“Treating us like second class citizens”

That was CLEARLY an example of what other people say? Are you kidding me right now? Are you trying to be super-insensitive? You literally ignored the whole point I made, because you thought that I said that companies are victims, instead of companies are victimless? WOW.

I didn't say anything, it was an example of the arguments made by others, with sarcasm! Victimless means that people believe these companies are okay to attack regardless of how strong the language they use. Like of course I believe companies that do wrong should be criticized, as should anyone.

I, AS IN ME...I didn't say anything about companies not having victims, not victimizing consumers, or that companies don't have victims...or even anything regarding that.
Which people give me an example of someone describing these companies as victimlees.

That post of yours includes many direct quotes "victimlees companies" was not one them instead it was used in a point between two quotes.

Either these people your referring to described them as victimlees or you were. I'm asking for proof because that's an extremely odd statement your describing people to have made.
 
Last edited:
I think some people are confused because they, like I, are taken aback by hearing “second class citizen” used as anything but a metaphor and rhetorically. Real second-class (and third, forth, xth) are a real thing and it is unfortunate.

This discussion is taking away from the valid point that lesser concerns often take precedence over real societal issues that surface in gaming directly.

I.e. me wanting more raytracing & VR games whereas someone else just wants a main character that looks remotely like themselves.
 
There’s just a select group of people on ERA and gamers in general who like to be extremely hyperbolic about everything. Whether it be the quality of a game or business practices.
 
Which people give me an example of someone describing these companies as victimlees
Ok now you are just being insensitive. I was speaking in general to what people say across the internet when they use exaggerations, and clearly said if it doesn't apply, let it fly. Why are you trying to hijack the thread? I wasn't talking about anyone in particular here.

Also, you keep misusing the term...I said "victimless companies", as in, it is okay to attack them no many how insensitive or toxic the language used. You are reading it as "companies have no victims" or, "companies are victim-less".
 
Ah yes, it's people being hyperbolic that are the problem, not billion dollar companies that treat their employees and customers like shit. Not the idiots who defend said billion dollar corps like they are their own child, not the games press which is largely a joke and for good reason.
Yeah... because only billion dollar companies have this problem. Telltale isn't a billion dollar company for that matter and even if they published their own titles, they were mostly a development company by themselves.

This thing of ~multi billion dollar~ is stupid when many of those things happens in companies of different sizes.
 
Ok now you are just being insensitive. I was speaking in general to what people say across the internet when they use exaggerations, and clearly said if it doesn't apply, let it fly. Why are you trying to hijack the thread? I wasn't talking about anyone in particular here.

Also, you keep misusing the term...I said "victimless companies", as in, it is okay to attack them no many how insensitive or toxic the language used. You are reading it as "companies have no victims" or, "companies are victim-less".
Your entire arguement on that point does not make a single lick of sense. That's why I took it as your personal description because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Why on earth would someone exaggerate in order to complain about a company they perceive to be victimless? Typically such a person would consider themselves to be a victim or someone else. People don't complain about third party exclusives in exaggerated terms if they consider the company in question victimless. The "victim" is clearly themselves or another gamer.
 
I mean, I'm not sure what kind of answer you want me to give you. If I had the answers gaming would be a haven for minorities. I guess the most obvious thing anyone can start doing is by fighting against the tide of dissent and balking that happens when women, black folks, LGBT folks, and others make threads discussing their issues. Like, if your go-to response consists of:

"It's just a game."
"Keep politics out of games."
"This is outrage culture."
"What about all x?"

Or anything else that seeks to dismiss minorities, don't post. Or if you see these posts, call them out. Now, superficially in the case of fragility, don't assume that posts calling out cultural or systemic issues are talking about you specifically as when you called the initial hypocrisy "ridiculous."
Alright, thanks.
 
Your entire arguement on that point does not make a single lick of sense. That's why I took it as your personal description because it doesn't make sense otherwise. Why on earth would someone exaggerate in order to complain about a company they perceive to be victimless? Typically such a person would consider themselves to be a victim or someone else. People don't complain about third party exclusives in exaggerated terms if they consider the company in question victimless. The "victim" is clearly themselves or another gamer.
I'm not making an argument. No one in here is saying any company is victimless. Is English not your first language? Where you use a term determines how it is being used. This is not about semantics.

But it was just an example, feel free to ignore it if it helps you to comment on the wider topic at hand.

It's clear you are going out of your way to not address the point on this thread and are attempting to derail it.
 
I'm not making an argument. No one in here is saying any company is victimless. Is English not your first language? Where you use a term determines how it is being used. This is not about semantics.

