Blizzard stiffs and bans a Hong Kong supporter, wonders why people hate them

[Eulogy]

Blizzard is facing a boycott after removing a Hearthstone Grandmaster

By Fraser Brown 2019-10-08T17:28:12Z

Droves of players are boycotting Blizzard, claiming it's censoring free speech.

Blizzard's removal of Hearthstone pro Ng Wai "blitzchung" Chung from the Grandmasters has prompted a backlash from players, not just of Hearthstone, many of whom are now boycotting the company.

The Grandmaster player was removed from the tournament after he called for the "liberation" of Hong Kong in a post-match interview. This, according to Blizzard, was a breach of the extremely broad tournament rules that allows the company to give players the boot for acts that, "in Blizzard's sole discretion", damage Blizzard or the player's public image, or offend a portion of the public.

"As you know there are serious protests in my country now," he said after the interview. "My call on stream was just another form of participation of the protest that I wish to grab more attention."

Blizzard's decision means that Chung won't receive anything for Season 2 and will not be able to compete in Hearthstone esports for a year. While Blizzard says it apparently stands by player's right to express themselves, players still have to abide by the official rules—rules that largely forbid players from expressing opinions.

Supporters of the boycott are calling it an attack on free speech, voicing their discontent on Twitter with the a Boycott Blizzard hashtag and closing their wallets.

"Cancelled my subscription to World of Warcraft," one player wrote. "I support young people proactively advocating for their freedom and democracy."

I've not seen any pros participating in the boycott at the moment, though CCG pro Brian Kibler tweeted that he's being thinking about the situation and will have more to say soon.

On the Hearthstone subreddit, meanwhile, players are announcing that they're done with the game. In the top post, a player claims they've spent $10,000 on Hearthstone and won't be spending more. Another Reddit post tells people how they can refund their Warcraft 3 Remaster preorder. "It's not much but if it's what I can do right now to support Hong Kong it's an easy thing to do," they wrote.

Other players have accused Blizzard of bowing to pressure from Chinese investors. Activision Blizzard is one of many game companies that Chinese publisher Tencent has invested in, though it only owns five percent. Tencent is now the largest game publisher in the world, and China is a gargantuan market—the largest PC market—which Blizzard clearly wants to appeal to.

Link

Blizzard obviously didn't think this could blow up in their faces, and they never bothered learning from the debacle over their mobile Diablo game.

I've never played Overwatch or Hearthstone, and I'm not about to start now.

[ray245]

Blizzard is facing a boycott after removing a Hearthstone Grandmaster

By Fraser Brown 2019-10-08T17:28:12Z

Droves of players are boycotting Blizzard, claiming it's censoring free speech.

Blizzard's removal of Hearthstone pro Ng Wai "blitzchung" Chung from the Grandmasters has prompted a backlash from players, not just of Hearthstone, many of whom are now boycotting the company.

The Grandmaster player was removed from the tournament after he called for the "liberation" of Hong Kong in a post-match interview. This, according to Blizzard, was a breach of the extremely broad tournament rules that allows the company to give players the boot for acts that, "in Blizzard's sole discretion", damage Blizzard or the player's public image, or offend a portion of the public.

"As you know there are serious protests in my country now," he said after the interview. "My call on stream was just another form of participation of the protest that I wish to grab more attention."

Blizzard's decision means that Chung won't receive anything for Season 2 and will not be able to compete in Hearthstone esports for a year. While Blizzard says it apparently stands by player's right to express themselves, players still have to abide by the official rules—rules that largely forbid players from expressing opinions.

Supporters of the boycott are calling it an attack on free speech, voicing their discontent on Twitter with the a Boycott Blizzard hashtag and closing their wallets.

"Cancelled my subscription to World of Warcraft," one player wrote. "I support young people proactively advocating for their freedom and democracy."

I've not seen any pros participating in the boycott at the moment, though CCG pro Brian Kibler tweeted that he's being thinking about the situation and will have more to say soon.

On the Hearthstone subreddit, meanwhile, players are announcing that they're done with the game. In the top post, a player claims they've spent $10,000 on Hearthstone and won't be spending more. Another Reddit post tells people how they can refund their Warcraft 3 Remaster preorder. "It's not much but if it's what I can do right now to support Hong Kong it's an easy thing to do," they wrote.

