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

[GreenJesus]

Oh I see. So women coming forward with their stories of real sexual abuse could be a problem because of all the men who could potentially have their careers ruined by people who could potentially come forward with false allegations.

What a fucking weird take for a person to have. If dudes stopped being rapey on such a massive scale it would make false allegations of sexual abuse much less credible, dont'cha think? Like, I'm not defending people making shit up here, but why should that ever be a consideration for somebody who is coming forward about something that actually happened to them? If somebody assaults me should I just not say anything because it fosters a culture where others could lie about assault? No dude. That culture is cultivated by perpetrators, not victims.

All men have to pay because some other men are rapey? What a fucking weird take.

[cparle87]

Cancelling someone purely based on allegations before court... social media mob rule has spoken!

Used to be innocent until proven guilty... but people here are evidently more than happy to go with the backwards dangerous route of guilty until proven innocent.

No, it's guilty until they get off a technically and now they're even more evil for beating the system so try to hang them even harder.

[Fatbeaverlol]

Cancelling someone purely based on allegations before court... social media mob rule has spoken!

Used to be innocent until proven guilty... but people here are evidently more than happy to go with the backwards dangerous route of guilty until proven innocent.

Welcome to 2020/2021. Same happened with the Broly voice actor. ( DBZ )

[cface]

All men have to pay because some other men are rapey? What a fucking weird take.

Welcome to mmo-champ, one of the dumbest forums to have discussions like these on.

[Mosotti]

Does this apply to Classic TBC also? I hope not.

[Elkfingers]

All men have to pay because some other men are rapey? What a fucking weird take.

Yeah I already explained this, but you reactionaries have such a fuckin strong victim mentality so it keeps coming up.

Obviously I'm not saying that people who don't perpetuate rape culture should be actively punished because of those who do. That's literally the dumbest possible interpretation of what I wrote. The point is that unless we actively take steps to foster an environment where men doing creepy shit online isn't tolerated, including women with real experiences coming forward about them, the consequence is that men are harmed as a result.

If I invite a woman back to my house by herself, it could either be a completely safe situation, or it could be completely unsafe. The point is that there are enough rapey dudes out there that she doesn't have a good way of knowing which one it is.

Obviously #notallmen, but if you get thrown into a pit of 10 snakes and only one of them is venomous, how far does #notallsnakes get you? You're going to have to be suspicious of all of them. That's the harm. It's not some batshit moral imperative where we're 'punishing men', it's just practically what happens when a large enough number of men are empowered to act in predatory ways that it becomes a practical issue.

When you immediately jump to denounce alleged victims of predatory behaviour before we actually have all the facts, you're not protecting men. It makes the problem worse. That's my point - but sure, just go ahead and ignore all the nuance there so you can go back to thinking that men are the real victims of sexual assault against women lmao.

I'm all for improving the situation for men, but I don't think that attacking #metoo is the way to go about it for the reasons I've just explained. Keep your bullshit moral imperatives. I'm only interested in practical solutions.

Welcome to mmo-champ, one of the dumbest forums to have discussions like these on.

You're right. Mostly because people don't understand nuance and jump to 1head interpretations of opposing viewpoints because, shockingly, they're more interested in the appearance of being right than any actual discussion.

[Freedom]

Weird that you'd go down the whole 'white males are so oppressed' route when nobody mentioned race or gender at all. My point is that not everything is cancel culture, and it's fucking weird that dudes on this forum get all hot under the collar about cancel culture whenever dudes get accused of anything before all the evidence is available, whether or not the allegations actually end up being true.

Maybe they're just tired of seeing things happen like what happened to Quinn, or some fathers being seen as creepy for being with their own fucking children. And I also said "PS: this is why you don't believe people without good evidence." That cuts both ways.

My problem is that while #MeToo is justified and all, most of the time, the pendulum has swung way too far the other way away from traditional silencing of women's accusations, to the point an influential minority on twitter will never apologize, never stop assuming guilt on the part of a (often white) male accused of sexual indiscretion, which you seem to either be okay with or not too upset about it being this way. My fundamental problem with twitter justice is the complete lack of control and restrictions on it - the founding fathers of America gave government limits and distributed powers among the different branches for a good reason, and twitter SJW crucifixions have no good counter currently. They aren't even reversed in their damaging effects by a court's findings! How can you not be scared of such power being used for ill?

To me, the big concern with cancel culture isn't any one particular case, or skirmishes over sexual allegations, it's the potential for it to end up being "cancel all non-Christians!" if Trumpism wins or "cancel everyone who is against direct payment slavery reparations!" if SJW extreme left wins. The mob ruling is simply too volatile, too dangerous. And I find it ludicrous when we talk about how big tech and social media needs to be regulated, but no one says, "Hmmm, maybe we should do something to address twitter mobs and cancel culture?" People more concerned with what Zuckerberg knows about their personal lives, than if the foundations for a mobocracy are being set up by individual foolish actions and twitter mobs.

