Blizzard Says it Will Issue "Increased Penalties" for Bad Behavior in Overwatch

[SpectralThundr]

Originally Posted by Tashtego

What? So now you argument is about the use of the phrase "bad behavior"? Is undesirable behavior better? You aren't allowing me to use the term "bad behavior" literally because others have twisted it's meaning? Honestly I hadn't thought twice about the phrase because I was unaware that it had been high-jacked.

Non-totalitarian societies define "bad behavior" as well. Civil societies (even the free-est and most democratic ones) have penal codes to deter "bad behavior", and blizzard has a reporting system to do the same. A professor who suppresses free speech is not a "totalitarian". A bad professor and potential criminal, yes, but not a totalitarian. Totalitarianism is a form of government whereby its subjects are required to be completely obedient to the state. Blizzard Entertainment defining "bad behavior" and punishing people has nothing to do with totalitarianism.



Just because a school takes federal money doesn't mean that it can't write it's own rules of conduct. There is no constitutional right to attend a private university. A private institution can (entirely legally) limit expression and expel anyone who violates that expression. You do not cede your constitutional rights by attending college, but a college has the right to enforce a behavior policy. Yes, the federal government can place restrictions on how money is used and can threaten to withhold money as a means of coercion, but these private institutions don't have to take money, they choose to do so. Hillsdale college is an example of a college that functions just fine without government funding.

There is a constitutional right to free speech. A professor limiting speech or pushing a progressive agenda is indeed authoritarian by it's very nature.

You sound like a brainwashed moron quite honestly.

[Terran]

Originally Posted by Tashtego

What? So now you argument is about the use of the phrase "bad behavior"? Is undesirable behavior better?

You have a problem with BEING QUOTED? Just like a liberal fundie, you use a term and assume that EVERYONE must agree with your parameters in defining it and then you argue about the term rather than the underlying point.

The point is everybody doesn't agree with how others define what is acceptable for people to think or say. And in fact, liberal leftist fundies for example use such slippery language to control what is allowable thought and action, because they are fascist fundamentalists. They've done that with the word "racism" among many others...lowered the bar to using the label (hell, you're a racist just because they said you are!), then raising the bar of its horrible nature after tagging you with the low-bar label so that you feel the full brunt of its unfair and undeserved impact.

You aren't allowing me to use the term "bad behavior" literally because others have twisted it's meaning?

I don't care what TERMS you use, the reality is that many people, most of all fundie leftists, are looking to control what you say and think, regardless of what terminology they use to justify it.

Non-totalitarian societies define "bad behavior" as well. Civil societies (even the free-est and most democratic ones) have penal codes to deter "bad behavior", and blizzard has a reporting system to do the same.

And American leftists are fundies who are all about deterring free thought and action while pretending it's not about control, it's about 'racism' or 'bad behavior' or 'justice,' or etc., etc., etc...

Fuck 'em. They're not interested in a free society, they're interested in controlling society.

A professor who suppresses free speech is not a "totalitarian".

Yes they are, because they are in fact exercising autocratic powers, which is totalitarian.

Blizzard Entertainment defining "bad behavior" and punishing people has nothing to do with totalitarianism.

Maybe, maybe not...depends upon how they implement it. It will most assuredly be abused by some for autocratic (i.e. totalitarian) purposes, to try to control others because too many people are snowflakes who think the world must bow to their sensitivities and sensibilities.

Just because a school takes federal money doesn't mean that it can't write it's own rules of conduct

Again, INCORRECT. If the federal or state funding authority requires a change in an institution's policies they will FORCE that change through the threat of removal of funding, and they already prescribe many policies as a requirement of receiving funds. The Obama administration did this to great (lol, as in retarded) effect with Title IX being the vehicle to force universities to suspend basic constitutional rights of accused students leading to kangaroo courts ejecting students from school with no due process, no right to legal representation, no right to question their accuser, etc..over unsubstantiated sexual allegations.

There is no constitutional right to attend a private university.

Private or public, you DO NOT cede your constitutional rights merely by enrolling in an institution. Well, that is, as long as you're not living under a Democrat administration using Title IX as a bludgeon to destroy you for unprovable accusations related to consensual sex.

A private institution can (entirely legally) limit expression and expel anyone who violates that expression.

