Page 18 of 19 FirstFirst ...
8
16
17
18
19
LastLast
  1. #341
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I agree with everything you said except the bolded part.

    You are assuming that *they are okay with it* because they oppose your particular opinion of regarding all accusations as true. From what I understand, rray simply wants to regard the situation in a more neutral stance of waiting until there are facts out there *from the investigation* before siding with the accusations, since we don't fully know the validity of the accusations. That is not to *discredit* the accusations, it's simply to remain neutral until we know more information. And I agree with that stance. It is *not* the same as 'having a higher tolerance for bullshit and waving it away because there is no evidence'. I would not accuse Rray of this at this point in time, since his current argument is actually very sensible, if he is genuine about it.
    The investigation has already happened. It’s because of the evidence that they’re now suing. The government doesn’t just willy Billy sue companies for a laugh. Especially Cali which is super pro corporates. Regarding the poster in question, he also thinks Trump didn’t invite an insurrection because the GOP said he was innocent in the impeachment. I know that’s off topic as such, but it’ll give you an insight into his belief system regarding what is what. It’s a bad faith conversation for him. He’s extremely pro Blizzard. All his posts back this up. In other threads too.

  2. #342
    Blizzard did this to themselves.

    They repeatedly shot themselves in the foot with every single franchise they have and ruined their PR good will.

    Now the name Blizzard is synonymous with the likes of EA or Ubisoft and when a controversy comes along where they need a strong bankroll of PR....kinda like now....they're completely fucked in the public eye. No one is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've tanked their image so hard that people aren't just believing the claims, they're actively rooting against them.

    Edit: a word

  3. #343
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Again prove it.

    Accustions do not = proof. The only one looking dumber is the one automatically declaring guilt based solely on accusations,. You attitude is how innocent people have their lives ruined. YOU are the one who is in the weird corner of the internet. I hope you are never falsely accused of anything. Because anything other than immediately declaring yourself guilty of that makes you a hypocrite.

    Thanks for proving that cancel culture exists and that you are the one driving the bus.
    Cancel culture *does* exist, you're not wrong about that. However, I do not thing this lawsuit is an example of "cancel culture"; it's going to court and will be determined whether or not there is enough credible evidence to charge Blizzard and provide recompense to the affected individuals.

    "Cancel culture" is mob mentality; it usually happens when an individual accuses another person of something and everyone immediately attacks the person accused without even stopping to think about the circumstances or evidence. The person may receive death threats, be fired from their job, etc. A state-driven lawsuit against a corporation that is two-years in the works and is going to go to court is not "cancel culture", you're confused and your own statements contradict themselves.

  4. #344
    Quote Originally Posted by Valkyrst View Post
    The investigation has already happened. It’s because of the evidence that they’re now suing. The government doesn’t just willy Billy sue companies for a laugh. Especially Cali which is super pro corporates. Regarding the poster in question, he also thinks Trump didn’t invite an insurrection because the GOP said he was innocent in the impeachment. I know that’s off topic as such, but it’ll give you an insight into his belief system regarding what is what. It’s a bad faith conversation for him. He’s extremely pro Blizzard. All his posts back this up. In other threads too.
    There's different types of evidence, and none which we are privy to yet.

    If all the evidence they have ends up being circumstantial, then it would still be up to the courts do decide on its validity, as well as the public eye in deciding how truthful they may be. We do not know what kind of evidence we have. Any assumption beyond that is literally jumping to a conclusion before this has been presented to the courts and to the public. Just because an investigation has been done doesn't really mean anything yet.

    While I personally do lean towards siding with the accusers due to the overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence surrounding this, including examples of this happening *at other companies within the same industry*, I still side with the idea of waiting before making any actual judgement call on it.

    Just because *I personally* regard it as being true doesn't mean we should all immediately assume it is truth. We still need to be responsible in regarding all of this as potential hearsay, and be careful with how we word our arguments, regardless of our stance. Consider we have plenty of anecdotal evidence that goes both ways. Morhaime says he failed on his position. Cher blasts Morhaime, but then later says she believes Morhaime after talking directly with him. On the other hand, Lore blasts Morhaime and accuses him of knowing 100% everything. All of this is *circumstantial* evidence, and we can't assume everything being said is true, because often times a lot of that information is privy to certain biases or conflicts of interests depending on whether someone is just saying something because they know, or saying it because they're expressing a deeply-emotionally driven opinion. Does Lore really know that Morhaime knows everything 100%, and should we simply take this as evidence? My thoughts on the matter is no, we should not. Should we believe Cher in saying Morhaime is in the clear because she believes he was trying his best? No, we should not. We need more information to properly gauge the situation.

