Most active commenters
  • streb-lo(9)
  • trentnix(6)
  • luckylion(5)

←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 22 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 2.331s | source | bottom
Show context
bayesian_horse ◴[08 Oct 19 12:05 UTC] No.21191285[source]▶
It's really hard to tell the difference between what is genuinely offensive and what is not.

No easy answers. In this case, maybe there is a relatively simple rule: Supporting democracy must not in itself be regarded as offensive...

replies(8): >>21191379 #>>21191486 #>>21191575 #>>21191815 #>>21191939 #>>21192121 #>>21193685 #>>21194741 #
trentnix ◴[08 Oct 19 12:18 UTC] No.21191379[source]▶
It is hard to tell, that is true. And that reality is exploited to silence opposition and control others.

That’s why language policing, hate speech laws, Twitter mobs, and bully-the-bully efforts are abominations. So really, the answer is easy: everyone has the right to offend, and has no right not to be offended. Your simple rule doesn’t go far enough.

replies(2): >>21191553 #>>21192443 #
streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 14:07 UTC] No.21192443[source]▶
Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable.

Try and tell me your opinions are your own and the books and media you consume do not own some portion of them.

Hate-speech laws exist to prevent the programming of people to systematically hate and exterminate other people, a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.

replies(4): >>21192714 #>>21193795 #>>21194227 #>>21197548 #
1. trentnix ◴[08 Oct 19 14:31 UTC] No.21192714[source]▶
If hate-speech laws exist to deal with people that are programmed, wouldn't it also follow that hate-speech laws might exist because programmed people want to control the speech of others?

It would go like this: hate speech is first yelling fire in a theater, then it's espousing bigotry, then it's holding the wrong opinions, until it's finally speaking ill of the Party. That's also a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.

replies(3): >>21192809 #>>21193241 #>>21200633 #
2. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 14:40 UTC] No.21192809[source]▶
We're all programmable, sure. And I think it's important for their to be competing voices such that we don't end up in the Party.

But some level of social cohesion is desirable, and I think starting at the level of 'not allowed to advocate for the rape and murder of peoples' is a reasonable step towards ensuring less people think that is viable.

replies(1): >>21193518 #
3. shadowgovt ◴[08 Oct 19 15:21 UTC] No.21193241[source]▶
Too far down that philosophical rabbit-hole you find "There's no such thing as good and evil," which is a philosophy a person can have but not one I'd want to see a country's government embrace as a core tenant. It'd be a pretty shitty place to live for anyone who doesn't have the money or power to enforce their will.
replies(1): >>21193422 #
4. trentnix ◴[08 Oct 19 15:36 UTC] No.21193422[source]▶
And too far down the other hole is the ambiguity of definitions and other postmodern gobbledygook that will eventually expand the umbrella of what we call 'hate speech' far beyond what we might both agree is reasonable. It's probably already happened.

That's an awful place to live as well.

replies(1): >>21193552 #
5. luckylion ◴[08 Oct 19 15:45 UTC] No.21193518[source]▶
And to attain that social cohesion, outlawing wrongthink is certainly a way. It is allowed to advocate doing harm to people, it's just that you have to be selective. You can't do it to protected classes, but unprotected groups are just fine, which is why I believe the moral case for hate speech laws typically falls flat. If it was about morals, it would target everybody equally. It doesn't, so it isn't.
replies(1): >>21193571 #
6. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 15:48 UTC] No.21193552{3}[source]▶
The postmodern gobbleygook in this case is the notion that there are no bad opinions and all speech is valid.
replies(1): >>21193737 #
7. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 15:49 UTC] No.21193571{3}[source]▶
That's not true at all. Maybe in America, I have no idea, but where I'm from its applied equally.
replies(2): >>21193775 #>>21194483 #
8. trentnix ◴[08 Oct 19 16:04 UTC] No.21193737{4}[source]▶
And you can't successfully legislative bad opinions and the validity of speech. Because an opinion being bad or speech being valid isn't something the government should concern themselves with.
replies(2): >>21193955 #>>21194073 #
9. trentnix ◴[08 Oct 19 16:07 UTC] No.21193775{4}[source]▶
where I'm from its applied equally

