Just leave it. Nothing we can do about it at this point in time. Triple and quadruple standards are popular in these times. Society as a whole seems to be easily influenced and manipulated not to mention is rolling downhill with all this nonsense.
2 Likes
These days we’re seeing people destroy statues of notable historical figures, urging politicians to rewrite history/school-books and publicly outcrying everything that should be changed for some hivemind “greater good”.
For me it’s the accumulation of things that I’ve seen rewritten/changed/destroyed over the past couple of years that I consider bad rather than changing this singular thing. People say “It’s just one line” – but that’s where you’re wrong, it’s not just that line as it sets the tone for more changes along the way.
Cultural genocide is one of the worst things to happen to people, we lost a ton of historical sites and information about different cultures around the world and now we as the people are doing it from the inside out. Rewriting everything that is considered bad to appease a crowd is generally speaking the worst outcome.
Remember when ISIS destroyed historical sites in Palmyra in Syria and how everybody was shocked? … and now we’re applauding people destroying statues and other historical sites. Edward Colston for example did a lot for Bristol and the UK in general, yet people see “Slave trade” and ensue in the destruction of his statue and protesting to remove his name from public buildings.
There’s always two sides to a coin and there’s always multiple interpretations to a story. For example A Pakistani-American can say: Why should a statue of Obama exist? He ordered drone strikes and indirectly killed numerous Pakistani civilians. We’re just looking at the bad things people did, right?
The world today makes me think of Year Zero in The Man in the High Castle or any other post-apocalyptic/dystopian world where history is rewritten/changed/destroyed in favor of a small number of people.
tl;dr: I want myself and my ascendants to learn about the GOOD and the BAD people did in the future because making people oblivious by thinking there’s only GOOD people is the worst outcome. Censorship should never the answer.
3 Likes
As someone who grew up learning socialist propaganda in history class, I’ll tell you this - history books, not just under the USSR, but pretty much everywhere, were filled to the brim with propaganda. Here’s how you should think of it - Americans who are now in their 30s didn’t learn what “redlining” was in school, or about the Tulsa race massacre. They had to learn about these things from stupid John Oliver. Those were omitted from history books for a purpose. The same goes on pretty much everywhere. History class is a place for kids to be propagandized to.
Same thing with the statues being torn down. Generally speaking, statues are propaganda pieces. If you look into the history of the “monuments” that were torn down, most of them were built in the 50s and 60s, as a response and opposition to civil rights movements. Usually you have to look into a monument’s history before deciding if it’s right to defend it. Also, if you have a general depicted on a horse and with a cape, chances are it’s a propaganda piece. Take Mt. Rushmore for example… everyone considers it this historic monument… and in reality it’s a tourist trap. It’s capitalist and mercantile, not dignified at all.
Here in Bulgaria we have so many Soviet propaganda monuments that people feel weird about taking down… because “history”. But it’s not history, it’s propaganda from a regime that killed our culture.
When I was in high-school, I got lucky. I got a history teacher who actually loved history and he would tell us every time the history book had propaganda in it. It was lovely. Nobody wants to change history. Everybody wants the lies to be removed from how history is taught in schools. And that inevitably means changing the narrative these books construct. Keep in mind that until the 50s in the west and 70s-80s in the USSR, the word “propaganda” wasn’t even considered dirty. The government was openly propagandizing and everyone liked it. In fact, even today you can see people insist on being propagandized to.
Removing Garrosh’s insult is merely editing. It’s not even a major part of the plot, nobody ever brought it up in discussions regarding his character. It’s not Blizzard trying to change the fact that he was a genocidal villain, don’t worry.
1 Like
A rewritten book by some group of people would practically be propaganda as well, as bad things would either be omitted or would be a more focused on topic and in some cases even grossly exaggerated depending on the party rewriting it.
There’s quite a difference between a local merchant statue opposed to some USSR Communist leader’s statue being placed everywhere…
People placed statues of the merchant Edward Colston because he did a lot of philantrophy work in Bristol:
In Bristol, he founded almshouses in King Street and Colstons Almshouses on St Michael’s Hill, endowed Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital school, and helped found Colston’s Hospital, a boarding school which opened in 1710 leaving an endowment to be managed by the Society of Merchant Venturers for its upkeep. He gave money to schools in Temple (one of which went on to become St Mary Redcliffe and Temple School and other parts of Bristol, and to several churches and the cathedral
That’s quite different than some Dictator ordering people to place statues of him everywhere in communist-ruled countries. One is applauded for the works he has done in his place of birth and the other is forcing people to applaud him. Rather than destroying statues I’d prefer them to be placed in a Museum so people can still learn about the story behind it.