    And I will refrain to comment on any other politics, since that is wholy off topic and not part of this discussion whatsoever.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-07-26 at 06:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  5. #345
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There's different types of evidence, and none which we are privy to yet.

    If all the evidence they have ends up being circumstantial, then it would still be up to the courts do decide on its validity, as well as the public eye in deciding how truthful they may be. We do not know what kind of evidence we have. Any assumption beyond that is literally jumping to a conclusion before this has been presented to the courts and to the public. Just because an investigation has been done doesn't really mean anything yet.

    While I personally do lean towards siding with the accusers due to the overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence surrounding this, including examples of this happening *at other companies within the same industry*, I still side with the idea of waiting before making any actual judgement call on it.

    Just because *I personally* regard it as being true doesn't mean we should all immediately assume it is truth. We still need to be responsible in regarding all of this as potential hearsay, and be careful with how we word our arguments, regardless of our stance.

    And I will refrain to comment on any other politics, since that is wholy off topic and not part of this discussion whatsoever.
    Fair enough. I'm not really interested in whether there's further evidence or not, purely on the grounds that Alex Afrasiabi isn't on trial.

    What's important is supporting the women who've suffered and ensuring this doesn't happen again. For the purposes of that, there's enough to go on. When the company's current employees are saying 'listen, they're fucking up big time and have fucked up before', I don't need to go to court.

    It needs sorting. Now.

  6. #346
    Quote Originally Posted by Akami74 View Post
    Cancel culture *does* exist, you're not wrong about that. However, I do not thing this lawsuit is an example of "cancel culture"; it's going to court and will be determined whether or not there is enough credible evidence to charge Blizzard and provide recompense to the affected individuals.

    "Cancel culture" is mob mentality; it usually happens when an individual accuses another person of something and everyone immediately attacks the person accused without even stopping to think about the circumstances or evidence. The person may receive death threats, be fired from their job, etc. A state-driven lawsuit against a corporation that is two-years in the works and is going to go to court is not "cancel culture", you're confused and your own statements contradict themselves.
    I never said the lawsuit was. I said people in this forum who immediately declare guilt before any facts come out are the cancel culture.

  7. #347
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    I never said the lawsuit was. I said people in this forum who immediately declare guilt before any facts come out are the cancel culture.
    That isn't cancel culture. That's literally just taking a certain position on debate.

    Cancel culture involves the intention of bringing down an individual or establishment for having perceivably done something wrong. Valkyrst's position is one of wanting a problem to be fixed, not to bring down the establishment.

    For you to conclude that any regard of this as being 'guilty' as immediately being cancel culture is absolutely flawed. You're jumping a conclusion yourself here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  8. #348
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    There's different types of evidence, and none which we are privy to yet.

    If all the evidence they have ends up being circumstantial, then it would still be up to the courts do decide on its validity, as well as the public eye in deciding how truthful they may be. We do not know what kind of evidence we have. Any assumption beyond that is literally jumping to a conclusion before this has been presented to the courts and to the public. Just because an investigation has been done doesn't really mean anything yet.

    While I personally do lean towards siding with the accusers due to the overwhelming amount of anecdotal evidence surrounding this, including examples of this happening *at other companies within the same industry*, I still side with the idea of waiting before making any actual judgement call on it.

    Just because *I personally* regard it as being true doesn't mean we should all immediately assume it is truth. We still need to be responsible in regarding all of this as potential hearsay, and be careful with how we word our arguments, regardless of our stance. Consider we have plenty of anecdotal evidence that goes both ways. Morhaime says he failed on his position. Cher blasts Morhaime, but then later says she believes Morhaime after talking directly with him. On the other hand, Lore blasts Morhaime and accuses him of knowing 100% everything. All of this is *circumstantial* evidence, and we can't assume everything being said is true, because often times a lot of that information is privy to certain biases or conflicts of interests depending on whether someone is just saying something because they know, or saying it because they're expressing a deeply-emotionally driven opinion. Does Lore really know that Morhaime knows everything 100%, and should we simply take this as evidence? My thoughts on the matter is no, we should not. Should we believe Cher in saying Morhaime is in the clear because she believes he was trying his best? No, we should not. We need more information to properly gauge the situation.

