tatum writes that dominant cultures often set the parameters by which minority cultures will be judged. Minority groups are labeled as substandard in significant ways, for example blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than whites. Tatum suggests that the ability to set these parameters is a form of white privilege.[7]


BITCH-100 rofl
I'm on GOLD CHAIN
fight_or_flight
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
United States3988 Posts
December 08 2008 07:11 GMT
#465
Where does the 100 come from? Why not just call it the BITCH?
Do you really want chat rooms?
MyLostTemple *
Profile Blog Joined November 2004
United States2921 Posts
December 08 2008 07:24 GMT
#466
i was going to make a post about this retarded race IQ argument but zerg russian already beat me to it. i can't believe this thread was derailed into explaining to someone why blacks have the same amount of intelligence as whites. facepalm
Follow me on twitter: CallMeTasteless
Qwertify
Profile Joined September 2008
United States2531 Posts
December 08 2008 08:16 GMT
#467
+ Show Spoiler +
On December 07 2008 02:16 Savio wrote:
Disclaimer: I don't pretend to be unbiased myself. I am conservative in my political views.


Take a gander at this quick article from the Washington Times. I will point out the highlights and pose some questions.

+ Show Spoiler +
It's a record-setting press honeymoon.

President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).

Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday.

"Obama's positive press is the strongest showing CMPA has ever recorded for a presidential candidate since we began monitoring election news in 1988," said Robert Lichter, director of the nonpartisan research group affiliated with George Mason University.

By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage.

Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said.

The study analyzed 1,197 election stories from Aug. 23 to Nov. 4 on "ABC World News Tonight," "NBC Nightly News," "CBS Evening News" and the first half-hour of "Fox Special Report."

The findings counter previous CMPA research trends somewhat. On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press.

Mr. Obama also trumped coverage garnered by former presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry. The Massachusetts Democrat received 59 percent favorable press in a similar study conducted during the 2004 election.

NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage.

Fox also took him to task for some lofty trappings.

"President-elect Barack Obama is looking very presidential these days. When he makes an announcement, he is ringed by American flags and stands behind a lectern that has a very presidential-looking placard announcing 'The Office of the President-Elect.' But the props are merely that. Under the Constitution, there is no such thing as the Office of the President-Elect," a recent Fox News op-ed piece said.

Not only was criticism of Mr. Obama not typical at the other networks, but some journalists seemed to wax rhapsodic about Mr. Obama -- framing his campaign in dramatic terms.

In recent days, NBC's Andrea Mitchell called him a "rock star," while ABC's Terry Moran noted, "You can see it in the crowds. The thrill, the hope -- how they surge toward him." CBS' Tracy Smith described Mr. Obama's "stoic elegance," adding, "even some political commentators who've seen it all can't help but gush."

It was all too much for the Media Research Center, a Virginia-based conservative watchdog group that has assembled a roster of "Obama's Media Groupies."

Other research has revealed an Obama-centric press.

A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents.

A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative. Even The Washington Post's ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an "Obama tilt" in her own newspaper in a recent op-ed piece.


"On average in the last 20 years, Democratic presidential hopefuls received coverage that was fairly balanced: about half positive and half negative. However, over the same period, Republicans received 34 percent positive and 66 percent negative press."

"President-elect Barack Obama has received the most positive campaign news coverage on the main network news shows in the 20-year history of such studies by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). Mr. Obama received 68 percent positive evaluations from the four major networks, according to the study released Friday. By contrast, his Republican rival almost set the record for hostile press coverage. Just 33 percent of the stories on Sen. John McCain were positive in nature -- "the worst showing" since former President George H.W. Bush received only 29 percent positive press in 1988, Mr. Lichter said."

"NBC was the most Obama-friendly of the four networks, with 73 percent of the coverage being favorable. Fox News was the sole network to mix it up with Mr. Obama, with only 37 percent of the stories on him positive in tone, although that was only slightly less favorable than the 41 percent favorability of the network's McCain coverage."

"A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that journalists "wanted" Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents.

A Harvard University analysis in early November revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press is politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative."



Now I know that this is an overwhelmingly liberal website in terms of the political opinions of the members, but I was wondering what TL.netters thought of the liberal bias that has been in the news since at least 1988.

Does this affect the outcome of election?

Does a slanted media have negative effects on a democracy?

Do you think this is all crap and that there is no bias? If so, why do you believe that?

Does this information make you happy or angry?


it makes me hppy
CJ Entusman #24
QibingZero
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
2611 Posts
December 08 2008 09:02 GMT
#468
On December 08 2008 16:11 fight_or_flight wrote:
Where does the 100 come from? Why not just call it the BITCH?


Likely they aimed for 100 to be the average IQ.
Oh, my eSports
HnR)hT
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3468 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-12-08 13:32:15
December 08 2008 13:23 GMT
#469
On December 08 2008 10:15 outqast wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 08 2008 09:36 HnR)hT wrote:
Here is something everyone interested in IQ and race should read: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

It is the same thing I linked before, but when Wysp baselessly shat on it people may have been compelled to ignore it. It is a very informed article, and answers many of the objections by the IQ/race deniers, and I stand by it 100%. The article begins by condemning the disgraceful treatment of James Watson a year ago at the hands of the media and much of the scientific community, which owes him so much.

It might not change anyone's mind in the end, but the considerable evidence and argumentation presented should at least make people take its claims more seriously.

I won't be able to reply for a long time as I have work to do, but hopefully a few people will read and learn something.


I just read it and it was not very persuasive.

Hi outqast. I probably owe you a more substantive reply by now, but I'm a bit busy so I will ask you a few questions instead.

1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?

2. What is your basis for believing that that is not, in fact, the case?

3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?

Think about it for now, I'll try to get back to this thread at some point.

edit: btw ZERG_RUSSIAN: your objections are invalid. I'll say more on this if I have time.
Louder, read the article I linked above. You "know" some things that are flat out false.
HnR)hT
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3468 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-12-08 13:47:55
December 08 2008 13:41 GMT
#470
On December 08 2008 15:57 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
http://wilderdom.com/personality/intelligenceCulturalBias.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Intelligence_Test_of_Cultural_Homogeneity

Show nested quote +
The Black Intelligence Test of Cultural Homogeneity, or BITCH-100, is an intelligence test created by Robert Williams in 1972 oriented toward the language, attitudes, and life-styles of African Americans. White students perform more poorly on this test than blacks, suggesting that there are important dissimilarities in the cultural backgrounds of blacks and whites.[1][2] Some argue that these findings indicate that test bias plays a role in producing the gaps in IQ test scores.[3] Similarly to the Williams test, the Chitling Intelligence Test [4] is another example of a culturally biased test that tends to favor African Americans.[5] Both of these tests demonstrate how cultural content on intelligence tests may lead to culturally biased score results. Still these criticisms of cultural content may not apply to "culture free" tests of intelligence. The BITCH-100 and the Chitling test both have explicit cultural assumptions, while normal standardized tests are only theorized to have implicit bias. The fact that a test can have bias does not necessarily prove that a specific test does have bias. However, even on cultural free tests, test bias may play a role since, due to their cultural backgrounds, some test takers do not have the familiarity with the language and culture of the psychological and educational tests that is implicitly assumed in the assessment procedure.[6] Beverly Daniel Tatum writes that dominant cultures often set the parameters by which minority cultures will be judged. Minority groups are labeled as substandard in significant ways, for example blacks have historically been characterized as less intelligent than whites. Tatum suggests that the ability to set these parameters is a form of white privilege.[7]


BITCH-100 rofl

You can't just call any set of random questions an "intelligence" test, in the technical sense. What makes you think this is one? Does it correlate with academic achievement or long-term life outcomes? Brain sizes? Reaction times? Short-term memory? Results on intelligence tests that obviously have nothing to do with knowledge, like the backward digit span? Real IQ tests at least happen to meet all those criteria.
ParasitJonte
Profile Joined September 2004
Sweden1768 Posts
December 08 2008 16:08 GMT
#471
I don't think there is any satisfying (non-ambiguous etc.) definition of intelligence.

All you can say about IQ-tests is that they measure how well you perform on IQ-tests.

That however, is quantifiable. Consider all the correlations between high IQ and longevity, healthiness, as well as an inverse correlation between high IQ and religiosity. That shows that the classical, western, IQ-tests shouldn't be dismissed.

Also, I think people have so strong moral and political motivations for saying that all flavours of humans are equally intelligent.

I think they are because I can't find any single good reason why there should be differences in intelligence. But I would be open to another truth. I don't think most people would be however.
Hello=)
EmeraldSparks
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
United States1451 Posts
December 08 2008 16:50 GMT
#472
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?

Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects.

3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?

Eugenics.
But why?
aRod
Profile Joined July 2007
United States758 Posts
December 08 2008 17:24 GMT
#473
I've always been a believer in data. Produce statistics about a given topic and I will look at it with the deepest sincerity. Genetic analysis indentifying genes that correlate strongly with lower IQs within and between races is an interesting finding.
Live to win.
QibingZero
Profile Blog Joined June 2007
2611 Posts
December 08 2008 17:32 GMT
#474
On December 08 2008 22:23 HnR)hT wrote:
Show nested quote +
On December 08 2008 10:15 outqast wrote:
On December 08 2008 09:36 HnR)hT wrote:
Here is something everyone interested in IQ and race should read: http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2007/10/james-watson-tells-inconvenient-truth_296.php

It is the same thing I linked before, but when Wysp baselessly shat on it people may have been compelled to ignore it. It is a very informed article, and answers many of the objections by the IQ/race deniers, and I stand by it 100%. The article begins by condemning the disgraceful treatment of James Watson a year ago at the hands of the media and much of the scientific community, which owes him so much.

It might not change anyone's mind in the end, but the considerable evidence and argumentation presented should at least make people take its claims more seriously.

I won't be able to reply for a long time as I have work to do, but hopefully a few people will read and learn something.


I just read it and it was not very persuasive.

Hi outqast. I probably owe you a more substantive reply by now, but I'm a bit busy so I will ask you a few questions instead.

1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?

2. What is your basis for believing that that is not, in fact, the case?

3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?

Think about it for now, I'll try to get back to this thread at some point.

edit: btw ZERG_RUSSIAN: your objections are invalid. I'll say more on this if I have time.
Louder, read the article I linked above. You "know" some things that are flat out false.


I seriously can't believe you're still arguing this.

It would take the ability to completely negate all cultural and socio-economic variables in order for an IQ test to be a reasonable test of someone's intelligence. Even then, if there was some substantial difference in race, you would have to actually narrow it down and find what specific genetic differences caused it, and how. The entire scenario is sketchy and it's extremely unlikely something like that could ever happen.

On the other hand, you're the one that should be answering questions here. Just the fact you even brought this up leaves one wanting to know what your agenda in doing so is. It seems most likely that you're trying to justify racist views based on this 'evidence', and, not unsurprisingly, the same type of rationalization is found in nearly every mention of this information online. What exactly is your concern?
Oh, my eSports
outqast
Profile Joined October 2005
United States287 Posts
December 08 2008 18:29 GMT
#475
On December 09 2008 01:50 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Show nested quote +
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?

Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects.


Basically. You need a large enough natural experiment where "race" was specifically defined and cultural and historical impact would be at a minimum. I don't know where you would find such a place where you could conduct such a natural experiment because racism is so prevalent all over the world, it would confound any study. You would need some major internment camp like Nazi Germany type deal to make it work.



3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?


Implications for me or for the entire world? For me, it would be exactly the argument made in your article. It would be a statistic, that on average some people with a particular characteristic would be "smarter" than others. It doesn't mean that an individual level every comparison between people of different races would be true. It also would not be an explanation of the level of economic development between Africa and European countries/Asian countries as your esteemed Dr. Watson would try to suggest.

For the world, it would give credence to a lot of eugenics nuts who would use it for all types of terrible, and illogical justifications.
outqast
Profile Joined October 2005
United States287 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-12-08 18:52:55
December 08 2008 18:49 GMT
#476

i dont know. You can't just call any set of random questions an "intelligence" test, in the technical sense. What makes you think this is one? Does it correlate with academic achievement or long-term life outcomes? Brain sizes? Reaction times? Short-term memory? Results on intelligence tests that obviously have nothing to do with knowledge, like the backward digit span? Real IQ tests at least happen to meet all those criteria.


This really gets to the heart of the problem. The article you posted dismissed this question, but did not really answer what intelligence was. The whole point of the BITCH was to illustrate the illusive nature of trying to define intelligence. Lets debunk a couple things.

1) Brain size has absolutely no correlation with "intelligence." I'm no expert, but I believe it has to do with the number of creases for particular part of the brain that has to do with reasoning. There was one study that there was a correlation with the ratio of brains to eye size in different mammals with intelligence, but no causational effect.

2) Reaction times and short-term memory can be "trained," for example in the Marines, Navy, they train you to have quick reaction times and better short-term memory. While this is some function of genetics, some of the "smartest" most "intelligent" people I know have terrible reactions times and short-term memory. Let me tell you I'm taking a class from one Nobel laureate this quarter and I have played softball with some very famous economists, and reaction time and short-term memory have nothing to do with intelligence.

3) Again academic achievement/long term outcomes have something to do with genetic "intelligence," but more to do with your cultural and sociological background. I don't think I need any more explanation than that.

I've dismissed some of these qualifications of intelligence, but what is true intelligence? In my opinion it has a lot to do with creativity and innovation, the ability to see and put things together that other people might not see. For example, Albert Einstein was a genius because he imagined and predicted physics that no one could really observe or verify. How exactly do you measure creativity? Certainly not by some test (although Einstein scored extremely high on the IQ test).why it keeps double posting for me.
HnR)hT
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3468 Posts
December 08 2008 19:20 GMT
#477
You are just rationalizing away what evidence there is. It is true that the evidence is not so overwhelming as to prevent someone from doing this. But do you have an actual a priori reason to think that all races have equal intelligence? So far, none has been given.

Black children do worse than white children in the backward digit span test. It involves listening to a string of digits, and then repeating them in a backward order. This has zero cultural content, yet correlates highly with other IQ tests. It shows that there seems to be some innate cognitive difference, whether or not you want to associate it with "intelligence".
HnR)hT
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3468 Posts
December 08 2008 19:21 GMT
#478
(But blacks do as well as whites on the forward digit span, which also correlates much less with IQ tests.)
HnR)hT
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3468 Posts
December 08 2008 19:24 GMT
#479
On December 09 2008 01:50 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Show nested quote +
1. What kind of evidence would it take to persuade you that there is at least a very high likelihood that races differ in intelligence on average?

Lots of studies that can't be explained by socioeconomic or cultural effects.

But you can always "explain" any result by making up elaborate socioeconomic theories. At some point you'd need to counter data and observed fact with data and observed fact.

Show nested quote +
3. As a hypothetical, suppose really powerful new evidence was presented that proved to your satisfaction that races differ substantially in average intelligence. What do you think the implications would be?

Eugenics.

So you think Eugenics would be justified if it turned out that races differ in average intelligence (while also thinking that it isn't justified now)?
HnR)hT
Profile Joined October 2002
United States3468 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-12-08 19:27:31
December 08 2008 19:27 GMT
#480
QibingZero, you are asking for impossibly strict standards of proof before you can even grant the possiblity, while assuming that "no differences in intelligence" is the default position. Isn't that being dogmatic?
Prev 1 22 23 24 25 26 31 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
SC Evo League
12:30
#18
LiquipediaDiscussion
WardiTV 2025
11:00
Playoffs
Reynor vs MaxPaxLIVE!
SHIN vs TBD
TBD vs Cure
Solar vs herO
Classic vs TBD
TBD vs Clem
WardiTV1488
ComeBackTV 1220
TaKeTV 470
IndyStarCraft 231
Rex150
CosmosSc2 62
LiquipediaDiscussion
CranKy Ducklings
10:00
Master Swan Open #99
CranKy Ducklings47
LiquipediaDiscussion
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Lowko264
IndyStarCraft 231
Rex 150
BRAT_OK 72
CosmosSc2 62
MindelVK 30
trigger 10
StarCraft: Brood War
Horang2 1554
Stork 490
firebathero 355
EffOrt 341
Leta 320
Last 230
Larva 185
Zeus 182
ggaemo 106
Mong 39
[ Show more ]
zelot 31
yabsab 23
ajuk12(nOOB) 22
Shinee 21
SilentControl 8
Noble 8
ivOry 6
Dota 2
Gorgc4464
singsing3358
XcaliburYe334
qojqva0
League of Legends
rGuardiaN1
Counter-Strike
edward329
oskar168
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor218
Other Games
B2W.Neo1779
crisheroes309
Pyrionflax285
DeMusliM233
XaKoH 134
Trikslyr23
KnowMe19
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick914
StarCraft: Brood War
lovetv 9
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 13 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• C_a_k_e 2388
• Gemini_19 15
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Jankos1981
Upcoming Events
Ladder Legends
5h 47m
BSL 21
6h 47m
Sziky vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
20h 47m
Ladder Legends
1d 3h
BSL 21
1d 6h
StRyKeR vs TBD
Bonyth vs TBD
Replay Cast
1d 19h
Wardi Open
1d 22h
Monday Night Weeklies
2 days
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
Replay Cast
4 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
ByuN vs Solar
Clem vs Classic
Cure vs herO
Reynor vs MaxPax
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Acropolis #4 - TS3
RSL Offline Finals
Kuram Kup

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
Slon Tour Season 2
CSL Season 19: Qualifier 1
WardiTV 2025
META Madness #9
eXTREMESLAND 2025
SL Budapest Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22

Upcoming

CSL Season 19: Qualifier 2
CSL 2025 WINTER (S19)
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
Bellum Gens Elite Stara Zagora 2026
HSC XXVIII
Big Gabe Cup #3
OSC Championship Season 13
ESL Pro League Season 23
PGL Cluj-Napoca 2026
IEM Kraków 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.