Like I said in my previous post: The change to this line itself doesn’t bother me, but we’re living in an age where a lot of things are rewritten/changed/destroyed, the accumulation of it bothers me.
3 Likes
Here’s the thing, right. If history hasn’t omitted his involvement in the slave trade, maybe the reaction to people learning it in 2020 wouldn’t have been so emotional. This discovery changes the value of his philanthropy. Now, he’s not this good, valiant person who did a lot of his community and deserves celebration. He’s a slaver who used his slave money to buy people’s adoration. If his involvement with slavery wasn’t omitted, if the statues were a honest portrayal of him, then nobody would’ve taken them down.
Taking a statue down is like review bombing The Last of Us 2 for killing Joel and having Abby as a playable character half the game - you do it, because everything you expected was subverted in a way you hated.
Many people’s identity are rooted in the history they were taught as kids, and they would rather maintain the lie than face the truth. This is why you have so many people pushing back against contextualizing and de-propagandizing history. Because they would rather live the lie, than face the truth. Because being forced to look in the mirror and see that everything you believed was a lie pushed on you by politicians who had political interests… is a very, very hard truth to swallow. And everyone who refuses to do it is in the wrong, but it’s also understandable why they would do it. It’s like the people who still defend Star Wars as a franchise, even if it’s completely dead and buried, because they liked it as kids. And they can’t accept its demise.
So now we’re going to omit every person from (history) books and remove any references to them because of the (subjectively) bad things they did? History books would be pretty empty if you did that.
For example you should then remove these two people from (history) books as well:
Obama: Drone strikes that destroyed cities and killed civilians.
Nelson Mandela: ‘Terrorist’ attacks such as the 1983 Church St car bomb that killed 19 people.
But I’d rather know every good and bad thing somebody has done as a neutral observer.
School books in my country are heavily leftist, rightist politicians are heavily ridiculed in these books and I’m talking about current day politicians, not those that lived 60+ years ago.
Different books have been used in the past 20+ years in schools in my country and everytime they’re rewritten stuff is omitted/changed and flavorized based on the ideals of the writer(s).
As it currently stands the flavors generally are:
Leftist writer: Rightists are bad
Rightist writer: Leftists are bad
Democratic writer: Republicans are bad
Republican writer: Democratics are bad
White writer: White people are the best and others are not!
Colored writer: People of color are the best and others are not!
Female writer: Women are the greatest
Male writer: Men are the greatest
NOTE: Not to say books are written so blatantly like this but depending on the ideals of the writer they will glorify their ideals while stomping on or ignoring others.
Do you see where I’m going with this? No matter who you give the pen there will always be notions of the ideals of the writer(s) either openly ridiculing or creatively suggested within the lines of text.
A GOOD history book would be multiple accounts of people with different ideals/cultural background or even gender. But this will greatly complicate history books and also makes it difficult to distinguish what is the correct answer even if in many cases there might not be (just) one.
I think you’ll find that is not a ‘These days’ thing, but a symbolic gesture that oppressed people have always used when they have the liberty to do so that goes back as far as recorded history, Iraqi’s did it when Saddam was toppled, Eastern European Soviet Occupied nations did it to statues of Lenin when the Soviet Union disintegrated, heck, people in ancient Rome did it. This is not a ‘These days’ scenario.
That isn’t happening either. You -keep- history, both the good and the bad bits, otherwise as the saying goes, you are doomed to repeat it. Perhaps I’m lucky, but in the UK no one is asking for history to be rewritten, we’d rather it was just all kept factual, like, y’know, History should be. That means including the good things that happened, and the bad… Not just keeping the good things as history…
As a global community we’re actually (generally) better these days at actually being realistic about history and -not- revising it, and it certainly is not a thing for the ‘Modern Snowflake Generation’ like some people like to bleat. Y’know Richard III? from the Shakespeare play? That utter villain? Yeah, he wasn’t actually that bad a dude, I mean he is the guy who invented the universal concept of “Innocent until proven Guilty” which most people think is pretty good. MacBeth? That Murderous King? Yeah, he was actually a very popular monarch who overthrew a Tyrant hated by his people and ruled them fairly and justly.
