Turn out, partial ownership by chinese company is not a good thing...

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,395
6,659
118
Exley97 said:
Let's say Blizzard reverses course, with Activision's support, and gives the prize money back and updates its policies and allows any and all Hong Kong support. And China, as a result, institutes a country-wide ban on Activision Blizzard game sales, blocks all connections to Battle.net, etc. That's going to cost the company a *significant* amount of revenue (and profits) and create long term damage to the company's stock price.
Honestly, I'm totally for the West blocking the shit out of Chinese firms if China wants to try that.

I know it's not very free market, but it's an absurdity that China gets away with squeezing IP out of Western firms so they do business there, subsidises its companies up the wazoo and generally "cheat" as it sees fit, whilst the West allows Chinese firms comparatively untrammelled access. China might be a big market, but the USA and EU are much, much bigger.

It won't happen because our governments are beholden to corporations who have no real interest where their money comes from and what regimes they are handing power to. A nation that uses its power over corporations rather than vice versa perhaps in the long run can effectively use the West's own corporations against the West.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
9,155
3,086
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
Saelune said:
Agema said:
Saelune said:
Genocidal totalitarian, yeah no, thats right-wing. And I mean, do you really want to defend Stalin?
My eyes are currently rolling so hard they're wearing away their sockets.

What do you really expect? I've spent years sitting here trying to disagree with people claiming Hitler was left-wing, and you think I'm just going to swallow the idea Stalin is right-wing? I really hate to break it to you, but lots of left-wingers have slaughtered their way through political opponents or even just inconvenient citizens minding their own business in the pursuit of ideological absolutism. Pol Pot. Stalin. Mao, take your pick amongst many others.

Acts of staggering brutality are a tool to coerce reluctant societies into compliance with policy, and it's not a tool only emplyoed by right-wingers. Left-wingers ignore this at their and everyone else's peril, otherwise there's every chance they'll end up trying it themselves.
I dont think it is worth trying to appeal to people who think 'Communist' is the same as 'Nazi'. (I am not saying you are that person, I am saying you are trying to appeal to those people)
They're just mistaking Ideology for Command Structure. Yes, technically Authoritarian is an ideology, it more about control a populace, not what the populace should be. Also, Crony Capitalism (eg. Gilded Age) is very Authoritarian but a different Authoritarian to Fascism. It's sort of like Feudalism. The King (government) gives out rights to Lords (CEOs) that control the masses, who have little or no rights. While not directly Authoritarian like some people imagine, its pretty up there. Many ideology can be splintered like this. Trotsky wanted far more blood than Lenin but was kept in check. Lenin, for decades, ousted other Communists out of meetings, because his version of Communism was the only true version. Where, a bunch of Marxists didn't want revolution at all, but a small, steady movement forward to Communism. Because, you know, Communism is meant to be about the people, and letting them have a say in what IS Communism is a feature. Cultural Marxists usually fall into this category, even though they are painted as authoritarian

Trump is yet to send people to jail just because they want extra pay. So, in some ways, this make him less authoritarian than Reagan. But he locks way more people up for trying to cross the border, which makes him more authoritarian than Reagan. (People keep forgetting why Reagan was bad. Comparing what he did worse than Trump so far is a good reminder.)
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,267
3,972
118
Silent Protagonist said:
The genocides perpetuated by those "right wing fascists" as you delusionally describe them were done to cull those peoples they deemed to be holding back society from their far left Utopian ideal. I feel like I remember someone on this forum advocating similar cullings for the benefit of society back in the days of the Wild West, but that person must have been a secret right winger.
Technically not a genocide if it's over ideological grounds, though. It's more like a Mafia murder, nothing personal, just business. Not saying it's any comfort to the people ending up in mass graves, though.

In any case, while I could accept the idea that Communist Leader X was more accurately described as fascist, any number of the people carrying out the orders would have most definitely been Communist, even if their actions and their ideals needed quite some mental gymnastics to bring together.

davidmc1158 said:
China knows it has the economic power to wield and it's just now coming to light for many corporations and national governments elsewhere just how much power that really means. Also, as other nations get puled into the debt-structures that China has been building in order to gain further and stronger influence worldwide, that economic power is just going to grow. But, how do you deal with it? How do you, as a company, maneuver your way through this mess without failing at the one thing you are supposed to do for the shareholders (make as much profit as possible)?

