←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 2 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 1.777s | source
Show context
rjzzleep ◴[08 Oct 19 11:24 UTC] No.21191018[source]▶
Have we all forgotten when Mozilla replaced the CTO with a long history of internet freedom work to replace him with a marketing director and the disaster that followed?

Are we going to keep trampling on all our freedoms in the name of ... freedom(?) and then blame it all on China?

EDIT: I knew some people were going to try to spin it into something it wasn't.

replies(4): >>21191038 #>>21191512 #>>21194934 #>>21194937 #
Steltek ◴[08 Oct 19 11:26 UTC] No.21191038[source]▶
Was that the same lover of freedom that campaigned to take away the freedom of others?
replies(3): >>21191334 #>>21191473 #>>21193111 #
whatshisface ◴[08 Oct 19 12:28 UTC] No.21191473[source]▶
If you think back to before gay marriage was accepted as a culturally obvious fact, some of the arguments against it involved hating gays, but others didn't. Without the ability to tell which beliefs actually motivated his donation, it is not possible to discern if he was against gays or not. (I'll refrain from giving any specific examples in order to avoid starting that debate again, but I think most of us can remember that time in fair detail.)
replies(3): >>21191702 #>>21192055 #>>21192484 #
mola ◴[08 Oct 19 14:10 UTC] No.21192484[source]▶
What is A genuine reason for being against gay marriage that does not include hating the concept of gays, or the concept of marriage? Two adults want to share their life, with the burdens and rights that non gays get. Really, why would you care if not because you find the concept of same sex couples bad and harmful?
replies(2): >>21192654 #>>21193956 #
1. whatshisface ◴[08 Oct 19 14:26 UTC] No.21192654[source]▶
I can give a silly example in order to avoid restarting the debate. Someone who truly believed that gays would cause earthquakes could vote against prop 8. purely on the basis of the San Andreas fault. If you think for long enough you could probably come up with less and less silly sounding arguments, until eventually you arrive at one that a rational and non-evil person could convincingly be misled by. The essential point is that even if you are 100% convinced that the Mozilla CEO held an incorrect belief, it still remains to be shown that evil was the only explanation for that belief.
replies(1): >>21192834 #
2. mola ◴[08 Oct 19 14:42 UTC] No.21192834[source]▶
You could never prove evil. Because it's a matter of values.

You could easily say, that holding negative opinions on something strongly enough that you act upon them, without any proof of that thing being dangerous or bad is a sign you are prejudice about that thing.

Now being prejudice is not evil in my opinion, but if you value being prejudice more than finding out the actual reality of your negative assumptions, makes you pretty much the text book definition of a bigot.