These days we know those things, it allows us to be objective. So re-writing history is as old as history itself, always has been. Cleopatra? Supposed to have been a gorgeous siren beauty, right?
Nah, she looked average by all accounts, she was -very- charismatic and learned however, and knew how to turn on the charm.
So lets not start thinking that “These days they’re re-writing history” because what you are describing is simply the evolution of history since the start of…well…history…
The difference is, you can learn History from a teacher, or a book, but a Statue specifically is glorifying a person, even if that person was actually extremely nasty.
History is not dependent upon statues. I mean sure, they’re nice to look at, but sometimes they are relics holding us back.
You know what approach I would take towards statues? Have them be made of wood. Have them be carved as intricately and beautifully as you like, but made of wood. Why? Because that would force us to actually address our history, wood degrades and rots, stone generally does not, therefore if you have a statue of someone, because it would degrade and rot, it is for -every- generation forever after to go “Do we still think this is someone worth remembering or celebrating?” and then carving the same statue and replacing it if people think “Yes”. The actual History is in our photographs our media, our books. Statues should be open to constant scrutiny as we as a society grow.
Anyway, back on topic, they’re removing this, but leaving worse swear words and themes in game because someone had bad parenting skills?
Now that -is- pathetic.
To try to excise swearing from works of art (and technically as a visual and audible media that does include modern gaming) would be to utterly destroy how language works.
So we edit NWA’s back catalogue? (Lets not, I really like their stuff) we get rid of some of Nirvana’s works? Any film with swearing? The works of Quentin Tarantino? Francis Ford Coppola? Kit Marlowe? Or how about the supreme potty mouth of his day, William Shakespeare? What about Herodotus, and historical accounts of Julius Caesar?
Thats the difference between statues and history. Words. We can remember words and ‘bad’ history without putting up statues to bad people.
I think some people massively exaggerate this whole idea that there is a recent spate of cultural revisionism going on. There isn’t. Or rather, it’s something that has been a continual process throughout our ability to think and speak and write. You can generally tell Propaganda. You know why? Because when you read it you go “Nuh uh, this is what people want me to think, I bet that’s not what happened” and these days we -do- have power undreamt of by our ancestors to actually cut to the truth of a matter, (Admittedly we mostly use it for cat memes 
)
Garrosh’s dialogue was fitting. Why? Because he was not a pleasant person and would think nothing of swearing at someone he already hates, when she has given him a reason, right there and then, in his face, to be extremely angry with her. Even the -term- used makes sense, he was a Warsong Orc, they ride wolves, I’m pretty sure he knows the terminology for a female wolf/dog.
Now you could raise the question as to whether the word in question would -culturally- be an insult, but then you only have to look at other dialogue in WoW to know that they do use the same swearwords as we do, after all, the ‘b’ word used predominantly towards males is used, we have Orcs in Silverpine using the swear word for Micturation in the exact same term we do. They could have just said “I may or may not have just wet myself” instead of the word they do use, so we have to examine why this -particular- swearword was a deal breaker for this concerned parent, given that the example I give there, happens in exactly the same zone as the b-word Garrosh calls Sylvanas.
How concerned about the language in game are they, really? They are Ok with their child playing in that zone and hearing that word, but not reading a worse swear word in the same zone? They better not let their kid play to level up in Twilight Highlands, or worse, Legion.
That is my issue with it. Hypocrisy. You either keep swear words in, and parents look after their kids better as to what media they are exposed to, or you remove -all- swear words from the game.
I do wholeheartedly agree though, that the word “Witch” would have been equally as fitting, and able to have been delivered with enough vehemence to get across the fact that Garrosh was not happy with Sylvanas.
Plus, just sayin’, any parent who is that concerned has clearly forgotten their own childhood, or is being a rubbish parent. If their child is old enough to play WoW, they already know that word, if they are too young to know that word, then they are not old enough to play Wow.
It is not for a gaming company to raise people’s children for them in terms of social etiquette.
1 Like
It’s not specifically history but you’re seeing a lot of things being rewritten/changed to appease a (small) group of people. I can understand the toppling and destruction of statues when they glorify some oppressive leader(dictator) that has been removed from his spot.
https://www.change.org/p/department-of-education-rewrite-history-books
https://www.thewrap.com/juneteenth-watchmen-tulsa-john-oliver-history/
Not saying I don’t agree with these but whether the outcome of the rewritten versions will be better or in most positive outcome more neutrally written than currently used books is questionable. Like I explained in my previous post a good history book is best written by multiple people that don’t all have the same ideologies.
