Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

playhearthstone.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 1001 posts

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#421

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

IanSanders wrote: post #262

I agree 100% that we should boycott and sanction, however doubt there will be enough people who will, and enough people who care. And I don't blame most for not caring, there are more things to worry about than we have time available. Maybe 1% of hearthstone players will see your comment. Similarly, there are other entities which need to be sanctioned, which you and me won't find out about as it's outside of our area…

I don't think it needs to be a moral authority, it can just be an index of well defined problems to lists of the top couple actors responsible for those problems.

Such an organization need not say that you should boycott anything (i.e. be a moral authority) but instead can say that IF you think that American companies participating in the Chinese censorship machine regarding Hong Kong is bad THEN boycotting companies X Y and Z would be effective. The morality comes from the users. In order to organize against a common nebulous baddie we need a mapping from nebulous baddies to actionable targets.

As much as I hate that everything needs to be a social network these days, this probably needs a social aspect--a place where you can post evidence that you cut the power to Company X's headquarters, or whatever, so you can check back occasionally and feel relevant when people attach metadata to your crime.

It would have to be careful to avoid being too specific to be liable for the actions of its users, while not being so vague that users can't use it to channel their frustration towards actions that actually do harm the entities identified. Alternatively, it could be specific as hell but hard to take down.

I guess what I'm proposing is something like Kickstarter, but for civil unrest.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#422

Post by rmah »

simias wrote: post #361
IanSanders wrote: post #262

I agree 100% that we should boycott and sanction, however doubt there will be enough people who will, and enough people who care. And I don't blame most for not caring, there are more things to worry about than we have time available. Maybe 1% of hearthstone players will see your comment. Similarly, there are other entities which need to be sanctioned, which you and me won't find out about as it's outside of our area…

>Which makes me believe we need some kind of trusted "morality authority", which would process information similar to this and make informed decisions who to boycott, how and when. Less informed would be able to make an impact without having to do research (which not everyone would do equally well) Isn't that effectively the government's job in a democracy? They're elected (directly or indirectly) to enact the will o…

Traditionally it was the established/predominant religion's job, not the government. It was hoped by many that religious institutions could act as a counterweight to the nobles, kings and politicians. Which is why the civil power structure tried (often successfully) to co-opt religion as well. Of course, religious institutions have their own issues in that it often becomes a parallel power structure on its own. Or go from reflecting cultural norms to shaping them.

The enlightenment and rise of humanism in the latter 1600's and 1700's attempted to shift this moral authority to "the people". And today, post-modernism attempts to put forth the notion that all morality is simply cultural context and relative. Which, while perhaps strictly true, is, IMO, pointless. Sort of like positing that we live in a simulation. Might be true, but so what? How does it matter?

Anyway, in today's world I don't think it's possible to have a widespread "trusted moral authority". Too many people seem to not realize the contradiction of saying on one hand that other cultures (and sub-cultures) should be respected while on the other hand decrying the utter horror of differing morals and ethics. Cultural differences are more than variations in language, cuisine, dress and music. Cultural differences are, at their roots, differing beliefs about what is right and wrong.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#423

Post by rpmisms »

I have an idea: let's cancel culture the people who are cancel culturing, and then all sing Kumbaya.

In all seriousness, this is ridiculous. I hope this makes people understand how frighteningly China is intertwined with our corporations and culture.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#424

Post by philippejara »

groby_b wrote: post #374
whatshisface wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think back to before gay marriage was accepted as a culturally obvious fact, some of the arguments against it involved hating gays, but others didn't. Without the ability to tell which beliefs actually motivated his donation, it is not possible to discern if he was against gays or not. (I'll refrain from giving any specific examples in order to avoid starting that debate again, but I think most of us can remem…

It's kind of hard to say "you do not deserve to share your life with the person you love. You don't deserve to take care of them when they're sick. You don't deserve a family with them. Because you're gay" without actually hating gay people. Just because you don't call for somebody to be killed doesn't mean you don't hate them.

I'm not sure what world you live in that not being able to enter a formal contract with a partner means "you do not deserve to share your life with the person you love. You don't deserve to take care of them when they're sick. You don't deserve a family with them. Because you're gay" A piece of paper and some legal guarantees is not stopping you from having a family, sharing your life with and aiding said person in sickness.

I am and always were in favor of gay marriage as long as marriages were a thing(as in, i'd rather they not exist as a "formal" thing), but this hyperbolic nonsense that the only possible reason there is disagreement on it is because they hate the gays and nothing else is just silly.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#425

Post by icebraining »

umvi wrote: post #339
ekianjo wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. You can't have both "Free Speech" and "You Can't Say Anything Offensive" at the same time, because there is too much overlap. So you have to choose. The US constitution is pretty clear that "Free Speech" is the higher principle.

"Free Speech only protects you from the government, not private companies who don't want to tolerate your hate on their platform" I don't agree with this stance, but it is an oft-heard one defending companies who stifle speech (as long as the stifled speech was a far right Nazi website or anti-LGBT comments). As we see, that stance is dangerous and extends to companies stifling politically inconvenient speech like "I…

It's a silly stance, even if one thinks private companies should be allowed censor who they want on their platform. It conflates "free speech" (which is a wide philosophical concept) with the "first amendment to the US constitution", which is just a particular law regulating the government of a specific country.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#426

Post by LocalH »

SantalBlush wrote: post #274
tomp wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well thank God then that wasn't my argument. What I'm saying is, China is co-opting modern liberal censorship in the West to do it's own political censorship (edit: in the West).

[flagged]

You do realize that censorship is only limited to governments in a legal context? People can be, and are, censored by private entities all the time.

How do you figure that cancel culture isn't defacto censorship? Deplatforming somebody because you don't agree with their viewpoints is absolutely censorship in a moral sense.

Calling people "childish" who don't agree with you is a weasel tactic. Those tactics should invalidate the whole argument, but for some reason they don't. Make the argument without the weasel tactics if you want people to listen.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#427

Post by aaronharnly »

GuB-42 wrote: post #360
zwaps wrote: post #139

Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle. Blizzard is not responsible for what players say in interviews. In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions. The Chinese government tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting…

It happened during an event sponsored by Blizzard. Player may have their opinions but they are paid (through prizes) and broadcast by Blizzard. It means that Blizzard gets to set the rules about what can be said. And in case it wasn't obvious, it is explicitly stated in the competition rules. There is a difference between tolerating Blitzchung's opinions and letting him hijack an interview to make a political stateme…

I disagree but don't think you should be downvoted.

I wouldn't say it is explicitly stated in the rules – the rule they cite prohibits "Engaging in any act that, in Blizzard’s sole discretion, brings you into public disrepute, offends a portion or group of the public, or otherwise damages Blizzard image."

Which is basically a catch-all for, if we decide we don't like it, we can prohibit it.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#428

Post by missosoup »

Shivetya wrote: post #380
KaoruAoiShiho wrote: post #353

Absolutely agree, it's time for American video games to stop publishing in China. It's not worth the Chinese influence on our society.

American video games? What about American companies that have factories there or other presence there? Hello Apple! Hello Tesla! Hello Google. Blizzard has been bending over backwards for some time with regards to China but this is the first time I remember them taking action against someone who does not work for them. the simple matter is, you cannot pick and choose, all the companies must be shamed into not bending…

What factories?

Everyone already has or currently is moving manufacturing operations from China to Viet Nam or India.

5 more years and the only factories China will have are going to be domestic.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#430

Post by bsanr2 »

cm2187 wrote: post #277
zwaps wrote: post #139

Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle. Blizzard is not responsible for what players say in interviews. In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions. The Chinese government tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting…

I agree with your position but it is at odd with the general de-platforming movement. Where banning people from platforms where they can express their opinion seems to be now an acceptable form of political discourse.

That's not what's happening. People are being de-platformed for carrying out or inciting harassment and violence. The only thing that's changed is that we've decided that it's unacceptable to hide behind passive speech when it's obvious to a reasonable observer what you mean to do. E.g., "I heard there might be a fire in this theater!", "My friend says there's a fire in this theater!", "It'd be great if someone yelled 'Fire!' in this theater," might not get you criminally prosecuted, but it's perfectly reasonable for a theater to ban you after the nth time that you've made an alarmist reference to fire on their premises.
Post reply on HN