r/Competitiveoverwatch Apr 05 '18

Discussion Racism vs Racial Insensitivity in Esports

[EDIT 2] adding more explicit commentary because reading comprehension is hard.

The esports community has failed at this distinction and it has caused a lot of drama and consternation.

Racism is believing awful things about some group. [EDIT] Think of this as a measure of Character.

Racial insensitivity is saying something about a group that is offensive. [EDIT] Think of this as characterizing someones actions. You could also call this "racist actions", describing the actions a person took. I chose the phrasing to make a distinction between actions and character, not to pretend that this made the actions not racist.

[EDIT 2] The phrasing doesn't matter here and it's a shame I can't edit the title because people are caught up on this. The important distinction (again) is character judgement vs actions. Neither racist actions no racist character are something the community should tolerate. The distinction only matters in that someone who does not want to be known as racist will be willing to reform their racist or otherwise offensive behaviors when given the opportunity. That's why it's important to remember that, when it comes to Actions and Character:

These are not the same thing.

Both are incredibly important. Impact is more important than intent; it's important to be cognizant of how your actions are interpreted by the world around you. [EDIT 2] This means that being racially sensitive is a terrible thing and merits the punishments that have been getting given out.

That said, it's similarly inappropriate to always assume racism in the presence of racial insensitivity. [EDIT 2] This means that not everyone who says something awful and punishment-worth is doing so out of outright racism. Young, dumb kids say and do dumb shit for reasons above and beyond being a terrible person.

The important behavior we want to teach to players and fans is that sensitivity matters, and we undermine that by accusing everyone who makes a mistake on the sensitivity front of being immediately racist/homophobic/etc.

Racial and other insensitivity is and should continue to be punished by the Overwatch league and its constituent teams. The important result of this should be that lessons are learned, not that players are crucified.

Take a look at EQO's case - he made a mistake. For a lot of us, it's an obvious mistake but clearly not one he thought of. Both he and the Philadelphia Fusion made sincere responses to the mistake. This is a perfect example of how this shit should be handled. We as a community should also treat it as such, and while we should be harsh on players who do make these mistakes, we should also encourage these young people from various backgrounds to learn from such mistakes. Let them be examples to their fans, don't bury them in negativity.

This is really important.

[EDIT 2] For clarity since this has been all over the comments, EQO not only fucked up bigtime through his actions, he made it worse by trying to play coverup. The good response absolutely was at the behest of some authority figure in the Fusion, and that's exactly what we should expect of organizations in the league. We, as a community, should take a trust-but-verify approach - give the Fusion credit for their swift response and give EQO the benefit of the doubt that this was a lapse of judgement, but also keep an eye out that the final statement was sincere.

Take a look at XQC for another example.

In full disclosure, I don't like XQC. I don't like the majority of his fans. I'm probably naturally biased against him.

However, I don't think he's a racist, and I sympathize with the guy who is broken over being saddled with this label by the powers that be.

He made a mistake. Sure, he hasn't really shown that he understands this but at the same time, how the heck could he? He's being told he's racist which isn't something he's capable of identifying with. He doesn't share the beliefs he's being accused of, so how could he get anything from this?

He's not a racist. He made a huge fuckup and has been hounded by the community as if he's evil. He's not evil, he fucked up. He displayed poor judgement, that doesn't make him a bad person - it makes him human.

[EDIT 2] I thought this was clear from context but the important distinction is that he doesn't see him as a racist and continuing to accuse him of that worldview doesn't help anything. His actions WERE racist. You could say he was "acting racist" or "being racist" in reference to his actions if that terminology fits it better. Does he have a racist worldview? Only insofar as he clearly doesn't understand why it's important to be sensitive about how you show up publicly.

XQC isn't the first and EQO won't be the last to make these mistakes. So let's learn a lesson as a community and give these players the window to improve themselves and how they show up in public. Condemn the action, not the person - give them the window to reform. Let them acknowledge the difference between intent vs impact and use these examples to teach the community about why this matters.

Demonizing the people only undermines the opportunity for a lesson to be learned by the players and the community as a whole.

Let's maintain our standards, but enable our players to rise above careless behavior to those standards. Let's not saddle them eternally with the baggage of a mistake made of youth, ignorance, community-driven habit, and/or carelessness. Let's not make accusations of a person's character when they yet have the opportunity to grow from a poor choice.

