|
United States10215 Posts
I've felt like I've needed to just vent a bit and share my thoughts for a bit on the developing situation that is unfolding with Chinese censorship.
Everyone is familiar with what has happened with Blizzard. Some are less aware with the NBA situation which is parallel to the current predicament in esports. With the release of Blizzard's statement just a mere few hours ago, they have demonstrated their willingness to double down on their actions and side with their Chinese markets. And that's fine. For a company, you pick what you believe will benefit you the most. Your ultimate goal is to generate profits and make your stockholders money. And if Blizzard genuinely believes that their Chinese markets are worth catering to while alienating their western markets, so be it. We have a right to voice our opinions against the company and subsequently boycott their products until they change their stance. That is the give and take of the free market.
The line is crossed when they unveil their blatant hypocrisy. Their stance on the Blitzchung incident was that it was only because they did not want political messages on their platform and they have a right and duty to ensure that their platform remains focused on games and not on outside issues. Except that isn't actually the case. Blizzard has tweeted various comments in support of LGBT rights and equality.
https://twitter.com/blizzard_ent/status/1134509599208484864?lang=en
Is that a problem? No, absolutely not. They have every right as a company to make any statements they want regarding issues in our society. In fact, companies should take a stance. But not when they turn around mere months later to say, just kidding we don't actually like political stances when it doesn't benefit us. And that's the problem with their hypocrisy. And it's not just Blizzard.
For those more closely following the NBA, Daryl Morey, owner of the Houston Rockets, tweeted out in support of the Free Hong Kong movement. China in response began removing the Rockets from their platforms and would refuse to broadcast their games, even extending to refusing to broadcast pre-season games that were being played in China. Adam Silver, commissioner of the NBA, initially apologized to China, but then made a very soft backpedal to a stance of "we respect freedom of expression" without ever once mentioning China or the actual situation at hand.
So here's the hypocrisy. The NBA has always welcomed voices of political opinion. I mean jesus, their press conferences are filled with them when a big news headline appears, coaches and players are very vocal and openly against President Trump, so on and so forth. But I guess when topics about China rolls around, we suddenly should clam up and not speak about that, because that would be wrong and sports aren't political right?
https://twitter.com/brownblaze/status/999388817667715072?lang=en
When Laura Ingraham on Fox News made her statement of "Shut up and Dribble", it was responded to by many NBA stars, namely Lebron James, and NBA coaches like Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich. Kobe Bryant even went up to accept his Acadmey Award and mentioned it in his speech. So, players should have a right to discuss political issues and make their voices heard. Again, well within their right, and using their platforms to spread awareness is important in our society when the voices of individual people are typically drowned out and not heard. But then when other real issues happen in the world that might indirectly impact them, they suddenly clam up.
Steve Kerr, coach of the Golden State Warriors, is one of the most heavy critics of President Trump in the NBA. He is loud, vocal, and isn't afraid to confidently make his opinion of any political issues. But give him a question about China and the current issue? He defaults to "I'm not that well educated" and "Well what about the problems in America?" In short, Kerr is comparing the likes of American issues such as gun violence and police brutality, to human trafficking, organ harvesting, re-education camps, and overt media censorship. And to the surprise of no one, people have fired back at Kerr, with many reddit threads and tweets proclaiming how pathetic and weak he looks.
And here's the best kicker in all of this. Hollywood stars love to attack Trump just like anyone else in America does. I mean, the free pandering points they get are insane. Take a popular star like Chris Evans, actor for Captain America in the Marvel films. He'll tell you first hand how much he hates President Trump and his liberal stances on all of the big issues in America. In fact, he is so vocal about political participation, that he even tweeted out this gem:
So he's set the line: if you speak out on some issues, you should be speaking out on the smaller issues as well. Where do you draw that line of political apathy? And using his own words, you should expect with an issue as big as China that he would make a stand right? Nope, not a single peep out of him and his fellow Hollywood stars. And that's the hypocrisy behind this.