This is ridiculously stupid.

FIRE: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

You have MANY constitutional rights on campus...private or public, it does not matter.

You do not cede your constitutional rights by attending college, but a college has the right to enforce a behavior policy.

You just contradicted your previous point. There are state, federal, and constitutional limits on how institutions run their campus. You should know this.

Yes, the federal government can place restrictions on how money is used and can threaten to withhold money as a means of coercion, but these private institutions don't have to take money, they choose to do so.

Yes. That's my point. Thanks.

[Kreigmstr]

Originally Posted by brandonjclark

Nothing says provocative like 50's-era modesty!

Pin-up pictures go back farther than the 50's. And a lot of them were in lingerie or show boobs or a lot of skin. Doesn't compare to the free porn of today. But it was definitely considered sexist for the time. And replacing a "sexist" picture with a classic "sexist" picture is still a slap in the face. I personally don't feel like it's "giving in to the sjw's" as it was characterized earlier in this thread.

[Chimpbot]

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr

There is a constitutional right to free speech.

And that constitutional right only extends as far as limiting the government from punishing people for exercising their freedom of speech.

A professor limiting speech or pushing a progressive agenda is indeed authoritarian by it's very nature.

While this isn't necessarily incorrect, it also doesn't violate anyone's freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr

Lol if you think the new pose is more provocative given it's a side angle rather than a full on ass shot, you're smoking some great shit.

They replaced a pose people said was objectifying women with a pose taken directly from art that was intentionally designed to objectify women. Besides, her ass looked flat in the first one; the second one looks better, personally speaking.

[Terran]

Originally Posted by Chimpbot

And that constitutional right only extends as far as limiting the government from punishing people for exercising their freedom of speech.

Incorrect. Your constitutional rights aren't only valid against government restrictions of them. They are also valid in preventing ANYONE from restricting them.

While this isn't necessarily incorrect, it also doesn't violate anyone's freedom of speech.

Incorrect. I've already linked above to an organization whose entire foundational premise is the defense of free speech on campus against totalitarian/authoritarian professors who would unconstitutionally restrict said speech.

They replaced a pose people said was objectifying women with a pose taken directly from art that was intentionally designed to objectify women.

Yes, but in changing it they did cave to the pressure to do so. I'd be interested to know if they actually owned the new pose as sexualized or if they were hoping that merely the appearance of caving would deflect the pressure from their corporation. If there's a link to a statement from them saying "Sure...here's a new pinup pose. Better?" or something like that I'd be impressed. Otherwise it looks to me like they wanted the best of both worlds; cave to the pressure, but get a little dig in on the way to caving.

[Chimpbot]

Originally Posted by Terran

Yes, but in changing it they did cave to the pressure to do so. I'd be interested to know if they actually owned the new pose as sexualized or if they were hoping that merely the appearance of caving would deflect the pressure from their corporation. If there's a link to a statement from them saying "Sure...here's a new pinup pose. Better?" or something like that I'd be impressed. Otherwise it looks to me like they wanted the best of both worlds; cave to the pressure, but get a little dig in on the way to caving.

From Jeff Kaplan, the Creative Director for Overwatch:

"We wouldn’t do anything to sacrifice our creative vision for Overwatch, and we’re not going to remove something solely because someone may take issue with it. Our goal isn’t to water down or homogenize the world, or the diverse cast of heroes we’ve built within it. We have poured so much of our heart and souls into this game that it would be a travesty for us to do so."

It's the nice way of saying, "Sorry you didn't like the pose. Here's a new pose based on pinup art. Better?"

[Terran]

Originally Posted by Chimpbot

It's the nice way of saying, "Sorry you didn't like the pose. Here's a new pose based on pinup art. Better?"

I love it. KUDOS to them for that politely phrased bitch slap.

[SpectralThundr]

Originally Posted by Chimpbot

And that constitutional right only extends as far as limiting the government from punishing people for exercising their freedom of speech.



While this isn't necessarily incorrect, it also doesn't violate anyone's freedom of speech.



They replaced a pose people said was objectifying women with a pose taken directly from art that was intentionally designed to objectify women. Besides, her ass looked flat in the first one; the second one looks better, personally speaking.

You truly are an idiot who has no idea how the Constitution works.