But it was just an example, feel free to ignore it if it helps you to comment on the wider topic at hand.

It's clear you are going out of your way to not address the point on this thread and are attempting to derail it.
Your post wasn't a random selection of quotes there was an implication of something against those people you mentioned as having a large ego. What was your point exactly because I'm still not convinced your point wasn't that those people with large egos weren't complaining about minor things to what to you consider to be victimless companies.

You haven't exactly offered me an alternative description nor justified those quotes if there isn't one.
 
Gaming is a somewhat expensive hobby so yes, people with no real problems who enjoy it think companies trying to make more money personally hate them
 
Man, this is some all lives matter shit right here.
I made a joke, playing out a kind of logic that still isn't being addressed. You want to try and dismiss it by comparing it to some nonsense racist slogan? Fine. Show the work. How is it "some all lives matter shit"?

I know right

Religous organizations are the oppressors, not oppressed. Checkmate.
This made me smile. Thank you!
 
Fuck you Veronica you won't date me but you'll date some Chad who won't respect you like I would Gamers rise up

Now that I got that out of the way, yeah Bobo's right. I don't think ”holding content hostage” is a damning answer itself but we should be more considerate of the language we use when trying to express our frustrations.

It's like how I've seen Big Bang Theory described as "blackface for nerds."
 
I made a joke, playing out a kind of logic that still isn't being addressed. You want to try and dismiss it by comparing it to some nonsense racist slogan? Fine. Show the work. How is it "some all lives matter shit"?
The nonsense racist slogan works by taking a conversation about minorities and the issues they face and moving it a more general target who does not face those issues.

With that comment, you were shifting the conversation about people appropriating phrases related to the issues facing minority groups and moved it to religious people - not even, say, American Muslims or some other group that might have claim to be oppressed, but just religious people - which is a more general target who does not face those issues.

I actually had half a mind to spell it out for your earlier because I figured that you'd try to go "hahaha you're using a real issue too" without catching that I'm outright saying that you're using the same kind of argument, but ah well.
 
Last edited:
I can’t see why someone would get this frustrated about the usage of language in a immature form like this. You are partially right, but if you are this sensative to things like this you are probably wasting a lot of energy that could be spent more productively
Because you’re (likely) not part of a marginalized group and lack perspective.

It's like how I've seen Big Bang Theory described as "blackface for nerds."
And a hardy fuck you to whoever said that.
 
Some of my favorites came from destiny haters. So bitter.

Destiny DLC was called "cut content being sold back to us" i recall in one comment.

Im not even sure how "sold back to us" makes sense. Bitter people are funny.

Imagine that being applied to a popular game. " meh, that latest The Witcher dlc is just cut content being sold back to us"
 
Some of my favorites came from destiny haters. So bitter.

Destiny DLC was called "cut content being sold back to us" i recall in one comment.

Im not even sure how "sold back to us" makes sense. Bitter people are funny.

Imagine that being applied to a popular game. " meh, that latest The Witcher dlc is just cut content being sold back to us"
I mean.

DLC practices in the industry are borked at best.
 
Your post wasn't a random selection of quotes there was an implication of something against those people you mentioned as having a large ego. What was your point exactly because I'm still not convinced your point wasn't that those people with large egos weren't complaining about minor things to what to you consider to be victimless companies.

You haven't exactly offered me an alternative description nor justified those quotes if there isn't one.
Ok so you think I'm lying because you chose to be sensitive about an example I gave for something that has nothing to do with you are talking about. Just ignore me then or move along.

You have literally added all these things onto what I said to totally avoid the topic of this thread because it is clear YOU feel that you are being targeted by the OP and/or by me. But keep posting and proving the OPs point...I literally said it was about people feeling it is okay to say anything to companies regardless if they deserved that level of criticism or not, as in a victimless crime.
 
Some of my favorites came from destiny haters. So bitter.

Destiny DLC was called "cut content being sold back to us" i recall in one comment.

Im not even sure how "sold back to us" makes sense. Bitter people are funny.

Imagine that being applied to a popular game. " meh, that latest The Witcher dlc is just cut content being sold back to us"
Yeah, I had to withdraw from those conversations with certain people after someone said D2 "ruined their life" and another said "it caused them depression"...unsurprisingly both of those people have been banned since.
 
The nonsense racist slogan works by taking a conversation about minorities and the issues they face and moving it a more general target who does not face those issues.

With that comment, you were shifting the conversation about people appropriating phrases related to the issues facing minority groups and moved it to religion people - not even, say, American Muslims or some other group that might have claim to be oppressed, but just religious people - which is a more general target who does not face those issues.

I actually had half a mind to spell it out for your earlier because I figured that you'd try to go "hahaha you're using a real issue too" without catching that I'm outright saying that you're using the same kind of argument, but ah well.
Its not an argument, it's an example in response to someone who wanted the phrase "holding _____ hostage" and the like to be a bannable offense on this forum. I was illustrating that there are simply no bounds to this kind of thinking - that words are are reserved to certain groups.

I would argue that "___ Lives Matter" doesn't belong to black people, clearly illustrated by the plainly racist response "All Lives Matter" or the truly perverse "Blue Lives Matter". We know there is a political component to those "reappropriations" because without them they are all pretty benign and equally true - and that is the liguistic ambush that makes those memes so reprehensible. "Don't you think all lives matter?" It's a dastardly disingenuous move.

That's not the game I was playing. Maybe I'm not being clear enough, or maybe nobody is responding the actual content of what I'm posting. Still, think there is an eagerness to marginalize me and people who think like me by associating arguments and examples against these sociocognitive language games with the right-wing, "gamerz" - and in this case, Twitter racists - rather than engage with the ideas on thier own merits.
 
Ok so you think I'm lying because you chose to be sensitive about an example I gave for something that has nothing to do with you are talking about. Just ignore me then or move along.

You have literally added all these things onto what I said to totally avoid the topic of this thread because it is clear YOU feel that you are being targeted by the OP and/or by me. But keep posting and proving the OPs point...I literally said it was about people feeling it is okay to say anything to companies regardless if they deserved that level of criticism or not, as in a victimless crime.
Err I posted a response to you that you took an issue with. When I asked you to explain how my interpretation was incorrect you literally said that your post had no arguement. Notice how not a single one of my posts disagree with the OP's arguement because I know what he's referring to because I am black and you see quite clearly in post history arguements I've had with members on this site about minority representation. I was pointing out a problem I had with your arguement. Even when I asked for evidence to back up your quotes you haven't done so nor have you engaged with the rest of my points
 
I think it's a bit of a leap to go after people who use this term as being somehow all unsympathetic to things like representation.

In game development there often is a lead platform or platform that receives preferential treatment. Players on the other platform, who paid the same price, can have a genuine grievance about this.

No doubt there's hyperbole often associated with this, but if anyone else wants to coin a phrase for the player base on a comparatively neglected platform, go right ahead.
 
I mean usually the people that say stuff like "treating us like second class citizens" or "Anti-consumer" in response to minor gaming related grievances, aren't worth paying attention to period. Use that ignore function bruv, it comes in handy lol.
 
Its not an argument, it's an example in response to someone who wanted the phrase "holding _____ hostage" and the like to be a bannable offense on this forum. I was illustrating that there are simply no bounds to this kind of thinking - that words are are reserved to certain groups.

I would argue that "___ Lives Matter" doesn't belong to black people, clearly illustrated by the plainly racist response "All Lives Matter" or the truly perverse "Blue Lives Matter". We know there is a political component to those "reappropriations" because without them they are all pretty benign and equally true - and that is the liguistic ambush that makes those memes so reprehensible. "Don't you think all lives matter?" It's a dastardly disingenuous move.

That's not the game I was playing. Maybe I'm not being clear enough, or maybe nobody is responding the actual content of what I'm posting. Still, think there is an eagerness to marginalize me and people who think like me by associating arguments and examples against these sociocognitive language games with the right-wing, "gamerz" - and in this case, Twitter racists - rather than engage with the ideas on thier own merits.
On the first part, I don't see what "well I can do the same thing but be really blatantly disingenuous about it" is supposed to prove. We all know that your response is not about an vulnerable group; there is no real confusion here. We're not suddenly going to go mad and have to consult a chart to see who word belong to.

The second part doesn't make any damned sense. "All Lives Matter" and "Blue Lives Matter" doesn't prove that the phrase doesn't belong to black people, because it's actively framed as a response to Black Lives Matter. They don't exist independently of the original phrase as the same slogan they are now. It's not even a matter of ownership, it's that you think of Black Lives Matter whenever you see a snowclone of that phrase because that's what's being referenced.

Also, I'm not really interested in you playing the victim, to be honest.
 
Last edited:
I made a joke, playing out a kind of logic that still isn't being addressed. You want to try and dismiss it by comparing it to some nonsense racist slogan? Fine. Show the work. How is it "some all lives matter shit"?



I know right



This made me smile. Thank you!
Absolutely ignorant.
 
Err I posted a response to you that you took an issue with. When I asked you to explain how my interpretation was incorrect you literally said that your post had no arguement. Notice how not a single one of my posts disagree with the OP's arguement because I know what he's referring to because I am black and you see quite clearly in post history arguements I've had with members on this site about minority representation. I was pointing out a problem I had with your arguement. Even when I asked for evidence to back up your quotes you haven't done so nor have you engaged with the rest of my points
Evidence to back up my quotes???? They were based off of general statements people have made...they were not quotes. I've now said this same thing different times. You are being sensitive.

Have a good day.
 
The OP is upset that gamers will shit on minorities expressing their grievances with the culture while using those minorities' language to present themselves and their problems as more legitimate.

Gamers have predictably turned this thread into one about "policing language" versus what it was originally about- gamers shitting on minorities.

Because of course.
Exactly this. Criticize companies for lack of diversity, inclusion, of poor representation and it’s “stop being SJWs! Everything is PC!”. Announce that your game is going to have a season pass and it’s “GAMERLIVESMATTER!”
 
Evidence to back up my quotes???? They were based off of general statements people have made...they were not quotes. I've now said this same thing different times. You are being sensitive.

Have a good day.
If those statements were so general you should be able to find some examples even if not explicit. I could make a general statemente peoplesaying lootboxee cure cancer that doesn't make my use of it has any sort of worth to anyone anyone can do that. The only reason those general statements have worth is because they're backed by something. Someone actually making statements similar to that effect

That was my point to you I was asking you to prove those statements were backed up by something rather than a straw man used to make a point.
 
This addresses only half of my point while you argue that my premise is ridiculous from all angles.

Also, you find my thread embarrassing while validating gamers who call themselves second class citizens as something normal.

Own your shit and do better. That’s what the criticism toward gamers is about.
It's not "my shit to own", as like I said I don't actually use that term in that context. What I'm defending, or "validating", is peoples' right to use that term in that context (or other contexts).

Because that is how normal language and conversation occurs. "I could kill him" when said in a bout of frustration does not always mean that that person really wants to kill whoever they're talking about, they're just frustrated. "Holding content hostage" obvious involves none of the violence or actual crime of a real hostage situation, but I can see how it can be used in the context of locking content behind some sort of paywall whether it be micro-transactions or DLC. While the magnitude of the real life hostage situation is way worse, they are both still demanding money (a ransom) for what they're keeping hold of. As a metaphor, it works. And people using it are not in any way being insensitive to actual hostage victims by using such a term in such a context. They're just whining about a company's anti-consumer practices.

Now, I'm not saying that there aren't gamers who are bigots and racists. Of course there are. And I'm not saying that some of those gamers aren't dismissive of inclusion efforts. Of course that happens.

What I'm saying is that I don't assume or make sweeping generalizations that all people who metaphorically/rhetorically/hyperbolically use "second class citizens" in the context of certain gaming topics, especially involving anti-consumer practices, are being malicious or marginalizing in any way to any real life group of people.
 
Solid point OP.

It often feels like once people realized their words have power and that they can fight for something by pushing for it, groups now often rally themselves into self-entitled, hyperbolic fits of protest whenever their group doesn't get what it wants.

I don't think we should forget that we honestly have no idea who most of these random anonymous people are. Some could have serious mental health issues, have deep rooted prejudices, be uneducated, who knows.

You are doing the right thing by bringing this up in a level-headed manner OP, but beware of how deep and long you gaze into the forum abyss.
 
These are just turns of phrase. The aren't meant to imply an equivalence in every respect. People say "X is holding Y hostage" about trivial shit all the time. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
 
These are just turns of phrase. The aren't meant to imply an equivalence in every respect. People say "X is holding Y hostage" about trivial shit all the time. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.
I agree in this instance, that "X is holding Y hostage" is basically just a hyperbolic shorthand used to express frustration with something, but there is a big problem with stuff like, well, the title of the thread. There are gamers who unironically state that they're being treated like second class citizens, or that there's a prejudice against gamers that's equivalent to actual systemic oppression.
 
Gamers are very willing to use this type of language to bemoan consumer woes but also quick to decry this type of language when it's applied to stuff more deserving
 
As someone who grew up being bullied for my hobbies, some of these posts I'm seeing are digging up some old memories.

I know I will never have it as bad as, say those who experienced racism, but it still kind of sucks hearing some of the old things again.
 
There's a branch of gamers who feel like since they paid for a game everything made for the game should be free and come with it.
Imagine these people buying a performance car.
 
Top