People want to take the moral high ground when it benefits them, and then slither away into the shadows when it makes them uncomfortable. They aren't willing to make that commitment to their actual values and beliefs. They're willing to be silent to fill their pockets, promote their moves to more people to get their money. Yeah, I guess promoting your company, basketball team, or movies as pro-LGBT or equality is going to net you more views and buys on your product. But once you make that move into the political arena, you have to be ready to stand your ground and face the consequences. And if standing up against Trump is gonna be the best you can do, then you're weak and your morals are weak. You're a hypocrite who's only goal is to fill your pockets and pander. If there's one thing anyone reading gets out of this rant, it is to stick to your morals and values and don't compromise them. Because then otherwise, what are you? What is your identity?
I'm ready to see my social score hit 0 now. #FreeHongKong
 
|
+ Show Spoiler +When Laura Ingraham on Fox News made her statement of "Shut up and Dribble", it was responded to by many NBA stars, namely Lebron James, and NBA coaches like Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich. Kobe Bryant even went up to accept his Acadmey Award and mentioned it in his speech. So, players should have a right to discuss political issues and make their voices heard. Again, well within their right, and using their platforms to spread awareness is important in our society when the voices of individual people are typically drowned out and not heard. But then when other real issues happen in the world that might indirectly impact them, they suddenly clam up.
amen. only pundits on fox news get to have an opinion.
i wonder what she would say now that fox has pretty much turned their back on angry orange. aside from soulless hannity
there are some issues that are understandably (for now) controversial because of judeo-christian 'morality' but these will eventually become no-brainers and laughed at by our great grandchildren.
here, it is just post-colonial colonialism and any people fighting for their independence deserve to be heard not squelched.
|
On October 12 2019 15:22 FlaShFTW wrote:I've felt like I've needed to just vent a bit and share my thoughts for a bit on the developing situation that is unfolding with Chinese censorship. Everyone is familiar with what has happened with Blizzard. Some are less aware with the NBA situation which is parallel to the current predicament in esports. With the release of Blizzard's statement just a mere few hours ago, they have demonstrated their willingness to double down on their actions and side with their Chinese markets. And that's fine. For a company, you pick what you believe will benefit you the most. Your ultimate goal is to generate profits and make your stockholders money. And if Blizzard genuinely believes that their Chinese markets are worth catering to while alienating their western markets, so be it. We have a right to voice our opinions against the company and subsequently boycott their products until they change their stance. That is the give and take of the free market. The line is crossed when they unveil their blatant hypocrisy. Their stance on the Blitzchung incident was that it was only because they did not want political messages on their platform and they have a right and duty to ensure that their platform remains focused on games and not on outside issues. Except that isn't actually the case. Blizzard has tweeted various comments in support of LGBT rights and equality. https://twitter.com/blizzard_ent/status/1134509599208484864?lang=enhttps://twitter.com/blizzard_anz/status/930573293408600064Is that a problem? No, absolutely not. They have every right as a company to make any statements they want regarding issues in our society. In fact, companies should take a stance. But not when they turn around mere months later to say, just kidding we don't actually like political stances when it doesn't benefit us. And that's the problem with their hypocrisy. And it's not just Blizzard. For those more closely following the NBA, Daryl Morey, owner of the Houston Rockets, tweeted out in support of the Free Hong Kong movement. China in response began removing the Rockets from their platforms and would refuse to broadcast their games, even extending to refusing to broadcast pre-season games that were being played in China. Adam Silver, commissioner of the NBA, initially apologized to China, but then made a very soft backpedal to a stance of "we respect freedom of expression" without ever once mentioning China or the actual situation at hand. So here's the hypocrisy. The NBA has always welcomed voices of political opinion. I mean jesus, their press conferences are filled with them when a big news headline appears, coaches and players are very vocal and openly against President Trump, so on and so forth. But I guess when topics about China rolls around, we suddenly should clam up and not speak about that, because