Welcome to the 21st century Catch 22. And that's all before you realize that China is also pushing forward on developing it's military power at the same time. China is determined to be a full-on world class superpower. The Middle Kingdom is rising again and the barbarians are going to be put back in their subordinate places once more.

I am not looking forward to these developments. And adding the surveillance technology and social control systems that China has also developed, I was not speaking flippantly about what's coming as dystopian.
China's been pushing for superpower status for some time, though, it's a slow game and one that doesn't benefit from overt military action so much. I'd say they be more of a "threat" if they played by the rules, very easy to buy out half of Africa if nobody else wants to play and you don't rock the boat.

Until recently, I wasn't too concerned with China, they've got serious domestic problems of their own, but then the US decided to set itself on fire for the lulz and the UK is trying to follow suit.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Blizzard finally issued a statement -- at 6 pm last night, which is the classic Friday evening news dump. And I can see why they did that because it's pretty bad and includes this gem:

"The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision."

https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,395
6,659
118
Thaluikhain said:
In any case, while I could accept the idea that Communist Leader X was more accurately described as fascist...
You pretty much cannot accept the idea that Communist leaders could be better described as fascist, for much the same reason you can't reasonably argue that blue could be better described as red.
 

Agema

Do everything and feel nothing
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
9,395
6,659
118
Exley97 said:
Blizzard finally issued a statement -- at 6 pm last night, which is the classic Friday evening news dump. And I can see why they did that because it's pretty bad and includes this gem:
I'd love a test: let's have someone make a shout out for action against climate change, and see if that inspires retaliation from Blizzard.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,637
2,858
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Exley97 said:
Blizzard finally issued a statement -- at 6 pm last night, which is the classic Friday evening news dump. And I can see why they did that because it's pretty bad and includes this gem:

"The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision."

https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard/23185888/regarding-last-weekend-s-hearthstone-grandmasters-tournament
For anyone that wants to full statement and doesn't want to go through a link.

Hello Blizzard Community . . .

I want to take a few minutes to talk to all of you about the Hearthstone Grandmasters tournament this past weekend. On Monday, we made the decision to take action against a player named blitzchung and two shoutcasters after the player shared his views on what?s happening in Hong Kong on our official broadcast channel.

At Blizzard, our vision is ?to bring the world together through epic entertainment.? And we have core values that apply here: Think Globally; Lead Responsibly; and importantly, Every Voice Matters, encouraging everybody to share their point of view. The actions that we took over the weekend are causing people to question if we are still committed to these values. We absolutely are and I will explain.

Our esports programs are an expression of our vision and our values. Esports exist to create opportunities for players from around the world, from different cultures, and from different backgrounds, to come together to compete and share their passion for gaming. It is extremely important to us to protect these channels and the purpose they serve: to bring the world together through epic entertainment, celebrate our players, and build diverse and inclusive communities.

As to how those values apply in this case:

First, our official esports tournament broadcast was used as a platform for a winner of this event to share his views with the world.

We interview competitors who are at the top of their craft to share how they feel. We want to experience that moment with them. Hearing their excitement is a powerful way to bring us together.

Over the weekend, blitzchung used his segment to make a statement about the situation in Hong Kong?in violation of rules he acknowledged and understood, and this is why we took action.

Every Voice Matters, and we strongly encourage everyone in our community to share their viewpoints in the many places available to express themselves. However, the official broadcast needs to be about the tournament and to be a place where all are welcome. In support of that, we want to keep the official channels focused on the game.

Second, what is the role of shoutcasters for these broadcasts?

We hire shoutcasters to amplify the excitement of the game. They elevate the watchability and help the esports viewing experience stay focused on the tournament and our amazing players.

Third, were our actions based on the content of the message?

Part of Thinking Globally, Leading Responsibly, and Every Voice Matters is recognizing that we have players and fans in almost every country in the world. Our goal is to help players connect in areas of commonality, like their passion for our games, and create a sense of shared community.