People will always have their own take on historical figures (or fictional characters) and thus it’s difficult to make a sound decision on what side is right. Genghis Khan and his horde conquered a great portion of the world, many people died, many rulers were overthrown and thus you could say he’s bad to a lot of people. But on the other hand, those who followed him and the people in his settlements would remember him as a benevolent ruler.
They were tolerant to all religions, ensured travel safety, created the first non-religious bureaucracy since Roman times and ensured the safety of traders and travelers. They were in many aspects much more benevolent than most other rulers on Earth in the times.
But the accounts of one are vastly different than the other, historians often don’t meet eyes on many subjects because of their own interpretation. Some of these are based on their own race, culture, ideologies etc.
What certainty do you have that the rewritten version will be any better than the previous one? If historians can’t agree on many topics, how can we expect a neutrally written historybook that speaks of the different accounts people have?
Statues such as those of made during the Roman empire are very beautifuly made statues that are a sight to be behold knowing that these were made hundreds of years ago. These statues should be preserved and placed in museums so we can look back and say
“Look at where we were and look where we’re standing now.”
Removing them from public places if these people accounted for horrors, sure but don’t destroy them. We need to be able to look back, not just at history books but at historical objects/sights to see what humanity has dealt with. One can say destroy the Concentration Camp Auschwitz but others would want to visit places like this to learn more about their predicament. Photographs and written texts will never leave the same impression on you as actually seeing these sights. The Amphitheatre in Rome is one of the most visited places in Italy, regardless of the atrocities that happened, it’s a sight to behold and makes places interesting to visit.
The part about this change I dislike is that it will remove a sense of creative freedom during writing as well. If everything needs to be written while wearing rose-tinted glasses it becomes a stale experience for everybody. It’s like watching a horror movie without anything scary happening.
Personally I think it’s not a bad thing that a child is subjected to curse words at some point in their life with their parents around. That parent should teach them that you’re not supposed to say that word and why.
You can constantly censure everything you come across but they’ll still learn these words at some point in their life, so better to teach them early on that it’s bad. They will come across people (friends) or media that expresses these words anyways. Even if you remove all these words from books or other media today and people stop using these words entirely, people will come up with new insults.
Let us keep in mind that this particular change was in all likelyhood made by, or at the behest of, Steve Danuser the senior narrative designer aka Sylvanas’ Creepy Fan #1. No politics needed, just a rabid fanboy with a Light-damned shrine of HIS QUEEN. And probably other stuff I don’t want to know about, for my sanity.
The “someone played with their kid and the kid was SHOCKED” part seems to me a paper-thin pretext to get the dialogue in question changed. Gee, you play with your kid, you should know what you’re exposing them to. For those more sensitive, “witch” or “banshee” would do. Should be “f-ing c-t” if WoW was rated 18+ or whatever “adult” in X country is.
And there is quite a lot of similar words in W3. Bastards everywhere. A-holes abound. Bad B Words are thrown about, particularly in that one dialogue where Sylvanas calls Arthas SoB. But guess THAT doesn’t tickle the boss writer’s delicate sensibilities, because it’s HIS QUEEN calling some random human a spawn of questionable parentage, so it’s A-OK, right? /sarcasm
Whatever happens, the Internet does not forget, and does not forgive. Being a fan should have limits, and he has just crossed them all. Steve D. is going to reap what he has sown, namely contempt, outrage, hate and disgust. Blizzard should fire him before angry shareholders show up with torches & pitchforks demanding his head.
2 Likes
This is exactly what bothers me.
The Revisionism of the past.
I do not care about a silly cuss word but I care about the line of thinking that lead to this change.
All this recent trend to “correct the past” especially the successful past.
Have you guys compared the “old” classic Disney movies to their recent live action remakes? They go out of their way to “correct” “mistakes” from the originals.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”,
George Santayana 1863-1952
Also he wrote:
“Only the dead have seen the end of war”,
Which ironically describes Warcraft Universe pretty well.
Cheers.
Spend your life killing innocents but can’t say b…h - send your staff member for re-education BLIZZARD. I can’t even imagine the thought processes, he probably takes 5yo child to abbatoir for fun too …
Obviously it wasn’t doh… there is simply too much a snowflakes around …
True, which is why I posited my pipe dream of statues being made of wood, so that we constantly need to go “Yes, this is a person whose image is worth preserving/renewing” or “No, we should not be glorifying this person anymore, they are in history books if we need to know what they did” But as I said, thats just one middle aged man’s personal take on things, it is never going to happen.
