6 ms·

There's a lot to unpack here and I'm feeling very confused as to what you're talking about. Godot is not a major corporation, and you seem to be dismissing some

There's a lot to unpack here and I'm feeling very confused as to what you're talking about. Godot is not a major corporation, and you seem to be dismissing someone's complaint as "fake-wokism" and "professionally oppressed" when the joke in question is very clearly made at the expense of a certain group of people (mobile game players). What is fake or contrived about this if you're in that group and don't like being the butt of these jokes as is happening here? I personally can see why someone would be offended by such cynical and condescending statements, even though I am not in that group. Also you're saying their opinions have "teeth" as if making a complaint is some kind of attack on something because it could potentially cause a change to happen, but if you take that view then what is the point of giving feedback if you know it won't be acted on? If you find yourself overreacting to someone else expressing their opinion, perhaps that is another opportunity to expand your viewpoint, instead of overreacting?

iamcreasy 6y ago
> What is fake or contrived about this if you're in that group and don't like being the butt of these jokes as is happening here? I think what OP is saying is accepting the difference and moving on is also a valid option.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  That isn't really a valid option though, if this kind of thing is in the official documentation, and you have to read it in order to use that particular feature. It would be there every time you have to refer back to the documentation or refer someone else to it.
bitcharmer 6y ago
> the joke in question is very clearly made at the expense of a certain group of people Have you ever been to a comedy club or watched a stand-up comedian perform? If everyone took your stance most jokes would be banned because you can always argue that they are at the expense of some group.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  Yes, many times, but I don't see how that is relevant. Technical documentation is not a comedy performance, you read it to learn how to use the product, not to develop your sense of humor. Why would there be jokes in there made at the expense of any group? Within the documentation, it makes perfect sense for these projects to ban any of these kind of jokes that could anger people, if what you really want is cynical hot takes and snarky jokes, there seems to be no shortage of that on HN and Twitter and other places that aren't technical documentation.
  - neiman 6y ago
    Humour is humour, and shouldn't be limited only to designated stages. I personally enjoy technical documentation or even math books that contain humour. I'd even say it's quite common in the geek culture, so I'm not sure what your opinion is based upon.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      Sometimes I do enjoy that too, but I can also see how other people don't enjoy that type of humor and wouldn't want to be subjected to being mocked. You can't force people to think a joke is funny especially if you're intentionally doing it outside one of those designated stages, often the context is the entire reason the joke is funny. It's one thing if you're picking between 100 math books on the same subject, and you pick one of them that contains the humor that you like, but that's different from when you're shipping the official documentation which is supposed to be the one source of truth for the project. Users can't just pick a different book there if they find your jokes off-putting.
      - feanaro 6y ago
        > Sometimes I do enjoy that too, but I can also see how other people don't enjoy that type of humor and wouldn't want to be subjected to that. How is anyone subjected to it? No one is being forced to read anything. It is wrong to remove text in the anticipation of the possibility of someone coming along and being offended by it.
CaptArmchair 6y ago
edit I'm getting downvoted for this. Please argue why you disagree. This is an honest attempt at breaking open a ground for open discourse. I'm open to discussion. If you feel this is pedantic, that's fine, but I would ask you kindly to move on and don't engage with this. Some people are trying to turn "retracting a statement and apologizing as soon as a single individual states they feel offended" into a categorical imperative which every human ought to obey. That's the extreme opposite to that other polarizing categorical imperative: "I am able to say whatever I want, regardless how anyone else feels about that." Categorical imperatives don't work out at all in interpersonal relationships. They leave zero room for empathy or compromise, they dismiss any personal responsibility to take a step back and reflect on the context. Like this: > the joke in question is very clearly made at the expense of a certain group of people (mobile game players). What is fake or contrived about this if you're in that group and don't like being the butt of these jokes as is happening here? One corollary of that categorical imperative is that any and all suffering is absolute. Everything is a 5/5. There's no nuance or room to take this apart through critical questioning. However, asking critical questions, trying to understand and listening to one another are paramount. Can you be sure this is targeted at mobile game players? Have you read the tutorial page and are you perceiving things at face value? Have you considered that satire can deliver a valid criticism via irony, pastiche, wit,...? Could this also be a warning or a put down directed at mobile game companies who tend to consider gamers as consumers through their business models? These aren't questions meant to hurt, they are meant to understand where someone is coming from. Even so, words do have an impact. They can be used to intentionally hurt. You can use words to clearly convey that you don't perceive the other person as an equal human being. You can use words to dismiss any form of equal reciprocity as to how you and the other behave/act/listen towards one another. That's where insults, disrespect, violence, discrimination and the like come in. And once those are out in the open, you can't take that back. There's a difference between the former and the latter. A satirical piece questioning a particular behavior is one thing, a piece that intentionally attack individuals themselves is something entirely else. Asking critical questions is about asserting the intentions of the author, figuring out where they come from, why they put a satirical piece in technical documentation in the first place. You can draw your own conclusions, but unless you ask those questions and go find answers, your conclusions will be conjecture at best, and turn into misunderstandings fueling further polarization deadening any further debate at worst. > if you take that view then what is the point of giving feedback if you know it won't be acted on? Interpersonal relationships are complex and multi-layered, meta at many times. All the world is a stage, and there's always an audience around. The point of publishing a satirical piece that targets mobile game businesses isn't to show them "the errors of their ways". It could also be read as a warning to mobile game players: beware from whom you purchase games. While I'm addressing you directly with my comment, I'm very much aware that this is a public forum and there's an audience lurking and reading this. Good communication is a complex skill to pick up. That's why communication science, journalism and PR experts are a thing.
makomk 6y ago
The joke in question is very clearly at the expense of multi-billion dollar companies using really cynical tactics to make money from the aforementioned mobile gamers. This kind of corporate fake-wokeism that uses its power to insist that punching up by criticising them is punching down, and of cynically invoking the powerless in order to silence critics in ways that wouldn't work if it wasn't really helping the powerful, is getting really tiring. Not only that, it feels like there's something deeply, fundamentally wrong with our current social justice activism that leaves it not only structurally incapable of actually representing the powerless, but also using its power so aggressively against anyone who challenges its claims to be doing so that it's actively harmful to any attempt to genuinely do so.