The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.

We have these rules to keep the focus on the game and on the tournament to the benefit of a global audience, and that was the only consideration in the actions we took.

If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.

OK, what could Blizzard have done better, and where do we go from here?

Over the past few days, many players, casters, esports fans, and employees have expressed concerns about how we determined the penalties. We?ve had a chance to pause, to listen to our community, and to reflect on what we could have done better. In hindsight, our process wasn?t adequate, and we reacted too quickly.

We want to ensure that we maintain a safe and inclusive environment for all our players, and that our rules and processes are clear. All of this is in service of another important Blizzard value?Play Nice; Play Fair.

In the tournament itself blitzchung *played* fair. We now believe he should receive his prizing. We understand that for some this is not about the prize, and perhaps for others it is disrespectful to even discuss it. That is not our intention.

But playing fair also includes appropriate pre-and post-match conduct, especially when a player accepts recognition for winning in a broadcast. When we think about the suspension, six months for blitzchung is more appropriate, after which time he can compete in the Hearthstone pro circuit again if he so chooses. There is a consequence for taking the conversation away from the purpose of the event and disrupting or derailing the broadcast.

With regard to the casters, remember their purpose is to keep the event focused on the tournament. That didn?t happen here, and we are setting their suspension to six months as well.

Moving forward, we will continue to apply tournament rules to ensure our official broadcasts remain focused on the game and are not a platform for divisive social or political views.

One of our goals at Blizzard is to make sure that every player, everywhere in the world, regardless of political views, religious beliefs, race, gender, or any other consideration always feels safe and welcome both competing in and playing our games.

At Blizzard, we are always listening and finding ways to improve?it is part of our culture. Thank you for your patience with us as we continue to learn.

Sincerely,

J. Allen Brack
President of Blizzard Entertainment

They've reduced the punishment of Blitz and the casters, the casters have been suspended for 6 months as has Blitz who will also receive his full prize money.

I'm not of the opinion that this is some secret Friday "dump" considering they've actually reduced the punishment. I think it's more likely that, because this is a company, it took a long time for an agreement of what to do and how to say it was reached.
 
Oct 22, 2011
1,223
0
0
Thaluikhain said:
Technically not a genocide if it's over ideological grounds, though. It's more like a Mafia murder, nothing personal, just business. Not saying it's any comfort to the people ending up in mass graves, though.
If on those "ideological grounds" people of specific ethnicity are targeted, is it still not enough to count it as genocide?
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Specter Von Baren said:
I'm not of the opinion that this is some secret Friday "dump" considering they've actually reduced the punishment. I think it's more likely that, because this is a company, it took a long time for an agreement of what to do and how to say it was reached.
Blizzard posted this at 5:30 pm EST on a Friday. That's a Friday news dump. They're not trying to do it in "secret" -- they're just trying to minize the amount of bad headlines and media scrutiny that would probably come if it had been released on a Wednesday, for example.

Also, if you're proud of a corporate decision, think it reflects favorably on you and want as many people to see it and read about it as possible? You don't do it on a Friday evening. They know this is bad, and they know no one -- NO ONE -- could reasonably believe that "China had no influence on our decision."

They did the absolute bare minimum to try to appease fans. And it doesn't sound like it's working. At all.
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,637
2,858
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
Exley97 said:
Specter Von Baren said:
I'm not of the opinion that this is some secret Friday "dump" considering they've actually reduced the punishment. I think it's more likely that, because this is a company, it took a long time for an agreement of what to do and how to say it was reached.
Blizzard posted this at 5:30 pm EST on a Friday. That's a Friday news dump. They're not trying to do it in "secret" -- they're just trying to minize the amount of bad headlines and media scrutiny that would probably come if it had been released on a Wednesday, for example.

Also, if you're proud of a corporate decision, think it reflects favorably on you and want as many people to see it and read about it as possible? You don't do it on a Friday evening. They know this is bad, and they know no one -- NO ONE -- could reasonably believe that "China had no influence on our decision."

