Chinese Taipei ... worthwhile battles to fight,
It's an example , you are reading too much into it. I'm fully aware that other organisation do it as well. It's a symptom for the same problem: Don't anger the Chinese Government.
Opinions on what constitutes oppression (versus say, a legitimate use of state force) and especially on how to deal with said oppression are kind of by definition a type of political thought.
Trying to separate them otherwise is just messy, bad semantics. And trying to claim “Liberate Hong Kong” isn’t a political expression is probably going to lose us the argument right away.
Never said it's not political. I'm saying that there are some things that most of us understand to be bad, independent of our cultural background.
That naturally doesn't make all situations surrounding those examples less complex or easy though. But that's exactly why we have to separate and differentiate between issues and situations and not follow the lowest common denominator: silence.
I brought up that Blizzard is supporting Gay Rights, not because I wanted to show that they can do something good. I did so to demonstrate that they aren't following their own rules when it fits them and that they are hiding behind "no politics" whenever they need it as a shield. Them not supporting Gay Rights everywhere only emphasizes my example. Companies are able and willing to make case by case decisions. They have no standard procedure themselves for political issues and you shouldn't make up one for them either.
We also should make case by case decisions and weight in complex situations. Supporting HK doesn't automatically mean that somebody has to support all protests and all separatists in the world. It just means that you are supporting this one situation and you needed and encouraged to have a different opinion about something else.
As said: I don't know where the line or the standard is, because a clear line doesn't exist everywhere. There often is a multiplex of issues, a grey construct of positives and negatives.
What you have to understand is that organizations are fine with being political, as long as it makes them money. They are doing what suites them best and we shouldn't support their obvious cover ups. I understand if you say: I don't want politics in sports because I don't like it, or I don't want to be bothered by it. I don't understand if you say: I don't want politics to be in sports, because they are complex, people have contradicting opinions and companies want to make money without angering too many people. A sports body wants to avoid having to sort out all these thousands of multifaceted, complex issues that might bring them into conflict with their own players, sponsors and countries they operate in. There is no might in there. But do you think see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil is the correct approach?
Call me naive all you want, but I don't think it is, I think companies are part of our social structures and not above it or separate entities. They are influencing societies, forming public opinions and are important parts of our daily lives. They aren't above morals and above laws and shouldn't be excluded or given a free pass out of political issues, especially not if they only do so when it suits them.
news.blizzard.com