[EDIT] This has gotten way more traction than I ever thought it would, so I'd like to clarify a few things in simple terms.

  1. The punishments were good and appropriate. I think the first reaction to negative behavior would be to stop it and punish. Only after should we look at how to rehabilitate bad behavior.

  2. The distinction I'm trying to draw here is the difference between Actions and Character. I think a redeemable Character can perform reprehensible actions. In the case someone does something reprehensible, we shouldn't shut the door on them redeeming themselves if they choose to accept responsibility and reform. That's really all I'm trying to say.

1.1k Upvotes

714 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

58

u/mig-san Apr 05 '18

Same with casual homophobia, people use terms like 'that's gay' not refering to sexuality, but just in a negative manner as if it were the equivalent of 'that's bad'

-38

u/Voidward Apr 05 '18

I think it's best people just stop talking altogether. Eventually every piece of human interaction will be labelled offensive by someone, so why take the chance? Twitch emotes get you banned, touching your face wrong gets you banned, the wrong word gets you banned, why take the chance?

Turn off your mic, turn off your webcam, and just sit in a room silently playing video games so that no one can be violently assaulted through their screen over the internet.

50

u/merrissey 8=============D ameng wuz here — Apr 05 '18

This line of thinking is so hilarious. "I can't wrap my brain around why people are offended by certain things and refuse to even attempt to broaden my perspective, so I'm just gonna act like everyone is so outrageously over reactionary that we're living in a dystopian pro censorship society!"

-17

u/Voidward Apr 05 '18

People can be as offended as they want. I can understand people being as offended by anything they want. You have the right to be as triggered by anything you choose. Some people are deathly afraid of balloons, and they have a right to be.

You don't have a right to compel the speech of others. This is something you don't understand. Feelings don't trump liberty and law. There's only one country in the world that has freedom of speech in it's laws and people like you are absolutely fine with stripping it over hurt feelings. I find that absolutely disgusting.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

We don't live in a dystopian pro censorship society, but people like you are certainly doing your best to push it in that direction. I can't grasp how you can watch 1984 and say "yeah that has no similarities to my advocacy that certain speech be punishable by fine or law. People probably should be literally punished for wrongthink, but that has no relation to this dystopian future the author was attempting to warn me of."

23

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '18

“I think people should be more aware of how common casual racism/homophobia is, and how it impacts minorities.”

“Wow this is how 1984 begins. Welcome to our dystopian reality everyone, might as well see my mouth shut.” -Voidward

-15

u/Voidward Apr 05 '18

People should be more aware. Certainly.

Do tell, how does fining someone 3 times come into being aware? How does making it essentially illegal to say things within their job qualify as awareness to you?

You are extremely dense if you think censorship and awareness are the same thing. He is literally being censored, because if he keeps doing this, he will be ejected from OWL, gauranteed. That is censorship no matter how you try to twist this.

You are in denial. You are pro censorship and you're trying to play this off as something else, my Orwellian friend.

14

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '18

Calling punishments within a job “illegal”

K

I’m convinced you’re just a troll by this and other comments, it’s kinda sad really.

-2

u/Voidward Apr 05 '18

I figured you'd find an excuse to exit the argument when you had no more ways of defending your position. Later I guess?

He literally cannot do something or else he will lose his job and a lot of money. Yes, it's within the company's right to do so, and it's still censorship that this subreddit is wholly advocating for. That isn't spreading awareness, that's denying speech. I'm sorry you have no way of defending this.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 05 '18

That's not censorship. Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, especially because our speech is (mostly) protected from the government, not private entities. Beyond that, it's not like Blizzard is would ban EQO from streaming Overwatch. He's an employee. Employment has rules, and private businesses have a lot of power and leeway in how they run things. If you have an issue with it, then take it up with the concept of private property.

It's not censorship. Unless, of course, you believe employers should not be allowed to fire employees for speech.

And I'm sure you support Colin Kaepernick too, consider he's barred from the NFL de facto by owners for his speech.

-6

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

You're taking this in another angle from the guy I replied to above. I'm not against private businesses doing what they want in terms of their employees.

My issue is with this dude spinning this as though it's about promoting awareness. I have no issue with someone going out and saying "that's not cool." or "this shit brings back bad memories, please don't in the future". Most people don't want to be assholes.

Taking money away from someone doesn't promote awareness. It's a punishment and a deterrent. This dude can legit be fired if this happens again. It's absolutely about controlling his speech, even if there was absolutely no malice behind his actions.