They did the absolute bare minimum to try to appease fans. And it doesn't sound like it's working. At all.
Or you try to come to a decision as soon as possible and get it out as soon as possible. And wasn't this message posted in multiple languages for different people? As in, it wasn't just for American audiences? Blizzcon is right around the corner, I don't see the value in not posting a response as soon as you can get one together is when many people are talking about protesting it. And about people talking about it, they knew people were still talking about this, just on the Hearthstone reddit the talk had not slowed at all, and they knew that it hadn't, how does releasing this on Friday hide it from the people that are most interested in this?
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Silent Protagonist said:
Saelune said:
Silent Protagonist said:
Thaluikhain said:
Saelune said:
And I mean, do you really want to defend Stalin?
Pretty sure Agema isn't defending Stalin there.
Saelune thinks right wing means evil and left wing means good. So when Agema says "Stalin was not right wing." they hear "Stalin was not evil." Saelune's rantings make a lot more sense once you realize their conception of left and right is not a rough spectrum of various socio-economic philosophies, but are simple stand ins for good and evil. That's why they have delude themselves into thinking anything they think is bad is right wing because left wing is good by definition.
Left-Wing = Pro-Human Rights.

The core idea of communism is to create equality by tearing down the evils of capitalism and greed. However due to those evils and how inherent they are in humans, it never works out and right-wing fascists like Stalin and Mao use it to conquer the common person.

When the right supports concentration camps, pedophiles, religious extremism, and keeping rights from women and LGBT people, all in the name of 'cause thats how it used to be', that is evil. When the left supports rights for women, for LGBT people, for all ethnicities, freedom FROM religion, and basic human living conditions, that is good.

It is people who try to argue that child rapists and child killers and White Supremacists deserve to be heard who are delusional.
China sounds pretty left wing by your description. They too heavily restrict the practice of religion, suppress the spread of ideologies they consider to be dangerous, and exert heavy control on how people live. Hell, they'll even go as far as to harvest the organs from those evil people with their evil ideas for the benefit of the good little citizens that stay in line. The only thing that doesn't really fit is their spotty record regarding LGBT people.

The genocides perpetuated by those "right wing fascists" as you delusionally describe them were done to cull those peoples they deemed to be holding back society from their far left Utopian ideal. I feel like I remember someone on this forum advocating similar cullings for the benefit of society back in the days of the Wild West, but that person must have been a secret right winger.
This is just 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in way more words.

It is not the same and you know it. Just as punching someone for being black is not the same as punching someone trying to rape you. 'But they are both punching someone and violence is always bad'. Context always matters.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
19,267
3,972
118
Agema said:
You pretty much cannot accept the idea that Communist leaders could be better described as fascist, for much the same reason you can't reasonably argue that blue could be better described as red.
I can accept things that are official labelled as Blue as being better described as Red. Any number of nations have "Democratic" in the title, which may or may not be the case, same applies to the word "Communist".

MrCalavera said:
If on those "ideological grounds" people of specific ethnicity are targeted, is it still not enough to count it as genocide?
If they are targeting ethnicities, then it certainly counts. As I understand it, normally it's place and people that are politically expedient to remove, not a race thing.
 

Exley97_v1legacy

New member
Jul 9, 2014
217
0
0
Specter Von Baren said:
Exley97 said:
Specter Von Baren said:
I'm not of the opinion that this is some secret Friday "dump" considering they've actually reduced the punishment. I think it's more likely that, because this is a company, it took a long time for an agreement of what to do and how to say it was reached.
Blizzard posted this at 5:30 pm EST on a Friday. That's a Friday news dump. They're not trying to do it in "secret" -- they're just trying to minize the amount of bad headlines and media scrutiny that would probably come if it had been released on a Wednesday, for example.

Also, if you're proud of a corporate decision, think it reflects favorably on you and want as many people to see it and read about it as possible? You don't do it on a Friday evening. They know this is bad, and they know no one -- NO ONE -- could reasonably believe that "China had no influence on our decision."

