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

47

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!"

-18

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."

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.

4

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