Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments • Hacker News Board

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#971

Post by johnchristopher » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 9:44 AM UTC

bayesian_horse wrote: post #969

johnchristopher wrote: post #779

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not. That's because it's not up to the prankster or the offender or a third party to decide if one is suffering. It's up to the offended, mocked or bullied one who are the only ones knowing what they feel. Of course, in the public political space, everybody tries to play the victim/innocent game to their advantage.

We can however be convinced, that certain offenses are indeed worthy of recognition. Racial slurs, for example. Sexual or sexist jokes in certain contexts. Feeling offended because somebody criticized a state is harder to make stick.

I agree that for some culture or some communities or in some part of the world there are consensus around things.

Coincidentally I stumbled upon a comment on imgur today that went like this:

- canadian guy is in saskatoon, in a bar

- chinese guy at the counter

- chinese guy backs away from the counter with beverage

- bumps into canadian guy he didn't see

- canadian guy blurps 'woops, sorry'

- chinese guy 'YOU APOLOGIZE TO ALL OF CHINA'

- canadian guy thinks it's funny, laught it off

- mates from chinese guy laugh and pull him away

Then imgur commenters: "Yeah, some Chinese tourists/expats/students can be very sensitive about China".

Feeling offended because somebody criticized a state is harder to make stick.

All that to say that in some parts of the world personal identity can be tied real tight to national/territorial origin. And we all meet on the intertubes.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#972

Post by ghettoimp » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 11:14 AM UTC

ng12 wrote: post #732

ghettoimp wrote: post #666

What actually happened in the interview? Is there somewhere we can watch it?

https://twitter.com/InvenGlobal/status/1180954142396710912 It's honestly not much. Goes to show how fragile the PRC's ego is.

Thanks!

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#973

Post by bliztw2019a » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 11:39 AM UTC

gwright wrote: post #941

tenebrisalietum wrote: post #924

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mostly playing devil's advocate here: When the Constitution was written, free speech meant literally that, your ability to go to a public space and physically talk. No third party was involved as it is with any telecommunication technology. So the resources consumed in that speech were totally your own. The only way to strictly have that equivalent in the telecommunications realm is for me to own every communication…

It seems pretty strange to me that individuals with the right to free speech and the right to assemble and freely associate would lose those rights if they chose the form of a "corporation" as the manner of assembly and association. So I don't think the problem is that the law treats groups of people as legal entities with substantially similar rights to the individuals. I would expect that crimes associated with spe…

Bigger philosophical question for the US Stage: When a corporation kills someone through their negligence, why does the punishment differ so much from what happens when a physical person does the same?

Are corporations trying to pick and choose when they are treated like a person? Does that place them above people?

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#974

Post by gwright » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 12:48 PM UTC

bliztw2019a wrote: post #973

gwright wrote: post #941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems pretty strange to me that individuals with the right to free speech and the right to assemble and freely associate would lose those rights if they chose the form of a "corporation" as the manner of assembly and association. So I don't think the problem is that the law treats groups of people as legal entities with substantially similar rights to the individuals. I would expect that crimes associated with spe…

Bigger philosophical question for the US Stage: When a corporation kills someone through their negligence, why does the punishment differ so much from what happens when a physical person does the same? Are corporations trying to pick and choose when they are treated like a person? Does that place them above people?

It is an interesting question.

1) I don't think "corporations" are picking and choosing, there is extensive legal history on this point.

2) Re: "kills someone through their negligence". I think you've abstracted too much for there to be a single answer. I gather you are talking about situations where no identifiable person lead to the death and so there is some sort of "collective" or "systemic" failure that "caused" the death. I think the particular facts matter in those cases and the result is a variety of punishments from fines, to external supervision and inspection, and even in some cases action against individuals that were connected to the faulty decision making. One size doesn't fit all in this case.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#975

Post by decoyworker » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 12:59 PM UTC

therealdrag0 wrote: post #629

decoyworker wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look at it this way- they basically are not allowed to say anything else. I pity them but at the same time I hope things improve for them.

If it's voluntary, they could voluntarily say nothing instead.

All your peers are doing it and improving their social credit scores. Do you want to fall behind your peers?

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#976

Post by unityByFreedom » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC

anm89 wrote: post #960

MrStonedOne wrote: post #956

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When the Constitution was written, They never mentioned the constitution so I don't know why you are. The idea, behind free speech and censorship, predate the constitution and the constitution is not the arbitrator of the ethical principles of free speech.