Weren't you saying about people being programmable? Every society throughout history has struggled with administering justice equally. Every single one.

replies(1): >>21194001 #
10. shadowgovt ◴[08 Oct 19 16:24 UTC] No.21193955{5}[source]▶
Remind me again why the US prosecutes ownership and transmission of child pornography?
11. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 16:27 UTC] No.21194001{5}[source]▶
So we should stop trying?

The reality is both ends of the spectrum are undesirable. To move too far in either direction ends in murder and destruction.

12. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 16:33 UTC] No.21194073{5}[source]▶
Why not? There are time-tested slippery slopes in both directions here so the best approach is a cautious one where shades of grey are debated and disputed.
13. luckylion ◴[08 Oct 19 17:11 UTC] No.21194483{4}[source]▶
I've found it to typically not be applied equally, neither in the US nor in Europe (which makes sense, since it's designed to protect marginalized groups). For a quick test, replace some words, i.e. "all X are ..." and make it "all Y are ...", switch minorities and majorities around - you'll be able to tell whether it's considered hate speech then. #YesAllXYZ
replies(1): >>21194575 #
14. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 17:18 UTC] No.21194575{5}[source]▶
Can you provide me with an example?
replies(2): >>21195215 #>>21197351 #
15. luckylion ◴[08 Oct 19 18:12 UTC] No.21195215{6}[source]▶
"Kill all men". There's plenty of generalizations, insults and derogatory statements against groups, it's just not a problem if those groups aren't perceived as oppressed. Change a word or two and voila: hate speech.
replies(1): >>21195641 #
16. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 18:45 UTC] No.21195641{7}[source]▶
Can you provide me of an example where kill all men is not identified as hate speech?
replies(2): >>21195748 #>>21195953 #
17. luckylion ◴[08 Oct 19 18:55 UTC] No.21195748{8}[source]▶
This sounds too much like you moving the goal post along, and I've had those conversations before; I did not find them fruitful. Next up "can you provide a case number where 'kill all $foo' was classified as hate speech by a federal judge who's first name starts with an E".

You can google that sentence, you can read defenses of it and make up your mind. I'm not that passionate about changing a single opinion that I'm going to waste time chasing after your ever expanding requirements.

replies(1): >>21196141 #
18. trentnix ◴[08 Oct 19 19:11 UTC] No.21195953{8}[source]▶
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_%27Em_All
19. streb-lo ◴[08 Oct 19 19:27 UTC] No.21196141{9}[source]▶
Why bother replying if you're not going to be charitable in my assumptions?

I had never heard of the term but I would certainly agree that it's hate speech. It seems to me that it was a twitter hashtag that some people thought was funny.

I don't agree with it but I also think that an equivalent hashtag #killallwomen would have an equally hard time being brought before a judge.

replies(1): >>21196859 #
20. luckylion ◴[08 Oct 19 20:29 UTC] No.21196859{10}[source]▶
> Why bother replying if you're not going to be charitable in my assumptions?

I find it rude to simply turn around and walk away without saying why I chose to. I remembered previous conversations I had that went the same way and ended in me being dragged along and my time being wasted. Fool me once, shame on me etc etc. I apologize if that was not your intention.

21. HeroOfAges ◴[08 Oct 19 21:15 UTC] No.21197351{6}[source]▶
Saying "It's ok to be white" is considered hate speech by many. Saying "It's ok to be black" is a statement of empowerment.
22. bayesian_horse ◴[09 Oct 19 06:31 UTC] No.21200633[source]▶
You should see Hate-Speech more like nuclear chain reaction and laws against that as neutron traps.