←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 6 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.741s | source | bottom
Show context
zwaps ◴[08 Oct 19 11:13 UTC] No.21190952[source]▶
Then we have to boycott Hearthstone. While the current case is neither surprising nor substantially important, it is important because of principle.

Blizzard is not responsible for what players say in interviews. In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions.

The Chinese government tries to make it a new normal that entire people can have their "feelings hurt" (what?) by mere non-insulting opinions, and it tries to make it a new normal that all actors should censor any undesirable or potentially undesirable opinion.

If that is indeed the way, then our society and the discourse therein is no longer free, and the CCP has won.

We need to keep these firms in our mind. We need to keep a list of when this happens, and we need to sanction this as best as we can. Similarly, anyone standing up to censorship should have our support.

I can be pro HK, or I can be pro China, and I can voice opinions because doing so either way is an equally valid form of free expression. But it can not be that one side gets pre-emptively censored to appease the CCP, or any actor with the power to DEFINE the bar of what is reasonable expression of opinions.

replies(35): >>21191046 #>>21191149 #>>21191296 #>>21191337 #>>21191361 #>>21191457 #>>21191561 #>>21191609 #>>21191630 #>>21191686 #>>21191709 #>>21191715 #>>21191742 #>>21191842 #>>21191964 #>>21191971 #>>21191980 #>>21192069 #>>21192094 #>>21192118 #>>21192246 #>>21192449 #>>21192535 #>>21192785 #>>21192985 #>>21193152 #>>21193306 #>>21193442 #>>21193508 #>>21193629 #>>21193748 #>>21194032 #>>21194140 #>>21194276 #>>21194794 #
1. dm3730 ◴[08 Oct 19 12:46 UTC] No.21191630[source]▶
> In our society, it still matters that people can tolerate other opinions.

Who is "our" in this? If you mean USA, then are you sure about your claim? Eg: "Guy chooses to kneel on the field because kids were getting shot, guy gets canned.". How is that significantly different than what is happening in this case?

replies(4): >>21191646 #>>21191667 #>>21194182 #>>21194198 #
2. Waterluvian ◴[08 Oct 19 12:49 UTC] No.21191646[source]▶
Retribution against the kneelers was met with a ton of protest if I recall correctly. So it's a great example of why, yes, we should protest this too.
3. lettergram ◴[08 Oct 19 12:51 UTC] No.21191667[source]▶
I think it’s a bit different. In this case you’re economically punishing the responsible party - not trying to raise awareness (make a scene).

I can silently stop playing Hearthstone and the effect would be felt. I’m not wasting other people’s time or breaking a contract.

In regards to the kneeling specifically, my impression was it was free publicity to the players. Honestly, looked like they were taking advantage of the situation, a way to get free press for themselves. I know I wasn’t the only person who felt this. That’s likely part of the reason they were canned.

replies(1): >>21192488 #
4. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 14:11 UTC] No.21192488[source]▶
Ah yes, how dare those black players lift their heads up and 'make a scene'. What grifters they are, taking advantage of their blackness to promote themselves.
5. shaneprrlt ◴[08 Oct 19 16:44 UTC] No.21194182[source]▶
Honestly, you've changed my mind right here about the NFL issue by putting it into this perspective.

I always thought Kaepernick had the right to kneel, but that the NFL had the right to bench the player as well.

I thought the President, being a US citizen, also had the right to be raucous about the issue as many politicians were, as long as it didn't extend into actual executive action.

The reason people in the US might find this action offensive (the reason I do) is because it supports a communist government and I'm sick of US-based MNCs cow-tailing to China instead of taking a principled stand for Western values, but that should include the NFL supporting Kaepernick's right to free expression as well.

Perhaps the same reasoning can extend to so-called "cancel culture" of people getting fired for expressing their private opinions online.

6. vineyardmike ◴[08 Oct 19 16:45 UTC] No.21194198[source]▶
I suspect that few people who dislike Blizzard's response like the NFL's response. They are similar cases, but the first one was punishing an American, only seen by Americans to applease an American audience. The HK issue is punishing someone, seen globally, to appease a foreign audience.