Nobody has anything to say about Blizzard?

"

elesham4ever wrote:

Blizzard engaged in a single act of speech suppression of a single individual.


Platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, and others actively and vehemently engage in an incalculable degree of suppression on a daily basis affecting hundreds of millions of people.

One of these things made headlines news and resulted in calls-to-action and boycotting, the other is collectively labeled as conspiracy theory and is ignored.

"

A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic. - Attributed to Josef Stalin

The death of one voice vs. many? ='[.]'=

"

Boem wrote:

Imagine the free world being so naive as to think an oppressive regime would grant them the same luxury's.

I always struggle to find a reason why i should disagree with somebody standing up against china or saudia arabia for example.

It always reminds me of people debating those cultures in the free world and making the case for them in the total absence of a single one of those discussions actually being allowed within them.

He took a financial and personal hit for what he did, i don't agree with it but that is what it is, but i think he did an honorable thing to stand up for the ideals of freedom.

And if anybody thinks his life is not in more danger because of what he did i suggest you read up on china.

If standing up for freedom against an oppressive regime is a "big nono", when exactly is the time for such an action? Honestly curious, any takers?

Peace,

-Boem-

Ideals are fine. Speaking up against tyranny is admirable, and should be praised. This was never a question (I dont think). But surely we can agree that context, and where you choose to do so matters?

Making a point, at the expense of someone else is not something to be praised. Social extortion of companies in the "cancel culture" is borderline ridiculous. Using Blizaard as a platform was wrong, and Blizzard has every right to protect their brand.

This happens in the US also with political based movements. Boycott Chick-fil-a, or boycott threats to sporting goods stores that sell guns, ect... it's just too much.

So in short. There is a time and place, especially if your are working or representing someone else, when you voice your personal views. It's also important to realize not everyone sees the world as you do. Not everyone believes what you believe. I'm sure there are plenty of pro-China citizens. Just like there are political divisions in the US on a variety of issues.

It's very difficult, imo, to start weighting value systems, and use a superpower (like the US) as a baseline. Should the entire world operate like the US? Our values are supreme? Really? Is that where we are going? If so, many people need a reality check on US history, our crime and incarceration rates, gun violence, racism, torture, ect...not exactly a beacon of humanity the last 200+ years.

Again, so it's clear, I'm certainly not opposed to the message, or even that the message should be out there. I dont like how Blizzrad was used as a prop to a political agenda, and then socially extorted to take a stand. It's not admirable, and puts an unrealistic burden on global companies.

i agree with some of that, but also isnt there an element where that is how markets are supposed to work? that a customer spending a dollar is a vote in favour of that product and business, that a business follows the money within the law and the consumer is then responsible for where they spend their money? thats the point where ethics comes into the capitalist equation? that the market is a reflection of what the people want, and people spending, or not, on specific products and companies is the mechanism by which the people express that and have agency? This is where the idea of capitalism and markets being the ultimate democracy comes from surely.

Im not endorsing the idea but its what were supposed to be living in afaik.



when we talk about putting a burdon on a company, china is putting a burden on blizzard via their ability to do business. their profits will be effected by the burden of chinas political stance and the pressure being put on them to conform to that. they protected their brand from the damage being done to its ability to conform to a different political agenda thats already being put on them at financial gunpoint.

so youve got 2 agendas, blizzards extreme reaction was a result of chinas political pressure and the pushback against it was the reaction of people who object to chinas policies. Is that an unrealistic burden? i think its just the way of the world, companies would love to exist outside of any moral obligations but thats just not reality, they have a massive impact on our world and i feel like maybe the world would be a better place if they were forced to deal with the consequences of their actions even more than they currently are.

blizzard are not responsible for whats going on in hong kong, thats not their actions, but their treatment of the player was seen, imo rightly, as a result of them bending to pressure from a source people deem to be morally wrong. so thats where it becomes their choice, their action and then consumers get to react to that action and express their opinion, financially if need be. these are the mechanisms that capitalists love to drag out and point to when questions of morality in the system are put to them, its how they wash their hands, if you dont like it dont buy it right?