    And I will refrain to comment on any other politics, since that is wholy off topic and not part of this discussion whatsoever.
    Thank you. This is exactly what I have been asking for. All the investigation is what the State believes based on what they think they have found. It's now on them to prove it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    That isn't cancel culture. That's literally just taking a certain position on debate.

    Cancel culture involves the intention of bringing down an individual or establishment for having perceivably done something wrong. Valkyrst's position is one of wanting a problem to be fixed, not to bring down the establishment.

    For you to conclude that any regard of this as being 'guilty' as immediately being cancel culture is absolutely flawed. You're jumping a conclusion yourself here.
    But this fosters that. Publclv declaring guilt before the facts comes out fosters the environment that cancel culture grows from. They are the source of it.

  9. #349
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    Thank you. This is exactly what I have been asking for. All the investigation is what the State believes based on what they think they have found. It's now on them to prove it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    But this fosters that. Publclv declaring guilt before the facts comes out fosters the environment that cancel culture grows from. They are the source of it.
    All positions of debate will regard a position for or against, no matter how you look at it. Despite your neutral stance, you are actually taking a position in favour of the company because you are enacting on potential deniability of any and all evidence until it reaches a court; even if you admit that evidence that reaches a verdict *can be debated*. So really, all you're doing is taking a stance passively, by default, by purposefully choosing to not engage in any part of the debate, and value any current anecdotal evidence as negligeable until due process is done. And while that's completely fine from a legal point of view, you're doing so in a discussion forum where people are actively choosing to discuss what we know right now, and taking that stance is absolutely one in favour of the defendants.

    There's really no other way to look at it. You aren't in any actual neutral stance as long as you are choosing to not regard the situation that is actively being discussed here. You can choose to point out inconsistencies or flaws in certain anecdotes and create an argument that we don't know enough yet, but you can't really rely on the courts proving it as a conclusive means either, especially if you have admitted that all of it is still debateable. That's the whole point of this discussion - it's all debating *what we know* of the situation, and knowing more will simply inform us of what we're debating about, but does not change the fact that it will always remain a debate even after it is taken to court and processed.

    Cancel culture has the intention of bringing someone or something down as a means of vindication; it's vigilatism. Right now, you need to regard that person's argument as an individual opinion that believes the accusations to be true, but without the bias of assuming they are doing so intentionally to 'cancel' Blizzard. If Valkryst is genuine about his opinion as a means of believing it to enact positive change in the company, then that is by no means Cancel Culture. Otherwise you are jumping to some arbitrary conclusion that actually hurts your own stance because you are intentionally dismissing anyone who regards the accusations to be valid, even though we have enough information right now to properly formulate an opinion on the matter. That you believe we should wait for more evidence does not mean that anyone who chooses to formulate an opinion is immediately contributing to 'cancel culture', especially when former employees are legitimizing the claims that something did happen, rather than outright denying them.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-07-26 at 07:30 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  10. #350
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    All positions of debate will regard a position for or against, no matter how you look at it. Despite your neutral stance, you are actually taking a position in favour of the company because you are enacting on potential deniability of any and all evidence until it reaches a court; even if you admit that evidence that reaches a verdict *can be debated*. So really, all you're doing is taking a stance passively, by default, by purposefully choosing to not engage in any part of the debate, and value any current anecdotal evidence as negligeable until due process is done. And while that's completely fine from a legal point of view, you're doing so in a discussion forum where people are actively choosing to discuss what we know right now, and taking that stance is absolutely one in favour of the defendants.

    There's really no other way to look at it. You aren't in any actual neutral stance as long as you are choosing to not regard the situation that is actively being discussed here. You can choose to point out inconsistencies or flaws in certain anecdotes and create an argument that we don't know enough yet, but you can't really rely on the courts proving it as a conclusive means either, especially if you have admitted that all of it is still debateable. That's the whole point of this discussion - it's all debating *what we know* of the situation, and knowing more will simply inform us of what we're debating about, but does not change the fact that it will always remain a debate even after it is taken to court and processed.

