←back to thread

Blizzard Suspends Professional Hearthstone Player for Hong Kong Comments

(playhearthstone.com)
2525 points hownottowrite | 5 comments | 08 Oct 19 09:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
smsm42 ◴[08 Oct 19 17:52 UTC] No.21194979[source]▶
Eich never said anything like you attribute to him, neither did many of the opponents of that particular political campaign.

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

Just because you disagree with somebody about policy, it doesn't mean you must hate them. Unfortunately, nowdays it appears to be almost mandatory.

replies(1): >>21195357 #
1. groby_b ◴[08 Oct 19 18:23 UTC] No.21195357[source]▶
Eich donated to a campaign that wanted to nullify gay marriages. I mean sure, you can make the argument that it came from a dispassionate place, but that applies to Eichman et.al. too. You can create hateful end results without ever investing the energy to hate the people you affect.

That doesn't make you any less hateful.

replies(2): >>21210966 #>>21211234 #
2. smsm42 ◴[10 Oct 19 04:42 UTC] No.21210966[source]▶
Way to compare your political opponents to Eichman while lecturing them on not being hateful.
3. BrendanEich ◴[10 Oct 19 05:31 UTC] No.21211234[source]▶
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891, which I will quote in part:

"Prop 8 would not and did not "nullify" any marriages licensed by the state in the middle of 2008. See

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Prop-8-not-retroactive...

Retroactive or ex-post-facto law is unconstitutional. I am a big fan of this principle. It protects all of us."

I did not support nullification, and it was never going to happen, because it would have been unconstitutional, as then-AG/once-and-future-governor Jerry Brown said. What's more, Prop 8 actually passed, and no nullifications occurred.

replies(1): >>21254084 #
4. groby_b ◴[14 Oct 19 23:41 UTC] No.21254084[source]▶
With all due respect, discriminating against gay people was also unconstitutional, that didn't stop it from being introduced. And nullification was a part of what prop 8 proponents asked for from the very beginning. (And filed a lawsuit to achieve right after prop 8 passed)

You chose your bed to lie in, part and parcel - because that's how voting on & supporting propositions works. You don't get to claim post-hoc you were only supporting parts of it.

replies(1): >>21279103 #
5. BrendanEich ◴[17 Oct 19 05:14 UTC] No.21279103{3}[source]▶
I'm not claiming anything "post-hoc", because I have never supported retroactive laws. Have you? Or were you ignorant of their unconstitutionality and projecting that ignorance onto me?

I voted for Obama in 2008, but I didn't endorse everything he did or stood for. If you voted for him, were you at that time lying in bed with his rejection of marriage equality? Answer honestly, and by your own phony standard! You don't get to claim "post-hoc" that you were clairvoyantly counting on him to "evolve" in 2012.

Your reply is deeply dishonest.