
‘Minecraft’ Creator Excluded from Anniversary Due to ‘Comments and Opinions’ - mathattack
https://variety.com/2019/gaming/news/minecraft-creator-excluded-from-anniversary-due-to-comments-and-opinions-exclusive-1203200050/
======
ilaksh
I am probably just going to get buried but I don't think this is a simple as
many people will think it is.

To me this is another indication of how excessively polarized worldviews are.
And I think it goes for quite a lot of people on both sides of the political
spectrum. There is a strong tendency towards one political extreme or another.

It's to the point where people are basically living in alternate realities
from each other.

And some people may react to that with "yeah, it's one worldview that is
intolerant and wrong and one that isn't" or if they are from the other side
"yeah, it's one worldview where it's ok to be say you are white and another
where it isn't". But it's way more than that. The hint of intolerance (or on
the other side, political correctness) is used to identify people as being in
the enemy camp. And it is then a proxy for their worth as a human being and
all of the other beliefs they might supposedly have are grouped together.

I wonder if another political operating mode is possible.

~~~
fivethr33
I mean Notch's views are literally that some people are less than people. Not
tolerating that isn't bad.

~~~
lucasmullens
Could you cite your source on that?

~~~
Jasper_
A minute of Googling gave me this:
[https://twitter.com/notch/status/22330335379333120](https://twitter.com/notch/status/22330335379333120)

------
mj_olnir
I mean, while it's weird and sucks that the original creator of Minecraft
won't be there, Microsoft is definitely free to distance themselves from
outspoken individuals that don't reflect the PC culture they're going for.

I certainly wouldn't want someone whose only relevance is armchair Twitter
warring representing something that brings my company substantial (?) revenue.

I guess for an ideological disclaimer, I vehemently disagree with his
politics, but I'd take the same position for a bellicose liberal.

~~~
geezerjay
> I certainly wouldn't want someone whose only relevance is armchair Twitter
> warring representing something that brings my company substantial (?)
> revenue.

Did you refer the creator of Minecraft as "someone whose only relevance is
armchair Twitter warring"?

------
defertoreptar
Would be asking too much to request that he limits his talks to the subject of
Minecraft at a Minecraft event? Does he have a history of giving unprompted
politically-charged speeches in public, or is it just Twitter? If not, then
I'd say this is an unnecessary letdown for the game's fans.

~~~
deogeo
Should black US athletes limit their talk to the subject of sports, and
refrain from politically charged moves such as kneeling for the anthem, or
giving the black power salute at the Olympics? Should video game or other
'tech' panels stick to the topic, and not proselytize how important diversity
is?

~~~
jameskegel
I feel like this is sarcasm but the real answer is you should act
appropriately for your surroundings. Someone else’s event is not your
platform, especially so in this case.

~~~
Retra
Correct. A slave on a plantation should simply do their job. It is never
appropriate to espouse political opinions in a place of business. The
promotion of business interests trumps any humanistic interests, which have
their set places and times to be addressed in a quiet and easily ignored
manner.

~~~
manfredo
Comparing the expectation of relatively apolitical professionalism to slavery
is absurd.

There are valid reasons why keeping the workplace apolitical is valuable. When
it isn't, one political group usually established dominance and suppresses the
opposition. The workplace becomes an environment where a subset of political
views monopolize conversation, and a large portion of workers are alienated as
a result. If your goal is to hire the best employees regardless of political
leanings, then maintaining an apolitical workplace is a good choice.

~~~
Retra
>f your goal is to hire the best employees regardless of political leanings,
then maintaining an apolitical workplace is a good choice.

My point is that your goals do not trump everyone else's goals just because
they're reasonable business goals. There are things in life that are more
important than hiring the best employees.

------
manfredo
> has increasingly ostracized himself with his Twitter comments, including
> transphobic statements and comments about a “heterosexual pride day,” and
> that “it’s ok to be white.”

Is it _not_ ok to be White or heterosexual? This kind of exclusion over these
statements likely harms Microsoft's reputation more than it helps it.

~~~
IvyMike
It is worth reading the history and intention of this phrase for context.
[https://qz.com/1144783/the-rise-of-the-alt-rights-
catchphras...](https://qz.com/1144783/the-rise-of-the-alt-rights-catchphrase-
its-ok-to-be-white/)

~~~
manfredo
> Persson’s is not an isolated tweet. “It’s ok to be white” was invented by
> the trollsters of the “politically incorrect” messaging board on 4chan. The
> phrase was carefully designed to trick progressive, left-leaning Americans
> into saying the contrary—that it is not ok to be white—in a strange
> nationwide campaign to finally expose anti-white bias.

And it's evidently working. Taking offense to the phrase "it's okay to be
White" is falling straight into the trolls' hands. If we want to stop the
machinations of said trolls then we should stop taking offense to the
statement, since taking offense to the statement "it's okay to be X"
necessarily implies that it's not okay to be X.

If Microsoft was aware of the phrase's history then their behavior is even
more counterproductive; they knowingly walked into this trap.

~~~
Retra
Even so... Setting traps and then trying to blame others for falling into
them? Does that sound like the behavior of a trustworthy and admirable person?

~~~
manfredo
I think you're missing the point. Who knows what Notch was trying to
accomplish by saying "it's okay to be White". For all we know he saw people
taking offense to the phrase, and was perturbed by people evidently claiming
that it is not okay to be White (the link you provided included responses to
the phrase that included calls for "white genocide") and wanted to emphasize
his own view that being white is not something bad. If you want to portray
Notch as some kind of white supremacist aligned person, then the onus is on
you to prove it. The likelihood that he is part of the overwhelming majority
of people that don't really care about 4chan and other obscure internet
subcultures is significantly greater.

The point remains, the overwhelming majority of people will not take offense
to the phrase "it's okay to be White" and will be perturbed by the people who
do take offense to this phrase.

