Blizzard bans 'Hearthstone' pro for Hong Kong protest support

[Mardoc]

Sure, they're not voting in elections, but people and their decisions have had and will have an impact on the future of china.

I mean, that's basically a tautology. It doesn't make them citizens any more than the Parisians were citizens in 1788.

It also has nothing to do with my point.

My point is that I can't know what's happening in China. That I can't accept the PRC media statements as truth, nor the statements from anyone the PRC can put pressure on. I can accept them as statements of what the PRC (ok, the particular person who made this particular censorship decision) would like people to think is truth, and that's all.

[ipecac]

You westerners simply don't understand the situation at all.

Change your mind on this.

Help me. Show me how much you understand.

Well, yeah.  We think democracy and individual rights are the greatest thing since sliced bread.  When we see folks fighting for such things, we're going to support them.  To see US entities like Blizzard and the NBA failing to puts us in a white hot rage like you wouldn't believe.  

All this furor about 'whatboutism' simply boils down to the fact that the outrage is extremely selective. A lot of this outrage is due to the media's fanning of the flames, and so it's hard to take it seriously. It's not rational at all, with calling for WW3 being extreme but characteristic of the type of the 'white hot rage' reaction.

[ipecac]

I am sorry, but at that point I am out. You are excusing a massacre by employing a fake centrism strategy, as well as the typical BS media conspiracy theories. The videos of Tiananmen square are probably fake and were made with the glorious 1989 version of Adobe After Effects, right?

Be out if you want, but this point needs to be addressed.

Reality is a little more complicated than you've been told. There was no massacre in Tiananmen square itself, though there were undeniably some killings outside it.

[ipecac]

How do you know I'm not already supporting forms of boycott of my own against these things? Like the Blizzard thing, I can't do a LOT about it, but there's plenty of little things I can and may be doing. The Blizzard thing only came up because this is a gaming forum. You don't know anything about me or my preferences or things I support or don't support. You're just assuming them in an attempt to shift anger away from this thing because (I'm guessing) this is personal to you in some way.

But are you boycotting such things as most oil companies? This isn't an attempt to shift anger away, but to find out how seriously to take you on this issue.

What reasons does anyone have to regard your reaction as anything but the typical outrage fanned by the media that will dissipate after a few news cycle?

[ipecac]

Imagine if some young hothead were to say at this troubled time that "North Ireland needs to secede. Freedom, independence, revolution!' on a Hearthstone livestream. Obviously he'd be censured and pressure put on the company to deter such nonsense from ever occurring again, and then the US would be gearing up for war with the UK.

[ipecac]

It is legally considered defamation. Incidentally, the European Court for Human rights ruled on exactly that topic just a week ago:

"Freedom Of Speech Does Not Apply To Holocaust Denial, ECHR Rules"
https://rightsinfo.org/freedom-speech-ho...nial-echr/

If you are interested in learning about the exact legal reasoning for the ruling, there is a 4 page press release in PDF format by the court, which you can find here:

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng-press?i=00...83-8616003

I think I'll stop here.

He appealed on points of law to the Court of Appeal which, in August 2013, also rejected his case as ill-founded. At that stage he challenged one of the judges adjudicating his appeal, Judge X, claiming he could not be impartial as he was the husband of Judge Y, who had convicted him at first instance.
A three-member bench of the Court of Appeal, including Judge X, dismissed the complaint, finding in particular that the fact that X and Y were married could not in itself lead to a fear of bias.

[Gustaran]

Be out if you want, but this point needs to be addressed.

Reality is a little more complicated than you've been told. There was no massacre in Tiananmen square itself, though there were undeniably some killings outside it.

The "author" of the blog you linked (One could also wonder if the name "worldaffairs.blog" is supposed to create some resemblance to the more popular worldaffairs.org.) is involved in a surprising number of rather apologetic pro-China, pro-Russia and pro-Syria websites and ebooks with the typical conclusions.


But about your point: If we want to argue semantics - Indeed, technically speaking there was no massacre directly on Tiananmen square.

To quote a CBS link from your posted blog above:

"But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too."

And since we agree "some" people were killed: The official numbers range from at least a few hundreds to several thousands (amnesty international). The original updated ai report from 1990 also has some very different numbers about killed soldiers (17)

So I guess if you wanted to be very accurate you could call it "The on the way to and around Tiananmen Square massacre". It doesn't really change my evaluation.

[Gustaran]

New statement by Blizzard:

https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/blizzard...tournament

TL,DR:

- Blitzchung will get his prize money
- Blitzchung's ban reduced to 6 months
- Casters' bans reduced to 6 months

[ipecac]

But about your point: If we want to argue semantics - Indeed, technically speaking there was no massacre directly on Tiananmen square.

To quote a CBS link from your posted blog above:

"But there's no question many people were killed by the army that night around Tiananmen Square and on the way to it — mostly in the western part of Beijing. Maybe, for some, comfort can be taken in the fact that the government denies that, too."

It's not semantics, since the common narrative is that peaceful protestors refused to leave and were slaughtered by the government in the square. Rather, they were allowed to peacefully leave, but other protestors were more violent outside the square and that naturally led to clashes and killings.

And since we agree "some" people were killed: The official numbers range from at least a few hundreds to several thousands (amnesty international).

How do they get these 'official' numbers?

[Gustaran]

How do they get these 'official' numbers?

If you read through this report from ai (which I haven't done, it's 50 pages) it seems they use different sources: Official accounts, many eyewitness reports as well as accounts of international reporters.


You can argue semantics all day long: The indisputable facts are, that a movement demanding political changes and freedoms from an oppressive government was confronted and ultimately brutally struck down by the military.
Discuss details all you want: If people were killed on Tiananmen Square or 2 kilometers west, if 17 soldiers lost their life or 50, this is the typical strategy of trying to reach the excuse that "both sides were somehow wrong".


It's like watching "Star Wars" and claiming: "Wait a minute! Why is Luke Skywalker not protesting peacefully? And why is he threatening the stability of the galaxy? He is probably paid by another faction that wants to weaken the Empire, so he leaves them no choice but to act aggressively. Look how many people the rebels killed. And maybe the people on these planets like being governed by Darth Vader, they are not ready for democracy yet. But the media doesn't tell you the whole story, pay attention to the details!"


China was and is currently ruled by an oppressive totalitarian government. The philosphical view of "Right to revolution" is present in the constitution of many countries (Germany, US states, amongst many others), confirming the right of the people to resist unconstitutional tyranny that threatens the democratic system and the inalienable rights that come with it.

The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" reads:

"Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by rule of law"


For that reason, if an oppressive government such as the Chinese uses the military to continously deprive its citizens of their basic rights and freedoms, use of force to overthrow the tyranny is warranted. Even if the protestors had been fully armed and stormed the National People's Congress, they would have been in their rights to do so.

I think I'll stop here.

Yes, it's stupid that there were two married judges in the court, but the point is that all courts up to the ECHR upheld the conviction for Holocaust denial and it is explained why. If you would rather continue to sympathize with Holocaust deniers and feel they should be able to spread their lies, I can't help it. Thankfully the European court system doesn't share your view concerning the matter.