Forums
Guides
Features
Media
Zelda Wiki
Patreon
Notch not allowed to attend Minecraft 10th Anniversary by Microsoft
  • eurogamer.net/articles/2019-04…sary-plans-says-microsoft

    What do you people think of this?

    Personally, I think it is bullshit. Of course Microsoft is allowed to invite or ban anyone from the event, but the reason they are not including Notch is completely unrelated to Minecraft, and totally relates to them not agreeing with some of his political beliefs. Should we be excluding people from events because we don't agree with them on Twitter?

    :cookiemonster:
    "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
  • Notch promoted Gamergate, promotes Q-Anon, has promoted "straight pride" (this one, at least, he made mealy-mouthed apology for) and "white pride" events, and a whole bunch of other pretty repulsive ideas and ideologies.

    If this was a question about if Microsoft should employ him, I'd probably say that what he does on his own time should be irrelevant unless it relates to how he does his job. But this is a promotional event by a company that he has no relationship with about a product he gave up all rights to and hasn't been involved with for years.

    If he didn't have actively discriminatory and harmful politics then I'd probably be upset by this, "big company buys an IP and then ignores the contributions of those who created it" is an old and frustrating story, but I don't get the sense that MS is trying to pretend he wasn't involved with the game or take credit for it, they're trying to distance their brand from a person who spends his free time penning screeds against the oppressed.

    Now, there is a line here, and it's a tricky one to walk. I'd not be happy if he was being excluded for being too progressive, for sure, but the issue here isn't that his politics are too reactionary, it's that he's attacked people and promoted movements built around attacking people. He's lent his weight to things that deal unambiguous harm. It's like not inviting a KKK member to give a speech.

    The risk, as always, is that claims of harm can be used to stifle speech that is perfectly fine, and there's a lot of judgment and balancing that has to be done to figure out where/when/etc. you should blacklist someone, but I have a hard time seeing this as a great injustice.

    May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

    Those who defy it, glory!
  • No, it is by no means a great injustice or anything of the sort. After all, I could see some real shit storm happening if he did attend, between him and his supporters and certain people that dislike him. But still, I think this event could promote unity and instead it promotes the opposite. Hence why I think it's a bad move.

    Also, I think that he is spending his time talking against oppressed people, I think that is actually an opinion and not fact.
    "Can't post that on a Christian forum."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Please Understand ().

  • John wrote:

    It's difficult, and generally self-defeating, to promote unity with someone who campaigns against it.
    Exactly. It's like straight people trying to preach the "straight pride" parades ("well if you LGBT's are so inclusive, why are you excluding straight people???") ; which is ironically something Notch himself preaches. Being inclusive doesn't work if you include those who seek to destroy it.

    Even still, in this case, Microsoft is working more on protecting their self-image and PR. Nothing destroys a company more than leading the charge with the face of a well known bigot.
    i'll just be on my way.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by death. ().

  • Had Microsoft included him in this event there would've certainly been articles denouncing him and Microsoft on gaming sites such as Kotaku and others, it may have even reached mainstream non-gaming press. Microsoft knows this, why would they knowingly give themselves bad press?

    I'm under no illusion that Microsoft has morality, they don't, they're a corporation. Like all corporations their prime directive is profit. There is a reason why Gillette made the commercial denouncing toxic masculinity, Nike made the commercial praising Kaepernick and Microsoft didn't invite Notch. The free market has determined that there is more profit in appealing to decent people than in appealing to bigots.

    We're just lucky that the more profitable path for corporations is also the moral path in regards to racial and sexual orientation inclusivity. When it comes to other topics such as the environment, the more profitable path is sadly the immoral one.
  • "It's OK to be White", "It's OK to be Straight", Q-Anon, and Pizzagate, are all heavily associated with all sorts of bigotry. Gamergate is associated with bigotry and harassment. He's made multiple anti-trans statements, and is also of the opinion that talking about "privilege" is racist.

    Like, even if he hadn't made the anti-trans statements (arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/03…dicated-from-splash-text/) he'd still have heavily associated himself with a half-dozen movements and common talking points for incredibly racist and bigoted people.

    It's like, to use a US example, someone who says that the civil war was "the war of northern aggression", says it was about states' rights, says slaves were treated well generally, opines that reconstruction-era statues of southern generals should be left where they are, and says that integration was none of the federal government's concern. While some of those opinions in a vacuum are potentially not-terrible, all together they announce loud and clear that the person is racist and just hasn't explicitly said so publicly.