~~~
Retra
Out of context, "it's ok to be white" is not a disagreement with the phrase
"it is not ok to be white", it is a disagreement with the phrase "it is ok to
be non-white." The overwhelming majority of people both agree with the latter
and find the former to be irrational and obscene. If he's going to comment on
something so divisive, he'd better add something to the discussion beyond
additional ambiguity, or else he's just fanning flames and race baiting.

> [He] wanted to emphasize his own view that being white is not something bad.

Obviously. Perhaps emphasizing that view in this context does more harm than
good? Is that possible? Perhaps when someone says something obscene and
stupid, you don't pile on with additional obscene and stupid responses?

~~~
manfredo
> Out of context, "it's ok to be white" is not a disagreement with the phrase
> "it is not ok to be white", it is a disagreement with the phrase "it is ok
> to be non-white."

How do you interpret "it's okay to be X" to "it's not okay to be non-X"?. When
somebody says "it's okay the be gay" they're actually saying it's not okay to
be straight? This line of reasoning doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

In my view the phrase "it's okay to be White" means exactly what is says: that
it's okay to be White. It's totally fine to say "it's okay to be White and
it's okay to be {Asian, Black, Latino, etc.}".

> Obviously. Perhaps emphasizing that view in this context does more harm than
> dood? Is that possible? Perhaps when someone says something obscene and
> stupid, you don't pile on with additional obscene and stupid responses?

But there's nothing obscene or stupid about saying "it's okay to be White" or
"it's okay to be gay" or "it's okay to be X" (at least as long as X isn't
something illegal or otherwise objectively harmful).

What's stupid are the people getting riled up about the phrase "it's okay to
be White". It's needless outrage that fuels resentment. The fact that it got
started by 4chan makes it even worse. The people that insist on taking offense
are fostering needless outrage _and they 're being played by 4chan_.

I'm particularly confused at why you persist in trying to condemn the phrase
when you are fully aware that 4chan intended for people to condemn the phrase
and thus portray themselves as harboring negativity towards whites. Why are
you doing exactly what 4chan wants you to do?

The article you posted even advises against the bevhavior you're engaging in:

> Lundberg’s expert suggestion is not to reject the phrase. “I think that the
> best response is to deny them the pleasure of the fight—of course it is ok
> to be white: now how can we make it ok to be a person of any color?”

~~~
SimbaOnSteroids
It's like saying white lives matter or blue lives matter, yeah, duh, no
segment of society that wields power has ever questioned that. When you say
one of those phrases you're being obtuse and just distracting from a
conversation that needs to be had. At which point I've got to assume you've
got nefarious reasons for being obtuse.

~~~
manfredo
> It's like saying white lives matter or blue lives matter, yeah, duh, no
> segment of society that wields power has ever questioned that.

This is evidently not correct, since a significant portion of the population
is offended by the phrase "it's okay to be white". If someone is being obtuse
in this conversion, I'm going to go with the people that insist that no
segment of society thinks that it isn't okay to be white while simultaneously
denigrating the people who say "it's okay to be white".

What on Earth do people hope to achieve by condemning the people who say "it's
okay to be White"? I get that a segment of the population interprets
statements about a specific group as implying that the statement doesn't apply
to other groups (e.g. people saying "Black Live Matter" is racist because it
implies that only Black lives matter), but it should be plainly obvious to see
why objecting to the phrase "it's okay to be white" is not a good idea.
Apparently this is the work of 4chan as a means of duping people into making
anti-white statements. If so, then the trolls have had a resounding success:
they even managed to dupe a significant portion of HN commenters.

~~~
Retra
It _is_ ok to be white, it is just not something that needs to be said, and
derails the discussion from things that _do_ need to be said.

~~~
manfredo
> It _is_ ok to be white

Then why are we taking offense to the phrase? Worse yet, why are we taking
offense to the phrase despite knowing that the alt-right _wants_ us to take
offense to the phrase because most onlookers will see it as anti-white (which
is a reasonable conclusion, for the overwhelming majority of people that don't
follow internet culture).

~~~
Retra
Grass is green. Water is wet. The sky is blue. It's ok to be white.

These things being true does not imply they are relevant. "It's ok to be non-
white" is true and _poignant social commentary_ , and thus I value it for the
latter. The truth in it is necessary, but not sufficient. "It's ok to be
white" is a fact, but it is simply a fact. It is nothing _more_ than a fact.

>why are we taking offense to the phrase despite knowing that the alt-right
wants us to take offense

I'm not taking offense to the phrase, I'm taking offense to the willingness of
someone to say it where it is unwarranted. The phrase is not offensive. The
willingness and desire to offend is. Exercising that willingness by employing
an otherwise true statement is both offensive and cowardly.

In any case, I do not make decisions based on the whims of the Alt-right. What
they want and what I want are not going to be intentionally correlated or
anti-correlated.

------
detaro
dupe
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19779708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19779708)

------
senectus1
Wow. I've been a minor Notch fan since way back when MC first dropped in
alpha. I've seen him go through some serious emotional crap but this makes me
think he's abusing something.

This is sad.

~~~
ilaksh
Everyone gets emotional sometimes because that's how humans work. Some people
are just more honest about revealing their emotions and also may be
celebrities so people magnify the drama out of proportion to what it really
was.

Also, just because someone has a different worldview than you doesn't mean
they are crazy or a drug addict.