They did the absolute bare minimum to try to appease fans. And it doesn't sound like it's working. At all.
Or you try to come to a decision as soon as possible and get it out as soon as possible. And wasn't this message posted in multiple languages for different people? As in, it wasn't just for American audiences? Blizzcon is right around the corner, I don't see the value in not posting a response as soon as you can get one together is when many people are talking about protesting it. And about people talking about it, they knew people were still talking about this, just on the Hearthstone reddit the talk had not slowed at all, and they knew that it hadn't, how does releasing this on Friday hide it from the people that are most interested in this?
You're not hearing me -- I know releasing the statement on a Friday evening doesn't "hide it" from people. This is too big of an issue for the people that are more interested and invested in it. A Friday news dump isn't necessarily designed to hide the information, it's designed to dampen the media scrutiny that you'd otherwise get the rest of the week. Releasing the statement at that hour when a lot of reporters/writers/media members have left for the day and won't return until Monday will, the theory goes, produce fewer negative articles/headlines during that two-day span, which is good for the company. Because less media scrutiny means less people outside of Blizzard's core audience will see and digest those aricles and headlines (I'm talking parents, more casual gamers, investors, etc.). That matters to Blizzard, as it matters to every public company with publicly traded shares.

And if this was a matter of Blizzard wanteing to take their time to reach the best possible decision, and one that they were proud of, then the best course of action would have been to at least alert people a statement would be coming on Friday, or better yet tell the public that a full statement would be coming Monday morning.

But that's not what they did. The posted it, without warning, at nearly 6 pm EST on a Friday. Hence the term...."Friday News Dump."
 

Smithnikov_v1legacy

New member
May 7, 2016
1,020
1
0
This is a microcosm of just how much China scares the buhjeezus out of me. It's also a great demonstration that capitalism has no loyalty to the values of a free nation, or indeed, loyalty to anything but what ever makes money NOW.
 

Silent Protagonist

New member
Aug 29, 2012
270
0
0
Saelune said:
This is just 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in way more words.

It is not the same and you know it. Just as punching someone for being black is not the same as punching someone trying to rape you. 'But they are both punching someone and violence is always bad'. Context always matters.
Yes, pointing out the human rights abuses of China and the excuses their government gives for committing them is the same as saying Nazis have a valid opinion./s

Now maybe I'm just not smart enough, but I fail to imagine a context that justifies the government (or anyone) slaughtering millions of their own citizens in order to advance their agenda. I find that to be unjustifiable no matter whether it's the Nazis, the various communist regimes that have done that, or any of the other tyrants of history that have committed such acts. You seem to disagree, otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to justify such cullings of human life or ever suggest society would be better off if we just managed to cull the right people.

You define the left as the side of human rights in the same post you praise the left for being willing to take away human rights from those they oppose. It boggles my mind as to how you can internally justify your authoritarian mindset while decrying every instance of governments using their powers for evil as somehow being divorced from that mindset. It makes me think of the "good guy with a gun" argument when it comes to the gun debate. You and others like you seem to believe that the only way to prevent a tyrants rising to power and suppressing our rights is to give the government more power and authority to suppress our rights.
Smithnikov said:
This is a microcosm of just how much China scares the buhjeezus out of me. It's also a great demonstration that capitalism has no loyalty to the values of a free nation, or indeed, loyalty to anything but what ever makes money NOW.
I agree. It deeply concerns me that because of its economic power the rest of the world can become indirectly subject to its oppressive censorship. Though your post also makes me wonder, if China is no longer communist because it does not practice the communist ideals it claims to preach, when do capitalists stop being considered capitalists when they are willing to ignore or even deliberately undermine the principles that are supposed to make capitalism work? I know it's really just a minor semantic thing, but it does annoy me a little bit whenever a "company does a bad/greedy thing" story comes up and people blame capitalism when it's not really the fault of capitalism per se but the result of economic or game theory principles that continue to exist and remain in play regardless of the economic system the government tries to enforce. I usually don't say anything because contrary to my actions in this thread I don't have much interest in being an apologist for capitalism (which is at best the least bad system we have because it tries to work with said market and economic principles rather than against them IMO)and I know that capitalism represents the status quo and when something is wrong with the status quo it's easy to blame capitalism.