Beyond that, it's not like Blizzard is would ban EQO from streaming Overwatch

I don't actually agree. They could absolutely ban someone from the game and claim they broke TOS, and twitch could ban them for the same reasons. Discrimination clause is fairly common in TOS, and if they choose to interpret this or similar action in this way or had enough people campaign for this, it absolutely could happen.

There's a man in Scotland right now who was convicted for posting a joke on youtube, that he clearly stated was a joke in the video, targeting no one directly, that a judge ruled was disparaging against Jews when he was in fact ridiculing nazis. Shit like this is deeply depressing to me.

I strongly disagree with the idea that wrongthing could cost you your job because someone somewhere could have their feelings hurt because they choose to misinterpret or ignore intent.

13

u/[deleted] Apr 06 '18

I'm taking it in another angle because I don't agree with your framing of the issue. I'm not super interested in what the other guy said. I'm just so tired of hearing "X is censorship" whenever someone is punished for being racist. It's not censorship because these are private associations. Our society is structured to allow private entities to do more or less what they want based on what's best for their business - even if it's morally wrong. It's fundamental to our society. Now, I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm unabashedly a leftist, so I'm not actually in favor of this. But it's not censorship when a boss fires a worker for trying to form a union. It's wrong. But it's not censorship.

When it comes to an issue like what EQO did, he has to understand that he doesn't choose how his words are interpreted. You don't. I don't. No one does. Any communication - including body language or gestures, like the one EQO did - rely on cultural contexts. And we live in a culture - in a world - where Western propaganda meant to dehumanize East Asians has exaggerated their eyes, making them into a joke. It's spread, and it's still used to insult Asians today. Even if there's no malice behind it (and we can't know, though I'm sure he wasn't trying to be racist), he ultimately referenced this history.

Something similar happened in my personal life. I was joking with a black acquaintance in college, and I did a "YEAH BOIII" in a Lil' John voice. He looked at me, visibly pissed, and with a still, angry voice and said "Don't call me boy again." I wasn't trying to insult or offend him. It was completely incidental. But I made a joke that had me (a white guy) calling him (a black guy) boy, which is racist. Do I consider myself a racist? No. I loathe racism. But my intent didn't matter. Because intent doesn't matter. If I intend to high five you, and I slap you in the face, does it take away the pain? No. You might understand, but it doesn't undo the slap. And really, how can you know that wasn't what I wanted to do all along? So what I'm saying is, your intent doesn't matter. People usually don't choose to misinterpret or ignore intent without some serious agenda. I don't think anyone's specifically targeting EQO because if Taimou or Jake or Logix did this, there would be the same outrage. And yeah, some people will bullshit and willfully misinterpret stuff, but more often than not they're honest. And it takes a cult leader for a whole group of people to willfully misinterpret words. That's not what's going on here. I don't think anyone's out to get EQO. If I thought this was being done to punish him specifically because the owners doesn't like them criticizing them, but they can't punish him for it, so they need an excuse, then I'd agree. But it's not. I just wish Blizzard would be more consistent.

So does he deserve to be punished? I'd say yeah, he does. This has more to do with feelings. I'm personally unaffected. But Blizzard is trying to run a business, and they want OWL to be a welcoming space. Gaming has issues with inclusivity, so showing that anything racist (or broadly considered racist) will not be tolerated is critical to do this. Otherwise, people can look at OWL, look at its players doing questionable shit, look at the people inevitably pushing the line, and say "Wow, this is problematic." Or Blizzard can punish players. It's not about controlling EQO's speech as much as it is ensuring OWL is welcoming towards all. You can't do that if people are being toxic.

Besides, if we take consequences to equal controlling then you're saying speech shouldn't have consequences. And if you do, then that's you. But I just don't agree with that because words matter. They change minds, create feelings, spur action. They're not meaningless by definition. Actions demand consequences.

Yes, Blizzard could ban EQO. I should have said they're not going to ban him from streaming, much like they haven't banned XQC from streaming. Sure, they're broad, but how often do platforms like Twitter or Facebook or large social media sites - including Reddit - ban users for hate speech? Not often.

Plus, EQO still has the opportunity to learn, grow, and get better. This isn't defining him. He made a mistake. It sucks. I hope he learns and grows from it.

