Nah. “Modern Society” doesnt care.
I mean, yeah, I think this is pretty much human society. We are in agreement on the concepts, but seem to disagree as to what is the current dichotomy.
Then you have no place to judge whether or not Blizzard is doing anything wrong.
I’m not 
I’m judging whether their situation is one that is favorable or not to a majority of people who care.
My instincts say no, it’s not one that most companies would want to be in. This leads to my conclusion of why I think she left.
This right here, this is you judging people based upon a perceived association with BadThings™
Without an objective moral framework, why should anyone care that some group of people are oppressed? What could oppression even look like if we can just alienate rights and declare Group A as better than Group B?
And don’t say “empathy” since empathy is intrinsically bias driven. We’re exceedingly empathetic to the pains and needs of babies and cute animals just as we’re exceedingly unempathetic to the pains and needs of gruesome monsters and murderous psychopaths. Emotion has nothing to do with justice.
1 Like
But my concept of “badthings” is inherently derived from the framework I’m describing (that which is seen as “bad” by society in general)…
A lot of people don’t.
See: America for many examples.
Which is subjective and whimsical, because you’re just appealing to your perception of popularity, nothing more. You’re just admitting that you’d have been okay with antebellum property practices, any number of the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition, etc. That’s not a system, that’s just outsourcing your moral questions to the most basic common denominator in society with no regard for any other factors.
This means the only difference between being OK with the 45th POTUS and not was popular vote…
…soooo why should they?
Yes. Agreed. I’m not sure what you think you’re trying to argue here lol.
Literally that is society.
I’m not personally okay with them because of retro-fitted principles as a person living in 2021, but they happened for a reason, as did segregation or slavery or the civil war (abhorrent things were popular).
If that was how we decided elections, he would have lost his race to Hillary Clinton, one of the most laughable candidates in presidential history.
They should do whatever they think is beneficial for society or their target consumer as a whole. If they fail demonstrably, it will bear out in the results and implications for people and those their doings affect negatively.
LSS: Blizzard is sucking at all of that.
“Is it over?”
“At long last… No King rules forever my son.”
1 Like
You condemned people who associated with other people who do bad things. In a subjective world, this means jack and squat. I don’t know how to be any more clear.
…what dystopic hell world of a “society” do you live in where only the popular rules the day?
You’re skirting the problem in your thinking. You, as a person living in the antebellum South, would have been okay with chattel slavery based on your arguments.
Missing the point by miles.
Why?
None of this follows. Are you seriously using post hoc is-ought reasoning to justify everything? If it survives it must be good, if it doesn’t it must be bad?
What a depressing and empty outlook.
1 Like
Not merely associated.
I’m not a “bad” person simply because I had a passing conversation with someone who just murdered someone else and came away from that conversation thinking they were nice.
We’re talking about a place of work, which is a place that you have an explicit choice to decide whether you want to contribute to or not.
I don’t know if I could be any more clear either.
Um…the real world of today?
I’m not skirting the problem, I’ve pretty much directly asserted that this would be the case, yes. People are generally a direct result of their environment growing up in a vast majority of cases unless there is any (if not significant) external influence. I feel like this is common knowledge…
Because then their business will fail and waste a lot of money for investors leading to potentially financial ruin and ultimately poor living conditions for those involved.
I mean if that’s the goal, then have at it.
Not quite that simple, you have to look at all the surrounding factors involved, but yeah, generally if you have a business who does everything “wrong” for years and eventually winds up crashing and burning after a long, storied history of downward trends in business performance, you can probably safely look to their tale as one to not follow if you want to do the opposite (succeed).
Sounds like an opinion, which I personally don’t agree with, but that’s fine.
This thread is fake news. They actually got a promotion.
You are, because you have rejected objective frameworks. You have destroyed any difference between mere association and close association by rendering all objectivity as simple opinion.
You know the US has a Senate… and SCOTUS isn’t just a weird collection of letters… right? As just a basic start…
Moral subjectivists are evil, just outright evil.
To be clear:
Your condemnations of anything Blizzard does or does not do as a company, as well as anyone working there, and anyone engaging that company, have zero meaning.
1 Like
Are you trying to say that even though my actual opinion about slavery is that it is an abhorrent practice, that because I believe people are a product of their environment, that means I agree with slavery?
I can’t with you right now.
This means jack when your actual opinion is just a mere reflection of your environment like some puppet. You see nothing wrong with chattel slavery but for that people around you generally find it wrong, not that it is wrong in and of itself.
No, it means you’re immoral. All I have to do is give you a different set of life circumstances and you’d be goosestepping with the skinheads.
1 Like
I literally have not made any condemnations or issued any objective judgment on Blizzard’s actions.
Jesus, the entire way that you choose to argue is so mind-bogglingly infuriating because you pretty much just engage in textbook strawman the entire time.
Neither does yours, because you aren’t part of the parties affected.
Doesn’t mean you can’t whine on the forums about it, you have that right.
I mean, yeah, but that’s impossible, so kind of irrelevant?
Yes.
Now apply that to everything.
Everything means jack.
Once you understand this, you might actually be able to get past first base in a conversation like this.
You are nothing more than a collection of experiences that your brain has been exposed to throughout your existence, and your brain calculates and executes its entire decision-making framework based on that exposure.
If you are isolated to a specific world of thinking with no outside influence, then your stage is set pretty much without significant levels of intervention.
It doesn’t mean you’re a puppet, it just means you’re human. Humans are what they are.
I get you don’t have a moral framework at all, but lying is still a sin.
A rejection from you means nothing since your principles dictate that nothing matters.
Holy hell most psychopaths aren’t this pointlessly nihilistic as they actually recognize something is wrong they just can’t adjust or adapt…
Brain-in-a-jar? Really?
2 Likes
Saying Blizzard should “shape up” isn’t indicative of me judging Blizzard by some objective moral framework. It means, and can very easily by most be interpreted to mean, that I’m referring to them “shaping up” to the standards that are expected of them by modern society.
Sin isn’t real, nor is the “lie” you’re trying to point out.
Nor does your rejection of my rejection.
Care to make an effective argument for what determines every action you make in life other than your brain?
Why don’t we stop talking around this:
You believe in God, your principles are derived from religious teachings, and you love Jordan Peterson.
Let’s just have that out on the table so readers know what they’re dealing with intellectually.
1 Like