For example: not that long ago scientists discovered a meteor made of gold or something and some article put it into the terms of "enough gold to make everyone on Earth a billionaire" and when someone pointed out in a comment that isn't how economics works and if gold were made that abundant its price would plummet, many of the responses were along the line of "Great, capitalism found a way ruin to ruin science." It isn't capitalism that would make gold worthless in this scenario, it's the nature of supply and demand. It also doubles as an example of a similar annoyance I have when people use the word "science" as interchangeable with engineering or physics or reality. I'm looking at you Matt Damon's character in The Martian . Despite all the buzz about it being movie about using science to save the day, no science is done in that film. Everything that is done in that film is a feat of engineering not science. It bugs me far more than it should.

That ended up going in a weird direction again. Not as weird as shower crabs but still
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Silent Protagonist said:
Saelune said:
This is just 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in way more words.

It is not the same and you know it. Just as punching someone for being black is not the same as punching someone trying to rape you. 'But they are both punching someone and violence is always bad'. Context always matters.
Yes, pointing out the human rights abuses of China and the excuses their government gives for committing them is the same as saying Nazis have a valid opinion./s

Now maybe I'm just not smart enough, but I fail to imagine a context that justifies the government (or anyone) slaughtering millions of their own citizens in order to advance their agenda. I find that to be unjustifiable no matter whether it's the Nazis, the various communist regimes that have done that, or any of the other tyrants of history that have committed such acts. You seem to disagree, otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to justify such cullings of human life or ever suggest society would be better off if we just managed to cull the right people.

You define the left as the side of human rights in the same post you praise the left for being willing to take away human rights from those they oppose. It boggles my mind as to how you can internally justify your authoritarian mindset while decrying every instance of governments using their powers for evil as somehow being divorced from that mindset. It makes me think of the "good guy with a gun" argument when it comes to the gun debate. You and others like you seem to believe that the only way to prevent a tyrants rising to power and suppressing our rights is to give the government more power and authority to suppress our rights.
Nazis, White Supremacists, thats who we are opposing. But thanks for proving my point. Seriously, you just did 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in even MORE words!
 

Marik2

Phone Poster
Nov 10, 2009
5,462
0
0
I just want to see an entire NBA stadium waving Hong Kong signs, just to see if the entire stadium gets kicked out.
 

Silent Protagonist

New member
Aug 29, 2012
270
0
0
Saelune said:
Silent Protagonist said:
Saelune said:
This is just 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in way more words.

It is not the same and you know it. Just as punching someone for being black is not the same as punching someone trying to rape you. 'But they are both punching someone and violence is always bad'. Context always matters.
Yes, pointing out the human rights abuses of China and the excuses their government gives for committing them is the same as saying Nazis have a valid opinion./s

Now maybe I'm just not smart enough, but I fail to imagine a context that justifies the government (or anyone) slaughtering millions of their own citizens in order to advance their agenda. I find that to be unjustifiable no matter whether it's the Nazis, the various communist regimes that have done that, or any of the other tyrants of history that have committed such acts. You seem to disagree, otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to justify such cullings of human life or ever suggest society would be better off if we just managed to cull the right people.

You define the left as the side of human rights in the same post you praise the left for being willing to take away human rights from those they oppose. It boggles my mind as to how you can internally justify your authoritarian mindset while decrying every instance of governments using their powers for evil as somehow being divorced from that mindset. It makes me think of the "good guy with a gun" argument when it comes to the gun debate. You and others like you seem to believe that the only way to prevent a tyrants rising to power and suppressing our rights is to give the government more power and authority to suppress our rights.
Nazis, White Supremacists, thats who we are opposing. But thanks for proving my point. Seriously, you just did 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in even MORE words!
I've never suggested Nazis are just a different opinion. How is my repeatedly decrying the atrocities of committed by the Nazis endorsing the beliefs of the Nazis? Is it because I don't exclusively decry the atrocities of the Nazis while giving a pass to other groups that have or wish to commit atrocities and abuse human rights. I'm not a pacifist, I know violence is sometimes warranted. But you? You seem to believe that genocide is sometimes warranted. You see my post decrying people being murdered en mass by their own governments, and think "Wait, this guy thinks I shouldn't be able to round up the groups I find morally or ideologically abhorrent and exterminate them and anyone else who stands in my way? He must me some kind of Nazi apologist because the Nazis are one of the groups that would be on my list to be culled". I know why I find the Nazis and oppressive regimes like China to be morally abhorrent, but I'm becoming increasingly unclear why you do. You seem to take no issue with the horrific methods they use(d) to impose their will, only with who they chose to impose those massive violations of life and human rights on. You can claim whatever you like about my posts, but your posts are just "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" in more words.
 

