Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - RSS Headlines   RSS Headlines   Twitter   Twitter

Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties

Blizzard has broken their silence about their recent decision to strip Hearthstone Grandmasters winner blitzchung of his prize money and ban him from the game after he voiced support for Hong Kong protesters in the aftermath of the tournament. This caused a very considerable backlash, which may be why they took so long considering it before responding (though addressing controversial topics late on Friday is also a time-honored tradition). The post is by President of Blizzard Entertainment J. Allen Brack, who states the violation of their rules spurred their action, and not the specific stance it took, saying, "I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision," and, "If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same." But he also admits to a misstep in acting so hastily, and, while noting that "for some this is not about the prize," he says Blizzard has decided to restore blitzchung's winnings. They have also cut his one-year ban in half, and say they've reduced the suspensions of the shoutcasters involved to six months as well. Here's the statement on Blizzard News:
Hello Blizzard Community . . .

I want to take a few minutes to talk to all of you about the Hearthstone Grandmasters tournament this past weekend. On Monday, we made the decision to take action against a player named blitzchung and two shoutcasters after the player shared his views on what’s happening in Hong Kong on our official broadcast channel.

At Blizzard, our vision is “to bring the world together through epic entertainment.” And we have core values that apply here: Think Globally; Lead Responsibly; and importantly, Every Voice Matters, encouraging everybody to share their point of view. The actions that we took over the weekend are causing people to question if we are still committed to these values. We absolutely are and I will explain.

Our esports programs are an expression of our vision and our values. Esports exist to create opportunities for players from around the world, from different cultures, and from different backgrounds, to come together to compete and share their passion for gaming. It is extremely important to us to protect these channels and the purpose they serve: to bring the world together through epic entertainment, celebrate our players, and build diverse and inclusive communities.

As to how those values apply in this case:

First, our official esports tournament broadcast was used as a platform for a winner of this event to share his views with the world.

We interview competitors who are at the top of their craft to share how they feel. We want to experience that moment with them. Hearing their excitement is a powerful way to bring us together.

Over the weekend, blitzchung used his segment to make a statement about the situation in Hong Kong—in violation of rules he acknowledged and understood, and this is why we took action.

Every Voice Matters, and we strongly encourage everyone in our community to share their viewpoints in the many places available to express themselves. However, the official broadcast needs to be about the tournament and to be a place where all are welcome. In support of that, we want to keep the official channels focused on the game.

Second, what is the role of shoutcasters for these broadcasts?

We hire shoutcasters to amplify the excitement of the game. They elevate the watchability and help the esports viewing experience stay focused on the tournament and our amazing players.

Third, were our actions based on the content of the message?

Part of Thinking Globally, Leading Responsibly, and Every Voice Matters is recognizing that we have players and fans in almost every country in the world. Our goal is to help players connect in areas of commonality, like their passion for our games, and create a sense of shared community.

The specific views expressed by blitzchung were NOT a factor in the decision we made. I want to be clear: our relationships in China had no influence on our decision.

We have these rules to keep the focus on the game and on the tournament to the benefit of a global audience, and that was the only consideration in the actions we took.

If this had been the opposing viewpoint delivered in the same divisive and deliberate way, we would have felt and acted the same.

OK, what could Blizzard have done better, and where do we go from here?

Over the past few days, many players, casters, esports fans, and employees have expressed concerns about how we determined the penalties. We’ve had a chance to pause, to listen to our community, and to reflect on what we could have done better. In hindsight, our process wasn’t adequate, and we reacted too quickly.

We want to ensure that we maintain a safe and inclusive environment for all our players, and that our rules and processes are clear. All of this is in service of another important Blizzard value—Play Nice; Play Fair.

In the tournament itself blitzchung *played* fair. We now believe he should receive his prizing. We understand that for some this is not about the prize, and perhaps for others it is disrespectful to even discuss it. That is not our intention.

But playing fair also includes appropriate pre-and post-match conduct, especially when a player accepts recognition for winning in a broadcast. When we think about the suspension, six months for blitzchung is more appropriate, after which time he can compete in the Hearthstone pro circuit again if he so chooses. There is a consequence for taking the conversation away from the purpose of the event and disrupting or derailing the broadcast.