that would be wrong and sports aren't political right? https://twitter.com/brownblaze/status/999388817667715072?lang=enWhen Laura Ingraham on Fox News made her statement of "Shut up and Dribble", it was responded to by many NBA stars, namely Lebron James, and NBA coaches like Steve Kerr and Gregg Popovich. Kobe Bryant even went up to accept his Acadmey Award and mentioned it in his speech. So, players should have a right to discuss political issues and make their voices heard. Again, well within their right, and using their platforms to spread awareness is important in our society when the voices of individual people are typically drowned out and not heard. But then when other real issues happen in the world that might indirectly impact them, they suddenly clam up. Steve Kerr, coach of the Golden State Warriors, is one of the most heavy critics of President Trump in the NBA. He is loud, vocal, and isn't afraid to confidently make his opinion of any political issues. But give him a question about China and the current issue? He defaults to "I'm not that well educated" and "Well what about the problems in America?" In short, Kerr is comparing the likes of American issues such as gun violence and police brutality, to human trafficking, organ harvesting, re-education camps, and overt media censorship. And to the surprise of no one, people have fired back at Kerr, with many reddit threads and tweets proclaiming how pathetic and weak he looks. And here's the best kicker in all of this. Hollywood stars love to attack Trump just like anyone else in America does. I mean, the free pandering points they get are insane. Take a popular star like Chris Evans, actor for Captain America in the Marvel films. He'll tell you first hand how much he hates President Trump and his liberal stances on all of the big issues in America. In fact, he is so vocal about political participation, that he even tweeted out this gem: https://twitter.com/ChrisEvans/status/1181265470260994049So he's set the line: if you speak out on some issues, you should be speaking out on the smaller issues as well. Where do you draw that line of political apathy? And using his own words, you should expect with an issue as big as China that he would make a stand right? Nope, not a single peep out of him and his fellow Hollywood stars. And that's the hypocrisy behind this. People want to take the moral high ground when it benefits them, and then slither away into the shadows when it makes them uncomfortable. They aren't willing to make that commitment to their actual values and beliefs. They're willing to be silent to fill their pockets, promote their moves to more people to get their money. Yeah, I guess promoting your company, basketball team, or movies as pro-LGBT or equality is going to net you more views and buys on your product. But once you make that move into the political arena, you have to be ready to stand your ground and face the consequences. And if standing up against Trump is gonna be the best you can do, then you're weak and your morals are weak. You're a hypocrite who's only goal is to fill your pockets and pander. If there's one thing anyone reading gets out of this rant, it is to stick to your morals and values and don't compromise them. Because then otherwise, what are you? What is your identity? I'm ready to see my social score hit 0 now. #FreeHongKong
I agree with all your views except free hk.Whether in the East or in the West, people are always full of benevolence and righteousness, as long as things do not happen to themselves.
|
This is why I hate it when corporations like the NBA try to shove morality down our throats. Artists, writers and educators - okay, it's kind of built in to their profession, but not athletes and actors and certainly not giant corporations. They should still adhere to morals but it feels so irritating when they preach them. I guess the hypocrisy in this case is not surprising although the immorality is.
|
Well said and completely agree. #FreeHongKong.
|
On October 12 2019 17:27 aSpeaker wrote:
I agree with all your views except free hk.Whether in the East or in the West, people are always full of benevolence and righteousness, as long as things do not happen to themselves.
PRC lacks benevolence and righteousness. They chose to push this extradition bill, they chose to lie, using state media to tell you that it is for the benefit of Taiwan, they chose to kidnap booksellers, they chose to erode the promised rights of the people of Hong Kong.
|
On October 12 2019 19:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2019 17:27 aSpeaker wrote:
I agree with all your views except free hk.Whether in the East or in the West, people are always full of benevolence and righteousness, as long as things do not happen to themselves. PRC lacks benevolence and righteousness. They chose to push this extradition bill, they chose to lie, using state media to tell you that it is for the benefit of Taiwan, they chose to kidnap booksellers, they chose to erode the promised rights of the people of Hong Kong.