And yeah, the British government under Theresa May really sucks for privacy and speech rights. But that's the Brits. Plus, it's not censorship like Orwell envisioned it because he's very focused on criticizing politicians. He loathed Stalin who used censorship to destroy his enemies and keep them fragmented. It's dangerous. But even what the British Government did isn't quite Orwellian (at least with speech, how our privacy is invaded and how we're surveilled is). It's dumb and horrible, but it's not what Orwell was envisioning. I agree; it's depressing. But that's why I support Corbyn.

0

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

The angle I took is because of how the person I was replying to framed their issue, which was that it wasn't censorship, it was raising awareness. Unless you're going to defend his point, I don't see the purpose of you interjecting and arguing something that is ultimately tangential unless it's framed within that context.

I'm also not sure we have the same definition of censorship. You are under no legal obligation to not censor someone as a private entity. Blizzard can censor him, and they are definitely doing so through fines. He knows full well the punishment will escalate if he continues to do similar things. Hence, his options are to never do it again, or ultimately lose his job. If that isn't censorship, I'd like to know what qualifies. Loss of freedom? Loss of life? Like yeah, you can keep talking, and I won't shut you up, but if you keep doing it you'll eventually have to do it from inside a jail cell, but we won't stop you from talking so it's not censorship? Really dude?

I'm sorry your black friend got offended. I'd use it as a learning opportunity to understand the background of why that's offensive, because I have genuinely no clue why it would be. Feel free to clue me in if you had that conversation with him.

If someone bumps into me accidentally when I'm walking down the street I don't get into a fistfights with them. I don't sue them and demand damages. I don't demand they open their wallet and give me cash to compensate for the hurt.

I also don't demand that every time I see something on the internet I don't like that it needs to be scrubbed from existence to appease my sensibility. I close the fucking window and move on to something else.

I think we fundamentally disagree on the importance of hurt feelings. I'm of the opinion that offence is taken, never given. You elect to be offended by things and have your feelings impacted. Someone can call me the most vile things possible, and I'd shrug it off as that person being dim with no emotional impact. As such, I don't agree that someone interpreting something you do the wrong way ends up being your fault and you need to pay reparations because they lack stoicism.

I understand punishment when you intentionally assault someone. I don't understand punishment for when you do something with no ill intent that someone chooses to take offence to. That's a whole can of worms that's ridiculously easy to destroy with reductio ad absurdum, but for some reason the left has a complete blind spot and pretends only their feelings matter.

What do you think happens when people on the far right are extremely offended by how the far left behaves? What happens when they get into power and decide that those ideas need to be scrubbed from existence? Yeah the history of how that turns out is less than a century old still. Yet you think the far left pushing for having this type of control is all fine and dandy? No, I disagree. I want things to be reasonable, I want things in the center. When things start swinging too far left, they will eventually swing back far right as a response / rejection, and no one is going to be happy with that.

As much as people whine about white nationalists and alt-right, it shocks me that people fail to understand that they exist primarily as a response to their polar opposites and the control they are attempting to exert over society and government.

These ideas are unreasonable and authoritarian. And yes, they are Orwellian. It doesn't have to fit every criteria perfectly to have Orwellian characteristics and adequately fit the description. Please stop with this constant conflating and redefining everything to fit your world view. It's fucking newspeak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

1

u/WikiTextBot Apr 06 '18

Newspeak

Newspeak is the language of Oceania, a fictional totalitarian state ruled by the Party, who created the language to meet the ideological requirements of English Socialism (Ingsoc). In the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), Newspeak is a controlled language, of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, a linguistic design meant to limit the freedom of thought—personal identity, self-expression, free will—that ideologically threatens the régime of Big Brother and the Party, who thus criminalized such concepts as thoughtcrime, contradictions of Ingsoc orthodoxy.

In "The Principles of Newspeak", the appendix to the novel, George Orwell explains that Newspeak usage follows most of the English grammar, yet is a language characterised by a continually diminishing vocabulary; complete thoughts reduced to simple terms of simplistic meaning. Linguistically, the contractions of Newspeak—Ingsoc (English Socialism), Minitrue (Ministry of Truth), etc.—derive from the syllabic abbreviations of Russian, which identify the government and social institutions of the Soviet Union, such as politburo (Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union), Comintern (Communist International), kolkhoz (collective farm), and Komsomol (Young Communists' League).


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

→ More replies (0)

12

u/funkypoi Diya Fan — Apr 05 '18

There's only one country in the world that has freedom of speech in it's laws

??? only one?