With regard to the casters, remember their purpose is to keep the event focused on the tournament. That didn’t happen here, and we are setting their suspension to six months as well.

Moving forward, we will continue to apply tournament rules to ensure our official broadcasts remain focused on the game and are not a platform for divisive social or political views.

One of our goals at Blizzard is to make sure that every player, everywhere in the world, regardless of political views, religious beliefs, race, gender, or any other consideration always feels safe and welcome both competing in and playing our games.

At Blizzard, we are always listening and finding ways to improve—it is part of our culture. Thank you for your patience with us as we continue to learn.

Sincerely,

J. Allen Brack
President of Blizzard Entertainment

View
105 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


105. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 20, 2019, 16:41 Quinn
 
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 20, 2019, 06:11:
[url=][/url]
Quinn wrote on Oct 20, 2019, 04:58:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 23:32:
Quinn wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 07:13:
Prez wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 03:15:
I kind of get what Quinn was trying to say. At least I think so. To be clear, yes I am utterly disgusted that a woman can be killed in her own home by a police officer shooting into it for no reason whatsoever. Just as I am horrified that a man was killed in his own apartment by a trespassing officer. But in both cases the officers were not just cleared of wrongdoing; one received a 10 year sentence (presumably only 10 because the jury believed it was a terrible mistake due to gross negligence rather than malicious) and the other has been fired and is going on trial for murder.

As to the "non-issue" comment, I do in fact disagree. Unjustifiable police shootings clearly is a national issue. I also have no problem with anyone taking a knee to protest. Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

In the case of the female officer killing Mr. Neal because she thought she was in her apartment the question would be would she have done the same if he was white? The answer of course is unknown. Would that moron in Texas have shot through that window had the woman been white? Again, unknown. It is just as likely in my view that the issue is extremely poor judgement or inadequate training. Some cops are just not equipped to make split-second life or death decisions and some are just trigger-happy assholes. Regardless of the underlying causes, however, unjustifiable shootings are just too high for it to be dismissed as a "non-issue" in my opinion.

Statistics that show higher percentages of minority victims of unjustifiable police shootings seem to point to racial motivations on the face of it, but I think one must consider the underlying factors that the statistics don't address before drawing a definitive conclusion. For example, in virtually every major city violent crime is higher in lower income areas. Unfortunately this also means higher minority percentages. (Not discussing correlation or causality her because that is an entirely different issue; suffice it to say that while it IS an issue it is unfortunately just how it is). Higher crime means higher police presence, which in turn means a higher rate of police shootings. Is this an issue of race? I think, fundamentally, it is. But is it an issue of an endemic racism in policing? I don't know. I lean towards feeling it isn't. It stands to reason that there will be racist police (and ya know, FUCK THEM) but is the problem systemic? I don't think it is. Hence why I *think* I get what Quinn is getting at. In the end I get that there is just an overall disgust at the ridiculous number of minorities being killed and how people choose to speak out about that is fine with me as long as it doesn't cause more violence.

What you are saying is literally exactly what I meant to say, but failed to get across to some. If my comment wasn't removed for double-standard bullshit reasons, you would've been moreso convinced that I meant what you just said.

Maybe you didn't post the comment to come to my defence, but thanks anyway.

Literally exactly?

He said he disagrees with your characterization of it being a "non-issue".
That it is fundamentally an issue of race.
And that how people choose to speak out about that (nfl players kneeling, BLM) is fine with him.

That doesn't sound at all like your prior posts on the subject.

Quinn wrote:
Colin protested a non-issue directly contradicted by factual data and originated from a racist and victimhood mindset.


This is exactly what I meant:

Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

I feel like I have proven that this is what I meant, by now. I was unclear in that original post about Colin, and shouldn't have used the word "contradict" but instead should have mentioned the lack of data; the absense of evidence. I think he took the knee against institutional racism, not just police violence. I think that was unclear to Prez. Otherwise I too wouldn't have a problem with Colin's rebellion.
Please quit posting in threads that you turn into race baiting bullshit until you learn basic English.