Other players have accused Blizzard of bowing to pressure from Chinese investors. Activision Blizzard is one of many game companies that Chinese publisher Tencent has invested in, though it only owns five percent. Tencent is now the largest game publisher in the world, and China is a gargantuan market—the largest PC market—which Blizzard clearly wants to appeal to.

Link

Blizzard obviously didn't think this could blow up in their faces, and they never bothered learning from the debacle over their mobile Diablo game.

I've never played Overwatch or Hearthstone, and I'm not about to start now.

Either options is bad for them. Do nothing and they'll get banned in China, do something and they lose the fanbase outside of China.

At this point it's more about which option will result in the lesser loss for the company.

[Ralin]

Good. Speech which challenges national sovereignty or social stability does not fall within the scope of free speech and cannot be allowed. Hopefully this sets an example for other people like this traitor.

[Darth Yan]

I'm conflicted. The rules DO state that certain speech is not acceptable but at the same time the cause is a noble one. It's thorny

[Highlord Laan]

Good. Speech which challenges national sovereignty or social stability does not fall within the scope of free speech and cannot be allowed. Hopefully this sets an example for other people like this traitor.

Fuck off and burn, you bootlicking, wet-fascist-asshole suckling little shit.

I'm conflicted. The rules DO state that certain speech is not acceptable but at the same time the cause is a noble one. It's thorny

If he'd stood up and shouted "there is one china!" nothing would have come of it, since the only people offended would be people shareholders don't about while pathetic diarrhea squirts like ralin and kotik (lower case intentional) applauded.

[The Romulan Republic]

Good. Speech which challenges national sovereignty or social stability does not fall within the scope of free speech and cannot be allowed. Hopefully this sets an example for other people like this traitor.

Fuck off and burn, you bootlicking, wet-fascist-asshole suckling little shit.

I'm conflicted. The rules DO state that certain speech is not acceptable but at the same time the cause is a noble one. It's thorny

If he'd stood up and shouted "there is one china!" nothing would have come of it, since the only people offended would be people shareholders don't about while pathetic diarrhea squirts like ralin and kotik (lower case intentional) applauded.

Ralin can basically be summed up as "Anti-fascist in the West, pro-fascist in the East".

[mr friendly guy]

If someone said in a post match interview "The South will rise again," and Blizzard went to ban that player, I expect Ralin to be consistent with that. Sadly I don't expect others to hold the same consistency. I mean I look at this thread.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... u#p4082915

A private site decided it didn't want to affiliate with a homophobe. Isn't this that free enterprise they're always wanking over?

Same principle right? Blizzard didn't want to be associated with a separatist because it hurts their business in China. He presumably was aware of the rules when he signed up.

Just for the record, he can say what he wants. Chinese fans and companies can also withhold their spending on Blizzard just like how conservative American fans boycotted Bill Maher or the Dizzie Chicks during the time of Bush for saying things they didn't like. Blizzard is also entitled to ban him according to their rules, and people are entitled to boycott Blizzard over it.

[madd0ct0r]

Is ralin not being sarcastic?

[mr friendly guy]

Could be. He is pro china on same things, anti on some others.

[The Romulan Republic]

If someone said in a post match interview "The South will rise again," and Blizzard went to ban that player, I expect Ralin to be consistent with that. Sadly I don't expect others to hold the same consistency. I mean I look at this thread.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... u#p4082915

A private site decided it didn't want to affiliate with a homophobe. Isn't this that free enterprise they're always wanking over?

Same principle right? Blizzard didn't want to be associated with a separatist because it hurts their business in China. He presumably was aware of the rules when he signed up.

Just for the record, he can say what he wants. Chinese fans and companies can also withhold their spending on Blizzard just like how conservative American fans boycotted Bill Maher or the Dizzie Chicks during the time of Bush for saying things they didn't like. Blizzard is also entitled to ban him according to their rules, and people are entitled to boycott Blizzard over it.

I'm sure you think this is a clever "gotcha" moment, but note that I was never denying the company's legal right to censor players on its property. Its morally wrong for them to back the Chinese dictatorship and supress its opponents for profit, but they have every legal right, under our capitalist system, to do it (ironic that "Communist" China is the beneficiary of such a system in this case).

You are dishonestly conflating legality with morality to paint me as a hypocrite, in addition to your tired Whataboutism/false equivalences (which are trotted out whenever a non-western dictator's internet lemmings need a quick excuse).

My view is actually very consistent: companies have the right legally to censor people on their private property. Morally, they should use it to censor advocates of hate speech and dictatorship, not their opponents.

[mr friendly guy]

What legality? I am talking about the moral right about choosing who to do business with. No need to get into the legality red herring here. But I see we pretty much reach the same broad consensus on rights. Its ok for a company to refuse to do business with people on grounds express a view that said company believes affects them negatively. The morality of that view expressed is a separate issue.

Edit - I should also say I see refusing to do business with someone is a moral right as well as a legal one, while TRR appears to see it as a purely legal right.

[TheFeniX]

ActiShit looking for a new market to swindle out of money and will do anything to protect their advancement into it: news at 11.

I doubt this will do much in the long run. Western gaming audiences are outraged at the way the companies they piss money away to act up until "Shitheap <x+1> announcement trailer! ZOMG!" hits every "journalism" site and is stated to "have a little something for everyone."

[The Romulan Republic]

What legality? I am talking about the moral right about choosing who to do business with. No need to get into the legality red herring here. But I see we pretty much reach the same broad consensus on rights. Its ok for a company to refuse to do business with people on grounds express a view that said company believes affects them negatively. The morality of that view expressed is a separate issue.

Edit - I should also say I see refusing to do business with someone is a moral right as well as a legal one, while TRR appears to see it as a purely legal right.

You are putting words in my mouth.

I see it moral to refuse to do business with fascists, and immoral to refuse to do business with their opponents. Thus, I support a company using its property rights to censor white supremacists, but not to censor pro-democracy activists, and I see no contradiction in that. Unlike you, apparently, I see a moral difference between a white supremacist and a pro-democracy activist who believes Hong Kong should have civil rights. Unlike you, who's moral compass is apparently based on pro-China vs. anti-China (or at best pro-sovereignty vs. anti-sovereignty), mine is based on pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy, without regard for national borders or tribalism.

On the legality of the company's actions, I think we are more or less in agreement, yes. Companies are private property, and (with a few exceptions) can set whatever terms they want for speech on their private property, just as I could kick someone out of my house if I found the things he was saying or the way he was saying them offensive. So I respect the company's legal right to do as it did. We are simply arguing the morality of their actions.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, people use all these fancy rhetorical maneuvers to try to muddy the waters, but my actual views are really quite simple:

Equality good, inequality bad.

That's it.

I believe that every sapient/sentient being should have, as much as possible, an equal assurance of a long, healthy, happy, and productive life. This means that all people must be equally protected, imbalances redressed where they exist, and that individuals must have the freedom to do more or less whatever they please up until their doing so causes a demonstrable harm or threat to someone or demonstrably infringes on someone's rights. At which point, an enforcement mechanism (ie law enforcement, which is government in its most fundamental sense) must exist to stop them. Of course, this creates a conundrum in that it means that certain people or institutions must be given power over others- a conundrum which is best solved by a system of checks and balances-multiple institutions, all ultimately answerable to the people via a fair vote, and to the law which they uphold, which can act as checks on each other, effectively defusing power among as many people as possible while still being able to function. It also requires an educated and secure populace, as this system is built upon the choices of the voters, and uninformed or coerced consent is not true consent.

That's my politics in a nut shell. Everything else is just arguing over definitions and semantics or mudslinging or the best practical way to achieve that goal.

The goals of the Chinese government are contrary to that ideal. Hence, I oppose it. The goals of the Trump Regime are contrary to that ideal. Hence, I oppose it. The goals of the Kremlin are contrary to that ideal. Hence, I oppose it.

[mr friendly guy]

I see it moral to refuse to do business with fascists, and immoral to refuse to do business with their opponents. Thus, I support a company using its property rights to censor white supremacists, but not to censor pro-democracy activists, and I see no contradiction in that. Unlike you, apparently, I see a moral difference between a white supremacist and a pro-democracy activist who believes Hong Kong should have civil rights. Unlike you, who's moral compass is apparently based on pro-China vs. anti-China (or at best pro-sovereignty vs. anti-sovereignty), mine is based on pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy, without regard for national borders or tribalism.

ROFL. Ha ha ha ha. OMG the lack of self awareness. Lets ignore for a moment that its not democratic to hit your political opponents for saying things you don't like, for example "we are all Chinese." It just discourages people from saying their views because they don't want to be hit. Wait, Broadcasting Bullshit Corporation didn't report the incident with the JP Morgan employee. LOL.

