Been reading some of the comments on this page, just want to raise some thoughts about how to see the issue. Also, to respond to some of the arguments and rebuttals. I think it's good to have an actual conversation on these matters and that its important that these things are brought to light.
First our context - what happened?
In a recent competitive match during the dreamleague minor (a valve sponsored event), a player - Skem - on team complexity made a racial comment - "Ching chong" - against the Chinese team, RNG.
After the event, Skem posted an apology, and team complexity punished him with a fine.
A few days later, during a pub game, a TNC player - Kuku - made the same comment in a pub. When this was brought to light he claimed that his comment was in reference to a player on his opposing team who just killed him. It was later found that this player only changed their name after the incident and thus his explanation was invalid.
Soon after, we see a major Chinese backlash. Team LGD state that they refuse to play scrim with TNC, a number of chinese talents and players expressing outrage against the incideits. Some talents/players actively demanding that Valve take action.
Today we see cases of 'review bombing' in Steam against Dota 2, with some of these reviews themselves contain racial comments and degoratory remarks.
Some thoughts about racism:
There are different ways to define racism. The two common ideas however seem to be:
- The negative treatment of an individual based on their race, ethnicity, skin colour etc.
2) The idea that society is structured in a way that negatively affects certain groups, either institutionally, intentially or unintentionally.
I'm not going to comment on which one is the correct usage. Regardless, in both definitions people tend to see racism as something that negatively affects groups such as Black, asian, hispanic and such groups. A thing to note that under the second definition, if white people are viewed as the priviledged group, then they are unable to experience racism. In contrast, if we use the first definition, they can experience it, for example if a interviewer refused to hire white people. These definitions can also be context dependent. For example in other countries, the cases of racial discrimination, and structural discrimination can affect different groups. Whilst we tend to evaluate how 'racist' something is using our own context, we should be aware that it can differ for other people.
This is important just as a cautionary warning: we should be careful with comparing degrees of racism. I've seen this argument a number of times now where people compare the usage of 'Ching chong' with the 'N' word. I've also seen a number of rebuttals claiming that the cases are not comparable. You have to recognise that in some sense you are saying that the purported racism experienced by Chinese people is not as bad as the racism experienced against Black people. One might bring up arguments about a history of slavery to indicate why one term is worse than the other. Making such arguments however you should also think about the treatment of China across history. There have certainly been some fairly destructive cases such as the Opium war.
It might also be cited that 'ching chong' is meant only to mock the language. We should again be careful here: one might think that when dealing with structural racism, what matters is the intention of expressing such derogatory remarks, as opposed to what said remarks reference. Part of the issue is that the negative effects of racism may not be entirely obvious. Bringing up cases of history or even statistics may provide you indicators, but if we were to take a structural conception of racism then the issue also lies in the small things: the acceptance of casual racist remarks, the willingness to make insensitive jokes and so on. Another thing to note is that you're also acting in different contexts: you might be thinking about racial relations within a country in North America or Europe, but others may see it from in China. They might for example look back at a history of the West taking advantage of China, and see these racial comments as referring to such a history.
Should Valve take action?
I think we have an agreement that Racism is bad, I don't think this needs to be argued. It should also be agreed that racism has no place in gaming. We might now consider two seperate cases. The Skem case occurred in a valve sponsored minor. In this sense, there is certainly an argument to expect Valve to comment or take action. A lack of response might indicate a sense of tolerance of racist behaviours. We note that the Kuku case is certainly different. Skem acts as some kind of valve representative in the sense that they publically invited him to play in a special tournament. Kuku in comparison was playing in a pub. There actions are both wrong of course, but if they are to take action, it should be against Skem. I think the Chinese reaction against the two cases is not to see them as identical, but to see Kuku's case as just evidence of repeated casual racism, and a frustration at that.
Now Valve do tend not to comment on these issues in general, and I don't think they necessary need to actively punish Skem right now. If the situations are important enough, Valve respond. Thus if they do not comment in this case (in their own event) when there is such public backlash this certainly is a PR risk (and arguably indicates an over tolerance for such racist behavior). I think that Valve should say that looking forward that racism in their sponsored events (at least) would not be tolerated.
Regarding the Chinese reaction
The first point is that racism should be taken seriously. It seems in some sense that it's the victims discretion in terms of how seriously they should take it. If I discriminate against you in a certain case, in a public setting it doesn't seem like you should be forced to tolerate it. You should have the right to react in the appropriate manner.
Racial remarks from Chinese reviewers:
This is obviously wrong. If you are a victim of racial discrimination, then you clearly see it as problematic. Presumably you should also see that it is the action itself that is wrong, not necessarily just who the victim is (ref to def 1). For certain Chinese reviewers to make such comments is morally unacceptable.
Hypocrisy:
Something to note is that whilst hypocrisy doesn't seem to be a good thing, this does not even out any arguments. Just because someone may be racist themselves does not mean that them being victims or racial discrimination is right. Certainly we can have many issues with things such as Chinese nationalism, racism and comments. By no means should we think of them as saints. We would be right to call out bad behvaiour. However this does not mean somehow weaken the unjust behaviour inflicted upon the Chinese.
I do hope that these incidents also cause everyone to rethink how they treat each other regarding Racism. That includes certain Chinese people reflecting on how they treat people of other races, and how such behaviour is morally unacceptable.
TLDR:
- case is complex
- racism is bad,
- two wrongs dont make a right,
- looking forward Valve should not tolerate racism in their events.