iamcreasy 6y ago

> What is fake or contrived about this if you're in that group and don't like being the butt of these jokes as is happening here? I think what OP is saying is accepting the difference and moving on is also a valid option.

cycloptic 6y ago
That isn't really a valid option though, if this kind of thing is in the official documentation, and you have to read it in order to use that particular feature. It would be there every time you have to refer back to the documentation or refer someone else to it.

bitcharmer 6y ago

> the joke in question is very clearly made at the expense of a certain group of people Have you ever been to a comedy club or watched a stand-up comedian perform? If everyone took your stance most jokes would be banned because you can always argue that they are at the expense of some group.

cycloptic 6y ago
Yes, many times, but I don't see how that is relevant. Technical documentation is not a comedy performance, you read it to learn how to use the product, not to develop your sense of humor. Why would there be jokes in there made at the expense of any group? Within the documentation, it makes perfect sense for these projects to ban any of these kind of jokes that could anger people, if what you really want is cynical hot takes and snarky jokes, there seems to be no shortage of that on HN and Twitter and other places that aren't technical documentation.
- neiman 6y ago
  Humour is humour, and shouldn't be limited only to designated stages. I personally enjoy technical documentation or even math books that contain humour. I'd even say it's quite common in the geek culture, so I'm not sure what your opinion is based upon.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    Sometimes I do enjoy that too, but I can also see how other people don't enjoy that type of humor and wouldn't want to be subjected to being mocked. You can't force people to think a joke is funny especially if you're intentionally doing it outside one of those designated stages, often the context is the entire reason the joke is funny. It's one thing if you're picking between 100 math books on the same subject, and you pick one of them that contains the humor that you like, but that's different from when you're shipping the official documentation which is supposed to be the one source of truth for the project. Users can't just pick a different book there if they find your jokes off-putting.
    - feanaro 6y ago
      > Sometimes I do enjoy that too, but I can also see how other people don't enjoy that type of humor and wouldn't want to be subjected to that. How is anyone subjected to it? No one is being forced to read anything. It is wrong to remove text in the anticipation of the possibility of someone coming along and being offended by it.