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

i agree with some of that, but also isnt there an element where that is how markets are supposed to work? that a customer spending a dollar is a vote in favour of that product and business, that a business follows the money within the law and the consumer is then responsible for where they spend their money? thats the point where ethics comes into the capitalist equation? that the market is a reflection of what the people want, and people spending, or not, on specific products and companies is the mechanism by which the people express that and have agency? This is where the idea of capitalism and markets being the ultimate democracy comes from surely.

Im not endorsing the idea but its what were supposed to be living in afaik.



when we talk about putting a burdon on a company, china is putting a burden on blizzard via their ability to do business. their profits will be effected by the burden of chinas political stance and the pressure being put on them to conform to that. they protected their brand from the damage being done to its ability to conform to a different political agenda thats already being put on them at financial gunpoint.

so youve got 2 agendas, blizzards extreme reaction was a result of chinas political pressure and the pushback against it was the reaction of people who object to chinas policies. Is that an unrealistic burden? i think its just the way of the world, companies would love to exist outside of any moral obligations but thats just not reality, they have a massive impact on our world and i feel like maybe the world would be a better place if they were forced to deal with the consequences of their actions even more than they currently are.

blizzard are not responsible for whats going on in hong kong, thats not their actions, but their treatment of the player was seen, imo rightly, as a result of them bending to pressure from a source people deem to be morally wrong. so thats where it becomes their choice, their action and then consumers get to react to that action and express their opinion, financially if need be. these are the mechanisms that capitalists love to drag out and point to when questions of morality in the system are put to them, its how they wash their hands, if you dont like it dont buy it right?

But there are thousands and thousands of companies that deal with China. Do we expect each of them to weigh in? Or allow their employees to yell out anything pro Hong Kong(or any other political statement) in a business meeting or conference call without repercussions?

What about Saudi Arabia and its record with women? India and Africa child labor and indentured servant issues? We could go on and on.

Blizzard was put into a tremendously awkward position becuase a player choose to espout his political views in a very public way, which had nothing to do with Blizzard at all. He just wanted the platform since he knew people were watching. Its wholly unfair.

they immediately stripped him of all prize money, banned him for 2 years and put out a tweet saying they were extremely angered by what he had done and that they would defend the honor of china at all costs.

thats pretty extreme.

they made a very public show of it in order to signal to china. they could have taken him aside, slapped his wrists, fined him, gave him a much shorter suspension, that would have been reasonable behavior.

they did nothing to the american team who did the same thing the next day, they cut their vid feed and then just arranged their next match as per usual. the american team then suspended themselves, said they wouldnt play the next match as they were going to subject themselves to the same treatment seeing as blizzard wouldnt.

if someone had said something about trump theres no way they get a 2 year ban, all their prize money stripped and bliz puts out a statement saying they will defend the honor of the president of america at all costs. No way, would not happen, ever.



backlash happens, they then do what they should have done at first, they took his suspension down to 6 months and gave him all his prize money back. if they had quietly done that at first this entire thing wouldnt be an issue. they chose to make a grandstand of it and throw the kitchen sink at this guy in order to virtue signal to a government that they were a willing cog in their state oppression machine.

just lol @ whats being implied by this guy getting more viewers now. yeah thats what he is thinking about when hes out on the streets risking being put in jail for the best part of his life under some ultra oppressive jackboot protesting for rights and freedoms for his people, its all part of some twitch viewer publicity stunt, thats what hes really all about.

ya youre right, hes the bad guy, all blizz did was tell him they didnt want him mentioning it on their platform, thats all they did, perfectly reasonable. the united states congress writing letters to blizzard over concerns that they simply said to the guy nah not here thanks, governments of foriegn countries writing to them, human rights organisations contacting them concerned, all over them simply saying nah we dont want you protesting here, thats all they did....

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

word salad...

Its not even that hard to understand.

The message was fine, admirable even. A good cause in general.

He should absolutely not have done it on Blizzard's time, or used Blizzard's platform to voice a personal opinion.

What to make a stream or insta, or tweet? Go ahead. Dont drag Blizz into it for NO REASON.