I've looked at history plenty, and it's very sad and disgusting to me how close we've come to old witch hunts like the McCarthy era anti-Communism fervor or the literal witch hunts of the Salem Witch Trials. Basically if a single accusation can ruin someone's life and career, or even seriously damage it, with no real counterbalance to it, damn right I'm going to complain about white dudes getting screwed. Just because a group was oppressed, we give them too much power, so they can do something like what was done to them, to their former oppressors, and we call it justice. Well, SJWs call it justice, anyways.

[Somarlane]

What exactly is a strawman here?

The appearance of addressing the other's argument, but in actuality misrepresenting that argument in order to discredit the other person entirely.

The user fundamentally misstated my points first and then based their response upon those misstatements.

[Nite92]

The appearance of addressing the other's argument, but in actuality misrepresenting that argument in order to discredit the other person entirely.

The user fundamentally misstated my points first and then based their response upon those misstatements.

Thank you for the copy+paste from google. That is exactly what I was asking for. /s

[Somarlane]

Thank you for the copy+paste from google. That is exactly what I was asking for. /s

I am not taking this bait anymore. Good day.

[Fullmetal89]

What someone does in their private life is literally none of your business as long as they dont do it at work. Im very active in my local kink community - which most people would think of as “weird” or “creepy” (or worse). Should i be de-personed and denied work (and therefore end up homeless and starving?) for that? If you woild answer “yes”, then YOU are the problem. Youre a shitty person. Full stop.

Edit: also, after i read his Twitter statement, i went and looked up the court case.

It wasnt just found that he “didnt do anything illegal” - it was found that it literally didnt happpen. She made it up. Her supporting witnesses all recanted. On the stand. It was found that she was stalking him on dozens of fake accounts and had made more accounts specifically to harass his wife, mother in law, and mother.

The judge expressly told her to get mental health care.

So, he lost work, potentially his career, over something that literally did not happen.

This is why social media cancel crusades are bad. He should sue everyone involved (including the other witnesses who lied and then recanted on the stand) for defamation and libel.

The voice actor should sue blizzard and twitter for defamation. He will obviously lose but more people need to do this, mob rule is wrong.

[rrayy]

The voice actor should sue blizzard and twitter for defamation. He will obviously lose but more people need to do this, mob rule is wrong.

He has no case. Replacing their voiceover work is not defamation. Blizzard can do that for whatever reason they wish.

- - - Updated - - -

Actions have consequences, hmm? Then why haven't the people behind the smear campaign against Quinton Flynn been brought to justice yet? Or do only actions that aren't even true that are maliciously made up about white males count now? I'd call getting revenge on an ex for breaking up with you pretty CREEPY, but... that describes the woman in this situation. So obviously she should be taken to court for damages, her CONSEQUENCES, right?

That news segment was posted on the 21st of April, yet here you are four days later still defending there being consequences to being Quinton Flynn. Thank you for your contribution.

PS: this is why you don't believe people without good evidence.

Because nothing they did is a crime. IF he wishes to sue civilly he can try, but their is no justice to be brought as no crime was committed there.

[Fullmetal89]

HReplacing their voiceover work is not defamation. .

You are technically correct, while they did not directly call him out they indirectly condemned him in the "eyes of the internet." He might have a case against twitter though. I just think this whole social media lynching business is completely out of control.

[MoanaLisa]

The voice actor should sue blizzard and twitter for defamation. He will obviously lose but more people need to do this, mob rule is wrong.

What sort of supporter are you to have him spend thousands of dollars on legal fees for cases that would never go anywhere?

[rrayy]

You are technically correct, while they did not directly call him out they indirectly condemned him in the "eyes of the internet." He might have a case against twitter though. I just think this whole social media lynching business is completely out of control.

Except he also has no case against Twitter either. Nothing anyone did there broke any law.

[Kagthul]

Except he also has no case against Twitter either. Nothing anyone did there broke any law.

Defamation isnt “illegal”, its a civil matter. If he can prove (51% - preponderance of evidence in civil matters, not beyond a reasonable doubt) that their actions harmed his reputation, then they defamed him and they are liable to civil tort. Its -legal- to defame someone - Freedom of Speech and all - but it carries with it a potential civil consequence.

[rhorle]

Defamation isnt “illegal”, its a civil matter. If he can prove (51% - preponderance of evidence in civil matters, not beyond a reasonable doubt) that their actions harmed his reputation, then they defamed him and they are liable to civil tort. Its -legal- to defame someone - Freedom of Speech and all - but it carries with it a potential civil consequence.

Blizzard never made a statement about it though. If anyone would have harmed his reputation it is the various fan sites that covered the news and assumed the reason why he was replaced. Blizzard replacing the lines, with no statement, is not defamation. What he could possibly do is go after contract violations, if there were any thing like royalties or the like, but I doubt that was the case for a WoW voice actor.

[Kagthul]

Youre either arguing in bad faith or just dont get it.

The belief that they have to make an official statement of some kind to be liable for defamation is incorrect on its face.