    May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

    Those who defy it, glory!

    The post was edited 4 times, last by John ().

  • Eh, the whole point of dog whistles is that if you don't know what they are you don't notice them, and so yeah, education about them is gonna be constant. They also sound kinda conspiracy-theory-esque at first, the idea that there are people speaking in code that only certain people are aware of and all that. Especially when those code phrases are, on the surface, designed to seem if not reasonable than not very objectionable. "There's nothing wrong with being white" is, in a vacuum, a perfectly true statement. It's who is saying it and why they're saying it that makes it a sign of a problem.

    Plus, a lot of the articles on Notch don't give specifics about what he's said and done.

    May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

    Those who defy it, glory!
  • But that's the thing. You keep saying this is associated with this and that. It doesn't sound like he is clearly racist or anything. I think it is a bit of a stretch. At the same time, I could see why MS wouldn't want to associate themselves with such things, but would inviting the CREATOR of the game to an event associate them with anything?

    I think people are overestimating how much 99.9% of the world cares about Kotaku and Polygon. I am sure some do, but it's a minority. Of course, if MS can satisfy that minority as well, that's good, but I'm not too sure if that minority is bigger than the people that are upset that Notch can't attend an event about his own creation. It just feels off to me. But he is the one that sold it, it's not like Microsoft is doing anything unethical, I just don't agree with it personally.
    "Can't post that on a Christian forum."
  • I don't think his racism is really up in the air. He's against the idea of privilege even existing, opposed to affirmative action, supported white-pride slogans, and supports Trump and some of the radical pro-Trump conspiracy theories. Given that every single one of those things has strong ties to some incredibly racist movements this is rather like someone being found at a murder scene holding the weapon and covered in blood, muttering "they never should've cheated me, this is what happens to people who mess with me!" under their breath. While it is possible that they aren't the killer, it would be rather foolish to assume they weren't involved.

    May those who accept their fate be granted happiness;

    Those who defy it, glory!

    The post was edited 1 time, last by John ().

  • I think the main issue is that people in the far left don't understand that if you take any single if those so called "oppressive" remarks and turn them around, all hell would break loose if they were for some reason considered unacceptable.

    It's okay to be black = obviously it's okay to be black, why wouldn't it be, are you racist or something?
    It's okay to be white = oppressive privileged white guy

    LGBTQ+ pride = amazing, stick it to da man etc
    Hetero pride = literally CIS Hitler

    You mean I'm the only one that sees a problem with this? I'm by no means saying there NEEDS to be hetero pride, it's silly, and is the status quo, but why is it that if you support that you are automatically seen as alt right nazi? It doesn't quite make sense to me.

    Edit:

    Specifically when it comes to "it's okay to be white", I can totally see why some people could need reassurance, as some people make it their life's mission to make you feel bad for being white, as if you are actively oppressing people inherently by being white.
    "Can't post that on a Christian forum."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Please Understand ().

  • Please Understand wrote:

    I think the main issue is that people in the far left don't understand that if you take any single if those so called "oppressive" remarks and turn them around, all hell would break loose.

    It's okay to be black = obviously it's okay to be black, why wouldn't it be, are you racist or something?
    It's okay to be white = oppressive privileged white guy

    LGBTQ+ pride = amazing, stick it to da man etc
    Hetero pride = literally CIS Hitler

    You mean I'm the only one that sees a problem with this? I'm by no means saying there NEEDS to be hetero pride, it's silly, and is the status quo, but why is it that if you support that you are automatically seen as alt right nazi? It doesn't quite make sense to me.
    I don't think anyone's saying that it automatically makes you an "alt right nazi", but it's going to garner some eye rolls and doubt of character for legitimate reason. And if a company like Microsoft would rather not affiliate with someone who thinks it's okay to only mention minorities or oppressed groups when they're arguing that these oppressed groups are not in fact oppressed (exactly something an oppressor would do or say) then that's their decision. No one's saying it's not okay to be white or black, but the fact of the matter is the only ones who are saying "it's okay to be white" are often privileged white guys trying to dismiss or silence the other party. Same goes for people who say "it's okay to be straight" - it's not used to create pride in one's sexuality, it's used to speak over and silence those who do.

    Relevant XKCD (spoiler'd for some mild language):

    i'll just be on my way.

    The post was edited 3 times, last by death. ().