    Cancel culture has the intention of bringing someone or something down as a means of vindication; it's vigilatism. Right now, you need to regard that person's argument as an individual opinion that believes the accusations to be true, but without the bias of assuming they are doing so intentionally to 'cancel' Blizzard. If Valkryst is genuine about his opinion as a means of believing it to enact positive change in the company, then that is by no means Cancel Culture.
    For what it's worth I'll happily reconfirm that I have zero interest in anyone or any company in this situation, being cancelled.

    I want Blizzard to be better, so they can then start making good content again. I want the women affected to have a second chance at life without baggage. I want all the frat boys involved with having the opportunity to go to therapy, rehab or whatever the fuck they need, to be better people.

    Even Frances Townsend with her right wing bullshit deniability rhetoric deserves a chance to do better as the ABK's CCO.

  11. #351
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    All positions of debate will regard a position for or against, no matter how you look at it. Despite your neutral stance, you are actually taking a position in favour of the company because you are enacting on potential deniability of any and all evidence until it reaches a court; even if you admit that evidence that reaches a verdict *can be debated*. So really, all you're doing is taking a stance passively, by default, by purposefully choosing to not engage in any part of the debate, and value any current anecdotal evidence as negligeable until due process is done. And while that's completely fine from a legal point of view, you're doing so in a discussion forum where people are actively choosing to discuss what we know right now, and taking that stance is absolutely one in favour of the defendants.
    I am not takling any position or sides. I am not in favor of anyone. Note that I have not directly talked about any of the allegations speciically. I am waiting until the facts come out. Nothing more.,

    There's really no other way to look at it. You aren't in any actual neutral stance as long as you are choosing to not regard the situation that is actively being discussed here. You can choose to point out inconsistencies or flaws in certain anecdotes and create an argument that we don't know enough yet, but you can't really rely on the courts proving it as a conclusive means either, especially if you have admitted that all of it is still debateable. That's the whole point of this discussion - it's all debating *what we know* of the situation, and knowing more will simply inform us of what we're debating about, but does not change the fact that it will always remain a debate even after it is taken to court and processed.
    I am in a neutral stance because I am not choosing a side nor am I declaring either side innocent or guilty. I have not rendered an opinion on what we know. That is the very definition of neutral.

    Cancel culture has the intention of bringing someone or something down as a means of vindication; it's vigilatism. Right now, you need to regard that person's argument as an individual opinion that believes the accusations to be true, but without the bias of assuming they are doing so intentionally to 'cancel' Blizzard. If Valkryst is genuine about his opinion as a means of believing it to enact positive change in the company, then that is by no means Cancel Culture. Otherwise you are jumping to some arbitrary conclusion that actually hurts your own stance because you are intentionally dismissing anyone who regards the accusations to be valid, even though we have enough information right now to properly formulate an opinion on the matter. That you believe we should wait for more evidence does not mean that anyone who chooses to formulate an opinion is immediately contributing to 'cancel culture', especially when former employees are legitimizing the claims that something did happen, rather than outright denying them.
    Employees saying that something happen doesn't legitimize them because credibility has not been ascertained. Also as I ahve said before, immediaetly declaring guilt fosters an evironment that leads to "cancel culture" .The more it is said, the more likely it ends up being heard by the ears of one who actually tries to do it. There are enough people out there who hate Blizzard who would love to take the company down.

  12. #352
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrium View Post
    Blizzard did this to themselves.

    They repeatedly shot themselves in the foot with every single franchise they have and ruined their PR good will.

    Now the name Blizzard is synonymous with the likes of EA or Ubisoft and when a controversy comes along where they need a strong bankroll of PR....kinda like now....they're completely fucked in the public eye. No one is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt because they've tanked their image so hard that people aren't just believing the claims, they're actively rooting against them.

    Edit: a word
    Blizzard somehow manages to combine sex scandals, corporate greed and the ruining of beloved franchise titles all at once. EA and Ubisoft usually had one or the other.

    What was done to Warcraft III Reforged is a travesty.
    Last edited by Magnagarde; 2021-07-26 at 08:38 PM.

  13. #353
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    I am not takling any position or sides. I am not in favor of anyone. Note that I have not directly talked about any of the allegations speciically. I am waiting until the facts come out. Nothing more.

    I am in a neutral stance because I am not choosing a side nor am I declaring either side innocent or guilty. I have not rendered an opinion on what we know. That is the very definition of neutral.
    On the contrary. You're debating others for taking any stance on the matter, and are equating their position to being Cancel Culture. That is not a neutral stance.