Let me try and explain what I mean there. With the example of the statue of Colston, I agree that it was a timely removal, history tried to whitewash him, and, whilst he did good, one would argue that the bad outweighed the good. Now contrast that with Churchill, who had some pretty hideous views on race, however arguably led my nation through its worst times, and by example, saved others. He never really -acted- or had the chance to act upon his ideas about race (Although he was responsible for the shameful act of sending in cavalry troops against striking British miners) Should we glorify the Prime Minister who led us against a horrifically oppressive regime, or should we vilify him for his unacted upon personal opinions? That is trickier. We could say the same of Ghandi, do we remember the man who peacefully won freedom for his country? or Vilify him for his absolutely disgusting attitudes towards women?
Why not both. Thing is, that doesn’t need a statue. Not these days. People made statues when there did not exist photographs or films or books about these people. We’ve evolved technologically enough that we have so many more media for the recording of history than has ever existed in any point in history. For those who see Churchill as a hero (and he was a deeply troubled man who suffered lifelong depression) they can read those histories that laud him, for those who see Churchill as a racist villain, they can read those histories that vilify him, because both exist. We -can- see the good and the bad of historical figures, and formulate our own judgment as individuals.
Yeah, those are bad examples, hang on, I mean they are -good- examples you have given, but bad examples as to how nations have tried to bury their own history to get rid of the ‘bad’ elements. As in they are good examples you give, of a nation trying to rewrite ‘bad’ history. You can see how such ignorance can be exploited by the fact that originally the most ill educated demagogue ever to sit in the White House wanted to hold his fanbase rally in -Tulsa- of all places, and of all dates on -Juneteenth!- I mean how crass can someone be? I don’t think a history book should necessarily be written by multiple people, but I do think they should be susceptible to ‘peer review’, To use a previous example, History tried to paint Colston as a Philanthropist. Which, isn’t true, he was only a Philanthropist towards white people, he was also involved in the Slave Trade. I think we can all agree that was a ‘bad thing’, however equally, I do not ascribe to the cult of the Victim, where African nations demand reparations for Slavery. It’s like, “Hang on, who do you think the Slave Traders were buying the Slaves -from-? It wasn’t villainous Europeans raiding Africa and taking people captive, it was Europeans going to Africa and -buying- Slaves from other Africans who had already taken the Slaves” So this idea is one trying to be hidden by history, which it should not be, the African nations were every bit as complicit in the Slave Trade as the European traders. African nations enthusiastically took slaves since time immemorial, as did European nations, it was not based on Skin Colour. I mean say what you like about the Romans, but they weren’t racist about it, they didn’t care what skin colour their Slaves had, nor did the black Carthaginians. Thats the kind of thing we need to remember to keep History on its correct path, it rarely is as simple as some would think.
Yep, true. If not open to Peer Critique then historians can twist things, which is why all history should be critically analysed. Like, Egyptian Slaves built the Pyramids right? Nope. Never happened, they -were- recruited from the Lower classes, but were paid handsomely for their labour, fed extremely well, and worked in shifts so as not to exhaust them. They were no more or less Slaves than a guy or gal brickie you get to put a wall up in your back garden.
This is kind of what I mean, we should -always- be re-evaluating history as we get new information. Where do we get the idea that Slaves built the Pyramids from? Propaganda and Hollywood Films like “The Ten Commandments” Where do we get the actual facts from? Scientific evidence we did not have at the time but now do, which proves to us the lifestyle of the Pyramid Builders. We stand at the forefront of our ability as a species to analyse our history, and go "Yeah, you know what, that was rubbish, and just incorrect, this is the correct bit -as we know it currently- whether good or bad.
Agreed. But Museums. This should be a place where if someone wants to see these things, they can go (And Museums should be free of charge to enter, but thats a whole different rant) if there was say, a Statue of someone who had famously hated people with blue eyes and had killed or enslaved them, and I had to walk past that every day, well man, that would annoy me. If I wanted to learn about that dude, I should be able to, at a Museum or a Library. I wouldn’t want to see them glorified on a plinth.
