It's amazing that as time goes on, the only orgs I suspect will actually not attend Saudi events will end up being the influencer-owned orgs, as they are the ones that will receive the backlash themselves. The owners of big orgs like TL and the like could literally never look at their social media again, and it wouldn't hurt them one bit.
So you're telling me that Team Liquid, in tagging their pro-LGBT tweets with that hashtag, managed to siphon $100,000 from the Saudi government which they then donated to LGBT & Women's charities?
I believe the kids refer to that as 'based'.
I mostly side with Richard on this one, but in the favourable light my point above gives to Team Liquid I think I'm actually more critical of the teams that didn't donate to LGBT causes. It's like Team Liquid applied carbon-offsetting principles to their participation at Riyadh, or ethical-offsetting if you will. Perhaps they should have pledged a % of overall winnings instead of a set amount.
Looking at transactions with bad actors as "siphoning" money from them is one sided and flawed from the outset. They're trading money for a service. They entered into this deal purposely. You can say that passing those profits on to something they're against would temper their enthusiasm, but ultimately they were handing over money that they could no longer control. The Saudis believe they are gaining more from the social media engagement, make no mistake.
Already with the winnings from their Dota 2 placement, their pittance of a donation isn't even a measly 5%. They are two faced. And somehow people still eat it up.
It's amazing that as time goes on, the only orgs I suspect will actually not attend Saudi events will end up being the influencer-owned orgs, as they are the ones that will receive the backlash themselves. The owners of big orgs like TL and the like could literally never look at their social media again, and it wouldn't hurt them one bit.
Are your sources legit?
Richard Lewis has been 100% accurate, he will not publish unless it is inarguable.
You don't follow Richard Lewis for very long, do you? Otherwise you would know that to be a rhetorical question.
So you're telling me that Team Liquid, in tagging their pro-LGBT tweets with that hashtag, managed to siphon $100,000 from the Saudi government which they then donated to LGBT & Women's charities?
I believe the kids refer to that as 'based'.
I mostly side with Richard on this one, but in the favourable light my point above gives to Team Liquid I think I'm actually more critical of the teams that didn't donate to LGBT causes. It's like Team Liquid applied carbon-offsetting principles to their participation at Riyadh, or ethical-offsetting if you will. Perhaps they should have pledged a % of overall winnings instead of a set amount.
Looking at transactions with bad actors as "siphoning" money from them is one sided and flawed from the outset. They're trading money for a service. They entered into this deal purposely. You can say that passing those profits on to something they're against would temper their enthusiasm, but ultimately they were handing over money that they could no longer control. The Saudis believe they are gaining more from the social media engagement, make no mistake.
Already with the winnings from their Dota 2 placement, their pittance of a donation isn't even a measly 5%. They are two faced. And somehow people still eat it up.