    If you were on a neutral stance, then you would simply regard them in a 'hey, we don't have enough to draw that conclusion' and reach a common talking point. Guess what? That's exactly what I did, and Valkyrst was very sensible in elaborating his position and reasonings to choose his viewpoints. As someone who is acting neutral, I am not judging him for having an opinion on the matter, because really we don't know either way whether anything is true or false. There's no reason to consider anyone being a part of 'cancel culture'.

    Employees saying that something happen doesn't legitimize them because credibility has not been ascertained. Also as I ahve said before, immediaetly declaring guilt fosters an evironment that leads to "cancel culture" .The more it is said, the more likely it ends up being heard by the ears of one who actually tries to do it. There are enough people out there who hate Blizzard who would love to take the company down.
    Denying one's opinion on the basis of your own choice to be neutral also shows that you are not being neutral, you're actively opposing a certain position. You're not being neutral, you're actively interjecting your regard of evidence to purposefully dismiss others opinions and regard of anecdotes, rather than addressing the anecdotes themselves.

    If someone said "I think John is guilty because Jimmy told me he saw him do it" and you say "No, you are wrong, because I can't trust Jimmy and I think you're accusing John because you want him to lose his job' you aren't taking a neutral stance.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-07-26 at 08:41 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  14. #354
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    I am in a neutral stance because I am not choosing a side nor am I declaring either side innocent or guilty. I have not rendered an opinion on what we know. That is the very definition of neutral.
    On the contrary. You're debating others for taking any stance on the matter, and are equating their position to being Cancel Culture. That is not a neutral stance.

    If you were on a neutral stance, then you would simply regard them in a 'hey, we don't have enough to draw that conclusion' and reach a common talking point. Guess what? That's exactly what I did, and Valkyrst was very sensible in elaborating his position and reasonings to choose his viewpoints. As someone who is acting neutral, I am not judging him for having an opinion on the matter, because really we don't know either way whether anything is true or false. There's no reason to consider anyone being a part of 'cancel culture'.[/quote]No I am neutral because I would do the same thing if I saw a post of someone calling the accusers 100% liars. I would call them white knights. When you take a side and declare something as fact, I can call you a part of cancel culture. Because that behavior fosters it. It does not mean I am defending Blizzard. Same on the other side with White Knights. They foster an environment that makes it harder to properly take accusations seriously. I am maintaining the stance that one should not make a conclusion until after the facts are out. Anyone who doesn't gets labeled as such. What you are trying to do equate only seeing me having gone after the cancel culture to only going after them. I ahve not seen any white knight to go after to say the saem things yet. Again, very neutral.



    Denying one's opinion on the basis of your own choice to be neutral also shows that you are not being neutral, you're taking a stance of maintaining deniability for the defendant. You're not being neutral, you're actively interjecting your regard of evidence to purposefully dismiss others opinions and regard of anecdotes, rather than addressing the anecdotes themselves.
    I am not denying opinion. What I am going after those that make statements of fact ie "
    they are guilty AF". "they are obviously guilty" Statements of fact is what I am dismissing.

    If someone said "I think John is guilty because Jimmy told me he saw him do it" and you say "No, you are wrong, because I can't trust Jimmy and I think you're accusing John because you want him to lose his job' you aren't taking a neutral stance.
    I never said that. I have only gone after statements. When people say "Blizzard is guilty AF", that is a declarative statement and you are right I am going to go after that,b Same holds true of some saying "Blizzard is completely innocent and are being smeared.". Again, statement of fact. Going to go after that. You are trying to accuse me of not being neutral solely because you have only seen me go after those that declared guilt and don't consider for one second that I would do the same the other way.

    My stance is absolutely neutral and people who declare as fact innocence or guilt are seen the same way by me.

  15. #355
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    I never said the lawsuit was. I said people in this forum who immediately declare guilt before any facts come out are the cancel culture.
    The public isn't a court and we are not beholden to the rules of a courtroom.

    Blizzard has expended every last ounce of goodwill they have over the last 10 years and we as people are free to judge and execute Blizzard based solely upon our own judgement.

  16. #356
    Quote Originally Posted by rrayy View Post
    When people say "Blizzard is guilty AF", that is a declarative statement and you are right I am going to go after that,b Same holds true of some saying "Blizzard is completely innocent and are being smeared.". Again, statement of fact. Going to go after that. You are trying to accuse me of not being neutral solely because you have only seen me go after those that declared guilt and don't consider for one second that I would do the same the other way.

