Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident • Hacker News Board

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#201

Post by Knove » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:21 PM UTC

rabbitXIII wrote: post #198

Knove wrote: post #177

First, I introduce myself. I am a Chinese, an ordinary citizen. I want to express my view rationally: the so-called repression of speech, freedom of speech, that also scores what freedom of speech, Hong Kong incident involves national dignity, just as the United States don't want 911 to be supported by some people (example: Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a Great Nati…

I wasn't aware that people in the US don't want to talk about 9/11. There have been multiple books and movies about the failure to prevent the terrorist attack, the attack itself, and years of aftermath. Public discourse about the event isn't suppressed, and even George W Bush has commented about the event while he was president and after he left office. Though I've seen it referenced multiple times, I don't see the…

Maybe what I mean is not clear enough. I imagine that a star, just a few days after 9/11, openly declared that 9/11 was a great recovery movement.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#202

Post by EpicEng » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #70

MBCook wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reality is that corporations shouldn't be espousing political viewpoints But they MUST. That’s the issue. There is no such thing as remaining neutral. What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy? Now the west is mad and boycotting. NOT ban the player? Now China is pissed and kicking you out of the country. They were damned by someone either way. There was no neutral political stance they could take.…

>But they MUST. That’s the issue. Then what is the right answer? HK independence? >There is no such thing as remaining neutral. Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral? What position should a corporation take and which controversial topics? How about the IOC? Or FIFA? Or some charity? Or the EU? I don't see European nations, for example, taking any steps to challenge China. I don't see the public…

>Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral?

No, there is not. At least, not any longer. The moment a company dips their toes into the Chinese market they are getting into bed with an oppressive, authoritarian regime who dictates the rules of conduct. This on turn forces companies like Blizzard to play along with the CCP lest they lose revenue.

There is no neutral; the CCP forces you to chose a side, and Blizzard chose as soon as they entered the Chinese market.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#203

Post by jknoepfler » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

NeedMoreTea wrote: post #133

jknoepfler wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it doesn't. Let's take an actual country rather than something vacuous like "The West". To start a company in the United States (for example), you do not need "an American business partner" controlled by the federal government of the United States. The fate of your company is not tied 100% to the approval or disapproval of that business partner's actions, which in the case of China are vigorously and actively pol…

> suggesting that Western Capitalism is corrupt, Marx was the one true prophet ... but you'd still be in business. I wonder how that would have gone at the height of McCarthyism.

Make an argument, don't be intellectually lazy. How do you think it would have gone?

Spitballing some historical fiction for the admittedly bizarre editorial? There would have been a public hue and cry. The editor who published the opinion piece would have lost their job, heads would have rolled (figuratively, not literally) in the WSJ editorial board.

The person who wrote the editorial would have had a bad time in the public sphere (they still would).

The author of the editorial would almost certainly not have gone to jail or been arrested, tortured, or executed, nor would they have lost their property or business, nor would their family. Nor would the editor who published the editorial.

If the author had been a government employee, they probably would have lost their job. If they were a high-profile public persona (an actor, for example), they probably would have been blacklisted.

But to be clear, that would be the worst of it - even during an extraordinary period of paranoia and fear.

If you believe otherwise, dig up some historical precedent to support the argument.

For the record: I do not think the United States of America is a just country in many regards, but if you're going to complain about injustice, at least get the facts straight.

(Edit: I'm just so puzzled by the bizarre false equivalence on this issue. It's like suggesting that Norway and the United States have the same track record on public healthcare because the Norwegian state health plan stopped covering acupuncture from 1985-1990 (imaginary example). They don't have the same track record, it's not close, slapping some words together on the internet doesn't make it so.)

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#204

Post by Knove » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

zanny wrote: post #192

Knove wrote: post #177

First, I introduce myself. I am a Chinese, an ordinary citizen. I want to express my view rationally: the so-called repression of speech, freedom of speech, that also scores what freedom of speech, Hong Kong incident involves national dignity, just as the United States don't want 911 to be supported by some people (example: Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a Great Nati…

> United States does not want to be talked about 911 As a US citizen, please talk about 9/11. The response Americans had in the wake of that tragedy is reprehensible - the entire country gave unanimous support to the government to commit war crimes in nations around the world - including our own. Torture, illegal detainment, wars founded on lies to make private contractors rich, expansive laws like the Patriot Act, N…

Maybe what I mean is not clear enough. I imagine that a star, just a few days after 9/11, openly declared that 9/11 was a great recovery movement.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#205

Post by volkadav » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

Knove wrote: post #177

First, I introduce myself. I am a Chinese, an ordinary citizen. I want to express my view rationally: the so-called repression of speech, freedom of speech, that also scores what freedom of speech, Hong Kong incident involves national dignity, just as the United States don't want 911 to be supported by some people (example: Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a Great Nati…

If people exercising their freedom of speech is an insult to your "national dignity", your nation sucks. What about sowing distrust of the media, further, is "rational" as you so carefully allude to twice? If the truth is the enemy, you are on the wrong side.