Its not democratic to forcibly restrain and torture journalists, since media is part of what allows democracy to function. Even Western news reported that incident. So yeah, at best it is pro sovereignty vs anti sovereignty. And before you try and weasel out of that by saying, not all of them are doing this, the "pro democracy" side wants amnesty for all crimes committed by rioters protesters, and I am pretty sure assault is a crime. So even those that didn't commit a crime, want to protect those that do. When its done by their side of course. Doesn't seem very democratic to me, but then what would I know.

You know what's really galling buddy. You don't support democracy when it doesn't suit you. You fucking called David Cameron a traitor in the old Brexit thread for allowing the country to hold a democratic vote on an issue you didn't like. You see, you use the term pro democracy or dictatorship, not as a description of someone's political position, but as a simple ad hominem the same way Christians will dismiss someone's argument on the grounds they're aren't Christians. That's why you keep on harking about how pro democratic you are when we can see you call the democratically elected leader of a country a traitor for simply holding a referendum which was a plank he ran his campaign on. Unlike the HK example, where you can plead ignorance on what the pro democracy side is doing, you can't in that example. So pleeeeease get off your high horse, its dead from the beating you've been giving it. BTW, I see it as democratic to vote on leaving the EU, that must make me a ... fascist in the eyes of "progressives".

And if you don't support doing business with autocracies, start by boycotting businesses from the following countries - USA, after all that country which supports 70% of the world's dictatorships, China which is the largest exporter, and itself is an autocracy, and don't forget Canada, for you know helping to overthrow the democratically elected government of Haiti. I suspect you will very soon run out of businesses to frequent.

[The Romulan Republic]

I see it moral to refuse to do business with fascists, and immoral to refuse to do business with their opponents. Thus, I support a company using its property rights to censor white supremacists, but not to censor pro-democracy activists, and I see no contradiction in that. Unlike you, apparently, I see a moral difference between a white supremacist and a pro-democracy activist who believes Hong Kong should have civil rights. Unlike you, who's moral compass is apparently based on pro-China vs. anti-China (or at best pro-sovereignty vs. anti-sovereignty), mine is based on pro-democracy vs. anti-democracy, without regard for national borders or tribalism.

ROFL. Ha ha ha ha. OMG the lack of self awareness. Lets ignore for a moment that its not democratic to hit your political opponents for saying things you don't like, for example "we are all Chinese." It just discourages people from saying their views because they don't want to be hit. Wait, Broadcasting Bullshit Corporation didn't report the incident with the JP Morgan employee. LOL.

I know you think you're pulling some clever "gotcha" again by listing a bunch of random misconduct (real or fabricated, it probably doesn't matter) and then saying I'm a hypocrite for supporting it. Problem is, I never supported any of it. I never supported hitting people for saying "we are all Chinese." I never supported biased reporting on Hong Kong.

Where did I support those things? Where did I say those things? Nowhere. You simply feel free to assume that I support them, or at any rate to accuse me of supporting them, because I oppose the Chinese government's actions in Hong Kong. Its just blatant guilt by association tactics.

Its not democratic to forcibly restrain and torture journalists, since media is part of what allows democracy to function. Even Western news reported that incident.

Show me where I supported that.

Oh, but I support democracy in Hong Kong, so therefore I must support every act ever alleged or committed by anyone on the pro-democracy side? Nope, it doesn't fly. Show me where I advocated torturing journalists, you piece of shit.

So yeah, at best it is pro sovereignty vs anti sovereignty.

That is a total non-sequitor. Whether certain actions by certain protesters were justified has no bearing on whether the matter is one of sovereignty vs anti-sovereignty.

Of course, the real point of calling it a sovereignty issue is to assert China's "right" to rule Hong Kong as it pleases, regardless of the wishes of the people there (otherwise known as Imperialism, at least when Westerners do it). And possibly to imply that the protests are manufactured by Western agents, thus making this an outside infringement of China's sovereignty rather than an internal dispute. That's the only basis I can see for calling it an issue of Chinese sovereignty.

And before you try and weasel out of that by saying, not all of them are doing this, the "pro democracy" side wants amnesty for all crimes committed by rioters protesters, and I am pretty sure assault is a crime. So even those that didn't commit a crime, want to protect those that do. When its done by their side of course. Doesn't seem very democratic to me, but then what would I know.