I could report you for being a taunting, disrespectful *bleep* but I doubt that will work. I won't forget the double-standard applied by Blue in this thread. Left a foul fucking taste in my mouth.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

104. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 20, 2019, 06:11 RedEye9
 
[url=][/url]
Quinn wrote on Oct 20, 2019, 04:58:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 23:32:
Quinn wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 07:13:
Prez wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 03:15:
I kind of get what Quinn was trying to say. At least I think so. To be clear, yes I am utterly disgusted that a woman can be killed in her own home by a police officer shooting into it for no reason whatsoever. Just as I am horrified that a man was killed in his own apartment by a trespassing officer. But in both cases the officers were not just cleared of wrongdoing; one received a 10 year sentence (presumably only 10 because the jury believed it was a terrible mistake due to gross negligence rather than malicious) and the other has been fired and is going on trial for murder.

As to the "non-issue" comment, I do in fact disagree. Unjustifiable police shootings clearly is a national issue. I also have no problem with anyone taking a knee to protest. Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

In the case of the female officer killing Mr. Neal because she thought she was in her apartment the question would be would she have done the same if he was white? The answer of course is unknown. Would that moron in Texas have shot through that window had the woman been white? Again, unknown. It is just as likely in my view that the issue is extremely poor judgement or inadequate training. Some cops are just not equipped to make split-second life or death decisions and some are just trigger-happy assholes. Regardless of the underlying causes, however, unjustifiable shootings are just too high for it to be dismissed as a "non-issue" in my opinion.

Statistics that show higher percentages of minority victims of unjustifiable police shootings seem to point to racial motivations on the face of it, but I think one must consider the underlying factors that the statistics don't address before drawing a definitive conclusion. For example, in virtually every major city violent crime is higher in lower income areas. Unfortunately this also means higher minority percentages. (Not discussing correlation or causality her because that is an entirely different issue; suffice it to say that while it IS an issue it is unfortunately just how it is). Higher crime means higher police presence, which in turn means a higher rate of police shootings. Is this an issue of race? I think, fundamentally, it is. But is it an issue of an endemic racism in policing? I don't know. I lean towards feeling it isn't. It stands to reason that there will be racist police (and ya know, FUCK THEM) but is the problem systemic? I don't think it is. Hence why I *think* I get what Quinn is getting at. In the end I get that there is just an overall disgust at the ridiculous number of minorities being killed and how people choose to speak out about that is fine with me as long as it doesn't cause more violence.

What you are saying is literally exactly what I meant to say, but failed to get across to some. If my comment wasn't removed for double-standard bullshit reasons, you would've been moreso convinced that I meant what you just said.

Maybe you didn't post the comment to come to my defence, but thanks anyway.

Literally exactly?

He said he disagrees with your characterization of it being a "non-issue".
That it is fundamentally an issue of race.
And that how people choose to speak out about that (nfl players kneeling, BLM) is fine with him.

That doesn't sound at all like your prior posts on the subject.

Quinn wrote:
Colin protested a non-issue directly contradicted by factual data and originated from a racist and victimhood mindset.


This is exactly what I meant:

Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

I feel like I have proven that this is what I meant, by now. I was unclear in that original post about Colin, and shouldn't have used the word "contradict" but instead should have mentioned the lack of data; the absense of evidence. I think he took the knee against institutional racism, not just police violence. I think that was unclear to Prez. Otherwise I too wouldn't have a problem with Colin's rebellion.
Please quit posting in threads that you turn into race baiting bullshit until you learn basic English.
 
Avatar 58135
 



“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

103. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 20, 2019, 04:58 Quinn
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 23:32:
Quinn wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 07:13:
Prez wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 03:15:
I kind of get what Quinn was trying to say. At least I think so. To be clear, yes I am utterly disgusted that a woman can be killed in her own home by a police officer shooting into it for no reason whatsoever. Just as I am horrified that a man was killed in his own apartment by a trespassing officer. But in both cases the officers were not just cleared of wrongdoing; one received a 10 year sentence (presumably only 10 because the jury believed it was a terrible mistake due to gross negligence rather than malicious) and the other has been fired and is going on trial for murder.