Follow along if you can:

If their actions, whatever they were, led to his reputation being damaged and therefore a loss of work or income, then that is defamation. Said actions are not analyzed in vacuum. If Blizzard had replaced him at seeming random when there WASNT a controversy going on, then likely he’d have no case for defamation.

But because they did it while there WAS an ongoing controversy, and issued no statement denying that said controversy had anything to do with it, they ABSOLUTELY contributed negatively to the situation and defamed him. Anyone looking at the situation and seeing “well Blizzard replaced him” at the same time as he was being (falsely, i have to repeat) accused would tie the two and use Blizzard’s actions to inform their opinion of the matter and assume he was guilty or Blizzard wouldn’t have let him go/replaced him.

Precisely BECAUSE it isn’t a criminal matter, its quite a bit looser than criminal law.

All you have to do is convince half the jury +1 that it is 51% likely that Blizzard’s actions caused you harm - defamed you - and you win.

And they definitely did defame him by their silence. And thats sorta the beauty of the defamation statute. Its not only about what you did - it can be about what you DIDNT do.

And what Blizzard did here was jump on the “Accused is guilty” bandwagon and removed the guy for no reason when nothing had been proven. And it might come back and bite them in the ass.

Though, FWIW, i doubt hell sue, because that takes a ton of money and Blizzard has in-house attorneys that are already being paid their salary even if they sit and do nothing, on top of infinite money to throw at a lawsuit, so hes likely to just let it lie.

[rhorle]

If their actions, whatever they were, led to his reputation being damaged and therefore a loss of work or income, then that is defamation. Said actions are not analyzed in vacuum. If Blizzard had replaced him at seeming random when there WASNT a controversy going on, then likely he’d have no case for defamation.

There is no need to be condescending. In order for his reputation to be damaged it has proven that the company made a false accusation. Blizzard did not. They just choose to replace the voice actor. They defamed him by their silence? Lmao. What kind of BS is that? They are not required to explain every single thing they do to the public or be at risk of a lawsuit for damages. Amusing how you ignore the actual people that reported and made popular his allegations, the fan sites.

Not to mention the voice actor brought attention to it himself. Blizzard didn't defame him. If that equals defamation then all of these advertising firms that pull ads or sponsorships from people could be sued for defamation. They do not because they can't.

[rrayy]

Defamation isnt “illegal”, its a civil matter. If he can prove (51% - preponderance of evidence in civil matters, not beyond a reasonable doubt) that their actions harmed his reputation, then they defamed him and they are liable to civil tort. Its -legal- to defame someone - Freedom of Speech and all - but it carries with it a potential civil consequence.

He won't be able to. Blizzard can fire him or replace him for any reason. SO, it would be virtually impossible to prove in any way that Blizzard replaced him because of anything said on Twitter or that he can no longer get a job because of what was said on Twitter either. About the only ones he could sue are the ones that accused him.

- - - Updated - - -

Youre either arguing in bad faith or just dont get it.

The belief that they have to make an official statement of some kind to be liable for defamation is incorrect on its face.

Follow along if you can:

If their actions, whatever they were, led to his reputation being damaged and therefore a loss of work or income, then that is defamation. Said actions are not analyzed in vacuum. If Blizzard had replaced him at seeming random when there WASNT a controversy going on, then likely he’d have no case for defamation.

But because they did it while there WAS an ongoing controversy, and issued no statement denying that said controversy had anything to do with it, they ABSOLUTELY contributed negatively to the situation and defamed him. Anyone looking at the situation and seeing “well Blizzard replaced him” at the same time as he was being (falsely, i have to repeat) accused would tie the two and use Blizzard’s actions to inform their opinion of the matter and assume he was guilty or Blizzard wouldn’t have let him go/replaced him.

Precisely BECAUSE it isn’t a criminal matter, its quite a bit looser than criminal law.

All you have to do is convince half the jury +1 that it is 51% likely that Blizzard’s actions caused you harm - defamed you - and you win.

And they definitely did defame him by their silence. And thats sorta the beauty of the defamation statute. Its not only about what you did - it can be about what you DIDNT do.

And what Blizzard did here was jump on the “Accused is guilty” bandwagon and removed the guy for no reason when nothing had been proven. And it might come back and bite them in the ass.

Though, FWIW, i doubt hell sue, because that takes a ton of money and Blizzard has in-house attorneys that are already being paid their salary even if they sit and do nothing, on top of infinite money to throw at a lawsuit, so hes likely to just let it lie.

Silence does ot prove defamation. IN fact, you are accusing them of something without any evidence. Blizzard can replace him for any reason and he doesn't have to be guilty of anything either. You don't know why they removed him. YOu can't tie anything together because none of that can actually be domnstrated to have happened. Blizzard can simply list reasons that have nothing to do with teh allegations as to why they replaced him,

The reason he won't sue is because he has no case, not because of money, Correlation does not in any way = causation and Blizzard in no way defamed him. The only ones who come close to defamation are the fan sites who ran with the allegations and that would be impossilbe to prove because you can't prove in any way why Blizzard replaced him.