Ah, so not endorsing collective guilt is "weaseling out". Spoken like a true authoritarian.

Asking amnesty for your side in the resolution of a conflict is fairly standard, is it not? In any case, this does not demonstrate that all supporters of Hong Kong democracy or opponents of China automatically support every crime ever committed by anyone on that side.

You know what's really galling buddy. You don't support democracy when it doesn't suit you. You fucking called David Cameron a traitor in the old Brexit thread for allowing the country to hold a democratic vote on an issue you didn't like. You see, you use the term pro democracy or dictatorship, not as a description of someone's political position, but as a simple ad hominem the same way Christians will dismiss someone's argument on the grounds they're aren't Christians. That's why you keep on harking about how pro democratic you are when we can see you call the democratically elected leader of a country a traitor for simply holding a referendum which was a plank he ran his campaign on. So pleeeeease get off your high horse, its dead from the beating you've been giving it. BTW, I see it as democratic to vote on leaving the EU, that must make me a ... fascist in the eyes of "progressives".

A boot-licker for fascists, anyway, as long as they're Chinese of course. I'm sure you are as fervent in your condemnation of Western fascists as you are in defense of non-Western ones. Tell me, what's your excuse for China putting Muslims in concentration camps on a scale not seen (outside of North Korea at least) since the fucking Holocaust?

As to Pig Fucker Cameron, I think he made a choice not out of any believe in democracy, but to try to keep the right of his party from deserting to UKIP, and as a consequence may very well go down in history as the man who's craven self-interest lead to the destruction of the United Kingdom. I believe in government by referendum, but the Brexit referendum was neither binding, nor fair (it was subject to outside interference), and an argument can be made that such a profound choice should require more than a simple majority to pass. It was a self-interested political decision made at the expense of his country.

And if you don't support doing business with autocracies, start by boycotting businesses from the following countries - USA, after all that country which supports 70% of the world's dictatorships, China which is the largest exporter, and itself is an autocracy, and don't forget Canada, for you know helping to overthrow the democratically elected government of Haiti. I suspect you will very soon run out of businesses to frequent.

It is not possible to complete sever all ties to all bad people, no, because we live in an interconnected world. However, portraying it as an all-or-nothing issue, either you must never cut ties with anyone or must do so all the time, is a dishonest, simple-minded slippery slope fallacy. But sometimes, yeah, you just have to walk away.

And on that note: I'm done with this. Every other thread in News and Politics, its the same song and dance. You and the other fascist boot-lickers on this board, who enthusiastically support any crime as long as a non-westerner does it and then have the gall to accuse others of a double-standard, constantly twist words, bait me, slander me, mock me, and generally do everything you can to turn the thread into a referendum on the character of your opponents rather than on the issues, because you know that that's an easier win. And it works, at least with me, because most of the regular posters on this board evidently care more about personality than right and wrong, and because too many bridges have been burned for anyone to give me the benefit of the doubt, or vice versa, and because I fully admit that I don't have the patience or tact to deal with it effectively.

So I'm done with posting in News and Politics. This circus isn't good for the board, it isn't good for the issues I care about, and frankly it isn't good for my psychological health. I suppose this is giving certain people what they want: to successfully harassing me off the board. But at this point, frankly, letting the apologists complete the transformation of N&P into a China and Kremlin fanboy circle jerk is preferable to being made a constant tool for you to derail every thread with. I'll even let you have the last word. Take it as a concession if you want.

Good day, and kiss my ass.

[mr friendly guy]

I know you think you're pulling some clever "gotcha" again by listing a bunch of random misconduct (real or fabricated, it probably doesn't matter) and then saying I'm a hypocrite for supporting it. Problem is, I never supported any of it. I never supported hitting people for saying "we are all Chinese." I never supported biased reporting on Hong Kong.

Its a gotcha moment, but not in the way you think. Its a gotcha moment because you're so ignorant its not even funny. Its not a gotcha moment for being a hypocrite in this particular example. You support the cause by being a useful idiot through ignorance, not necessarily because you're a hypocrite.

Where did I support those things? Where did I say those things? Nowhere. You simply feel free to assume that I support them, or at any rate to accuse me of supporting them, because I oppose the Chinese government's actions in Hong Kong. Its just blatant guilt by association tactics.