As to the "non-issue" comment, I do in fact disagree. Unjustifiable police shootings clearly is a national issue. I also have no problem with anyone taking a knee to protest. Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

In the case of the female officer killing Mr. Neal because she thought she was in her apartment the question would be would she have done the same if he was white? The answer of course is unknown. Would that moron in Texas have shot through that window had the woman been white? Again, unknown. It is just as likely in my view that the issue is extremely poor judgement or inadequate training. Some cops are just not equipped to make split-second life or death decisions and some are just trigger-happy assholes. Regardless of the underlying causes, however, unjustifiable shootings are just too high for it to be dismissed as a "non-issue" in my opinion.

Statistics that show higher percentages of minority victims of unjustifiable police shootings seem to point to racial motivations on the face of it, but I think one must consider the underlying factors that the statistics don't address before drawing a definitive conclusion. For example, in virtually every major city violent crime is higher in lower income areas. Unfortunately this also means higher minority percentages. (Not discussing correlation or causality her because that is an entirely different issue; suffice it to say that while it IS an issue it is unfortunately just how it is). Higher crime means higher police presence, which in turn means a higher rate of police shootings. Is this an issue of race? I think, fundamentally, it is. But is it an issue of an endemic racism in policing? I don't know. I lean towards feeling it isn't. It stands to reason that there will be racist police (and ya know, FUCK THEM) but is the problem systemic? I don't think it is. Hence why I *think* I get what Quinn is getting at. In the end I get that there is just an overall disgust at the ridiculous number of minorities being killed and how people choose to speak out about that is fine with me as long as it doesn't cause more violence.

What you are saying is literally exactly what I meant to say, but failed to get across to some. If my comment wasn't removed for double-standard bullshit reasons, you would've been moreso convinced that I meant what you just said.

Maybe you didn't post the comment to come to my defence, but thanks anyway.

Literally exactly?

He said he disagrees with your characterization of it being a "non-issue".
That it is fundamentally an issue of race.
And that how people choose to speak out about that (nfl players kneeling, BLM) is fine with him.

That doesn't sound at all like your prior posts on the subject.

Quinn wrote:
Colin protested a non-issue directly contradicted by factual data and originated from a racist and victimhood mindset.


This is exactly what I meant:

Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

I feel like I have proven that this is what I meant, by now. I was unclear in that original post about Colin, and shouldn't have used the word "contradict" but instead should have mentioned the lack of data; the absense of evidence. I think he took the knee against institutional racism, not just police violence. I think that was unclear to Prez. Otherwise I too wouldn't have a problem with Colin's rebellion.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

102. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 19, 2019, 23:32 Sepharo
 
Quinn wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 07:13:
Prez wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 03:15:
I kind of get what Quinn was trying to say. At least I think so. To be clear, yes I am utterly disgusted that a woman can be killed in her own home by a police officer shooting into it for no reason whatsoever. Just as I am horrified that a man was killed in his own apartment by a trespassing officer. But in both cases the officers were not just cleared of wrongdoing; one received a 10 year sentence (presumably only 10 because the jury believed it was a terrible mistake due to gross negligence rather than malicious) and the other has been fired and is going on trial for murder.

As to the "non-issue" comment, I do in fact disagree. Unjustifiable police shootings clearly is a national issue. I also have no problem with anyone taking a knee to protest. Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

In the case of the female officer killing Mr. Neal because she thought she was in her apartment the question would be would she have done the same if he was white? The answer of course is unknown. Would that moron in Texas have shot through that window had the woman been white? Again, unknown. It is just as likely in my view that the issue is extremely poor judgement or inadequate training. Some cops are just not equipped to make split-second life or death decisions and some are just trigger-happy assholes. Regardless of the underlying causes, however, unjustifiable shootings are just too high for it to be dismissed as a "non-issue" in my opinion.

Statistics that show higher percentages of minority victims of unjustifiable police shootings seem to point to racial motivations on the face of it, but I think one must consider the underlying factors that the statistics don't address before drawing a definitive conclusion. For example, in virtually every major city violent crime is higher in lower income areas. Unfortunately this also means higher minority percentages. (Not discussing correlation or causality her because that is an entirely different issue; suffice it to say that while it IS an issue it is unfortunately just how it is). Higher crime means higher police presence, which in turn means a higher rate of police shootings. Is this an issue of race? I think, fundamentally, it is. But is it an issue of an endemic racism in policing? I don't know. I lean towards feeling it isn't. It stands to reason that there will be racist police (and ya know, FUCK THEM) but is the problem systemic? I don't think it is. Hence why I *think* I get what Quinn is getting at. In the end I get that there is just an overall disgust at the ridiculous number of minorities being killed and how people choose to speak out about that is fine with me as long as it doesn't cause more violence.

