Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Riot warns League of Legends streamers and players to avoid 'sensitive topics' on the air
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Yes people are killed senselessly every day, that will always be the case, that is why you have to choose which 'fights' are worth engaging in, Hong Kong i think is, the Kurds, not so much.
As for the Blizzard situation...
Has anyone seen the ban player complain beyond the usual... No... Because i am pretty sure this was a calculated risk and as noted it paid of handsomely. Much like in any other sport or organized venue... You break the script and you run the risk. That is why most "live" tv is not live any more but rather has a delay to it so the people in the control-room can hit the big red button should someone go off the script.
This have been a good conversation
I think it is hard not to have concerns about both Hong Kong and China's growing role on the world stage. But we can't let such concerns blind us to unequivocal support of everyone who voices them.
I am not sure posters understand the wider implications here. There are solid reasons that in a democracy you have lines drawn between politics and the rest of society: business, religion and so on. The only countries who don't have such lines are not ones you would actually want to live in. This is partly why business and politics should be separate, not used as a vehicle for political messages, it is not as if we don't have any other ways of getting a message across other than a corporation's branded channels.
We have allowed social media to become our touchstone for truth, the reaction of social media to take precedence in fact over any other element of our society. This is a dangerous road, the vagaries of social media should not be used to decided anything.
I see many supporters for the fellow who voiced his support for Hong Kong, but this was because they support the message. Well what if it was a political message you did not support? Who then gets to decided if it was the right thing to do? The stone throwing mob of social media?
This have been a good conversation
Now why would anybody want to be called that, I wonder?
There's only one reason why and it's not going to work.
This have been a good conversation
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with the source of the protests, I'll explain it. China effectively has a dictatorship, and if you criticize the dictator, or more broadly, the government, they can punish you severely for it. They can concoct bogus charges and have you arrested and imprisoned for however long they like. They don't have an independent judiciary, but will just do whatever the dictator wants. China's government is nominally Communist, but really just a dictatorship, as they don't believe in the Communist ideology at all.
Hong Kong was a British colony for many years. Near the end of the 19th century, there was a deal between Britain and China (then ruled by the Qing Dynasty) that China wouldn't object to Hong Kong remaining a British colony for about the next century, and then Britain would return the colony to China after that. Near the end of that, Britain and China signed another treaty that the handover to the Communist government would indeed happen shortly before the turn of the millennium, but China would respect Hong Kong's freedoms for 50 years under a "one country, two systems" principle. Basically, Hong Kong would be nominally part of China, but largely able to rule themselves as they pleased.
China has slowly been chipping away at the freedom that they promised to Hong Kong. The extradition bill that sparked the protests basically said that if China asked for someone in Hong Kong to be extradited, Hong Kong would do so. This would effectively allow China to arrest and imprison anyone in Hong Kong for any reason or no reason at all. Basically, if you're in Hong Kong and you criticize China's dictator or do anything else that the government there dislikes, they can create fraudulent charges, get you extradited to China proper, and then imprison you for as long as they like. Under the extradition law, the government of Hong Kong wouldn't protest this at all.
Extradition treaties are common across the world, but this one is peculiar because of the asymmetry. In the United States at least, treaties typically have a dual illegality requirement. That is, if a foreign country wants the US to extradite an American, the US won't cooperate unless the crime is something that is also illegal in the United States. For example, if an American commits murder in Canada and then Canada asks for him to be extradited to face trial, the United States will cooperate. If Canada asked the US to extradite someone for the crime of claiming that the world was flat (yes, I realize that this isn't a crime in Canada; it's a hypothetical example), then the US would refuse, as saying stupid things like that isn't illegal in the United States.
The dual illegality requirement is important because it means that the US won't extradite Americans to despotic regimes to face bogus charges. For example, the government of Turkey wants the US to extradite the basketball player Enes Kanter for criticizing the dictator of Turkey, and the US refuses to do so. I'm sure that the government of Turkey has made the charges sound more serious than that, but all sides realize that criticizing the dictator is the underlying "crime", and that's why Kanter is free in the United States. I suspect that the dual illegality requirement is common to many or most extradition treaties, but am unfamiliar with most such treaties.
Hong Kong's proposed extradition law doesn't have any such protections. Were it to pass and be enforced, it would effectively mean that the government of China could capriciously arrest, imprison, torture, and execute people in Hong Kong for any reason or no reason at all. Considering how willing they are to do that to people in China (e.g., the Uighur genocide currently ongoing in Xinjiang province), people in Hong Kong have plenty of reason to object to that. (People all across the world who value freedom likewise have reason to object to it.) Hence the protests.
What about "None of that is what you said. This is the first time in your hypothetical, that there was some some guy yelling and screaming, flexing on you and your kid."
...where I literally showed you that it was not the first time. I understand not wanting to reply to something you were wrong, but at least , be the guy you pretend to be and say "I'm sorry! My bad. You did said it and I didn't paid attention".
What's worst is that you are still going and going against me, even tho, the discussion was kinda over. So, what are you really trying to achieve in here?
Reporter: What's behind Blizzard success, and how do you make your gamers happy?
Blizzard Boss: Making gamers happy is not my concern, making money.. yes!
One should be careful with assumptions... They have a bad habit of making an arse out of you.
This have been a good conversation
Knock'em dead, champ.