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

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