I don't read it through the official media. I believe in neutral third-party media.Do you know Robert Ovadia？
|
Northern Ireland25884 Posts
I do largely agree with, bar that not commenting on certain issues under the ‘I’m not educated on the topic’ is abrogating responsibility or being hypocritical.
Sometimes it is judicious to apply that standard and not pontificate, I wish more would apply that standard in many situations, on the other hand perhaps Kerr is motivated out of cowardice or whatever people accuse him of.
As someone who is culturally British for example it’s extremely grating when folks from the south, or from the States lecture me on the topic and that I am Irish while clearly having very little grasp of the subject.
Americans are well placed to comment on issues pertaining to their country, and may just feel more comfortable in an environment of familiarity, or indeed feel it’s their country and hence they have that bit of an extra stake.
But yes don’t let my post take away from my otherwise almost complete agreement with yours. Companies and individuals make all these political statements to curry favour, but only when the tide has shifted and there are almost no stakes in doing so whatsoever, a Colin Kapernick is very much the exception.
And now corporations have started actively tapping in to the well of politics in such an overt manner they have to put up or shut up in my opinion. The precedent is there now so follow through.
|
United States10215 Posts
On October 12 2019 22:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
I do largely agree with, bar that not commenting on certain issues under the ‘I’m not educated on the topic’ is abrogating responsibility or being hypocritical.
Sometimes it is judicious to apply that standard and not pontificate, I wish more would apply that standard in many situations, on the other hand perhaps Kerr is motivated out of cowardice or whatever people accuse him of.
As someone who is culturally British for example it’s extremely grating when folks from the south, or from the States lecture me on the topic and that I am Irish while clearly having very little grasp of the subject.
Americans are well placed to comment on issues pertaining to their country, and may just feel more comfortable in an environment of familiarity, or indeed feel it’s their country and hence they have that bit of an extra stake.
Let me say I agree, if you aren't educated, it is appropriate to say so. However, Steve Kerr's 2nd response to the media and 3rd response seems to me like he does know something and just wants to deflect the point. He brought up American issues in order to try to obfuscate Chinese issues. It's not difficult to say, "Yes, I believe in freedom and democracy." The issues in Hong Kong, while complex at face, are actually fairly straight forward for someone as vocal as him on American politics to make a reasonably informed opinion.
|
Northern Ireland25884 Posts
On October 13 2019 01:50 FlaShFTW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2019 22:25 Wombat_NI wrote:
I do largely agree with, bar that not commenting on certain issues under the ‘I’m not educated on the topic’ is abrogating responsibility or being hypocritical.
Sometimes it is judicious to apply that standard and not pontificate, I wish more would apply that standard in many situations, on the other hand perhaps Kerr is motivated out of cowardice or whatever people accuse him of.
As someone who is culturally British for example it’s extremely grating when folks from the south, or from the States lecture me on the topic and that I am Irish while clearly having very little grasp of the subject.
Americans are well placed to comment on issues pertaining to their country, and may just feel more comfortable in an environment of familiarity, or indeed feel it’s their country and hence they have that bit of an extra stake. Let me say I agree, if you aren't educated, it is appropriate to say so. However, Steve Kerr's 2nd response to the media and 3rd response seems to me like he does know something and just wants to deflect the point. He brought up American issues in order to try to obfuscate Chinese issues. It's not difficult to say, "Yes, I believe in freedom and democracy." The issues in Hong Kong, while complex at face, are actually fairly straight forward for someone as vocal as him on American politics to make a reasonably informed opinion.
Would agree there, I really don’t follow sportsball of the US variety
There’s a fine line between ‘before we lecture x we should get our own house in order’ and obfuscation of the kind you’re referring to, but it is an important distinction. It does sound from cursory Googling that Kerr has strayed into the latter camp.
|
United States33457 Posts
How's the saying go? Without fear [of losing your money] there cannot be courage.
|
|
|
Blizzard supporting LGBT on Twitter probably was a decision they made in the company after some internal discussion, i feel its a bit different from the hs situation which force them to respond to a political situation that they werent ready for.