Saelune

Trump put kids in cages!
Legacy
Mar 8, 2011
8,411
16
23
Silent Protagonist said:
Saelune said:
Silent Protagonist said:
Saelune said:
This is just 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in way more words.

It is not the same and you know it. Just as punching someone for being black is not the same as punching someone trying to rape you. 'But they are both punching someone and violence is always bad'. Context always matters.
Yes, pointing out the human rights abuses of China and the excuses their government gives for committing them is the same as saying Nazis have a valid opinion./s

Now maybe I'm just not smart enough, but I fail to imagine a context that justifies the government (or anyone) slaughtering millions of their own citizens in order to advance their agenda. I find that to be unjustifiable no matter whether it's the Nazis, the various communist regimes that have done that, or any of the other tyrants of history that have committed such acts. You seem to disagree, otherwise you wouldn't be attempting to justify such cullings of human life or ever suggest society would be better off if we just managed to cull the right people.

You define the left as the side of human rights in the same post you praise the left for being willing to take away human rights from those they oppose. It boggles my mind as to how you can internally justify your authoritarian mindset while decrying every instance of governments using their powers for evil as somehow being divorced from that mindset. It makes me think of the "good guy with a gun" argument when it comes to the gun debate. You and others like you seem to believe that the only way to prevent a tyrants rising to power and suppressing our rights is to give the government more power and authority to suppress our rights.
Nazis, White Supremacists, thats who we are opposing. But thanks for proving my point. Seriously, you just did 'Nazis are just a different opinion' in even MORE words!
I've never suggested Nazis are just a different opinion. How is my repeatedly decrying the atrocities of committed by the Nazis endorsing the beliefs of the Nazis? Is it because I don't exclusively decry the atrocities of the Nazis while giving a pass to other groups that have or wish to commit atrocities and abuse human rights. I'm not a pacifist, I know violence is sometimes warranted. But you? You seem to believe that genocide is sometimes warranted. You see my post decrying people being murdered en mass by their own governments, and think "Wait, this guy thinks I shouldn't be able to round up the groups I find morally or ideologically abhorrent and exterminate them and anyone else who stands in my way? He must me some kind of Nazi apologist because the Nazis are one of the groups that would be on my list to be culled". I know why I find the Nazis and oppressive regimes like China to be morally abhorrent, but I'm becoming increasingly unclear why you do. You seem to take no issue with the horrific methods they use(d) to impose their will, only with who they chose to impose those massive violations of life and human rights on. You can claim whatever you like about my posts, but your posts are just "there are no bad tactics, only bad targets" in more words.
The bolded is you suggesting exactly that. And then you use the rest of the post to continue doing exactly that. And at no point have I condoned genocide, infact I spend alot of time condemning it.
 

Silent Protagonist

New member
Aug 29, 2012
270
0
0
Marik2 said:
I just want to see an entire NBA stadium waving Hong Kong signs, just to see if the entire stadium gets kicked out.
I too want to see more of this. I don't think voting with your wallet is going to work when the wallet you are voting against is as big as China's. I think we should use China's hatred of free speech to our advantage. We can hijack their fear of letting their citizens be exposed to any speech or information that the Communist Party considers to be dangerous to their continued rule to let us vote with their wallet. I don't begrudge companies who are willing to do business with China, but I do begrudge companies who are willing to curtail our freedom of speech in order to do so. I love the idea that we can use our freedom of speech to seriously stand up to those who don't value it in a very tangible way. I hope Mei becomes enough of a symbol of the Hong Kong protests to make China's government afraid enough to take action against Blizzard. The NBA is already hurting as its relationship with China deteriorates. We may not be able to bring down China, but we can certainly make companies think twice before trying to sell out our rights to them.