CaptArmchair 6y ago

edit I'm getting downvoted for this. Please argue why you disagree. This is an honest attempt at breaking open a ground for open discourse. I'm open to discussion. If you feel this is pedantic, that's fine, but I would ask you kindly to move on and don't engage with this. Some people are trying to turn "retracting a statement and apologizing as soon as a single individual states they feel offended" into a categorical imperative which every human ought to obey. That's the extreme opposite to that other polarizing categorical imperative: "I am able to say whatever I want, regardless how anyone else feels about that." Categorical imperatives don't work out at all in interpersonal relationships. They leave zero room for empathy or compromise, they dismiss any personal responsibility to take a step back and reflect on the context. Like this: > the joke in question is very clearly made at the expense of a certain group of people (mobile game players). What is fake or contrived about this if you're in that group and don't like being the butt of these jokes as is happening here? One corollary of that categorical imperative is that any and all suffering is absolute. Everything is a 5/5. There's no nuance or room to take this apart through critical questioning. However, asking critical questions, trying to understand and listening to one another are paramount. Can you be sure this is targeted at mobile game players? Have you read the tutorial page and are you perceiving things at face value? Have you considered that satire can deliver a valid criticism via irony, pastiche, wit,...? Could this also be a warning or a put down directed at mobile game companies who tend to consider gamers as consumers through their business models? These aren't questions meant to hurt, they are meant to understand where someone is coming from. Even so, words do have an impact. They can be used to intentionally hurt. You can use words to clearly convey that you don't perceive the other person as an equal human being. You can use words to dismiss any form of equal reciprocity as to how you and the other behave/act/listen towards one another. That's where insults, disrespect, violence, discrimination and the like come in. And once those are out in the open, you can't take that back. There's a difference between the former and the latter. A satirical piece questioning a particular behavior is one thing, a piece that intentionally attack individuals themselves is something entirely else. Asking critical questions is about asserting the intentions of the author, figuring out where they come from, why they put a satirical piece in technical documentation in the first place. You can draw your own conclusions, but unless you ask those questions and go find answers, your conclusions will be conjecture at best, and turn into misunderstandings fueling further polarization deadening any further debate at worst. > if you take that view then what is the point of giving feedback if you know it won't be acted on? Interpersonal relationships are complex and multi-layered, meta at many times. All the world is a stage, and there's always an audience around. The point of publishing a satirical piece that targets mobile game businesses isn't to show them "the errors of their ways". It could also be read as a warning to mobile game players: beware from whom you purchase games. While I'm addressing you directly with my comment, I'm very much aware that this is a public forum and there's an audience lurking and reading this. Good communication is a complex skill to pick up. That's why communication science, journalism and PR experts are a thing.

makomk 6y ago

The joke in question is very clearly at the expense of multi-billion dollar companies using really cynical tactics to make money from the aforementioned mobile gamers. This kind of corporate fake-wokeism that uses its power to insist that punching up by criticising them is punching down, and of cynically invoking the powerless in order to silence critics in ways that wouldn't work if it wasn't really helping the powerful, is getting really tiring. Not only that, it feels like there's something deeply, fundamentally wrong with our current social justice activism that leaves it not only structurally incapable of actually representing the powerless, but also using its power so aggressively against anyone who challenges its claims to be doing so that it's actively harmful to any attempt to genuinely do so.