Kael'thas Sunstrider New Voice Actor, Patch 9.1 Mythic+ Scoring System, DLC #768

[Garretdejiko]

Call me dumb, but: And that means....what exactly? Yes, i know about the Epstein case, he was prosecuted for things like sex-trafficing. And from what i can find on Google, it seems the flight logs contain infos who at one point flew onboard his privat jet. Now lets ignore how easy it is to fake those pictures, which is why i would take any apperant document thats not provided by the court with a grain of salt. But lets say Kotik indeed flew with that jet once. Yes, certain people still can (and also "would" if it brings them any advantage / profit) construct some kind of "guilty by association" campaign out of that. But its till a bit of a different situation compared to Flynn, where its not about "association" but the person in question directly is made out to be the guilty one.

No, let's not. That's how the Twitter court works. I didn't say Bobby used to diddle kids along with Epstein, but it took far far far less to cancel Quinton Flynn.

[Karreck]

For anyone cheering cancel culture, realize exactly the mindset you're applauding when you sneer about the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

- "I am a delator, and that man spoke against Caesar!"
- "She's old, alone, and creepy! Burn the witch!"
- "Confess to being a heretic! Confess in the name of the Inquisition!"
- "Grab some rope for the lynching, he raped that white girl!"
- "We know ya dun it, and the rack will get the truth out of ya!"

Support cancel culture and you're on the wrong side of history and justice.

How is a company deciding not to work with an actor equal to people being killed? Blizzard isn't executing or torturing the guy. In fact, this "cancel culture" you got your panties in a twist about isn't advocating for his torture or death either. So this is nothing like those events you mentioned.

You really need to work on your metaphors.

[BoredReader22]

Here's the reality: if you behave in a way that bothers society, you're going to have a hard time existing in that society. No, we are not going to normalize creepy behavior so that creeps can exist with us. If they want to combat and defend their behavior, good riddance. If they want to justify their behavior, good riddance. There is no universal law that says "humans have to accept every human for who they are". Human society is set up by norms and standards and if you don't follow them, there is no guarantee that you can have a safe life in that society. None. If you think so, I'd love to see your philosophical argument as to why humans must accept all human behaviors in society.

- - - Updated - - -

I think a lot of people in this thread seem to think that if you didn't do anything criminally wrong, your employer has no right to sever ties with you. In no capacity has that standard ever existed in society or will it ever.

So you would be fine if someone f.e. gets fired because he and his girlfriend live together without being married and someone ranted about that on Facebook / Twitter? And dont say "that wont happen", after all, Flynn seems to face much of this backlash for what apperantly ammounts to 2 consenting adults engaging in mutual flirting. And if that already justifies cutting ties, then surely "living together in sin" would do so too, right?
Also, funfact: Yes, your boss can fire you without you doing anything criminally wrong. But at the same time, many countries have laws that also prevent your boss from fireing you over things like personal reasons. What do you think would happen if a boss f.e. fires someone after finding out that person is part of the LGBTQ community because "he doesnt want to associate with those people"?

[Wekko]

Did you seriously bold parts of my statement to purposefully take them out of context as if the unbolded parts do not matter? Yikes brother, we are done here.

- - - Updated - - -

So you would be fine if someone f.e. gets fired because he and his girlfriend live together without being married and someone ranted about that on Facebook / Twitter? And dont say "that wont happen", after all, Flynn seems to face much of this backlash for what apperantly ammounts to 2 consenting adults engaging in mutual flirting. And if that already justifies cutting ties, then surely "living together in sin" would do so too, right?
Also, funfact: Yes, your boss can fire you without you doing anything criminally wrong. But at the same time, many countries have laws that also prevent your boss from fireing you over things like personal reasons. What do you think would happen if a boss f.e. fires someone after finding out that person is part of the LGBTQ community because "he doesnt want to associate with those people"?

Are you seriously correlating someone being accused of being gay or living with a partner without being married is somehow in the same realm or level as creepy dude with unwanted sexual advances? I'm sure there will be some sort of legislation in the future where we let people just sexually harass people at work because you think it's equivalent to being gay.

[Queen of Hamsters]

How is a company deciding not to work with an actor equal to people being killed? Blizzard isn't executing or torturing the guy. In fact, this "cancel culture" you got your panties in a twist about isn't advocating for his torture or death either. So this is nothing like those events you mentioned.

You really need to work on your metaphors.

I wonder what goes on in the heads of these people, when they're so scared of "cancel culture" that it's on the level of Roman despots, witch burnings, the Spanish Inquisition and slavery to their amygdala... All that's missing is a comparison to the Holocaust, and it's a self-victimization bingo.

Get back to me when this dude has his assets seized by twitter users, is dragged out of his home, set on fire and then lynched at the hands of the people choosing to believe the alleged victims/holding off until there's evidence. Then maybe this idea of "cancel culture" (people facing consequences for their actions) as a world-spanning existential threat to every innocent person with a Social media account, might have some credibility.

[Wekko]

Call me dumb, but: And that means....what exactly? Yes, i know about the Epstein case, he was prosecuted for things like sex-trafficing. And from what i can find on Google, it seems the flight logs contain infos who at one point flew onboard his privat jet. Now lets ignore how easy it is to fake those pictures, which is why i would take any apperant document thats not provided by the court with a grain of salt. But lets say Kotik indeed flew with that jet once. Yes, certain people still can (and also "would" if it brings them any advantage / profit) construct some kind of "guilty by association" campaign out of that. But its till a bit of a different situation compared to Flynn, where its not about "association" but the person in question directly is made out to be the guilty one.


Wait a second, in your last post you said you achknowledge that you arent perfect and that you have made mistakes. How come now you "know for a fact" that you havent done anything wrong? Also i repeat: You THINK you havent done anything wrong. In this case, 2 consenting adults engage in mutual flirting. Tell me, if 2 adults flirting with each other already is enough to get people riled up about it, how can you be so sure there is nothing in your past that gets them riled uo? Remember, its not about what you think is good or bad behaviour, its about what THEY think it is. And appreantly, flirting with someone that flirts with you already is "bad" and has to be shunned.
Oh, and no, "he abused his power / tried to weasel his way into her pants" is no argument. Like i said, we arent talking about some little kid getting pressured into someting / baited with promises, we talk about a grown woman who apperantly also flirted with him out of her own volition. Not to mention that would qualify any guy that f.e. buys a drink for a girl as a "creep" since he did so with ulterious motives....

My imperfections did not harm anyone else other than myself. I never took advantage of someone against their wishes. I never forced myself onto someone. I never tried to force an interaction with a female where it was completely obvious there was no chemistry. My mistakes came young and from inexperience. Again, I'll die on any hill to defend them. Does that mean I expect my employer to keep me employed while this happens? Nope.

What you don't get is that it is a matter of abusing society's trust. I have never done that. This man did. Whether he's guilty of a crime or not. Whether you think he should be fired or not. Society no longer trusts him.

[deenman]

Lmao, you'd defend Actiblizz even if they use child blood to fuel the wow datacenters


I'm just kidding btw

Dont give em any ideas

[BoredReader22]

Did you seriously bold parts of my statement to purposefully take them out of context as if the unbolded parts do not matter? Yikes brother, we are done here.

- - - Updated - - -



Are you seriously correlating someone being accused of being gay or living with a partner without being married is somehow in the same realm or level as creepy dude with unwanted sexual advances? I'm sure there will be some sort of legislation in the future where we let people just sexually harass people at work because you think it's equivalent to being gay.

Kinda ironic, you accuse others of refering only to parts of your post without the context around it, but yet here you are ignoring the part about "consentual flirting".
Dont get me wrong, i dont want to go all "reeeeh the victim is at fault herself" or anything. If he really send all that stuff unprompted, then yes, let his head roll. But thats the thing: The only information we got are small snippets at best. And even they arent exactly verified (i know, shocking, but just because you say you got that text from person X, it doesnt mean it really came from person X). And not only that, going with the context of one of the screenshots, it appears that she very much also flirted with him, even sending him - again, judging by the context / words used - a picture / video with a bit of a risque nature. Sorry, but you cant just take a single snapshot of ongoing, mutual flirting and then present that as the guy being a creep / making unwanted advances. As an extreme example, thats like sending someone a boob-pic and then going "police! he harresed me!" when he answers with "wow, nice tits".

My imperfections did not harm anyone else other than myself. I never took advantage of someone against their wishes. I never forced myself onto someone. I never tried to force an interaction with a female where it was completely obvious there was no chemistry. My mistakes came young and from inexperience. Again, I'll die on any hill to defend them. Does that mean I expect my employer to keep me employed while this happens? Nope.

What you don't get is that it is a matter of abusing society's trust. I have never done that. This man did. Whether he's guilty of a crime or not. Whether you think he should be fired or not. Society no longer trusts him.

Again, you insist on him abusing societys trust. But as a already said multiple times, please explain to me how mutual, consentual flirting between 2 adults can be considered as "abusing societys trust"? Seriously, at the end of the day, all we have (at least from what i can find via Google, ignoring as much "he said / she said" as i can) are some snippets of interaction between 2 adults, with the context / choice of words implying mutual, consentual flirting. I repeat again, if we had hard evidence of unprompted, unsolicited behaviour, i am all for letting him suffer the consequences. But, and thats what you ignore over and over, only IF that really is how it happened. And the little information we have access to paints a bit of a differenct picture, that of 2 adults mutual flirting. See the part i put in bold, you cant claim that there obviously was no chemistry and that he should have known better when she flirts back and also sends him pics. But "conviniently", we only get pictures that show very deliberatly chosen parts of the conversation. Almost as if the things that were said before would give a whole other context for the interaction.

[Xilurm]

Billions of people exist on this Earth. If hundreds of DMs is your definition of cancel culture, then my friend, celebrities are probably cancelled EVERY DAY. Maybe you should check into the people who support his art, perhaps the artist caved when he shouldn't've. However, it is the artist's choice, not the mob's. You think it's the mobs, it is NEVER their choice.

Uh, no. Harassment is harassment. This type of harassment is called cancel culture. Your argument isn't proving otherwise so yeah, whatever.

[Wekko]

He has abused society's trust, there is no doubt about that. The fact that you can't see that is pretty funny my guy. If society trusted him, he wouldn't be going through what he is going through would he? Do you actually believe you are going to change the narrative on this? Do you actually believe you will change society's opinion on this? If you think defending homosexuals and premarriage living arrangements is going to swing the argument, you buddy, are in for a world of WRONG.

- - - Updated - - -

The artist made a choice. Perhaps you should respect it.

[Kagthul]

Accused is guilty.

[Somarlane]

I did not know the voice-actor's name nor especially cared; it is not necessary to my enjoyment of the performance. I like it and it ought to stay. The new voice is all over the place, like he is struggling to replicate the same voice as the original. But, Activision Blizzard cares more for the appearance of so-called righteousness versus actually doing the right thing, so I know I am going to forever leave the game sound off when I fight Kael'thas in the future.

[Josyel]

Lol @ woman chasing someone famous and after that "woah he wants to have sex" and lol @ twitter, that social media is pure cancer

[Gurluas]

Sadly another case of cancel culture "wokeness". Same thing happened to the voice actor of Alphonse from FMA/Broly from DBZ, Vic Mignona, after the new Broly movie came out. The voice actor of Bulma, Monica Rial, and her husband, Ron Toye, started a smear campaign against him accusing him of sexual harassment. The ironic part is court documents later leaked from Ron Toye's previous marriages indicating he has a history of beating women, beating his children, abusing them psychologically and emotionally, abuse against animals, he threatened the judge and so on. But his latest wife, Monica Rial, stands with him proudly and actively defends his past actions on twitter and blames the victim lmfao

https://twitter.com/Rialisms/status/1166713421267722241

These pitchfork and torches crowds are a cancerous bunch. The real victim here is Quinton Flynn.

True words. These witch hunts are not the way.

[Elkfingers]

are you reading yourself? you are basically saying he deserves to be punished or "canceled" because he is a "creeper" in a damn social platform

for all we know this could be just some angry girl he dumb to shit on him, like we saw many cases before, this is not ok and justice should be done by authorities, not twitter

Dude. The bar for whether we think something is weird or not isn't 'can you be incarcerated for this?'. That's one high ass bar.

For example - if instead of using his platform to be real creepy online, my guy instead revealed on twitter that when he pisses, he does so in a wide arc directly into his own mouth, we would both think that's weird and an inappropriate use of his public platform. It would change our opinion of him.

Pissing directly into your own mouth is totally legal. Nonetheless, were this information to be revealed on Twitter I would assume that people who follow him and his employer would take a dim view of it.

No need for the police to be involved, it would be fucking weird. The same applies here. Abusing your public platform to be creepy with the women who follow you is a weird thing to do. There were non-creepy ways he could have interacted with these women. He chose the creepy ones. Actions have consequences, even if they're technically legal.

[rotfllolstorm]

Dude. The bar for whether we think something is weird or not isn't 'can you be incarcerated for this?'. That's one high ass bar.

For example - if instead of using his platform to be real creepy online, my guy instead revealed on twitter that when he pisses, he does so in a wide arc directly into his own mouth, we would both think that's weird and an inappropriate use of his public platform. It would change our opinion of him.

Pissing directly into your own mouth is totally legal. Nonetheless, were this information to be revealed on Twitter I would assume that people who follow him and his employer would take a dim view of it.

No need for the police to be involved, it would be fucking weird. The same applies here. Abusing your public platform to be creepy with the women who follow you is a weird thing to do. There were non-creepy ways he could have interacted with these women. He chose the creepy ones. Actions have consequences, even if they're technically legal.

I literally never post, I reativated this old account just to reply to you.
By your logic, someone that pisses into their own month, deserve to be cancelled and can't have a job... because by your standards, it's weird?

No1 here is defending his actions, if they happen to be truth after a trial in a court, not in a twitter public opinion.
But this disgusting "cancel culture", that takes the time to delete/replace everything you did in the past that was/is perfectly legit, needs to stop!

[BoredReader22]

He has abused society's trust, there is no doubt about that. The fact that you can't see that is pretty funny my guy. If society trusted him, he wouldn't be going through what he is going through would he? Do you actually believe you are going to change the narrative on this? Do you actually believe you will change society's opinion on this? If you think defending homosexuals and premarriage living arrangements is going to swing the argument, you buddy, are in for a world of WRONG.

- - - Updated - - -

The artist made a choice. Perhaps you should respect it.

WTF am i even reading here?! "Enough people belive the accusations, so its clear he abused societys trust, or he wouldnt go through this"? What kind of backwards logic is that? So it doesnt matter what he did, it doesnt matter if he even did anything at all, what matters is whether or not enough people belive the allegations? So lets say someone posts about how you torture animals. You dont do that, but that person says you do. So if enough people belive it, its ok for them to send you hate-mail? After all, according to your own words, it doesnt matter what you actally did, it only matters what people think belive you did.
At this point i really hope you are just trolling. Because if you really dont see the problem in "it doesnt matter what he did, it matters what people think he did", then there is something seriously wrong. Seriously, just let that sink in for a moment: If he didnt do anything, people wouldnt belive the accusations. But enough people belive it, so he has to have done something.
That right there is your argument. You really dont see anything wrong with that?

Long stroy short: Tell me, how did he abuse societys trust? You claim he did, so you have to explain it. And no, "people belive it, so he did it" is no answer.

[panda040]

So what exactly was cancelled? Has he been removed from existence? Is he no longer able to earn a living?Someone does something stupid, they don't deserve to keep privileges, especially if it involves criminal acts or just being a shitty person.


But we don't know why he wasn't brought back. It's just hearsay at this point. Maybe he was difficult to work with or had scheduling conflicts.

This whole faux concern about "cancel culture" is stupid since no one get cancelled. It's just consequences for poor decisions.
Th

- - - Updated - - -



Unless you are a minority. Sure if you are a white male it's just.

Take one look at divorce courts and see just how favored white males are.

[Karreck]

But, Activision Blizzard cares more for the appearance of so-called righteousness versus actually doing the right thing, so I know I am going to forever leave the game sound off when I fight Kael'thas in the future.

Because that'll show em! Activision Blizzard is going to see that you turned your sound off and that will be the tipping point for them to change their stance! You are so brave in your protest.

[chilao]

It's sound pretty much the same. Different only on the choice of the artist to change the pitch on some ocasions. And some added reverb.
It would be great if Blizzard said is the same voice actor and the post is to make a fool of idiots like the majority here.