Yes, however could one connect free speech in the US to the Constitution? What a ridiculous statement! People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

> People may have presented the concept before the US Constitution but it certainly didn't apply to many people legally (if any?) before then

You may want to check out topics such as Freedom of religion, the Peace of Westphalia, or Ancient Greece.

I don't know what the eastern equivalents would be, but I suspect at various points in history that individual freedoms were won in China too. Maybe Confucius is a good starting point.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#977

Post by avar » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

erikpukinskis wrote: post #951

avar wrote: post #927

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence the analogy to cabinet making v.s. all of carpentry, he's been banned from something he's heavily specialized in. But I think that misses the point, 20 years ago nobody would have been able to ban anyone from Quake III, because running the servers was distributed, today you have major game companies like Sony, Microsoft etc. that can ban you from entire game ecosystems. In another 20 the whimsy of one company m…

How narrow would the exile have to be for you to be comfortable with it? Or, put another way, how big can my business get before I have to forgo my right to make my own decisions about who I collaborate with?

You don't have to forgo any rights. I'm not saying a mob should get between you and a customer, but that customers should be more picky about who they deal with.

A lot of people in this thread are calling for a boycott of Blizzard, I'm pointing out that this isn't a productive way to solve the problem at large while those people continue to subject themselves to the whims of other companies.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#978

Post by cabalamat » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 1:47 PM UTC

shadowgovt wrote: post #547

cabalamat wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It should do. The West needs to decide whether it is going to stand for China being able to silence criticism of it in the West, or not.

Ironically, there's little the US government can do here without dragging things back towards the McCarthy era. What would we have them do? Apply pressure to Activision/Blizzard to reverse the company's own internal policy on "keep politics out of the game stuff?" That's a pretty clear violation of freedom of speech, the press, and / or association, to tell a private company who they must endorse. It's not unpreceden…

> Ironically, there's little the US government can do here without dragging things back towards the McCarthy era.

Concentration camps are evil, and so is using prisoners as living organ banks. Furthermore, China is run by competent people and has a large economy growing faster than the West. They are a bigger threat than Nazi Germany or the USSR were. China has a serious chance of dominating the world over a 20-30 year timescale.

I don't want that to happen. If McCarthyism is what it takes to stop it, so be it; I would prefer that over having my organs removed while I am still conscious.

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#979

Post by aesh2Xa1 » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

sbarre wrote: post #270

aesh2Xa1 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we've largely coalesced around the idea that insult should be defined by the insulted. I know that is not an opinion I share. I suspect it is not one many people share at all. I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. Ideas have a place in the open. If they're going to die somewhere, it needs to be in public discourse.

> I think it's just the one of a vocal minority on the far left. I think you might be allowing your bias to zero in on one particular group here. Outrage politics is everyone's tool these days, not just one "side" (if you insist on picking sides). I don't consider myself to be on either side, but a counterpoint for you to consider: "if you're not with us, you're against us", or "pry my guns from my cold dead hands"..…

Is it a bias? I definitely intended to zero in. My bubble is a bunch of podcasts and NYMag articles in which I'm told that the people wanting to shut down speech are doing so to protect ourselves from hateful speech at the expense of expression, discussion, and dissent.

If that is everyone's tool then can we agree that my calling out of one group was bad, but that the sentiment against the idea is correct?

I think you mean "side" as political party or ideology in a way that I don't hold, unless you actually mean siding with "insults should be defined by the insulted" versus "not necessarily."

Can you elaborate on your examples and how they counter something that I claimed? I read both as examples of rhetoric that are best countered by continued discourse and not the false dichotomy presented:

1) you are either permanently an opponent or will accept my idea 2) you are required to engage in violence with me to resolve our difference

I can't find the original comment so some of the context is missing (I can find my comment, though).

Re: Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

#980

Post by hharlequin » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 2:48 PM UTC

Dove wrote: post #904

This is a very specific instance of a much more general problem. A lot of private companies control exclusive access to something with a value that dwarfs what you pay for it. I pay nothing for access to Twitter; if I build a business or a social life on the platform, it becomes something I would pay thousands of dollars to prevent losing. I pay nothing for access to Facebook; the memories they store at this point in…

This puts Blizzard in too soft a light, as if they have no choice.

A better comparison is Blizzard being a store owner who sells cakes to everyone, when one day a Nazi comes in and says you can't sell cakes to that uppity black person who upset me or you'll never be able to sell cakes to Nazis again.

Blizzard then gets to decide which is more important, business with Nazis or standing up for a core set of values.

As may occur in this instance, the free market may decide if they're going to side with Nazis, Nazis get to be their only client.

At this point people are deciding how delicious they think Blizzard cakes are, and if they still want to eat them.