Your whataboutism about the US and 9/11 isn't even on target. No one here is particularly upset if you talk about it, except maybe the more jingoistic sort when you start pointing out that the damage we did to ourselves in response with respect to civil liberties was perhaps greater than the damage OBL & co ever dreamed of doing with a few airplanes.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#206

Post by goatinaboat » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

greggman2 wrote: post #78

I'm mixed on this. I'm 100% for Chung “Blitzchung” Ng Wai to express his support for Hong Kong. I'm not so sure it's okay for him to do it on Blizzard's show/event. 27 years ago Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope on Saturday Night Live when it was broadcast live. She's was arguably right to critize the Pope but was she right to do it from Saturday Night Live's Live broadcast? IIRC because of that inciden…

I'm not so sure it's okay for him to do it on Blizzard's show/event.

Interviews are not scripted, the interviewer asks questions but the interviewee says whatever they want. It has always been like this.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#207

Post by pvg » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

Knove wrote: post #201

rabbitXIII wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wasn't aware that people in the US don't want to talk about 9/11. There have been multiple books and movies about the failure to prevent the terrorist attack, the attack itself, and years of aftermath. Public discourse about the event isn't suppressed, and even George W Bush has commented about the event while he was president and after he left office. Though I've seen it referenced multiple times, I don't see the…

Maybe what I mean is not clear enough. I imagine that a star, just a few days after 9/11, openly declared that 9/11 was a great recovery movement.

Things like that happened, we don't have to imagine it. Also 9/11 - a terrorist attack - is not analogous to a mass protest movement. Mass protests have taken place in the US, including violent ones and prominent contemporary voices have been both openly supportive and critical of them.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#208

Post by Knove » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

volkadav wrote: post #205

Knove wrote: post #177

First, I introduce myself. I am a Chinese, an ordinary citizen. I want to express my view rationally: the so-called repression of speech, freedom of speech, that also scores what freedom of speech, Hong Kong incident involves national dignity, just as the United States don't want 911 to be supported by some people (example: Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a Great Nati…

If people exercising their freedom of speech is an insult to your "national dignity", your nation sucks. What about sowing distrust of the media, further, is "rational" as you so carefully allude to twice? If the truth is the enemy, you are on the wrong side. Your whataboutism about the US and 9/11 isn't even on target. No one here is particularly upset if you talk about it, except maybe the more jingoistic sort when…

Maybe my meaning is not clear enough. Let me give you an example.

Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a great recovery operation.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#209

Post by phy6 » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

Knove wrote: post #177

First, I introduce myself. I am a Chinese, an ordinary citizen. I want to express my view rationally: the so-called repression of speech, freedom of speech, that also scores what freedom of speech, Hong Kong incident involves national dignity, just as the United States don't want 911 to be supported by some people (example: Imagine a well-known person, just days after 911, publicly declaring that 911 was a Great Nati…

We're not going to ban you from a sport, take your prize money and fire those associated with you, if you wore a "Bush did 9-11" t-shirt and shouted 7 words about how the US was wrong to invade Iraq. My children were very amused over dinner when I had to explain why a certain cartoon bear is banned in a country, and how some countries can mock their leaders with almost anything short of inciting violence. While it was within Blizzard's terms and conditions to ban the player, it was still the wrong decision and it illuminated who is in control.

Re: Fallout from Blizzard Hong Kong Incident

#210

Post by to-too-two » Wed, Oct 09, 2019, 5:27 PM UTC

greggman2 wrote: post #78

I'm mixed on this. I'm 100% for Chung “Blitzchung” Ng Wai to express his support for Hong Kong. I'm not so sure it's okay for him to do it on Blizzard's show/event. 27 years ago Sinead O'Connor ripped up a picture of the Pope on Saturday Night Live when it was broadcast live. She's was arguably right to critize the Pope but was she right to do it from Saturday Night Live's Live broadcast? IIRC because of that inciden…

I despise the “I’m all for free speech, just don’t do it here” rhetoric. So where else then? On the streets where most people can ignore it?

This is how protesting works. It has to be in places people can see and hear. Creating controversy is even better because it gets the media talking about it.

I’d argue this was 1,000 times more effective in spreading a message than taking to the streets.