10

u/UglyDucklett Apr 06 '18 edited Apr 06 '18

See, the problem with this argument is that it's uh... Totally Wrong.

Free speech is a limitation placed on government, not on businesses or the people. You can't be jailed for making slanty eyes, and you have the right to vocally disagree with your government without being punished for it.

If blizzard wants to ban anyone who says the word "pepperoni" they are 100% allowed to do so. The community is run by a corporation, not the government, and abide by different laws.

And if we as an overwhelming majority decide that we don't want people who say or do disgusting shit in our physical or virtual communities, we are well within our rights to try and make it happen or to punish them in ways deemed acceptable by the laws governing those communities.

Our ability to have these protests and conversations is what is really protected by the first amendment, not some streamer's ability to say what they want on twitch or reddit.

-1

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

And if we as an overwhelming majority decide

So, as long as my bubble agrees with me then I'm right. Because live revolves around reddit upvotes.

Good to know you can't be jailed for slant eyes, you can just lose your job, be branded a racist and be unhireable in the future. Thank God, it's so much worse getting free food in a box than getting no food under a bridge.

2

u/UglyDucklett Apr 07 '18

wisdom in numbers

1

u/Voidward Apr 07 '18

So might makes right. Ok, so Hitler did nothing wrong because he had more tanks, guns, and soldiers? Along with the German people reaching consensus that Jews were bad and they needed some more living space. I mean they had numbers, hence wisdom?

Thanks for your input, I'll take it into consideration that morality is what you can convince enough people to be correct.

3

u/UglyDucklett Apr 07 '18

no, because the entire world teamed up to punch hitler's face in. hitler is the person who was branded a racist and was decimated for it, and serves as proof that there are people who should be shunned for their actions. if he had won, god forbid, the history books might be singing his praises today.

and yes, morality is decided by the majority. you can have a problem with that all you like and wish it weren't true, but personally i take it as a good thing that we can change the world through speeches and protests convincing people to see things from new points of view.

1

u/Voidward Apr 07 '18 edited Apr 07 '18

LOL. So honor killing your daughter because she got raped, and hence dishonored your family, is cool by your account as long as that's what your culture believes. Raping children is cool as long as they're sold off as brides by their parents and sanction this. It appears you're are simply a morally bankrupt person convincing yourself you're the good guy.

The world didn't team up to punch Hitler in the face, they did their best to avoid going to war with Germany. He just thought he was invincible and attacked too fronts at the same time. By that logic, if the far right rises up, takes control and slaughters every leftist then you become wrong in everything you're telling me. Hence, it is completely impossible for you to have a correct position on absolutely anything because it is all subject to change. LOLOLIOLsrg.

You're conflating morality and cultural norms. I don't understand why everyone I'm talking with is conflating and oversimplifying everything. Is nuance really that hard? Either way, as far as I'm concerned, you've conceded this argument because it is literally impossible for you to preach morals about anything because your morals could be wrong tomorrow, there is no correct way to act, and we should all sway in the breeze and act however people around us pressure to act.

Officially,
Hitler did nothing wrong.*

*If he had won, or if nazis take over in the future. According to some redditor that "dislikes racism" only because he's culturally instructed to and not because it's actually wrong.

edit: I can't get over how monumentally stupid what you said is. Your position would have to literally be:

-There's nothing wrong with genocide unless someone stops you. Hoooooly shit.
-If your culture is cool with rape as a punishment for underdressing, then there's nothing wrong with it.
-If society devolves into anarchy and you've got the biggest gang, it's cool to roast infants over an open fire and cannibalise them.

I sincerely hope I never meet you in person, because you literally have no moral compass. I genuinely hope you have Jesus in your life. And I say this as an Atheist.

3

u/UglyDucklett Apr 07 '18

it's absolutely true that morals are ever-changing. there is no black-and-white morality, i'm not sure what fantasy world you exist in but i would like an invite to it, since it seems so much easier to make decisions there.

1

u/Voidward Apr 07 '18

I live in a wonderful fantasy world where I don't rationalize scenarios where raping children and commiting genocide against innocents is OK. I'd invite you. To come and visit, but in afraid you might start raping the children because no one told you it's not OK.

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

You're conflating free speech, the concept, with the 1st amendment. I didn't bring up the first amendment. You're trying to hand wave this away as though it isn't censorship. It is. Censorship is antithetical to free speech.