Which i imagine why the original rule was put there for, companys dont want to show support for something unless its in the good eyes of the public thats just how business work. If people we're still shitty and it was seen as good to hate on them theres no way blizzard would support gay pride, and that goes for every company. Forcing their hand to pick a side isnt what they want and ofc they will try to avoid, it would be ridiculous to expect every company to form an opinion on whatever new political issues arise.
The "winning" side will always be seen as good and thats when companys feel safe to come out and support.
Tldr: blizzard is fine with political stances as long as they get to decide what to suppport and its fine for them to remain silent (this isnt unique to blizzard but to every company) its not hypocritical that they dont want political stances displayed on their platform that havent been internally discussed
|
It's really not as simple as I imagined.
One thing I can't understand is that the enterprise is focusing on its own profits. Maybe he did express some political views in the past, such as his support for LGBT, but I think it's also for his own profit. Supporting LGBT can make him profitable and he will support it. Supporting HK will make him lose the Chinese market. Opposing HK will make him lose the western market. So he chose a relatively neutral choice.
It makes him look hypocritical. In fact, it's hard for a company to stand in line on all political issues, even with you. It's easy to be disappointed, which makes Blizzard as bad as a normal "bad" company. I still think we should pay more attention to the game itself rather than the game company.
|
On October 12 2019 19:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2019 17:27 aSpeaker wrote:
I agree with all your views except free hk.Whether in the East or in the West, people are always full of benevolence and righteousness, as long as things do not happen to themselves. PRC lacks benevolence and righteousness. They chose to push this extradition bill, they chose to lie, using state media to tell you that it is for the benefit of Taiwan, they chose to kidnap booksellers, they chose to erode the promised rights of the people of Hong Kong.
The official media will tell you that this decision was made by the Hong Kong government, and we will always support the Hong Kong government.As I said, why not go to Robert ovadia's facebook?You have to look at foreigners'opinions from different perspectives at least to judge one thing. Wouldn't you be fear if all the opinions were amazingly consistent?If you have actually been to Hong Kong during the turmoil and really know what happened, you are free to discuss it. But if you don't, you must be as pitiful as those who only believe in Chinese media if you only learn from CNN BBC's media with obvious ideological characteristics. Of course, you may think that the BBC is still as reliable as before, so it's your right to express your opinions as you like.
I just want to remind you that all media are inherently untrustworthy.They won't tell you everything.It's like those white helmets.
|
Except being silent on cruelty that is taking place right now is also a political statement, Blizzard sided with Chinese government.
Free Hongkong and Uyghurs
|
United States10215 Posts
On October 13 2019 09:13 Shock710 wrote:
Blizzard supporting LGBT on Twitter probably was a decision they made in the company after some internal discussion, i feel its a bit different from the hs situation which force them to respond to a political situation that they werent ready for.
Which i imagine why the original rule was put there for, companys dont want to show support for something unless its in the good eyes of the public thats just how business work. If people we're still shitty and it was seen as good to hate on them theres no way blizzard would support gay pride, and that goes for every company. Forcing their hand to pick a side isnt what they want and ofc they will try to avoid, it would be ridiculous to expect every company to form an opinion on whatever new political issues arise.
The "winning" side will always be seen as good and thats when companys feel safe to come out and support.
