The "is what enables situations like this" is relating to the structure. Like if Bob advocates for communism, and then decries things that happen in China, and someone says, "The thing you advocate for--Communism--is what enables situations like this," they're not saying that Bob caused China. They're saying Bob is an advocate for the thing that caused China, and perhaps he should stop.
Yes, I know that's what you think I take you to mean. Let's go back to the start:
BanBot's right that in an ideal world, when people complain about something someone said, an employer could only say, "And what do you want me to do about it?" Like now, if you tell a local grocery store, "That guy said something offensive a week ago!" the grocery store would be like, "Oh. Anyway, here's your change," because we as a society have not put the responsibility of social punishment on grocery stores, nor have we given them the power to do so.
But now, as people advocate more and more for workplaces being responsible for enforcing "good behavior" unrelated to work, large companies ill-equipped for such a role are expected to act as societal enforcers. They fear social backlash and yet also gain more power in the process, thus leading to absurd results like we're seeing now.
If the social enforcement expectation and power were removed, China could complain all it wants, and Blizzard would just be like, "Yeah but we can't do anything about it."
That's how they relate.
TL;DR: The very concept of companies as societal enforcers is absurd, in all its various manifestations.
I understood this to mean that situations such as Blizzard kowtowing to China would not happen if companies were not expected to uphold and enforce moral standards to the degree that they are now. Which is nonsense, because journos, RE, and whoever did not create China or their modus operandi (obviously!) drive Blizzard to do business with China (obviously!). We agree on this, as you've confirmed. If you didn't want to say that, however, then you should have phrased it differently. Particularly the bolded. China has the power to lead Blizz by the nose here, because China has big muns that Blizzard wants and stupid rules Blizzard adheres to to get at said muns. It has nothing to do with the west, as you say, expecting companies to enforce societal rules. Mechanism similar, no causal link however.
The gist of what you're saying, i.e. the tl;dr you've drawn from it, I see as seperate and take no issue with. You hopefully don't still assume I do?
I see. You're right, that was ambiguous. You thought when I said "If the social enforcement expectation and power were removed," that I just meant from the West. I didn't. I meant that completely. There are two ways I mean this. The first is most obvious, but most fanciful: If, not only the West, but also China had no expectation for companies to be social enforcers, and just saw social enforcement as an issue between the government and the individual, China's anger would still be directed at the dude, but their power would be somewhat limited to their borders.
The other way is if the power of the company to be a societal enforcer were stripped. For example, if it were illegal in the US to fire/remove prize money/whatever for things unrelated to work, as a U.S. based company, Blizzard would essentially lose that power everywhere. China values the revenue Blizzard brings, so it probably wouldn't kick Blizzard out for not doing something it doesn't have the ability to do. If China knew "U.S. companies can't be our social enforcers outside our borders, it's illegal for them," then they probably wouldn't require it of them. Or whatever country this all happened in (I haven't read the details).
The reason China sees corporations as an avenue through which it can spread its societal ideals is because the companies are allowed to be societal enforcers. Strip that power, and that avenue for China reaching its societal power across its borders largely closes.