You do realise that China hasn't had to do anything in HK yet right? Please tell me you know HK and Macau has the most autonomy of Chinese regions and China hasn't had to let the troops leave their barracks right. Those cases of police defending themselves, are the HK police. See what I mean about ignorant. What has China done now aside from say some bad words to the rioters, er I mean freedom fighters.

Its not democratic to forcibly restrain and torture journalists, since media is part of what allows democracy to function. Even Western news reported that incident.

Show me where I supported that.

You said you supported the pro democracy side. I pointed out they engage in such actions. It could be your support was from ignorance (which was what I thought more likely) or because you didn't care.

Oh, but I support democracy in Hong Kong, so therefore I must support every act ever alleged or committed by anyone on the pro-democracy side? Nope, it doesn't fly. Show me where I advocated torturing journalists, you piece of shit.

Alleged? LOL. There are fucking videos on this incident your ignoramus. I posted a link in the other thread 2 months ago of this incident.
Here is the thread where you participated in it.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=168496

But lets put this on the other foot. I support how China has increase the manufacture of green tech, plant shit loads of trees, brought people out of poverty, invested in Africa etc, therefore I must support every single thing they did including <insert your favourite human right violation here>. We both know you won't apply the same standard to me. You already made that clear. You accused me several times of supporting certain things China also does, and I said, well no I don't support that particular case. Million dollar question, why shouldn't I apply the same standard to you?

That is a total non-sequitor. Whether certain actions by certain protesters were justified has no bearing on whether the matter is one of sovereignty vs anti-sovereignty.

You misunderstood the point. You stated it could be a democracy vs anti democracy issue, or a sovereignty vs anti sovereignty issue. By pointing out that their actions turn out to be undemocratic it runs counter to the argument that its purely a democracy vs anti democracy issue. See how logic actually works?

Of course, the real point of calling it a sovereignty issue is to assert China's "right" to rule Hong Kong as it pleases, regardless of the wishes of the people there (otherwise known as Imperialism, at least when Westerners do it). And possibly to imply that the protests are manufactured by Western agents, thus making this an outside infringement of China's sovereignty rather than an internal dispute. That's the only basis I can see for calling it an issue of Chinese sovereignty.

You were the one who used the descriptor sovereignty vs anti sovereignty buddy. It is however a separatism issue. The side wanting separatism doesn't have to apply democratic principles to their new hypothetical state. And certainly beating up people who oppose your views isn't very democratic.

And before you try and weasel out of that by saying, not all of them are doing this, the "pro democracy" side wants amnesty for all crimes committed by rioters protesters, and I am pretty sure assault is a crime. So even those that didn't commit a crime, want to protect those that do. When its done by their side of course. Doesn't seem very democratic to me, but then what would I know.

Ah, so not endorsing collective guilt is "weaseling out". Spoken like a true authoritarian.

Weaseling out is because I predict you would say "well I support the protesters, except those engaging in these particular violet acts." However when one of the planks the protesters are demanding is that violet actors get a free pass, then no its not a guilt by association. They are actually supporting violence including those used to suppress the political views of their opponents.

Asking amnesty for your side in the resolution of a conflict is fairly standard, is it not?

Yes. And... and...No seriously. Its not mutually exclusive from my point that they're trying to protect those who use violence to suppress the speech of their political opponents. Which as I said, is not exactly democratic.

In any case, this does not demonstrate that all supporters of Hong Kong democracy or opponents of China automatically support every crime ever committed by anyone on that side.

Ok. Lets put the shoe on the other foot. A russophile says I support Russia and calls for an end to sanctions. They then do a TRR and say, doesn't mean I automatically support everything the Putin regime does. Come on, we both know this will not fly with you. Or how about this. A Trumptard goes, I don't support white supremacists, but I believe those white supremacists engaging in violent acts should get amnesty, what would you think?

A boot-licker for fascists, anyway, as long as they're Chinese of course. I'm sure you are as fervent in your condemnation of Western fascists as you are in defense of non-Western ones.

Like I said. If I state holding a Brexit vote is democratic, must make me a fascist. You're already calling me one. Maybe you should add misogynist or Islamophobe to it as well. It seems to be in the in thing at the moment.

Tell me, what's your excuse for China putting Muslims in concentration camps on a scale not seen (outside of North Korea at least) since the fucking Holocaust?

Didn't I answer this question, like 2 months ago in the other thread.