I've got a bunch of people doing this thing where they're smugly linking me the wikipedia article on free speech, without reading it, and assumping it's going to be an article explaining the 1st amendment. They're not the same thing. I'm not falling back on US law, I'm discussing concepts, while people arguing with me think they've got this gotcha moment when they can feel smart while utterly failing to actually grasp what I'm saying.

I'm not even arguing for people's rights to make slanty eyes. I have an issue with punishments being doled out on the whims of a mob. Any group who can pressure the government or a corporation or advertisers that something they don't like is bad or racitst or insensitive in some way can ruin another person permanently, regardless of that person's intent. That is CANCER.

Yes, there's no laws preventing a person from doing something, but if they lose their job and no one will hire them, what's the difference? Is being a hobo so much better than going to jail? I am extremely uneasy with the fact that any organised group can essentially decide that based on their feelings someone can lose the right to earn a living.

3

u/UglyDucklett Apr 07 '18

yes, if you are that major of a societal fuck-up, you will be ostracized from society.

1

u/Voidward Apr 07 '18 edited Apr 07 '18

So you advocate for mob rule and if the mob decides you've engaged in wrongthink, regardless of reality, then you deserve to not be able to feed yourself or your family.

Interesting position, not one I share. Thanks for your opinion.

Edit: Good to know Salem witch trials were also the pinnacle of justice. I used to think that was an abomination, but hey as long as the crowd all agree that it's a witch and they no longer deserve to live.

3

u/UglyDucklett Apr 07 '18

you're being hyperbolic, try rereading the last paragraph of my first response

1

u/Voidward Apr 07 '18

I think I've actually had my fill of reading your responses. I highly doubt they'll sound better the next time around.

5

u/orcinovein Apr 06 '18

I think this is a fine case of how many people fail to understand what freedom of speech actually means. Read up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

2

u/WikiTextBot Apr 06 '18

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction. The term "freedom of expression" is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

Freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the UDHR states that "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice".


[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28

1

u/HelperBot_ Apr 06 '18

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech


HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 168393

1

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
Ok, let's read the first line...

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction.

LOL wut?

Fining him money was retaliation. He will be sanctioned if he does it again, and as a byproduct, he will be forced to self-censor.

I'm sorry, did you actually read what you pasted me or did your smugness get in the way? Maybe you thought you were linking me to an article on the 1st amendment. Nowhere did the 1st amendment come into this, but the concept of free speech itself, which apparently you think means something else.

If only we could all be as educated as you.

1

u/HelperBot_ Apr 06 '18

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech


HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 168622

0

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

"educate yourself shitlord" is a classy response.

3

u/merrissey 8=============D ameng wuz here — Apr 06 '18

Feelings don't trump liberty and law. There's only one country in the world that has freedom of speech in it's laws and people like you are absolutely fine with stripping it over hurt feelings.

The best part about how your posts escalated is that I literally tagged you with "BabyRage MUH FREE SPEECH BabyRage" before you actually started crying about free speech. It was just obvious that we were gonna end up there.

For the record, you are fundamentally misunderstanding what "free speech" means. It does not mean saying whatever you want, whenever you want, however you want, among whatever company, etc. with no repercussions.

0

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

Congratulations. I am glad you are so well educated on free speech that you have no respect for it, and preemptively ridiculed he idea. I commend your accomplishments.

3

u/merrissey 8=============D ameng wuz here — Apr 06 '18 edited Apr 06 '18

Hey, thanks! Congrats to you for having so little idea of what it is you're championing that I can only be impressed that a person could be so staunch and passionate about something they don't even understand.

0

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18 edited Apr 06 '18

Literally Wikipedia:

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction.

What happened to EQO was retaliation, censorship, and sanction. What Blizzard is trying to do is instil a fear in others of doing the same. It could not tresspass on the concept any more clearly than what happened. You clueless smug leftist iditot. You feel happy you got your talking points in without even grasping what you're saying?

You're conflating free speech with the 1st amendment. This isn't a discussion of concepts, you're literally trotting out talking points in attempt to win an epeen contest. You're disingenuous to levels that I don't even want to interact with anymore.

3

u/merrissey 8=============D ameng wuz here — Apr 06 '18

Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or sanction.

Why do I have the strong feeling that you only read that one sentence, and not the rest of the article (or any further documentation about the interpretation of free speech)? Oh, probably because of this tidbit found in literally the next paragraph:

The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".

