Racism vs Racial Insensitivity in Esports

[u/ituralde_]

[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.

[u/Voidward]

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.

[u/merrissey → u/Voidward]

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!"

[u/Voidward → u/merrissey]

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."

[u/[deleted] → u/Voidward]

“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

[u/Voidward → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Voidward]

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.

[u/Voidward → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Voidward]

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.

[u/Voidward → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/[deleted] → u/Voidward]

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.

[u/Voidward → u/[deleted]]

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

[u/WikiTextBot → u/Voidward]

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}