As to Pig Fucker Cameron, I think he made a choice not out of any believe in democracy, but to try to keep the right of his party from deserting to UKIP, and as a consequence may very well go down in history as the man who's craven self-interest lead to the destruction of the United Kingdom. I believe in government by referendum, but the Brexit referendum was neither binding, nor fair (it was subject to outside interference), and an argument can be made that such a profound choice should require more than a simple majority to pass. It was a self-interested political decision made at the expense of his country.

Yes he is a pig fucker, but it doesn't address my point. Cameron's motivations are irrelevant to whether holding the Brexit referendum is democratic. You called him a traitor for carrying out the wishes of the people who voted for him after he campaigned on holding this referendum. The "subject to outside inteference" bit surely came later and was something Cameron could not predict. But if its outside influence, so what? You have no problems with this when its done to geopolitical rivals. Why should be an issue? Oh wait, its on a topic you feel strongly about so fuck that right? Aren't you being anti - democratic? Oh yes you are.

It is not possible to complete sever all ties to all bad people, no, because we live in an interconnected world. However, portraying it as an all-or-nothing issue, either you must never cut ties with anyone or must do so all the time, is a dishonest, simple-minded slippery slope fallacy. But sometimes, yeah, you just have to walk away.

We agree on something. Will wonders never cease.

And on that note: I'm done with this. Every other thread in News and Politics, its the same song and dance. You and the other fascist boot-lickers on this board, who enthusiastically support any crime as long as a non-westerner does it and then have the gall to accuse others of a double-standard, constantly twist words, bait me, slander me, mock me, and generally do everything you can to turn the thread into a referendum on the character of your opponents rather than on the issues, because you know that that's an easier win. And it works, at least with me, because most of the regular posters on this board evidently care more about personality than right and wrong, and because too many bridges have been burned for anyone to give me the benefit of the doubt, or vice versa, and because I fully admit that I don't have the patience or tact to deal with it effectively.

So I'm done with posting in News and Politics. This circus isn't good for the board, it isn't good for the issues I care about, and frankly it isn't good for my psychological health. I suppose this is giving certain people what they want: to successfully harassing me off the board. But at this point, frankly, letting the apologists complete the transformation of N&P into a China and Kremlin fanboy circle jerk is preferable to being made a constant tool for you to derail every thread with. I'll even let you have the last word. Take it as a concession if you want.

Good day, and kiss my ass.

Buddy, I may not like you, but I don't want to beat you up for saying things I don't like, unlike some "pro democracy" people. If you have some mental health problems, get some help. Preferably in Canada rather than the US. I don't wish you ill will or anything.

[Lost Soal]

I'm conflicted. The rules DO state that certain speech is not acceptable but at the same time the cause is a noble one. It's thorny

The rule in question is overly broad, vague and all encompassing. Seriously the way its written Blizzard could ban someone and withhold hundreds of thousands in prize money for going on stream and saying The Last Jedi was a great piece of storytelling.
The rule directly contradicts their statement that they support the right of players to state their opinions.

[Ralin]

Fuck off and burn, you bootlicking, wet-fascist-asshole suckling little shit.

If he'd stood up and shouted "there is one china!" nothing would have come of it, since the only people offended would be people shareholders don't about while pathetic diarrhea squirts like ralin and kotik (lower case intentional) applauded.

As America's own President George W Bush once said, there ought to be limitations on freedoms. Like America, China's constitution upholds the right to freedom of speech. But no right is absolute, and if the governments of America and other so-called Western countries refuse to act responsibly by curbing harmful speech and other propaganda that threatens the rights and feelings of the Chinese people the Chinese government should and will take action to protect their sovereignty and uphold the public's well-being.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opin ... -kong.html

The days when you are free to say things like this in public, online or otherwise, are coming to an end.

[mr friendly guy]

Your article wouldn't load for me beyond the first few lines. I guess I have used all my free views or something. But then I saw the article was from the idiot Bari Weiss and I realise I didn't lose anything not reading it.

I must admit, your trolling is pretty good, but since TRR has left the chat in a huff I am afraid it won't do much.

[Ralin]

Your article wouldn't load for me beyond the first few lines. I guess I have used all my free views or something. But then I saw the article was from the idiot Bari Weiss and I realise I didn't lose anything not reading it.

It's about the NBA's decision to voluntarily disavow some comments by one of their managers. I didn't pay any attention to the author. It was just the first convenient summary.