What you are saying is literally exactly what I meant to say, but failed to get across to some. If my comment wasn't removed for double-standard bullshit reasons, you would've been moreso convinced that I meant what you just said.

Maybe you didn't post the comment to come to my defence, but thanks anyway.

Literally exactly?

He said he disagrees with your characterization of it being a "non-issue".
That it is fundamentally an issue of race.
And that how people choose to speak out about that (nfl players kneeling, BLM) is fine with him.

That doesn't sound at all like your prior posts on the subject.

Quinn wrote:
Colin protested a non-issue directly contradicted by factual data and originated from a racist and victimhood mindset.
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

101. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 19, 2019, 07:13 Quinn
 
Prez wrote on Oct 19, 2019, 03:15:
I kind of get what Quinn was trying to say. At least I think so. To be clear, yes I am utterly disgusted that a woman can be killed in her own home by a police officer shooting into it for no reason whatsoever. Just as I am horrified that a man was killed in his own apartment by a trespassing officer. But in both cases the officers were not just cleared of wrongdoing; one received a 10 year sentence (presumably only 10 because the jury believed it was a terrible mistake due to gross negligence rather than malicious) and the other has been fired and is going on trial for murder.

As to the "non-issue" comment, I do in fact disagree. Unjustifiable police shootings clearly is a national issue. I also have no problem with anyone taking a knee to protest. Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

In the case of the female officer killing Mr. Neal because she thought she was in her apartment the question would be would she have done the same if he was white? The answer of course is unknown. Would that moron in Texas have shot through that window had the woman been white? Again, unknown. It is just as likely in my view that the issue is extremely poor judgement or inadequate training. Some cops are just not equipped to make split-second life or death decisions and some are just trigger-happy assholes. Regardless of the underlying causes, however, unjustifiable shootings are just too high for it to be dismissed as a "non-issue" in my opinion.

Statistics that show higher percentages of minority victims of unjustifiable police shootings seem to point to racial motivations on the face of it, but I think one must consider the underlying factors that the statistics don't address before drawing a definitive conclusion. For example, in virtually every major city violent crime is higher in lower income areas. Unfortunately this also means higher minority percentages. (Not discussing correlation or causality her because that is an entirely different issue; suffice it to say that while it IS an issue it is unfortunately just how it is). Higher crime means higher police presence, which in turn means a higher rate of police shootings. Is this an issue of race? I think, fundamentally, it is. But is it an issue of an endemic racism in policing? I don't know. I lean towards feeling it isn't. It stands to reason that there will be racist police (and ya know, FUCK THEM) but is the problem systemic? I don't think it is. Hence why I *think* I get what Quinn is getting at. In the end I get that there is just an overall disgust at the ridiculous number of minorities being killed and how people choose to speak out about that is fine with me as long as it doesn't cause more violence.

What you are saying is literally exactly what I meant to say, but failed to get across to some. If my comment wasn't removed for double-standard bullshit reasons, you would've been moreso convinced that I meant what you just said.

Maybe you didn't post the comment to come to my defence, but thanks anyway.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

100. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 19, 2019, 07:05 KS
 
Tl;dr "We, like the NBA, have no problem helping export censorship of China beyond China's borders, for money."  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

99. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 19, 2019, 03:15 Prez
 
I kind of get what Quinn was trying to say. At least I think so. To be clear, yes I am utterly disgusted that a woman can be killed in her own home by a police officer shooting into it for no reason whatsoever. Just as I am horrified that a man was killed in his own apartment by a trespassing officer. But in both cases the officers were not just cleared of wrongdoing; one received a 10 year sentence (presumably only 10 because the jury believed it was a terrible mistake due to gross negligence rather than malicious) and the other has been fired and is going on trial for murder.

As to the "non-issue" comment, I do in fact disagree. Unjustifiable police shootings clearly is a national issue. I also have no problem with anyone taking a knee to protest. Where I do at least see some common ground with Quinn is where he is saying that evidence doesn't necessarily support racist motivations on the part of police in many of the cases. A bad shooting is a bad shooting, but the question of whether the cop shot simply because the victim was black is dicey and very hard to prove one way or another.

