4 ms·

The weirdest thing for me here, is that most of the noise against the piece seems to have been made on twitter by people who probably identify as "leftists", so

by gitrog 6y ago

The weirdest thing for me here, is that most of the noise against the piece seems to have been made on twitter by people who probably identify as "leftists", solely because it punches down on some demographic. I'm still trying to ascertain which demographic that is, it's really not clear.

zimpenfish 6y ago
https://archive.md/VpYl2#selection-4573.0-4573.260 https://archive.md/VpYl2#selection-4573.0-4573.260 is linked near the top of the comments and contains this: > In isolation that’s just meh. In a context where mobile players got trashed all the bloody time for being fake gamers, casuals, mindless whales, or worst of all, women? In a context of tech people often being elitist “core” gamers? Woops, you’re punching down.
- woko 6y ago
  That reads like something I would write if I wanted to troll the Godot project and could not find any actual point to attack. Poe's law is at work once again. I cannot take this sentence seriously: > "mobile gamers got trashed all the [...] time for being [...] women" Plus, Godot's text is about practices preying on mobile gamers (you can find these practices on PC too, but it is more common on mobile platforms), so it is criticizing mobile gaming (and the companies behind the predatory practices) rather than mobile gamers. So the quoted sentence about "mobile gamers" looks like a straw-man, which goes in favour of a trolling attempt.
- sharpneli 6y ago
  Considering that the satirical doc criticized the agressive monetization that predominantly affects mobile gamers I find it hard to see how that is trashing mobile gamers. Or is it so that if I criticize something that affects some group not specifically me it's actually punching down? It's not possible to criticize something that's being done to a group without it being a criticism of that group? This is absolutely brilliant. PR departments must love this.
  - mjburgess 6y ago
    The move from "isms" as a character flaw to "isms" as a structural flaw makes this kind of analysis possible. Character Flaw: X is injured. you intend to injure X as you did Y. Structural Flaw: X is injured. X was injured by your neglect in considering the interests of X as you did Y. "Mobile Gamer Egos" were hurt because they werent "properly considered". The issue with this kind of structural analysis is that you have to show a duty that a person/system has towards X for their "neglect of X" to be their fault. This is routinely missising from the analysis.
    - gotostatement 6y ago
      > The move from "isms" as a character flaw to "isms" as a structural flaw makes this kind of analysis possible. I actually think isms as a structural flaw rather than a character flaw is much more pertinent in many cases, certainly most cases that cause the most damage in people's lives. However, the idea that this documentation amounts to some kind of structural discrimination is facially ridiculous, and, in my view, offensive to the real causes whose language it's abusing.
  - gotostatement 6y ago
    Right, that's why criticizing the companies who shamelessly pushed opioids is actually wrong too, because it's punching down at the people who enjoy using the opioids who often tend to be low-income and yes, women. Woops, you punched down!

by gitrog 6y ago

zimpenfish 6y ago

https://archive.md/VpYl2#selection-4573.0-4573.260 https://archive.md/VpYl2#selection-4573.0-4573.260 is linked near the top of the comments and contains this: > In isolation that’s just meh. In a context where mobile players got trashed all the bloody time for being fake gamers, casuals, mindless whales, or worst of all, women? In a context of tech people often being elitist “core” gamers? Woops, you’re punching down.

woko 6y ago
That reads like something I would write if I wanted to troll the Godot project and could not find any actual point to attack. Poe's law is at work once again. I cannot take this sentence seriously: > "mobile gamers got trashed all the [...] time for being [...] women" Plus, Godot's text is about practices preying on mobile gamers (you can find these practices on PC too, but it is more common on mobile platforms), so it is criticizing mobile gaming (and the companies behind the predatory practices) rather than mobile gamers. So the quoted sentence about "mobile gamers" looks like a straw-man, which goes in favour of a trolling attempt.
sharpneli 6y ago
Considering that the satirical doc criticized the agressive monetization that predominantly affects mobile gamers I find it hard to see how that is trashing mobile gamers. Or is it so that if I criticize something that affects some group not specifically me it's actually punching down? It's not possible to criticize something that's being done to a group without it being a criticism of that group? This is absolutely brilliant. PR departments must love this.
- mjburgess 6y ago
  The move from "isms" as a character flaw to "isms" as a structural flaw makes this kind of analysis possible. Character Flaw: X is injured. you intend to injure X as you did Y. Structural Flaw: X is injured. X was injured by your neglect in considering the interests of X as you did Y. "Mobile Gamer Egos" were hurt because they werent "properly considered". The issue with this kind of structural analysis is that you have to show a duty that a person/system has towards X for their "neglect of X" to be their fault. This is routinely missising from the analysis.
  - gotostatement 6y ago
    > The move from "isms" as a character flaw to "isms" as a structural flaw makes this kind of analysis possible. I actually think isms as a structural flaw rather than a character flaw is much more pertinent in many cases, certainly most cases that cause the most damage in people's lives. However, the idea that this documentation amounts to some kind of structural discrimination is facially ridiculous, and, in my view, offensive to the real causes whose language it's abusing.
- gotostatement 6y ago
  Right, that's why criticizing the companies who shamelessly pushed opioids is actually wrong too, because it's punching down at the people who enjoy using the opioids who often tend to be low-income and yes, women. Woops, you punched down!