I must admit, your trolling is pretty good, but since TRR has left the chat in a huff I am afraid it won't do much.

I don't troll. Ever.

[Lonestar]

I'm conflicted. The rules DO state that certain speech is not acceptable but at the same time the cause is a noble one. It's thorny

Blizzard won't do anything about people using slurs in chat but will in this case? Please.

[Lonestar]

As America's own President George W Bush once said, there ought to be limitations on freedoms. Like America, China's constitution upholds the right to freedom of speech. But no right is absolute, and if the governments of America and other so-called Western countries refuse to act responsibly by curbing harmful speech and other propaganda that threatens the rights and feelings of the Chinese people the Chinese government should and will take action to protect their sovereignty and uphold the public's well-being.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/opin ... -kong.html

The days when you are free to say things like this in public, online or otherwise, are coming to an end.

Bush did that so he could push through the PATRIOT Act, so, you know, if that's the hill you want to die on fine.

Re: limits on freedoms. Said limits are usually relatively lax and associated with mitigating negative externalties(e.g. taxing fossil fuels to pay for conserving public land) or objectively "freedom to swings fist ends at my face". Wanting to engage in punitive measures for expressing political stance that is fairly innocuous compared to some, is hardly great.

Now, all that said, Blizzard is a private corporation. With that in mind, it's a private corporation actively acting to enable a authoritarian regime, so even though it's theoretically separate from the concept of freedom of speech, in practice it is not.

[ray245]

snip

Can you please stop reading the world in black and white? And also try and read more in depth about political issues outside of North America? Because you keep coming across as being uninformed about matters outside of North America, then get upset whenever someone says those issues you are talking about is more complicated than how your portray it to be?

You seem to adopt a rather reductive-approach in many of your discussion. You come across as a person that likes to reduce things to a overly simplistic dichotomy between authoritarianism/fascism vs democracy/liberalism. That dichotomy doesn't work that well in many political context, especially if it is outside of the US. The dichotomy that you like to throw out can come across as being rather culturally imperialistic imo. You might not intend to come across as that, but that's how your comments could seem to many people.

[TheFeniX]

What legality? I am talking about the moral right about choosing who to do business with. No need to get into the legality red herring here. But I see we pretty much reach the same broad consensus on rights. Its ok for a company to refuse to do business with people on grounds express a view that said company believes affects them negatively. The morality of that view expressed is a separate issue.

Is it ok for Blizzard to withhold all winnings from that player due to an overbroad Morality Clause? But I doubt that's really your point, which I don't have all that big an issue with.

But I'm loving this fucking "whatabout"-ism shit going on here. "BUT WHAT ABOUT <who gives a fuck>" because it's genius. The same genius conservatives are using right now to defend Trump or really all manner of shitty things. Accountability starts somewhere. Blizzard is a major player in the market with a base that has a lot of respect for them as a company. A base that maybe isn't as good and moral as you think they should be for not dieing on every sword for every injustice out there. But hey, "all or nothing" right?

This base feels like they are being sold-out to a New Challenger!

Jesus, I'm having flashbacks to those fatnerds bashing Greta for that pic with bananas: "ZOMG THE CARBONFOOTPRINT OF THOSE. Hypocrisy! She must be totally wrong about everything."But hey, continue to just trash TRR here and defend a company that allows players to be banned for being trolled into saying Winnie the Pooh, permanently, while a slur riddled rant about Jews in WoW trade chat would be lucky to get you a 3-day.

Which I don't give a fuck about. I do however see you as the one shitting up the thread with a TRR vendetta attacking his hypocrisy vs his argument (which he really didn't have, he was just pointing something out) and you using it as a stump to rant about random bullshit.

Blizzard won't do anything about people using slurs in chat but will in this case? Please.

Shit's great, right? Like don't even hire some people to just troll a "Trade chat" aggregator or something, or sucker paying customers (read: rubes) into doing it for them. No, it's better for players to log in day after to day rants about jews and black people or Deep State. I mean, I haven't played WoW in years now, I can only assume it's worse.

But troll a chinese player into saying "Winnie the Pooh" in Overwatch chat, watch what happens. I'll just tell you: perma ban for a game they paid cash money for. The good news is they no longer have to play a shitty game.

My country might suck and my pres has a tiny penis. But I don't get perma-banned in my games for saying this." So..... I'm going with "Fuck China" and "Blizzard is (has been for a while) dogshit: stop buying their games."