That’s a very good example, and hopefully will help you see the point I am trying to make. Nothing is glorified at Auschwitz. It is a place of horror and sombre reflection on the horrific nature that human beings can bring to evil. There are not statues of the architects of that evil, No one is being glorified there. It is a horrible place kept as it was as a stark reminder as to how bad it can get. How bad we can be. No one is on a plinth, looking down, everything is the horrible brutal truth, “This is a horrible place where horrible things were done to innocent people, this is what it looked like, we are not glorifying it”
It is in effect a museum.
I have never personally seen Auschwitz with my own eyes, but I know people who have, and they all say the same. How horrible it is, and dreadful, and yet how necessary it is so that we remember. Thats a museum, thats not a statue. No one is being glorified there, just a sense of collective shame as a species.
I once went to a LARP event at a place called Kelveden Hatch (Its hilarious, only in Britain would you get a road sign saying “Secret Nuclear Bunker” with directions) and that place is the same. It isn’t a bunker anymore, but it has been kept as it was from those times, (It too is a museum these days, open to the public) and it has a TV on the reception room showing video’s that were called “Protect and Survive” which have a very distinctive seven tone introductory noise to grab attention (This was in the 80’s) Now I grew up as a child when this was -real- When it was deemed necessary to show a twelve year old child how to react to the Nuclear Air Raid siren, and what to do (It was all rubbish advice that would just have led to us being easier to dispose of our bodies afterwards, assuming there was an afterwards), but these were real adverts shown on TV, for kids, and in schools…
You could tell the difference, the playerbase, who were mostly in their twenties were like “What is this mad stuff?” the Monster/NPC crew, in their late thirties and forties just froze in collective horror, with kind of just looks at each other going “Yeah, I know” it was like someone had just stamped on our graves collectively. (Seriously, watch one of those ‘Protect and Survive’ videos on Youtube if you don’t know what I mean, then imagine that being your childhood, Don’t watch ‘Threads’ though, Never watch ‘Threads’ thats just…nightmare fuel)
Thats the difference -one- generation makes, and thats why we should re-evaluate history, because to them, these videos were crazy stuff, to us, it sent utter chills and horror into our collective minds.
It should completely exist still, and not be demolished. I can only imagine what Generation would make of the place.
Its a place, its a facet of time frozen in its time, horrible, but a reminder, yet no one person is glorified there, it is -history-.
I firmly agree. Since the dawn of time we have told each other horror tales, stories to ‘make the flesh creep’ and we should never stop doing so, as originally these were salutary warnings, but now are ‘entertainment’. I can watch a slasher movie and be bored to tears, I cannot watch the original Japanese Version of ‘The Ring’ without a preferably female person sat next to me that I can clutch in terror because of the psychological horror of it, different folks work differently.
Again, I agree. I know the vilest of curse words, I mean I know some really nasty ones, yet I will not use even the mildest in front of my mother, because I was taught why such words are not polite, and when people use those words, I use language in front of my peers that I would never dream of using in front of my mother.
No, this is not new, and has always been a thing, it is nothing to do with this modern conceit that kids today are “So Offended” by everything. This has -always- been human nature, and more than likely, always will be.
It is not the kids. It is their parents who chose to be offended on their behalf. The kids are cool until they begin their apprenticeship on how to be offended during their higher education.
This is the sign of the times. People who chose to feel offended on behalf of other groups. Which usually ends up backfiring by shedding a negative light towards those groups.
Thats the thing though, this -isn’t- new, but has been with us always, its not some new agenda, but has been with us for ages and ages, I mean the Ancient Greeks complained about it as well, more than two thousand years ago.
All the Parents out there, gather your kids around, make them a twitter account, force them to fix this game, seems like blizzard only will listen to 6+ year olds, tell them to fix all that’s currently wrong, we have a key now…they won’t listen to us, but the kids, claps hands Hurry up, get dem twitter accounts up… -.- silly stuff lol obviously I am sarcastic btw, don’t take me serious…
3 Likes
I would say Blizzard is only afraid of Karens
Incomming call from an unknown user "Hello this is Blizzard*
Parent: HEY I PLAYED THIS GAME WITH MY KID! and I can’t believe what I heard! some Orc called this Lady the b-bb WORD! snaps fingers “Awwh hellllll no, this is an outrage, my kid heard THAT WORD!, what will I ever do, now I have to get my kid to therapy because he heard such foul word, you’ll hear from my lawyer!”
Edit: Parents don’t sue me plz I said Hell, I know 
5 Likes
The only real response to that should had been “why do you have your kid watch a game for teens and older and then blame your parenting choices on us?”