Tldr: blizzard is fine with political stances as long as they get to decide what to suppport and its fine for them to remain silent (this isnt unique to blizzard but to every company) its not hypocritical that they dont want political stances displayed on their platform that havent been internally discussed
Except the message Blizzard gave us was "no political messages at all", when that isn't the case. It doesn't matter if they discuss it internally or not, they made political messages, and by their own rules here, that's not allowed. It absolutely is hypocritical. You don't get to decide what counts as "divisive" like they do, it's disingenuous and not done in good faith.
|
On October 13 2019 12:13 aSpeaker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2019 19:14 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On October 12 2019 17:27 aSpeaker wrote:
I agree with all your views except free hk.Whether in the East or in the West, people are always full of benevolence and righteousness, as long as things do not happen to themselves. PRC lacks benevolence and righteousness. They chose to push this extradition bill, they chose to lie, using state media to tell you that it is for the benefit of Taiwan, they chose to kidnap booksellers, they chose to erode the promised rights of the people of Hong Kong. The official media will tell you that this decision was made by the Hong Kong government, and we will always support the Hong Kong government.As I said, why not go to Robert ovadia's facebook?You have to look at foreigners'opinions from different perspectives at least to judge one thing. Wouldn't you be fear if all the opinions were amazingly consistent?If you have actually been to Hong Kong during the turmoil and really know what happened, you are free to discuss it. But if you don't, you must be as pitiful as those who only believe in Chinese media if you only learn from CNN BBC's media with obvious ideological characteristics. Of course, you may think that the BBC is still as reliable as before, so it's your right to express your opinions as you like. I just want to remind you that all media are inherently untrustworthy.They won't tell you everything.It's like those white helmets.
and I guess Tiananmen Square never happened, and the Falun Gong aren't getting harvested for organs and innocent Uyghurs aren't being imprisoned indefinitely. The difference between Chinese news and Western news is that Western news isn't being supressed by the government by the great firewall, that is to say, you actually have a choice in who to believe (well sourced articles from respected journalists) rather than only what the CN government wants you to read. And yes - there are problems with the freedom of the press in the West, some countries more than others, but it's no way as bad as in China - which ranks 177th out of 180 on the world press freedom index.
|
On October 13 2019 21:12 Samsakzerg wrote:
Except being silent on cruelty that is taking place right now is also a political statement, Blizzard sided with Chinese government.
Free Hongkong and Uyghurs
So blizzard are also making a political statement by not coming out against Trump.
Are they also making a political statement by coming about against Uzbekistan?
What about Blizzard's shocking silence on the current treatment of LBGT people in Brazil?
Are all of these silences political statements?
|
As one of those described as a leftist or a liberal by pundits.... I do not fear or feel offended when someone voices a political opinion.
I have always thought it prudent to condemn my empire before I go and comment about other societies.
But, the hypocrisy of people who will condemn our softcore border concentration camps but won't spend an hour and at least learn about Chinas make me sick.
My grandpa gave his soul away to murder Germans for the same type of shit that our leaders and pundits won't even say words about.
I am not pro war but I am pro consistency of principle.
I have trouble supporting HK when my encouragement or support will likely result in the death and hardship for those people.
There is a quote that goes something like, everything is political to the people without power and real privilege is being able to tune it out and remain uneffected.
|
On October 14 2019 02:02 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2019 21:12 Samsakzerg wrote:
Except being silent on cruelty that is taking place right now is also a political statement, Blizzard sided with Chinese government.
Free Hongkong and Uyghurs So blizzard are also making a political statement by not coming out against Trump. Are they also making a political statement by coming about against Uzbekistan? What about Blizzard's shocking silence on the current treatment of LBGT people in Brazil? Are all of these silences political statements?
The difference is blizzard has just silenced an expression made about Hongkong, and i believe blizzard has made pro LGBT statements before, maybe in subtle ways but they have.
|
Technically they are hypocrisy both cases whether they support LGBT or cater for Chinese market. It is a company that is after profit and that is the only thing that matters.
Supporting LGBT will make it look like a progressive modern accepting company in western market? Profit.
Silencing anything related to HK to cater for Chinese market that is controlled by government? Profit.
No company in the world is a trust worthy and everyone has their own believes whether they support X or do not support Y for example.
