←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 1 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 0.199s | 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 #
groby_b ◴[08 Oct 19 13:30 UTC] No.21192055[source]▶
It's kind of hard to say "you do not deserve to share your life with the person you love. You don't deserve to take care of them when they're sick. You don't deserve a family with them. Because you're gay" without actually hating gay people.

Just because you don't call for somebody to be killed doesn't mean you don't hate them.

replies(5): >>21192133 #>>21192375 #>>21192537 #>>21192808 #>>21194979 #
isoskeles ◴[08 Oct 19 14:40 UTC] No.21192808[source]▶
Not allowing a legal marriage recognized by the state doesn't strictly prevent much of what you wrote. Although it does prevent some privileges (e.g. hospital visitation rights) which was definitely an issue at the time.
replies(1): >>21193236 #
damnyou ◴[08 Oct 19 15:20 UTC] No.21193236[source]▶
Hospital visitation is not just "an issue". Taking care of your spouse when they're sick is one of the core aspects of marriage. What else would "in sickness and in health" mean?
replies(1): >>21193454 #
isoskeles ◴[08 Oct 19 15:40 UTC] No.21193454[source]▶
Hey, we can have a conversation like adults or you can browbeat me with semantics. Your choice. You haven't taught me a lesson here by trying to police the words I used.
replies(1): >>21193503 #
damnyou ◴[08 Oct 19 15:44 UTC] No.21193503[source]▶
My point is that hospital visitation rights are incredibly important and a society which fails to extend them to all relationships is actively discriminating.
replies(2): >>21193823 #>>21193878 #
1. isoskeles ◴[08 Oct 19 16:17 UTC] No.21193878[source]▶
Abortion, gun control, taxation, etc. are all referred to as "issues" in politics. I get your point is that this is more important than just an issue, but really the other side of your point is you assumed that I must not think it was of significant importance to use such a phrase as "an issue" to describe it.

Do you rail against society every time abortion is referred to as an "issue"? Seems like an important one, whether or not we think terminating a fetus is moral or immoral.

Do you get upset if you look at a political candidate's campaign website and see a link to a page called "issues"?

You perceived a slight that was not there.

I think / thought it was messed up that two people who love each other, regardless of gender (please don't lay into me for using that word if it's incorrect), could be denied visitation rights at a hospital. That doesn't mean I cannot refer to it as "an issue."