This amendment was entered into force in 1976. Your definition of "freedom of speech" as a principle which protects all opinions and actions has literally been out of date for over 40 years.

Later:

Freedom of speech and expression, therefore, may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury.

Blizzard and team orgs are completely within their rights to punish their employees for behavior they interpret as offensive, be it use of language, physical gestures, etc. Just like your coworker isn't allowed to pull his eyelids back to make his eyes appear slanted at the company party because he thinks it's funny, Eqo can't get away with it. In both cases, it's because the company doesn't want their employees behaving in that way, and they're allowed to establish and enforce those restrictions on behavior. There's nothing morally or legally reprimandable about this, and you are wasting your breath.

I'd toss out a "keep throwing your misguided tantrums", but I don't need to invite you to do that; you're very obviously the type of person who only listens to the sound of their own voice and happens to enjoy the tune of it quite a lot. As tickled as I am to see how obviously shaken you are by everyone ripping you apart in the comments based on that dank "smug leftist idiot" (looooool), it's honestly pretty sad to think that you may literally never acknowledge a 40 year old amendment of the definition of "free speech" and will drive so many people like me to waste their time trying to fruitlessly explain it to you. C'est la vie.

0

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

I just pointed out I'm discussing the concept, not the 1st amendment nor how it's implemented in law, and you immediately ignored that and started quoting me law after I directly pointed out how what happened to EQO goes against the core definition of free speech.

As long as you pretend I'm talking about what you're attempting to smugly refute I guess you're always going to "ripping me apart in the comments" just like everyone else when I literally never brought legality into this discussion. Go easy bro, eviscerating strawmen might be made a crime one day that offends someone, then you'll really be fucked.

2

u/merrissey 8=============D ameng wuz here — Apr 06 '18

I just pointed out I'm discussing the concept, not the 1st amendment nor how it's implemented in law

Oh, you mean a single sentence written in 1948 which has no inherent legal or societal bearing and historically serves solely as a point of reference for legislation and company policy to build off of? Cool. I'm glad we've shifted goalposts to the point where we're literally looking around asking why we're even here in the first place, because this conversation really and truly is a waste of time.

You're saying it's unfair that Eqo was punished based on the "concept" (???) of freedom of speech rather than how Blizzard interpret, establish, and enforce it. I want to repeat "this is a waste of breath", but I don't think this is a waste of breath as you seem strangely accomplished in staving off criticism every person in this comment section by saying "okay, but I'm not talking about the rules that Blizzard are enforcing, I'm talking about MY RULES damn it!".

There is something called the "harm principle" or the "offense principle"; it's a 150+ year old concept, (not a legislation/rule; you're welcome!) that claims a greater power should only infringe on the liberties/rights of an individual when that individual's actions/behavior are made at the expense another person's behalf (or even a group of people, like say, an entire race of people). This principle is how any country or company draws "the line" and justifies punishing people who cross it. This is what Blizzard and PF are doing by punishing Eqo.

If you want to disagree with 1) Blizzard and PF's code of conduct that Eqo is contractually obliged to abide by, 2) the legal interpretation of free speech as accepted by nearly every country on the planet, and 3) the 150 year old fundamental concept of limiting someone's free speech based on whether or not their behavior infringes on another person's rights or reputation which, in practice, is used to justify punishing people for behavior deemed inappropriate/unacceptable for any reason... then have at it, my dude. I'm not gonna listen to you do it though lol.

1

u/Voidward Apr 06 '18

Oh, you mean a single sentence written in 1948

You seem to have no real grasp on the value of this concept and no respect for it. You have made this abundantly apparent. I'm very sorry about that.

The rest of what you write was some strawman you built vaguely related to what I was talking about but not at all anything that I said, and frankly, I struggle to understand because it doesn't represent my views. I have no interest in trying to defend your strawman, no matter how much you think it looks like me.

You keep going back to law when I cannot make it any more clear that I never brought law into the discussion. I'm sorry this has been a complete waste of breath for you. I suggest you try to listen next time.

Maybe spend your time watching some relaxing videos instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti2bVS40cz0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W14gOL9ljDE

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/Auszi Apr 05 '18

Ah but you see, they found a loophole. You can just use mob justice to quell free speech, and still technically have free speech on the books.

1

u/Voidward Apr 05 '18

Free speech within my bubble because everyone agrees with me. No speech for anyone else. We're not Orwellian at all, I swear!