I always laugh when a company says that they are "proud" of being "inclusive" and using these retarded words to sound like they are good or something. They all after money after all. For me, just give me a good product and convince me with it instead of being a pathetic hypocritical spineless parasite to get money.
|
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
|
On October 15 2019 07:58 GGzerG wrote:
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
I have been actively anti blizzard for years. Which some of these upset people freaked out about during the pre-remastered hype.
Just because they made some good games doesn't mean they aren't a like all other stock selling companies.
They are Ryandian in nature and moral-less unless profitable. Which is an amoral philosophy.
Gotta give them credit for sc2. That game isn't very fun to play but it is very fun to watch.
|
On October 15 2019 07:58 GGzerG wrote:
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
This post is specifically about Blizzard's hypocrisy, so...
|
Can companies have morals? Should they?
|
On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they?
no and no. but i believe it is good press to have morals. and press can lead to additional $$. this is probably very contrived and they try to figure out how much $ they can get from displaying good morals from externalities vs loss they suffer from potential backlash. would like to be a fly in the wall on this decision for the nba
|
On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they?
This is a funny question, and I would argue that if countries can have morals, it should be possible for companies to as well. There is usually a kind of moral leadership in countries, and whether that set of morals are alien or familiar, it is a guiding and moving force. In terms of the direction of legislation, and in terms of what sorts of wars a country becomes involved in.
Maybe the trouble is that no company is a democracy. They are all little dictatorships, where the greed of one or a few individuals is never put into check, and that rare human who can have so much power and still be benevolent seems almost mythical. There is corruption in politics, but every effort is made by every political thinker to contrive ways to keep it in check and to reduce it. It would be lovely if one day companies were forced to adopt some of these checks. Imagine if leadership in a company had to be elected! And could be impeached! Who knows how such a system would work out.
|
On October 15 2019 07:58 GGzerG wrote:
No one really bats an eye or cares until something like this happens, if you or anyone else really cared, you probably would of said or made action prior to Blizzard doing this, no? -_-
An incredebly weak accusation. This topic is now blizzard relavent, right and centre after the recent incident. This is a StarCraft forum, hence the discussion now.
People have been taking action, now China CCP and its growing threats are simply discussed more, its only natural that more action is taking place.
|
People want to take the moral high ground when it benefits them, and then slither away into the shadows when it makes them uncomfortable.
This is the only sentence of your statement I disagree with.
More accurate to say "People are willing to support the moral high ground when it is safe, but then slither away into the shadows the moment it threatens their financial bottom line to do the right thing."
|
no and no. but i believe it is good press to have morals. and press can lead to additional $$. this is probably very contrived and they try to figure out how much $ they can get from displaying good morals from externalities vs loss they suffer from potential backlash. would like to be a fly in the wall on this decision for the nba
This is a funny question, and I would argue that if countries can have morals, it should be possible for companies to as well. There is usually a kind of moral leadership in countries, and whether that set of morals are alien or familiar, it is a guiding and moving force. In terms of the direction of legislation, and in terms of what sorts of wars a country becomes involved in.
Maybe the trouble is that no company is a democracy. They are all little dictatorships, where the greed of one or a few individuals is never put into check, and that rare human who can have so much power and still be benevolent seems almost mythical. There is corruption in politics, but every effort is made by every political thinker to contrive ways to keep it in check and to reduce it. It would be lovely if one day companies were forced to adopt some of these checks. Imagine if leadership in a company had to be elected! And could be impeached! Who knows how such a system would work out.
so is the question more around a company's power structure, or around the external incentives such a power structure rests upon?
|
On October 28 2019 07:00 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +no and no. but i believe it is good press to have morals. and press can lead to additional $$. this is probably very contrived and they try to figure out how much $ they can get from displaying good morals from externalities vs loss they suffer from potential backlash. would like to be a fly in the wall on this decision for the nba Show nested quote +This is a funny question, and I would argue that if countries can have morals, it should be possible for companies to as well. There is usually a kind of moral leadership in countries, and whether that set of morals are alien or familiar, it is a guiding and moving force. In terms of the direction of legislation, and in terms of what sorts of wars a country becomes involved in.
