But they MUST. That’s the issue. There is no such thing as remaining neutral.
What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy? Now the west is mad and boycotting.
NOT ban the player? Now China is pissed and kicking you out of the country.
They were damned by someone either way. There was no neutral political stance they could take. International politics is just setup that way. Total neutrality doesn’t exist on that stage.
It's hard to deny that there would be a much smaller PR issue here if the player had been prevented from voicing any opinion on Hong Kong in the first place.
Then what is the right answer? HK independence?
>There is no such thing as remaining neutral.
Of course there is! What does it mean to NOT remain neutral? What position should a corporation take and which controversial topics? How about the IOC? Or FIFA? Or some charity? Or the EU? I don't see European nations, for example, taking any steps to challenge China. I don't see the public boycotting Chinese goods. Why would you expect a video game company to do so?
Do you honestly want a video game company to take a position on every single controversial topic .... of which there are thousands? Or only on the ones that you find particularly important?
>What could they do? Ban the player to make China happy?
No. Ban the player not to make China happy but because he brought politics into a neutral sporting event. The same thing that NFL and NBA did with players kneeling during the anthem because it pissed off half their fanbase.
In both those cases, though, that's still taking an action that supports one side and affronts the other. "Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action.
And, of course, there's an argument to be made that even doing that is effectively "taking a side," right? Because your (lack of) action still implicitly supports one side and affronts the other. Maybe letting players kneel during the anthem does piss off half your fan base, but explicitly banning them from kneeling pisses off the other half of your fan base.
As much as Rush lyrics may be the last refuge of scoundrels, there's a lot of truth in "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
No. That is insane.
Being neutral is not the same as taking an action. I know we live in a twitter world where everything is black or white but you don't get to create a false dichotomy of "you're either with me or against me" - there is always a third choice of "I refuse to get involved".
>Staying out of politics" could arguably lead to making s short statement "the NFL takes no league-wide position on players kneeling during the anthem" and taking no action. And: "As a company, Blizzard takes no position on politics and the viewpoints players express are their own," followed by taking no action.
You're parsing out meanings from words that aren't there. Sure Blizzard could have done nothing, but they did decide that their platform shouldn't be used to espouse political messages, even ones they may privately agree with. If you want to be pedantic that's 'taking an action', but the action is NOT "I support China", nor "I support Hong Kong protestors", but rather, "I have no position on the matter because I'm a video game company that is interested in selling video games and running StarCraft tournaments".
Why are you so intent on creating a division where there is none and forcing everyone to choose a side?
No, there is not. At least, not any longer. The moment a company dips their toes into the Chinese market they are getting into bed with an oppressive, authoritarian regime who dictates the rules of conduct. This on turn forces companies like Blizzard to play along with the CCP lest they lose revenue.
There is no neutral; the CCP forces you to chose a side, and Blizzard chose as soon as they entered the Chinese market.
And what does it mean for YOU to buy chinese or chinese-made products, or products made by companies that also sell in China. Are you in bed with the CCP?
>There is no neutral;
Yes there is. Why are you so intent on forcing a false dichotomy?
I don't have a strong opinion on what's happening in Hong Kong and I was actually in HK during the July protests. The city looked like any other city with people doing regular city things like shopping, taking the subway and going to work. How am I supposed to take a side when I don't even know what the population of HK (not just the protestors) actually want. Any position I take will be out of ignorance, is that better than being neutral?
I would also argue that corporations are subject to moral constraints, and sometimes, they should do the right thing--even if it hurts their bottom line.
Also forcing political neutrality hurts those who are oppressed. The dominant force will never need to protest or introduce politics into a surprising area because the dominant force has no need to protest. Only those who suffer need to protest and inconvenience the majority in order to make their plight known (see civil rights movement amongst other things).
That's the question. Why did they do it in the first place? They could have not banned the player.
But that was the right decision. The player politicized their neutral platform. The NBA fined players that wouldn't stand for the anthem for the same reason.
Standing for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action. FORCING players to stand for the national anthem is not a politically neutral action.
It's common, but that doesn't mean it's neutral.
Oh brother ... but OK.
The NBA went through something like this. Their policies called for standing for the anthem if you're out on the court while the anthem is playing (i.e. and cameras are rolling, and fans are watching). If you happen to have an objection to this, then you are welcome to stay in the locker room for the duration of the anthem and come out after.
I think that's entirely fair. You don't get to politicize a neutral platform, and you also aren't forced to do anything you morally object to.
The NFL doesn't care about Trump. The NFL fined kneeling players because it pissed off half their fanbase and viewership numbers went down.
It doesn’t have to be so polarizing: if I make an effort to value our constitution, I expect at least the corporations that impact and influence our society to too. If I don’t like it, I start a dialogue to change it - but I certainly don’t censor or violate the rights of others.
Because it's indicative of this armchair general/keyboard warrior mentality where you sure as heck as strong opinions online which have no impact on your life, but you're not willing to sacrifice one iota of your personal comfort to actually live what you espouse.
For some reason you want companies to exit China or get involved in internal Chinese politics but you're perfectly willing to keep buying chinese or chinese-made products - because it would be too hard to boycott them and have it actually impact your life.
Stepping back, you see the same thing at the national level. You're criticizing a VIDEO GAME company for wanting to stay neutral, but you aren't calling for European nations or your country to recall their ambassadors from China to breaking relations? It's indicative.
Corporations exist to create products and services. That's what they are good at. You do not want to push social policy.
The problem is that these brands also want the brownie points. So they'll cherry pick safe policies to loudly support when it doesn't negatively affect their bottom line, but stay quiet when it does, making them look like hypocrites and pissing off everyone.