there's nothing wrong with it, just dont say fnatic is your favorite......

"favorite" is a pretty empty word, and as you say its conceivable someone could use "favorite" to describe the team they enjoy watching the most. their enjoyment then is derived from the quality of cs they play. but if thats the case, why would you SUPPORT them? what they offer you is not a piece of their victory, but instead the opportunity to watch good cs which is true whether or not they win. you might be able to argue that in an earlier round of the playoffs its conceivable to root for the more consistently skilled teams because they offer you the opportunity to watch better cs later in the playoffs, but here the tournament ends whether or not C9 wins so fnatic winning offers no addtl "quality" cs to watch

Not only that, but traditionally "favorite" is used to describe a team you support win or lose, but if fnatic plays subpar and stupid cs then the supporter of the team that offers "skilled cs" would be HAPPY they lost, because it allows the superior team to move on.

if you use "favorite" to describe the team that plays the best cs you shouldnt use the word "favorite"

its amazing that u seem totally ok with being a blatant bandwagon. usually when u meet a gsw fan or something they'll try to defend themselves "i was a fan before they were good" but you openly admit u became a fan AFTER fnatic won 2 majors.

its like meeting a lakers fan in 01 and him admitting he only became a lakers fan after they beat the 76ers

like you werent even early on the bandwagon, as if you carefully considered "has fnatic won enough for me to consider them my favorite.......nah lets wait and see if theyre able to maintain #1"

im just saying it makes your status of "favorite" kind of questionable

i was thinking of s17,

still pretty funny to switch from being a c9 fan to a fnatic fan after fnatic dominated the scene for 2 yrs and now that c9 is decent your divided

ok

so your "favorite" team is just whichever is the best?

if we rewrite your post as:
"This final really hurts me. I want NA to win. Fnatic is the best team though.... At least either way I'll be able to look at the good side!"

it stops making sense, and yet you admit that you only became a fnatic fan because they won last ESEA smh

im p. sure c9 has lost every single knife round

lets focus on the big problems:

valve needs to add a button to drop weapons a la csgo so picking up weapons doesnt feel awkward af

they showed the wrong bracket on stream

its clg vs. c9

You're conflating "no side effects" with "no observable side effects"

Well, for the sake of discussion..... How do you know this mythical drug has no side effects?

lets stop blaming individuals on NiP and just admit that NiP isnt a good team (until next major)

ok, lets get this straight. the news reports on FUCKING EVERYTHING. everything you posted was reported on not to tar and feather based on race, but because it was related to the case in question. now in your obnoxiously worded post you write this gem:
"It's not because he was racist, [it was] because he had a bad childhood / was actually a really nice kid / had black friends."

the quotes are yours, not mine. who are you quoting? its not the fucking articles you linked, in which they are PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR about what facts they are presenting. One article writes simply: Dylann's father was abusive. At no point does it justify dylann, or say that dylann was a racist because of it. Another writes that dylann was "quiet and soft-spoken" which you ridiculously conflate with "really nice". No, they arent saying he's nice. They're saying he was quiet and soft-spoken. there is a fucking HUGE difference, mainly that if anything they are calling Dylann a coward, who shied away from conflict in life outside of this one incident in which he was able to practice his repressed machismo with a gun.

and then the last one, it doesnt even say he was friends with black people. ONLY THAT HE WAS FACEBOOK FRIENDS. god fucking damn, its intention is just to report a fact and get views, and if it has a secondary intention it would probably be that dylann only practiced his extreme racism in private for fear of the out lash against him, being unable to practice it even in the relative safety of facebook.

Again, you write that these articles try to justify Dylann's CAUSE, but none of them even mention it!

then you show us the evidence that the media just LOVES to tear down black individuals. Except no, you don't, because again you impotently link to facts not opinions. CNN/NBC/ABC were all in a tiff with Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin about how they were just kids, about to go off to college, one just wanted to walk to the store and buy skittles (not even safe in his own neighborhood!). These organizations did not go about blaming the victim, and even when instances came up like the Michael Brown store footage or the suspensions the news was one of the FIRST to mention that in circumstances like this the victim shouldn't be blamed, and that Michael Brown's prior actions do not justify the police officer gunning him down in cold blood.

The issue here is not the news being racially biased, its that your own interpretation of the news that is biased.

can you define mental illness?

iggy shouldnt have won mvp tho, shoulda been lebron or curry

lebron:
best player in the series, wilt chamberlain levels of minutes played

curry:
altho iggy might have been the more influential player in this particular series, if you look at the 2010 (maybe 2009 i forget which) lakers series where pau outplayed kobe in the finals, kobe still won the mvp. why? because the finals mvp goes to the best performer of the winning team throughout the playoffs INCLUDING earlier rounds but with EMPHASIS on the finals, not EXCLUSIVELY the finals.

or at least that was the argument that was made for why kobe won it over pau

what?

skepticism isnt the disbelief of all things or even the disbelief of a certain thing. it is the admission that what is known is not known, only believed or assumed.

being a skeptic of ideology is in no way a paradox.

that explains his buddhist twist, but not only doesnt accurately describe how its "buddhism by behavior" instead of "buddhism by ideology" (he admits he fails often)

and also doesnt address "skeptic by ideology" which im also curious about, more specifically what separates a skeptic, or skeptic OF ideology from a skeptic by ideology.