In the case of the female officer killing Mr. Neal because she thought she was in her apartment the question would be would she have done the same if he was white? The answer of course is unknown. Would that moron in Texas have shot through that window had the woman been white? Again, unknown. It is just as likely in my view that the issue is extremely poor judgement or inadequate training. Some cops are just not equipped to make split-second life or death decisions and some are just trigger-happy assholes. Regardless of the underlying causes, however, unjustifiable shootings are just too high for it to be dismissed as a "non-issue" in my opinion.

Statistics that show higher percentages of minority victims of unjustifiable police shootings seem to point to racial motivations on the face of it, but I think one must consider the underlying factors that the statistics don't address before drawing a definitive conclusion. For example, in virtually every major city violent crime is higher in lower income areas. Unfortunately this also means higher minority percentages. (Not discussing correlation or causality her because that is an entirely different issue; suffice it to say that while it IS an issue it is unfortunately just how it is). Higher crime means higher police presence, which in turn means a higher rate of police shootings. Is this an issue of race? I think, fundamentally, it is. But is it an issue of an endemic racism in policing? I don't know. I lean towards feeling it isn't. It stands to reason that there will be racist police (and ya know, FUCK THEM) but is the problem systemic? I don't think it is. Hence why I *think* I get what Quinn is getting at. In the end I get that there is just an overall disgust at the ridiculous number of minorities being killed and how people choose to speak out about that is fine with me as long as it doesn't cause more violence.

This comment was edited on Oct 19, 2019, 03:32.
 
Avatar 17185
 



“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

98. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 18, 2019, 08:58 Quinn
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 17, 2019, 21:03:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:24:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:20:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:14:
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue

Use grown up words next time and stop being a "see you next Tuesday". Beam

Well, RedEye, you don't know what you're talking about because that word has a whole different meaning in the UK and The Netherlands. Like Ricky Gervais said in an interview a while back "the word cunt is almost a compliment here"

Heh, that was on Sam Harris' podcast wasn't it?

Haha, yes it was!
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

97. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 17, 2019, 21:09 jdreyer
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 19:10:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:04:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 11:50:
You'll probably have to message him to find out. He probably won't return to this thread. For what it's worth I don't recall seeing anything bad in that post but maybe I missed an insult or something.

"For what it's worth", well, coming from you -- someone who disagrees with me a lot (which is fine by me) -- it's actually worth a lot if you ask me. Thanks.

I followed up on your advice and e-mailed Blue.

I used to say that I've never reported anything, but I did recently have to report something especially egregious a few months ago so I guess that streak is broken... first report in 16 years
Yeah, I've never reported anything yet. I feel that when people post ban worthy comments, the pushback from the regulars here is more than enough to counter balance it. I'd rather be able to read the offensive stuff and see how people counteract it.

The exceptions are the stupid bots posting, "Make $5000 per week working from home!"
 
Avatar 22024
 



The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

96. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 17, 2019, 21:03 jdreyer
 
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:24:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:20:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:14:
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue

Use grown up words next time and stop being a "see you next Tuesday". Beam

Well, RedEye, you don't know what you're talking about because that word has a whole different meaning in the UK and The Netherlands. Like Ricky Gervais said in an interview a while back "the word cunt is almost a compliment here"

Heh, that was on Sam Harris' podcast wasn't it?
 
Avatar 22024
 



The land in Minecraft is flat, Minecraft simulates the Earth, ergo the Earth is flat.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

95. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 19:10 Sepharo
 
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:04:
Sepharo wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 11:50:
You'll probably have to message him to find out. He probably won't return to this thread. For what it's worth I don't recall seeing anything bad in that post but maybe I missed an insult or something.

"For what it's worth", well, coming from you -- someone who disagrees with me a lot (which is fine by me) -- it's actually worth a lot if you ask me. Thanks.

I followed up on your advice and e-mailed Blue.