    My stance is absolutely neutral and people who declare as fact innocence or guilt are seen the same way by me.
    My point is what you are doing is an *active* stance of denying anyone who chooses to take a stance, whether for or against.

    Neutrality implies not judging the validity of an opinion. Thus, a neutral position will provide a platform for all opinions, including irrational or malicious ones.

    You are actually taking a *dismissive* stance, one of denying any and all opinions on the premise that you do not feel any of the information we have is considered credible or admissable, even in matters of speculative discussion. You aren't actually arguing for neutrality, you're arguing to dismiss any possible claim and all evidence present in the discussion. It's the complete opposite of neutrality, which is an open consideration of all possibilities.

    I said people in this forum who immediately declare guilt before any facts come out are the cancel culture.
    And it's absolutely in people's rights to have opinions and express them in any fashion they choose to. That you equate any action that is perceptively negative as being 'cancel culture' is nothing more than a broad generalization for anyone seemingly having an opinion and choosing to express it.
    Last edited by Triceron; 2021-07-26 at 09:06 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teriz View Post
    Since Arthas used Frostmourne, which is a Runeblade, and Frostmourne's power eminates from those runes, that made him a Runemaster by default.

  17. #357
    Over 9000! Soon-TM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Netherstorm
    Posts
    9,192
    @Triceron one of the best ways to look "neutral" while implicitly siding with the stronger party is to demand an unrealistically high level/quality of evidence. Especially when you're at the same time gaslighting the weaker party.
    If the Janitor managed to pwn Azeroth:

    Quote Originally Posted by Haidaes View Post
    "Die, wold soul of *incomprehensible mumbling* with your death my plan to *incomprehensible mumbling* finally fullfilled and *incomprehensible mumbling*!"

  18. #358
    Quote Originally Posted by Nite92 View Post
    ? I was talking about Wowhead not allowing comments on the news post regarding this topic.
    i know you did

  19. #359
    Quote Originally Posted by Ianus View Post
    i know you did
    Then your comment makes zero sense.
    It is not about muting a response towards it. It is about not wanting to moderate such a discussion.

  20. #360
    Quote Originally Posted by Triceron View Post
    My point is what you are doing is an *active* stance of denying anyone who chooses to take a stance, whether for or against.

    Neutrality implies not judging the validity of an opinion. Thus, a neutral position will provide a platform for all opinions, including irrational or malicious ones.
    Not what I am doing. Agagin, I am only calling out people who are calling pout innocne or guilt as fact. Taking a stance is not an opion. Taking a sstance means you are making a statement of fact.

    You are actually taking a *dismissive* stance, one of denying any and all opinions on the premise that you do not feel any of the information we have is considered credible or admissable, even in matters of speculative discussion. You aren't actually arguing for neutrality, you're arguing to dismiss any possible claim and all evidence present in the discussion. It's the complete opposite of neutrality, which is an open consideration of all possibilities.
    See above respose. I am going afgter statments, not opinions.

    And it's absolutely in people's rights to have opinions and express them in any fashion they choose to. That you equate any action that is perceptively negative as being 'cancel culture' is nothing more than a broad generalization for anyone seemingly having an opinion and choosing to express it.
    You are fine to state an opinion. Making declarative statements is hwere I draw the line and that is what I am calling out. If you are going to continue to misise the word opinion to accuse me of something I am not doing, then there is no need to further this discussion. I won't continue with someone who is being dishonest.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by hydrium View Post
    The public isn't a court and we are not beholden to the rules of a courtroom.

    Blizzard has expended every last ounce of goodwill they have over the last 10 years and we as people are free to judge and execute Blizzard based solely upon our own judgement.
    Apparently you don't know what cancel culture is. It is a mob mentality that users behavior like immediately declaring guilt to ruin lives. You can say what you want, but words have consequences. The more you do things like immediately declare guilt and scream it on social media, the closer one becomes to one day actually ruining the life of an innocent person. But you don't care because by god you are going to voicce your opinion and if it ruins an innocent person, not your problem. I hope you are never in a position where you are an innocent person on the other side of cancel culture. Because you wiill have no reason to be angry at it because after all, they were their just expressing their opinion right?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •