6 ms·

I don't think it should be an international incident. The reality is that corporations shouldn't be espousing political viewpoints, and nobody should care what

I don't think it should be an international incident. The reality is that corporations shouldn't be espousing political viewpoints, and nobody should care what their opinion is on controversial policies. They make and sell products and that's all they should stick too. Why should Blizzard get in the middle of what's happening between China and Hong Kong? And to be clear, it isn't just Chinese government versus Hong Kong protestors. The Chinese public, the people who buy and consume Blizzard products, also have very strong opinions on this, as does the Hong Kong public. The problem is that these brands also want the brownie points. So they'll cherry pick safe policies to loudly support when it doesn't negatively affect their bottom line, but stay quiet when it does, making them look like hypocrites and pissing off everyone.

MBCook 7y ago
> 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. International politics is just setup that way. Total neutrality doesn’t exist on that stage.
- BrandonMarc 7y ago
  Precisely. Don't want to be involved in international politics? Fine - don't involve yourself in international commerce, either.
- chickenpotpie 7y ago
  Exactly. The problem here isn't that Blizzard is taking sides in international conflicts. The problem is that Blizzard, an American company, is taking China's side in an international conflict.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >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 boycotting Chinese goods. Why would you expect a video game company to do so? Do you honestly want a video game company to take a position on every single controversial topic .... of which there are thousands? Or only on the ones that you find particularly important? >What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy? No. Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    > Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase. In both those cases, though, that's still taking an action that supports one side and affronts the other. "Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action. And, of course, there's an argument to be made that even doing that is effectively "taking a side," right? Because your (lack of) action still implicitly supports one side and affronts the other. Maybe letting players kneel during the anthem does piss off half your fan base, but explicitly banning them from kneeling pisses off the other half of your fan base. As much as Rush lyrics may be the last refuge of scoundrels, there's a lot of truth in "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >n both those cases, though, that's still taking an action No. That is insane. Being neutral is not the same as taking an action. I know we live in a twitter world where everything is black or white but you don't get to create a false dichotomy of "you're either with me or against me" - there is always a third choice of "I refuse to get involved". >Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action. You're parsing out meanings from words that aren't there. Sure Blizzard could have done nothing, but they did decide that their platform shouldn't be used to espouse political messages, even ones they may privately agree with. If you want to be pedantic that's 'taking an action', but the action is NOT "I support China", nor "I support Hong Kong protestors", but rather, "I have no position on the matter because I'm a video game company that is interested in selling video games and running StarCraft tournaments". Why are you so intent on creating a division where there is none and forcing everyone to choose a side?
- damq 7y ago
  The comment you're replying to is suggesting a way to prevent a PR crisis like this, not a way to escape an ongoing crisis. It's hard to deny that there would be a much smaller PR issue here if the player had been prevented from voicing any opinion on Hong Kong in the first place.
  - MBCook 7y ago
    But that wouldn’t be neutral either. It would clearly be favoring a side (and may have backfired when it came out).
kerng 7y ago
>> Why should Blizzard get in the middle of what's happening between China and Hong Kong That's the question. Why did they do it in the first place? They could have not banned the player.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >They could have not banned the player. But that was the right decision. The player politicized their neutral platform. The NBA fined players that wouldn't stand for the anthem for the same reason.
  - amputect 7y ago
    > The player politicized their neutral platform. The NBA fined players that wouldn't stand for the anthem for the same reason. Standing for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action. FORCING players to stand for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action. It's common, but that doesn't mean it's neutral.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >Standing for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action. Oh brother ... but OK. The NBA went through something like this. Their policies called for standing for the anthem if you're out on the court while the anthem is playing (i.e. and cameras are rolling, and fans are watching). If you happen to have an objection to this, then you are welcome to stay in the locker room for the duration of the anthem and come out after. I think that's entirely fair. You don't get to politicize a neutral platform, and you also aren't forced to do anything you morally object to.
buttman2077 7y ago
Corporations are citizens too! Alongside plenty of other benefits, I’d expect them to support American values.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  Are you boycotting Chinese made products? What are you doing to 'support American values'? And which values? 2nd Amendment rights?
  - buttman2077 7y ago
    I’m not sure what my habits have to do with my expectations of US corporations. They sure don’t have any constitutional pressure to support our first, second, sixth, and other amendments, but nonetheless, I expect them to. It doesn’t have to be so polarizing: if I make an effort to value our constitution, I expect at least the corporations that impact and influence our society to too. If I don’t like it, I start a dialogue to change it - but I certainly don’t censor or violate the rights of others.
    - macspoofing 7y ago
      >I’m not sure what my habits have to do with my expectations of US corporations. Because it's indicative of this armchair general/keyboard warrior mentality where you sure as heck as strong opinions online which have no impact on your life, but you're not willing to sacrifice one iota of your personal comfort to actually live what you espouse. For some reason you want companies to exit China or get involved in internal Chinese politics but you're perfectly willing to keep buying chinese or chinese-made products - because it would be too hard to boycott them and have it actually impact your life. Stepping back, you see the same thing at the national level. You're criticizing a VIDEO GAME company for wanting to stay neutral, but you aren't calling for European nations or your country to recall their ambassadors from China to breaking relations? It's indicative. Corporations exist to create products and services. That's what they are good at. You do not want to push social policy.
mattnewton 7y ago
Any action with a foreign power is inherently political. I am sure they want to be able to declare themselves above the fray, but even if they didn't go looking for "brownie points", people would still criticize them for business in China and the Chinese government would still push them to censor their products and employee messaging. It's the same with the NFL and the kneeling players getting pressure from the President, except scarier to most Americans because it's a foreign power with no recourse in our court system.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >It's the same with the NFL and the kneeling players getting pressure from the President The NFL doesn't care about Trump. The NFL fined kneeling players because it pissed off half their fanbase and viewership numbers went down.
  - walterstucco 7y ago
    That's just Trump position on the matter. But it's not the truth: viewers went down because the games lately suck. > At least some NFL viewers really have tuned out thanks to the national anthem protests — but almost as many have stopped watching thanks to the league’s domestic violence problems > The biggest factor driving the decline in football ratings affects all sports ratings https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/26/16364210/nfl-ratings-down https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/26/16364210/nfl-ratings-d...
marmada 7y ago
Why should corporations have to remain politically neutral? If a corporation can support a social justice cause without hurting its bottom line, that's good for both the corporation and the cause it is supporting. I would also argue that corporations are subject to moral constraints, and sometimes, they should do the right thing--even if it hurts their bottom line. Also forcing political neutrality hurts those who are oppressed. The dominant force will never need to protest or introduce politics into a surprising area because the dominant force has no need to protest. Only those who suffer need to protest and inconvenience the majority in order to make their plight known (see civil rights movement amongst other things).
trophycase 7y ago
Maybe you're right, but everyone loves to feel all good and fuzzy inside when they make PC character design (see Overwatch) to cater to the reddit crowd. So if people are allowed to celebrate their obvious co-opting of identity politics, maybe we can be angry when they do something politically idiotic.

