7 ms·

He essentially lost his job for political speech. See the NBA story from today where the NBA refused to censor a player for supporting HK. See why this isn't j

He essentially lost his job for political speech. See the NBA story from today where the NBA refused to censor a player for supporting HK. See why this isn't just about "a gamer"?

flukus 7y ago
Political speech they agree with. We crossed these sorts of lines long ago but it was political speech they disagreed with then, so it's only bad now. If everyone had been more inclined to defend peoples right to views they don't agree with then we wouldn't be here now. Plenty here were fine with Stallman being fired over his personal views, now they're seeing the other side.
- cookie_monsta 7y ago
  Is justifying child molestation a political act now?
- etchalon 7y ago
  Your argument is people should be just as upset by things which don't upset them as they are by things which do upset them. It's a weird argument.
  - flukus 7y ago
    It's not that they should be just as upset, it's that they don't have any sort of principled stance and are in the cheer squad when the same thing is happening to the other side. They cheer people losing jobs because they disagree with them and get upset that the same thing happens to people they agree with, at least at the group level. Should you be able to lose your job, be cutoff from a private service, be banned from a project because of your public opinions? It's a yes/no question and modern society appears to be converging on yes. This is a consequence of that decision. An easy to see consequence that many of us warned about but got drowned out of the conversation being called racists, christian fundamentalist, pedophile apologists and everything else when we speak for their rights. So congratulations to the people that cheered Stallmans firing, various de-platforming techniques, codes of conduct, etc, you've normalized this and given the CCP all the weapons they need to control speech in the west.
    - johnny22 7y ago
      You don't seem to think it's possible to be for "deplatforming" someone, and against "deplatforming" someone else. That's an odd take. I fail to see how that's incompatible.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        I believe the parent is saying that the claims to be "against deplatforming" are fake when the same people happily supported deplatforming before. It's just a tactic to say that deplatforming itself is bad, what they actually mean is "deplatforming someone I like is bad". Saying that is fine, pretending it's more than that is dishonest.
        etchalon 7y ago
        I don't believe I've seen anyone say that they're against deplatforming, while being for deplatforming. What I think instead is that people who were against previous de-platforming (whatever their reason) want to use this situation, which is obviously egregious and cowardly on the part of Blizzard, to muddy the water.
        luckylion 7y ago
        Isn't that the same, only in reverse? "Oh you're not okay with deplatforming, you're only saying that because you disagree with the person deplatformed this time". It's hard to prove the innermost opinions, but I do believe that there's a lot of outrage coming, among others, from people who are absolutely fine with deplatforming and consider it a valid tactic but don't consider that player a valid target. There definitely are others who are against deplatforming on principle. They are consistent, but I don't think all are. Of course, anybody can change their mind any time, and if this incident converts the proponents of deplatforming, then the next case will be very different.
        etchalon 7y ago
        I doubt this incident would sour people on the general idea of de-platforming, anymore than people would sour on the concept of prison if someone innocent was found incarcerated. De-platforming is a consequence, and the debate is not "is de-platforming OK?" but "when is de-platforming OK?"
cookie_monsta 7y ago
I know it's not just about a gamer. The poster I was replying to seems to think that gamers are useless, ie irrelevant. My question was why they thought that gamers attacking a gaming platform for their treatment of another gamer (for whatever reason) was suddenly a thing of relevance (in their view).
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  > The poster I was replying to seems to think that gamers are useless, ie irrelevant. Try "beneath contempt" and you might get closer to how I feel about the average gamer. From what I've seen, gamers don't have the nerve to bite the hand that feeds them poisoned meat, and have been happy to do little more than complain when they get shafted by a developer or publisher. If they actually manage to use GDPR to carve a huge chunk out of Blizzard's profits, I might have to revise my opinion of gamers, and promote them to merely useless and irrelevant.
  - LocalH 7y ago
    Stop generalizing. 99% of the issues in today's world are there because of bad generalizations.
mwyah 7y ago
He lost his job for using an official stream to push his politics. That's a huge difference that everybody is deciding to ignore for some reason... outrage culture I guess.
- Porthos9K 7y ago
  Thanks for reminding everybody that corporations are authoritarian regimes and that workers are expected to check their human rights at the door.