Maybe the trouble is that no company is a democracy. They are all little dictatorships, where the greed of one or a few individuals is never put into check, and that rare human who can have so much power and still be benevolent seems almost mythical. There is corruption in politics, but every effort is made by every political thinker to contrive ways to keep it in check and to reduce it. It would be lovely if one day companies were forced to adopt some of these checks. Imagine if leadership in a company had to be elected! And could be impeached! Who knows how such a system would work out. so is the question more around a company's power structure, or around the external incentives such a power structure rests upon?
I don't know if this has been discussed in any level of detail but I personally would be excited to hear knowledgeable people discuss the effect of the pressures external to Blizzard which influenced the decisions they ended up making, especially the regulatory framework they're in.
American companies that are publicly traded have incentives to behave in this way and I assume it's the case in many countries. Regardless of what POTUS or Congress has to say about the HK protests, Blizzard's power structure is largely bound by laws which place the execs in the awkward position where (I think) it could be argued in court that in the event that they failed their fiduciary duty by alienating one of their most lucrative markets, they could be held responsible in court for that failure to uphold that duty and losing money for their shareholders.
Whenever you discuss the notion that some systems should be put in place to promote ethical behavior by corporations, there's always going to be some smart guy pointing out that corporations exist to generate profit as if it were a truism and not something that even should be up for debate; it goes without saying that it's how it is and therefore it's how it ought to be. But it seems to me like in a globalized world, the US has every incentive to rework some of its laws about the fiduciary duty of corporations which trade internationally, especially since these laws appear to sometimes lead to behaviors such as the one of Blizzard and the NBA which are contrary to its own foreign policy interests. If these things were to be articulated differently, maybe US commerce could be used as a diplomatic tool on top of economic sanctions to promote ethical behavior.
I don't know how such things could be implemented, but how about corporations pay taxes (not a given in the current climate) and get tax credits for commercial decisions which are aligned with the US's. Reward ethical corporate behavior. Help executives feel like their country will have their backs if they do the right thing by loosening fiduciary duty when humanitarian concerns lead to loss of revenue. Maybe straight up subsidize orgs which further the US's foreign policy goals to their own detriment. Smarter people might come up with better ideas.
|
Norway28701 Posts
On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they?
yes and yes. Not that they necessarily do, but the idea that we [i]should[/] have powerful, amoral entities operating in the world is completely backwards.
Morality isn't 'easy', topics relating to morals that we actually discuss is pretty much always operating within some gray area, we try to do our best with limited information, we try to do out best while staying out of harms way, sometimes people are selfish jerks, but the answer to the difficulty of establishing a consistent moral that can have more universal agreement is not to abandon the quest, but rather to give it a stronger effort while also accepting that sometimes we fall short.
|
Whenever you discuss the notion that some systems should be put in place to promote ethical behavior by corporations, there's always going to be some smart guy pointing out that corporations exist to generate profit as if it were a truism and not something that even should be up for debate;
The funny thing about that is that labour laws are a precedent for lawmakers needing to intervene in order to establish a moral baseline for companies. Otherwise there is always the excuse that if you behave morally, your competitors will undercut you and you'll be out of business, the world no better. It can be extremely helpful to give companies a safe way to behave morally while staying competitive.
|
On October 28 2019 17:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2019 13:59 Shady Sands wrote:
Can companies have morals? Should they? yes and yes. Not that they necessarily do, but the idea that we [i]should[/] have powerful, amoral entities operating in the world is completely backwards. Morality isn't 'easy', topics relating to morals that we actually discuss is pretty much always operating within some gray area, we try to do our best with limited information, we try to do out best while staying out of harms way, sometimes people are selfish jerks, but the answer to the difficulty of establishing a consistent moral that can have more universal agreement is not to abandon the quest, but rather to give it a stronger effort while also accepting that sometimes we fall short.
Agreed. Morality is a luxury good that poor people sometimes purchase in spades and rich people forsake altogether
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