MBCook 7y ago

> 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. International politics is just setup that way. Total neutrality doesn’t exist on that stage.

BrandonMarc 7y ago
Precisely. Don't want to be involved in international politics? Fine - don't involve yourself in international commerce, either.
chickenpotpie 7y ago
Exactly. The problem here isn't that Blizzard is taking sides in international conflicts. The problem is that Blizzard, an American company, is taking China's side in an international conflict.
macspoofing 7y ago
>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 boycotting Chinese goods. Why would you expect a video game company to do so? Do you honestly want a video game company to take a position on every single controversial topic .... of which there are thousands? Or only on the ones that you find particularly important? >What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy? No. Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  > Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase. In both those cases, though, that's still taking an action that supports one side and affronts the other. "Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action. And, of course, there's an argument to be made that even doing that is effectively "taking a side," right? Because your (lack of) action still implicitly supports one side and affronts the other. Maybe letting players kneel during the anthem does piss off half your fan base, but explicitly banning them from kneeling pisses off the other half of your fan base. As much as Rush lyrics may be the last refuge of scoundrels, there's a lot of truth in "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >n both those cases, though, that's still taking an action No. That is insane. Being neutral is not the same as taking an action. I know we live in a twitter world where everything is black or white but you don't get to create a false dichotomy of "you're either with me or against me" - there is always a third choice of "I refuse to get involved". >Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action. You're parsing out meanings from words that aren't there. Sure Blizzard could have done nothing, but they did decide that their platform shouldn't be used to espouse political messages, even ones they may privately agree with. If you want to be pedantic that's 'taking an action', but the action is NOT "I support China", nor "I support Hong Kong protestors", but rather, "I have no position on the matter because I'm a video game company that is interested in selling video games and running StarCraft tournaments". Why are you so intent on creating a division where there is none and forcing everyone to choose a side?
damq 7y ago
The comment you're replying to is suggesting a way to prevent a PR crisis like this, not a way to escape an ongoing crisis. It's hard to deny that there would be a much smaller PR issue here if the player had been prevented from voicing any opinion on Hong Kong in the first place.
- MBCook 7y ago
  But that wouldn’t be neutral either. It would clearly be favoring a side (and may have backfired when it came out).

kerng 7y ago

>> Why should Blizzard get in the middle of what's happening between China and Hong Kong That's the question. Why did they do it in the first place? They could have not banned the player.

macspoofing 7y ago
>They could have not banned the player. But that was the right decision. The player politicized their neutral platform. The NBA fined players that wouldn't stand for the anthem for the same reason.
- amputect 7y ago
  > The player politicized their neutral platform. The NBA fined players that wouldn't stand for the anthem for the same reason. Standing for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action. FORCING players to stand for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action. It's common, but that doesn't mean it's neutral.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Standing for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action. Oh brother ... but OK. The NBA went through something like this. Their policies called for standing for the anthem if you're out on the court while the anthem is playing (i.e. and cameras are rolling, and fans are watching). If you happen to have an objection to this, then you are welcome to stay in the locker room for the duration of the anthem and come out after. I think that's entirely fair. You don't get to politicize a neutral platform, and you also aren't forced to do anything you morally object to.

buttman2077 7y ago

Corporations are citizens too! Alongside plenty of other benefits, I’d expect them to support American values.

macspoofing 7y ago
Are you boycotting Chinese made products? What are you doing to 'support American values'? And which values? 2nd Amendment rights?
- buttman2077 7y ago
  I’m not sure what my habits have to do with my expectations of US corporations. They sure don’t have any constitutional pressure to support our first, second, sixth, and other amendments, but nonetheless, I expect them to. It doesn’t have to be so polarizing: if I make an effort to value our constitution, I expect at least the corporations that impact and influence our society to too. If I don’t like it, I start a dialogue to change it - but I certainly don’t censor or violate the rights of others.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >I’m not sure what my habits have to do with my expectations of US corporations. Because it's indicative of this armchair general/keyboard warrior mentality where you sure as heck as strong opinions online which have no impact on your life, but you're not willing to sacrifice one iota of your personal comfort to actually live what you espouse. For some reason you want companies to exit China or get involved in internal Chinese politics but you're perfectly willing to keep buying chinese or chinese-made products - because it would be too hard to boycott them and have it actually impact your life. Stepping back, you see the same thing at the national level. You're criticizing a VIDEO GAME company for wanting to stay neutral, but you aren't calling for European nations or your country to recall their ambassadors from China to breaking relations? It's indicative. Corporations exist to create products and services. That's what they are good at. You do not want to push social policy.

mattnewton 7y ago

Any action with a foreign power is inherently political. I am sure they want to be able to declare themselves above the fray, but even if they didn't go looking for "brownie points", people would still criticize them for business in China and the Chinese government would still push them to censor their products and employee messaging. It's the same with the NFL and the kneeling players getting pressure from the President, except scarier to most Americans because it's a foreign power with no recourse in our court system.

macspoofing 7y ago
>It's the same with the NFL and the kneeling players getting pressure from the President The NFL doesn't care about Trump. The NFL fined kneeling players because it pissed off half their fanbase and viewership numbers went down.
- walterstucco 7y ago
  That's just Trump position on the matter. But it's not the truth: viewers went down because the games lately suck. > At least some NFL viewers really have tuned out thanks to the national anthem protests — but almost as many have stopped watching thanks to the league’s domestic violence problems > The biggest factor driving the decline in football ratings affects all sports ratings https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/26/16364210/nfl-ratings-down https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/9/26/16364210/nfl-ratings-d...

marmada 7y ago

Why should corporations have to remain politically neutral? If a corporation can support a social justice cause without hurting its bottom line, that's good for both the corporation and the cause it is supporting. I would also argue that corporations are subject to moral constraints, and sometimes, they should do the right thing--even if it hurts their bottom line. Also forcing political neutrality hurts those who are oppressed. The dominant force will never need to protest or introduce politics into a surprising area because the dominant force has no need to protest. Only those who suffer need to protest and inconvenience the majority in order to make their plight known (see civil rights movement amongst other things).

trophycase 7y ago

Maybe you're right, but everyone loves to feel all good and fuzzy inside when they make PC character design (see Overwatch) to cater to the reddit crowd. So if people are allowed to celebrate their obvious co-opting of identity politics, maybe we can be angry when they do something politically idiotic.