Lets imagine a similar situation:

Erin Andrew's to Tom Brady after a big win:

Erin: "So Tom, tell us how you beat the Jets tonight"

Tom: "Well Erin, first I'd like to say that far too many abortions are happening in the Boston/ New England area. Planned Parenthood is place were babies are killed. Please stand with me and all unborn life in helping root them out of the state"


Can you imagine the insanity that would happen afterwards? How upset the NFL and Patriots would be that they got dragged into a political shitshow?

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

i agree with some of that, but also isnt there an element where that is how markets are supposed to work? that a customer spending a dollar is a vote in favour of that product and business, that a business follows the money within the law and the consumer is then responsible for where they spend their money? thats the point where ethics comes into the capitalist equation? that the market is a reflection of what the people want, and people spending, or not, on specific products and companies is the mechanism by which the people express that and have agency? This is where the idea of capitalism and markets being the ultimate democracy comes from surely.

Im not endorsing the idea but its what were supposed to be living in afaik.



when we talk about putting a burdon on a company, china is putting a burden on blizzard via their ability to do business. their profits will be effected by the burden of chinas political stance and the pressure being put on them to conform to that. they protected their brand from the damage being done to its ability to conform to a different political agenda thats already being put on them at financial gunpoint.

so youve got 2 agendas, blizzards extreme reaction was a result of chinas political pressure and the pushback against it was the reaction of people who object to chinas policies. Is that an unrealistic burden? i think its just the way of the world, companies would love to exist outside of any moral obligations but thats just not reality, they have a massive impact on our world and i feel like maybe the world would be a better place if they were forced to deal with the consequences of their actions even more than they currently are.

blizzard are not responsible for whats going on in hong kong, thats not their actions, but their treatment of the player was seen, imo rightly, as a result of them bending to pressure from a source people deem to be morally wrong. so thats where it becomes their choice, their action and then consumers get to react to that action and express their opinion, financially if need be. these are the mechanisms that capitalists love to drag out and point to when questions of morality in the system are put to them, its how they wash their hands, if you dont like it dont buy it right?

But there are thousands and thousands of companies that deal with China. Do we expect each of them to weigh in? Or allow their employees to yell out anything pro Hong Kong(or any other political statement) in a business meeting or conference call without repercussions?

What about Saudi Arabia and its record with women? India and Africa child labor and indentured servant issues? We could go on and on.

Blizzard was put into a tremendously awkward position becuase a player choose to espout his political views in a very public way, which had nothing to do with Blizzard at all. He just wanted the platform since he knew people were watching. Its wholly unfair.

I would say "yes" to all of those.

The only reason the oppresive regimes can continue to exist is because they are part of the global financial market and we promote slavery and other kind of atrocities by using their cheap labour and services.

I don't think ideals mean anything if you don't try to live up to them, i call that "hot air".

At which price point is slavery permissable as an ethical and moral question for example?

It's also not really a secret that china utilizes the global market to target and corrupt the global money supply.
For example recently they utilized the cayman islands as a post to list company stock within america with the fine print being that you cant reclaim the stock if they decided so, then with the money they got in this fashion they bought american stock.

So they bassicaly made americans invest in a fraud stock to then turn around and buy stock in america under chinese control.

All allowed because of the fine print and cayman island rules as a corrupt middle man.

It makes little to no sense that you play a game of monopely with fixed rules and a few players don't follow the rules and are free to do so.

It wouldn't surprise me for example that china is already doing human bio tech engineering, violating all global mandates around human rights and the reason they have the baseline tech to enable this isn't because they developed it but because we offered it to them via companies interested in the profitable market.

The list goes on as to why you don't want "bad-actors" within the global system, since they corrupt it entirely over time as evident by a lot of european country's losing all moral high-ground by caving in under targetted assaults on their economy's.

Then there is africa which they are slowly "buying up" and the G5 network they are deploying worldwide making everybody dependant on their infrastructure in the future with funds they gathered in corrupt ways or in violation of rules other country's prescribe to.(undermining competition with ethical violations)

The list goes on, but if you know how the current system operates and why china so confidently has their big 2050 target provoking america publicly then you realize this is a race and we are all in it.

It's utterly fascinating, but i would have no issue with excluding country's from the global market if they don't subscribe to certain ethical and moral standards as agreed upon by all other members of that same market.

Agreeing to basic human rights seems like a no-brainer before you let somebody enter the system. Though this is hindsight 2020 kind of stuff and we already reached the point of no return, now where just waiting to see who crosses the finish first.

Peace,

-Boem-

edit : also snorkle we don't live in kapitalism, we live in socialism with a kapitalist sub-structure to keep it afloat. If you see where the most wealth is drained its in the form of socialism and a growing state in the form of a "keep me safe dady" structure where people compete for a piece of the pie that's created under socialism slogans.

The great depression started the move away from kapitalism, just like europe moved away from it because they admired the ussr before it's true nature was exposed in 89 and it collapsed. Leaving us with the already in place adopted socialism groundwork.

And almost nobody is going to agree to give up benefits after they are granted, it isn't in human nature to do so.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

Can you imagine the insanity that would happen afterwards? How upset the NFL and Patriots would be that they got dragged into a political shitshow?

well they wouldnt be upset because theyre not a person. youre talking about million/billion dollar corporations as if they are people with feelings. something happens that is not in their business interests the react and adapt, its mechanical, no tears are shed, no one is emotionally damaged.


in hong kong people are shedding tears, people are being hurt, having their lives and society destroyed, being gassed, shot, beaten with bats, having their kids dragged away by masked armoured troops of the state to be thrown in jail for standing up for basic rights that we all rightly have and feel entitled to simply for existing. these are actual people who are actually upset.


do blizzard want their shows to be used as a platform for highlighting the plight of people like this? no. but theyre a multibillion dollar games company who treats their staff like crap, grabs money hand over fist and is more than willing to cossy to morally bankrupt regimes like this. its a mechanical entity, it has a little esports tournament, oh boo hoo it was thrown off kilter a little for a minute in order to highlight an actual serious issue that everyone should be aware of and sympathise with against its will. good, blizzard doesnt have feelings, the nfl doesnt have feelings, people have feelings and an action that helped people took place for a brief moment at the small expense of a mechanical corporate whore.

of course they had a right and reason to take action, everyone expects that an action was to take place, but the action was deemed extreme and they are now rightly taking flak for it. they weighted up the flak from the moral humanists in the west vs that of the oppressive government in the east and they sided with the jackboots. they made their choice, they dont feel bad, they have no feelings, im not about to feel bad for them.


i do feel bad for the people of hong kong.




boem, if u ask people on the left theres not enough socialism in with the capitalism, if u ask the right theres too much. its a mix, and obviously a conversation we cant really have here, but yes for sure theres that element in it too.

"

Snorkle_uk wrote:

in hong kong people are shedding tears, people are being hurt, having their lives and society destroyed, being gassed, shot, beaten with bats, having their kids dragged away by masked armoured troops of the state to be thrown in jail for standing up for basic rights that we all rightly have and feel entitled to simply for existing. these are actual people who are actually upset.

Lol, this isn't true at all. Police are suppressing violent protesters, that's about it. Which they should, this entire thing is ridiculous. It's literally them being brain washed by a bunch of criminals into keeping them safe.

I can guarantee 90% of them have absolutely no idea what it is they're fighting.

the definition of what could be considered a criminal in china is quite suspect compared to the west, which is a matter at the heart of this. the protesters have been attacked by triad gangsters with weapons, those are real criminals by any standards, why they would be attacking the protesters is left to the imagination.

protesters have been shot, police are firing live rounds at them, thats something that should happen to people? we cant discuss the actual politics here, this is getting off the topic of discussing blizzard the gaming companies actions, but people can go do their research on china, how it treats people and make up their own minds about the former british colony of hong kong, that has more rights and freedoms than mainland china and if its people have a legitimate reason to not want to be dragged off to the mainland and face 'justice' there.

i think you have a very cynical and narrow minded view of the situation and the people on the ground tbh.