He essentially lost his job for political speech. See the NBA story from today where the NBA refused to censor a player for supporting HK. See why this isn't just about "a gamer"?

flukus 7y ago

Political speech they agree with. We crossed these sorts of lines long ago but it was political speech they disagreed with then, so it's only bad now. If everyone had been more inclined to defend peoples right to views they don't agree with then we wouldn't be here now. Plenty here were fine with Stallman being fired over his personal views, now they're seeing the other side.

cookie_monsta 7y ago
Is justifying child molestation a political act now?
etchalon 7y ago
Your argument is people should be just as upset by things which don't upset them as they are by things which do upset them. It's a weird argument.
- flukus 7y ago
  It's not that they should be just as upset, it's that they don't have any sort of principled stance and are in the cheer squad when the same thing is happening to the other side. They cheer people losing jobs because they disagree with them and get upset that the same thing happens to people they agree with, at least at the group level. Should you be able to lose your job, be cutoff from a private service, be banned from a project because of your public opinions? It's a yes/no question and modern society appears to be converging on yes. This is a consequence of that decision. An easy to see consequence that many of us warned about but got drowned out of the conversation being called racists, christian fundamentalist, pedophile apologists and everything else when we speak for their rights. So congratulations to the people that cheered Stallmans firing, various de-platforming techniques, codes of conduct, etc, you've normalized this and given the CCP all the weapons they need to control speech in the west.
  - johnny22 7y ago
    You don't seem to think it's possible to be for "deplatforming" someone, and against "deplatforming" someone else. That's an odd take. I fail to see how that's incompatible.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      I believe the parent is saying that the claims to be "against deplatforming" are fake when the same people happily supported deplatforming before. It's just a tactic to say that deplatforming itself is bad, what they actually mean is "deplatforming someone I like is bad". Saying that is fine, pretending it's more than that is dishonest.
      - etchalon 7y ago
        I don't believe I've seen anyone say that they're against deplatforming, while being for deplatforming. What I think instead is that people who were against previous de-platforming (whatever their reason) want to use this situation, which is obviously egregious and cowardly on the part of Blizzard, to muddy the water.
        luckylion 7y ago
        Isn't that the same, only in reverse? "Oh you're not okay with deplatforming, you're only saying that because you disagree with the person deplatformed this time". It's hard to prove the innermost opinions, but I do believe that there's a lot of outrage coming, among others, from people who are absolutely fine with deplatforming and consider it a valid tactic but don't consider that player a valid target. There definitely are others who are against deplatforming on principle. They are consistent, but I don't think all are. Of course, anybody can change their mind any time, and if this incident converts the proponents of deplatforming, then the next case will be very different.
        etchalon 7y ago
        I doubt this incident would sour people on the general idea of de-platforming, anymore than people would sour on the concept of prison if someone innocent was found incarcerated. De-platforming is a consequence, and the debate is not "is de-platforming OK?" but "when is de-platforming OK?"

cookie_monsta 7y ago

I know it's not just about a gamer. The poster I was replying to seems to think that gamers are useless, ie irrelevant. My question was why they thought that gamers attacking a gaming platform for their treatment of another gamer (for whatever reason) was suddenly a thing of relevance (in their view).

Porthos9K 7y ago
> The poster I was replying to seems to think that gamers are useless, ie irrelevant. Try "beneath contempt" and you might get closer to how I feel about the average gamer. From what I've seen, gamers don't have the nerve to bite the hand that feeds them poisoned meat, and have been happy to do little more than complain when they get shafted by a developer or publisher. If they actually manage to use GDPR to carve a huge chunk out of Blizzard's profits, I might have to revise my opinion of gamers, and promote them to merely useless and irrelevant.
- LocalH 7y ago
  Stop generalizing. 99% of the issues in today's world are there because of bad generalizations.

mwyah 7y ago

He lost his job for using an official stream to push his politics. That's a huge difference that everybody is deciding to ignore for some reason... outrage culture I guess.

Porthos9K 7y ago
Thanks for reminding everybody that corporations are authoritarian regimes and that workers are expected to check their human rights at the door.