I used to say that I've never reported anything, but I did recently have to report something especially egregious a few months ago so I guess that streak is broken... first report in 16 years
 
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

94. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 14:53 Quinn
 
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 14:08:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:24:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:20:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:14:
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue

Use grown up words next time and stop being a "see you next Tuesday". Beam

Well, RedEye, you don't know what you're talking about because that word has a whole different meaning in the UK and The Netherlands. Like Ricky Gervais said in an interview a while back "the word cunt is almost a compliment here"
Are you on a UK version of BluesNews, no.
It's clear that English is not your native language nor do you understand common usage and its vernacular.
Until then man up when you post something offensive and it get's removed.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, a reference to some of you guys saying I shouldn't talk about shit going on where I'm not living But just go ahead and keep on blastin'. I'm now a racist, a neo-nazi, and some illiterate fool. But hey, I'm being silenced by saying "don't be a cunt". Sure, the discussions get feisty between you guys and me sometimes, but that doesn't mean you can't at least admit that what's going on now is wrong. Or is it only wrong when it happens to people who agree with you?

Anyway, fucking hysterical. I'm raising a glass to this hypocritical cesspit of a thread.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

93. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 14:08 RedEye9
 
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:24:
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:20:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:14:
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue

Use grown up words next time and stop being a "see you next Tuesday". Beam

Well, RedEye, you don't know what you're talking about because that word has a whole different meaning in the UK and The Netherlands. Like Ricky Gervais said in an interview a while back "the word cunt is almost a compliment here"
Are you on a UK version of BluesNews, no.
It's clear that English is not your native language nor do you understand common usage and its vernacular.
Until then man up when you post something offensive and it get's removed.
 
Avatar 58135
 



“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

92. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 14:08 Beamer
 
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:14:
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue People can call me a racist or say I use neo-nazi like semantics or whatever, but woe to he who calls someone the c-word. I have zero respect for that decision due to the double-standard applied here, but who gives a shit.


I know it's different elsewhere in the world, but in the US (where Blue is based), it's a pretty sharp word.

The difference between it and "racist," is that calling someone a racist implies that they're doing something wrong. The c word, in the US, is more like the f word or n word - implies that a whole class is wrong, instead of that one individual.
 



-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

91. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 13:24 Quinn
 
RedEye9 wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:20:
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:14:
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue

Use grown up words next time and stop being a "see you next Tuesday". Beam

Well, RedEye, you don't know what you're talking about because that word has a whole different meaning in the UK and The Netherlands. Like Ricky Gervais said in an interview a while back "the word cunt is almost a compliment here"
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

90. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 13:20 RedEye9
 
Quinn wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 13:14:
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue

Use grown up words next time and stop being a "see you next Tuesday". Beam
 
Avatar 58135
 



“If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

89. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 13:14 Quinn
 
I got a reply.

"Just don't be a c*bleep* [and tell me I shouldn't talk about issues because I don't live on your gigantic slab in the world]..." (or something among those lines...)

That's what that entire message was removed for. You weren't looking for a reason at all, were you Blue People can call me a racist or say I use neo-nazi like semantics or whatever, but woe to he who calls someone the c-word. I have zero respect for that decision due to the double-standard applied here, but who gives a shit.

 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

88. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 13:04 Quinn
 
Sepharo wrote on Oct 16, 2019, 11:50:
You'll probably have to message him to find out. He probably won't return to this thread. For what it's worth I don't recall seeing anything bad in that post but maybe I missed an insult or something.

"For what it's worth", well, coming from you -- someone who disagrees with me a lot (which is fine by me) -- it's actually worth a lot if you ask me. Thanks.

I followed up on your advice and e-mailed Blue.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

87. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 11:50 Sepharo
 
You'll probably have to message him to find out. He probably won't return to this thread. For what it's worth I don't recall seeing anything bad in that post but maybe I missed an insult or something.  
Avatar 17249
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 

86. Re: Blizzard Addresses blitzchung Controversy; Reduces Penalties Oct 16, 2019, 10:02 Quinn
 
I challenge you to tell me in no abstract terms why my comment was removed, Blue. Some folks here were disagreeing with me on a very sensitive and controversial topic, but we should always be able to have a dialogue about these topics.

This comment was edited on Oct 16, 2019, 10:41.
 
Avatar 57334
 



"F!#& YOU, MISSILE!"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >