“Treating us like second class citizens”

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
You are arguing that using the term makes you a hypocrite.
That's not anyone's argument. The argument is that co-opting minority struggle to describe your issues with gaming while simultaneously browbeating those same minorities for talking about their issues with gaming is hypocritical.

You are focused on the mere use of language at the exclusion of the rest of the context. You don't get it.
 
That's not anyone's argument. The argument is that co-opting minority struggle to describe your issues with gaming while simultaneously browbeating those same minorities for talking about their issues with gaming is hypocritical.

You are focused on the mere use of language at the exclusion of the rest of the context. You don't get it.
What people are taking issue with, or at least what I am taking issue with after reading through this thread, is that using common hyperbolic phrases like "second class citizen" is in no way equivalent to saying you are actually a marginalized group. The phrasing is clear hyperbole used in a satirical or otherwise ironic fashion to make a point. We can talk about how hyperbolic reactions are a problem with gaming forums in general but that's not the discussion here as you have clearly pointed out. Therefore the premise of saying why do gamers use this language and then not care about people it can apply to in a non-hyperbolic fashion is false. And also equating using that language and being guilty of "browbeating minorities for taking issues with gaming" is ridiculous. You can say "Sony treats us like second class citizens" and still be standing up for minority grievances with gaming.
 
Ah the classic, 'you can't complain about anything because there are children dying in Africa' rebuttal
LOL, WTF.
That annual poll wasn't a video game forum specific shits, but was mobbed by videogame nerds. How you think this is Appeal-to-Worse fallacy is beyond me.
 
Last edited:

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
And also claiming that anyone using that language is also guilty of "browbeating minorities for taking issues with gaming" is ridiculous.
OP is not talking about anyone specific as far as I can see, but merely a trend with gaming culture as a whole, which is fair dues. Now, if you want to talk about how the hostage metaphor doesn't work, that is also fair dues, but not at the expense of the actual point here. In short, don't be fragile.
 
That's not anyone's argument. The argument is that co-opting minority struggle to describe your issues with gaming while simultaneously browbeating those same minorities for talking about their issues with gaming is hypocritical.

You are focused on the mere use of language at the exclusion of the rest of the context. You don't get it.
I feel we are going around in circles at this point, so I will bow out. I wish you well
 
There's a lot of people not getting the initial premise, or willfully ignoring it.

The problem isn't the basic use of hyperbole, so much of the gaming community's language is tied into a narrative of oppression.

This is not only stupid and insensitive to plenty of people who are actually oppressed, it feeds into a system that enables the worst elements of our culture to act out.

Take loot boxes, thread after thread on this very forum (one known to be left leaning and well moderated) was full of people claiming all sorts of unsubstantiated nonsense. "EA is creating thousands of problems gamblers." "This would be better if we could see the odds and they items were resellable", even "won't someone think of the children". None of it based on more than people not liking loot boxes, which is fine but they were trying to label it as something more.

The problem isn't not liking loot boxes, it was the vehement insistence that this is an "evil" practice, "insidious" or the classic "predatory". The language used elevates it from a simple consumer issue into some jumped up crusade. Gaming is full of this self righteous nonsense.
No that's not quite it. Loot boxes can lead and have led to actual problems for people, often the ones with addictive personalities. And almost everything around them are by design intended to exploit that. It's not the same as having launch issues or game not releasing on your platform of choice. Can't but think that you probably don't have an issue with loot boxes.

The word predatory is used about advertising which is predatory and unethical in example. Or predatory pricing. Fits right at home when talking about loot boxes and the mechanics behind those as it's also about business practices.

Also the word insidious fits right in. Because it's so insidious the harmful effects clearly aren't apparent to all. Loot box doesn't cost a much so it's quite easy to make the purchasing decision, but they are designed in a way that you keep buying and buying which slowly leads into a bigger loss.

Insidious
Characterized by treachery or slyness; crafty; wily
Operating in a slow or not easily apparent manner; more dangerous than seems evident
 
Last edited:
What people are taking issue with, or at least what I am taking issue with after reading through this thread, is that using common hyperbolic phrases like "second class citizen" is in no way equivalent to saying you are actually a marginalized group. The phrasing is clear hyperbole used in a satirical or otherwise ironic fashion to make a point. We can talk about how hyperbolic reactions are a problem with gaming forums in general but that's not the discussion here as you have clearly pointed out. Therefore the premise of saying why do gamers use this language and then not care about people it can apply to in a non-hyperbolic fashion is false. And also equating using that language and being guilty of "browbeating minorities for taking issues with gaming" is ridiculous. You can say "Sony treats us like second class citizens" and still be standing up for minority grievances with gaming.
You certaintly can say that but it doesnt show. That same energy be missing!
 
I find it amusing and sad that the OP makes an interesting point about the usage of language and how it can take away from a valid point because the language is so exaggerated that people tune you out. Instead of actually having a conversation about this, this thread went to, 'OP is complaining about gamers', 'OP is protecting the cooperation', 'gamers sucks', ect. It's almost like people can't have a mature conversation about this, rather you agree with the OP or not, and that's tragic.
 
I agree with the OP. You can complain about whatever decision a game dev or publisher makes without jumping into ridiculous comparisons to serious systemic problems that real people deal with. Everybody here who's wilding over the premise of this thread is ironically proving the OP's point. Appropriating the language of the oppressed is fine and dandy but god forbid someone genuine talks about an actual problem, then it's "fuck off with the politics".
 
OP is not talking about anyone specific as far as I can see, but merely a trend with gaming culture as a whole, which is fair dues. Now, if you want to talk about how the hostage metaphor doesn't work, that is also fair dues, but not at the expense of the actual point here. In short, don't be fragile.
Alright, so we're talking about a trend of gaming using hyperbolic language in a manner that is reductive to marginalized groups and then ignoring the struggles of those groups. Or in other words as a trend in gaming there is hypocrisy. I acknowledge that but how would you prefer I proceed?

I guess you could say just don't participate in the thread but you also said don't be fragile so I feel it's important to engage in this in some manner and learn something from a different viewpoint. So to start I cannot say I am in support of banning those phrases from discussion unless the connotations are more clear cut in their problems than the specific examples given so far.
 
I find it amusing and sad that the OP makes an interesting point about the usage of language and how it can take away from a valid point because the language is so exaggerated that people tune you out. Instead of actually having a conversation about this, this thread went to, 'OP is complaining about gamers', 'OP is protecting the cooperation', 'gamers sucks', ect. It's almost like people can't have a mature conversation about this, rather you agree with the OP or not, and that's tragic.
Yup...either "if it doesn't apply, let it fly" or OP struck a nerve. We have too many people here whose ego and internet reputation relies on making outrageous statements against victimless companies and game creators ("All companies are bad!" "Capitalism sucks AMIRITE?") and other causes that they don't stop to see how they go about it actually hurts their cause being addressed Again...the same people that swear lootboxes are gambling and addictive, or how DRM is anti-consumer, will buy thousands of dollars a year in games with no intent to play it, or will justify any level of hypersexuality of waifus in their Xenoblades and Bowsetts and Street Fighters.
 
This thread is embarrassing and ridiculous from almost every angle. This is a video game forum, and yet half the posts are people shitting on "gamers". Like, What? Everyone here, assumedly, is a "gamer". Whether you identify with the term or not. You're here primarily because you are interested in video games.

On the flipside of that, the OP's premise is strange. As others have pointed out, language is used hyperbolically, and metaphorically to apply to things other than their originally intended use, all the time. Context matters. I've never personally used "second class citizens" or "holding content hostage" to complain about anything. But I don't have a grievance with people taking issue with the various anti-consumer practices some video game companies use, and employing this term in context to them. Is it hyperbolic? Yeah, but that's just colloquial language. It's for dramatic effect.

Everyone knows gamers are not really an oppressed group. I highly doubt people using the term actually feel like they're oppressed in any way. No one who is using the term is being intentionally bigoted towards any group or real life "second class citizens". They're just talking about the hobby this forum is centered on.

Metaphors are metaphors for a reason. When someone says "treating us like second class citizens" - it's not a literal comparison to actual treatment of second class citizens, or at least what some percieve be as such. Metaphors are a funny thing that way, as they allow for a wide array of use cases that don't directly have any literal comparison to what it's a metaphor of. Essentially, a metaphor is a way to express a feeling we have in comparison to what we feel should be the normal or expected experience, and thus relate this feeling in some way to convey it's disgust to us to something that is more real, and not at all directly applicable.

AKA, it's just a form of expression. So to compare the use of metaphors to a marginalized group of people complaining about representation in video games completely misses the entire context and point of the metaphor. It's not the same thing, and not's even remotely close. One is an expression of emotion, the other, while also expressing something, is literal.


You can call the metaphors hyperbolic if you wish, they really aren't since a metaphor is nothing other than an expression that isn't meant to be taken in a more literal comparison sense. So it may look like hyperbole on the surface, but it's not. Hyperbole would be like "loot boxes have made it impossible for me to turn on the game". - technically, loot boxes did not make turning on the game impossible. What it made you do is not WANT to turn on the game. You're overly exaggerating your point that literally states something that isn't likely true, which is exactly what hyperbole is.

A metaphor, meanwhile, is pretty hard to scrape into an exaggeration, as it's an expression of emotion 9 times of 10, rather than an exaggeration that speaks a mistruth in a literal sense, because metaphors are, by definition, not literal.

All this to say, you can dislike metaphors, but it really has no true correlation to complaints about actual marginalization of actual marginalized people in video games.
This post is 1000% on point.
 

Nepenthe

When the music hits, you feel no pain.
Moderator
Alright, so we're talking about a trend of gaming using hyperbolic language in a manner that is reductive to marginalized groups and then ignoring the struggles of those groups. Or in other words as a trend in gaming there is hypocrisy. I acknowledge that but how would you prefer I proceed?

I guess you could say just don't participate in the thread but you also said don't be fragile so I feel it's important to engage in this in some manner and learn something from a different viewpoint. So to start I cannot say I am in support of banning those phrases from discussion unless the connotations are more clear cut in their problems than the specific examples given so far.
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."
 
This thread is embarrassing and ridiculous from almost every angle. This is a video game forum, and yet half the posts are people shitting on "gamers". Like, What? Everyone here, assumedly, is a "gamer". Whether you identify with the term or not. You're here primarily because you are interested in video games.

On the flipside of that, the OP's premise is strange. As others have pointed out, language is used hyperbolically, and metaphorically to apply to things other than their originally intended use, all the time. Context matters. I've never personally used "second class citizens" or "holding content hostage" to complain about anything. But I don't have a grievance with people taking issue with the various anti-consumer practices some video game companies use, and employing this term in context to them. Is it hyperbolic? Yeah, but that's just colloquial language. It's for dramatic effect.

Everyone knows gamers are not really an oppressed group. I highly doubt people using the term actually feel like they're oppressed in any way. No one who is using the term is being intentionally bigoted towards any group or real life "second class citizens". They're just talking about the hobby this forum is centered on.



This post is 1000% on point.
The 1st paragraph I agree with.

The rest, you’re completely missing the point and its not even funny.
 
What people are taking issue with, or at least what I am taking issue with after reading through this thread, is that using common hyperbolic phrases like "second class citizen" is in no way equivalent to saying you are actually a marginalized group. The phrasing is clear hyperbole used in a satirical or otherwise ironic fashion to make a point. We can talk about how hyperbolic reactions are a problem with gaming forums in general but that's not the discussion here as you have clearly pointed out. Therefore the premise of saying why do gamers use this language and then not care about people it can apply to in a non-hyperbolic fashion is false. And also equating using that language and being guilty of "browbeating minorities for taking issues with gaming" is ridiculous. You can say "Sony treats us like second class citizens" and still be standing up for minority grievances with gaming.
There is absolutely nothing satirical about the way gamers complain.
 
That language is not directly reductive of an actual class of people, so it's a poor comparison.

Who you're speaking with also helps dictate the kind of language you can use. Sometimes you need to moderate language around specific people that would usually be ok.
It wasn't a comparison I was making - but thanks for snipping my words out of context.

It was in response to the loaded statement that was a judgement to be made of someone's character based on thier choice of metaphorical language.

I actually agree with you on your latter point, save, funnily enough, your wording of it ("need to moderate"). I am a strong believer in "familiar" language and that those contexts are important factors in discussing these topics.

Also, now that I know you're being serious, I'm looking forward to responding to an earlier reply of yours. Good times!
 
Yup...either "if it doesn't apply, let it fly" or OP struck a nerve. We have too many people here whose ego and internet reputation relies on making outrageous statements against victimless companies and game creators ("All companies are bad!" "Capitalism sucks AMIRITE?") and other causes that they don't stop to see how they go about it actually hurts their cause being addressed Again...the same people that swear lootboxes are gambling and addictive, or how DRM is anti-consumer, will buy thousands of dollars a year in games with no intent to play it, or will justify any level of hypersexuality of waifus in their Xenoblades and Bowsetts and Street Fighters.
With the rise of no limit spending facilities in some games I hardly consider some of these companies victimless that's just plain being reductive. The rest of your arguement is pure strawmen. Now Op's overall point of the bigotry that's on display in this community and their cooption of minorities language is an actual one but using that to white wash any and all complaints against companies in this industry is an entirely pointless affair.

Anyone that's lived in a third world country has seen a lot of shit in regards to how certain companies operate here in the first world, they also do other there, the difference is there's almost no means of enforcing the regulation to keep them in check. So you'll find companies like coca cola poisoning rivers india. Even in gaming you see the same old bullshit to prevent any sort of unionisation. You can complain about how moaning about about multi-national corpations is a first world problem but that just strikes me as something someone says when they haven't seen first hand the horrors these types of companies completely unchecked.

You take for granted a heck of lot in your handwaving of the importance of "consumer rights"
 
When you interact with people face to face, there is context. You use different language depending on who you are talking to and what the situation is.

Gamers demands and complaints are very different than the interactions you describe.
You didnt answer my question. What does it say about her?
 
Last edited:
Yup...either "if it doesn't apply, let it fly" or OP struck a nerve. We have too many people here whose ego and internet reputation relies on making outrageous statements against victimless companies and game creators ("All companies are bad!" "Capitalism sucks AMIRITE?") and other causes that they don't stop to see how they go about it actually hurts their cause being addressed Again...the same people that swear lootboxes are gambling and addictive, or how DRM is anti-consumer, will buy thousands of dollars a year in games with no intent to play it, or will justify any level of hypersexuality of waifus in their Xenoblades and Bowsetts and Street Fighters.
Hit the nail on the head
 
This thread is embarrassing and ridiculous from almost every angle. This is a video game forum, and yet half the posts are people shitting on "gamers". Like, What? Everyone here, assumedly, is a "gamer". Whether you identify with the term or not. You're here primarily because you are interested in video games.

On the flipside of that, the OP's premise is strange. As others have pointed out, language is used hyperbolically, and metaphorically to apply to things other than their originally intended use, all the time. Context matters. I've never personally used "second class citizens" or "holding content hostage" to complain about anything. But I don't have a grievance with people taking issue with the various anti-consumer practices some video game companies use, and employing this term in context to them. Is it hyperbolic? Yeah, but that's just colloquial language. It's for dramatic effect.

Everyone knows gamers are not really an oppressed group. I highly doubt people using the term actually feel like they're oppressed in any way. No one who is using the term is being intentionally bigoted towards any group or real life "second class citizens". They're just talking about the hobby this forum is centered on.



This post is 1000% on 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.
 
What's wrong with SWBF 2 complaints? People were unhappy with a business practice and made their opinions heard.

This lead to EA changing the game for the better.
Yeap, if everyone just shut up we wouldn’t have these changes and the lootboxes BS wouldn’t get as much airtime including gov regulations.

OP is weirdly passive aggressive about the whole thing. We are talking about the industry that is hiring professional psychologists to figure out how to fleece their customers better.
 
Sorry, but it's not that hard.

Certain language is obviously reductive and should be avoided as there is literally no benefit to it.

And for other things that could upset individuals but aren't inherently problematic, you just have to know your audience. No one is going to blame you for saying something that offends someone if you had no idea they would find it offensive, at that point it's up to the offended person to let you know what the issue is and for your to moderate your language around them.




War survivor are not an oppressed class. Language that is tone-deaf or reductive to the struggles of oppressed classes and peoples should ALWAYS be avoided.

Language that could upset people with specific experiences like death of loved ones in war is not the same, and while it might still be best to try to avoid such language you can't always avoid offending people. At this point you just need to pay attention and listen to individuals and moderate your language accordingly.
I'll close this parenthesis about language with you here because as i said before making this a language issue is dumb and because apparently it wasn't the point in the thread of the first place so continuing would mean derailing the thread which already took a strange turn:
Yes it really is not that hard
Reductive language must be avoided but at the end of the day it will always be used even by you.
And i'm not only talking about calling girls "bitches" or something similar but even incredibly mundane (by today's standards) phrases like "you eat like a pig" is fundamentally problematic only that since pigs cannot answer back and because animals are usually not put in the same plane of existence as humans it's not a problem at all but if tomorrow pigs learn to speak human language can you honestly say that you never said something offensive about them?

Now of course this sounds very stupid but it is to show that the whole concept after a certain point becomes a moral fallacy.
That is NOT TO SAY that you don't have to act against it if possible though just to be clear

Also are you sure you want to say that war survivors are not an oppressed class? Because a lot of war veterans would have a thing or two to say about it...
-------------------------


OP put the point me, astro, and others are merely repeating right there in the opening. It's literally the third sentence:



So either people aren't reading the OP at all, they are tone-policing because they're uncomfortable, or they are being willfully obtuse to distract from the point. The OP said exactly what his argument was.
No. Fuck that. The add on is a clearer version of what was said the first time.
See, to me the first part of that sentence points to a language problem.
If i can suggest something is that next time you are a bit clearer on both the title and op to avoid this situation again because i swear to god i honestly thought you were making a problem about language, since it is not about that i have absolutely nothing to say against it.
 
I'll close this parenthesis about language with you here because as i said before making this a language issue is dumb and because apparently it wasn't the point in the thread of the first place so continuing would mean derailing the thread which already took a strange turn:
Yes it really is not that hard
Reductive language must be avoided but at the end of the day it will always be used even by you.
And i'm not only talking about calling girls "bitches" or something similar but even incredibly mundane (by today's standards) phrases like "you eat like a pig" is fundamentally problematic only that since pigs cannot answer back and because animals are usually not put in the same plane of existence as humans it's not a problem at all but if tomorrow pigs learn to speak human language can you honestly say that you never said something offensive about them?
You're approaching parody levels of absurd comparisons now, I don't know how to continue the conversation at this point.

Also your habit for strawman arguments is reaching new heights, I think it's best we drop this dialogue between us now.

Also are you sure you want to say that war survivors are not an oppressed class? Because a lot of war veterans would have a thing or two to say about it...
In general yes, they're not. Veterans are a very specific thing, and may not even be "war survivors" in that they may not have even seen active combat or any real danger, but still gave up their time to defend their country so should be treated with respect etc...
 
Yeap, if everyone just shut up we wouldn’t have these changes and the lootboxes BS wouldn’t get as much airtime including gov regulations.

OP is weirdly passive aggressive about the whole thing. We are talking about the industry that is hiring professional psychologists to figure out how to fleece their customers better.
For the 100th time, no where in this thread did I say that people shouldn’t complain about the industry.
 
It’s okay to criticize the gross practice of things like lootboxes, but I do think people take these issues way to fucking personally. Like it’s gonna affect them for the rest of their lives, but games am I right?
 
Postmodern geekdom as simulated ethnicity

As geeks are recognized as sources of cultural and economic capital, their manliness and date-worthiness must also rise. This provokes a desire to see geeks in a new way. Contemporary media fulfill this desire with portrayals of sympathetic geek protagonists.

As geekdom moves from the cultural fringes into the mainstream, it becomes increasingly difficult for the figure of the geek to maintain the outsider victim status that made him such a sympathetic figure in the first place. Confronted with his cultural centrality and white, masculine privilege—geeks are most frequently represented as white males—the geek seeks a simulated victimhood and even simulated ethnicity in order to justify his existence as a protagonist in a world where an unmarked straight white male protagonist is increasingly passé.
Melodramatic tropes are deployed to create sympathy for white male geeks beset by their own sexual, racial, and gender problems. For example, R. Crumb characters Whiteman and Fritz the Cat are driven to angst by the carefree lives of African Americans they encounter as well as the ease with women this blitheness imbues them with. Similarly, Peter Gibbons (Ron Livingston), protagonist of Mike Judge's Office Space (1999), hates his unapologetically mainstream boss Lundberg (Gary Cole), both for work-related humiliations and because Gibbons wrongly imagines that his new girlfriend has had sex with Lundberg. Gibbons expresses his rage at Lundberg's perceived victimization of him by destroying an office copy machine in a slow-motion sequence set to gangsta rap music: it is Gibbons' and the film's racialized fantasy of violent, melodramatically justified geek vengeance.

In line with their presumed whiteness, geeks are typically economically privileged. Both Gibbons and Lundberg are economically empowered white-collar workers. It is Lundberg's unapologetic participation in the corporate environment that sets him as a villain, and Gibbon's tortured relationship to his work which make him sympathetic, despite both characters participation in the same economic system and set of privileges.

In terms of the geek's class identity, it is important to our project to discuss Zygmunt Bauman’s essay “Tourist and Vagabonds,” and to use Williams’ insights about identity-based suffering to shed light on Bauman's claims, as well as to introduce the term "simulated ethnicity." Bauman deftly analyzes globalization and why "vagabonds," the global have-nots, are in a state of perpetual admiration of the economic mobility of the tourists, the privileged members of "developed" nations. As a Marxist, Bauman is clearly focused on the economic disparity between the tourist and vagabond. However, if we use the logic of melodrama to modify Bauman's analysis, the vagabond has a surplus of one commodity that the tourist desires: the tourist admires the vagabond’s suffering, which imbues the vagabond with virtue. This plays out, for example, as real-life tourists paradoxically disdain the touristy and prefer to travel with the conceit that they are more "on the inside" than an average tourist. This ironic admiration of "vagabond-ness" is the same as the admiration non-marked identities have for marked identities in a postmodern milieu, where markedness serves as an authenticating feature. We use the term "simulated ethnicity" to describe the way geeks melodramatically cast themselves as members of a marginalized identity to foreground their validity and authenticity as postmodern protagonists.
 
You're approaching parody levels of absurd comparisons now, I don't know how to continue the conversation at this point.

Also your habit for strawman arguments is reaching new heights, I think it's best we drop this dialogue between us now.
Just fyi, your selective quoting and your missing the point (willingly or not) do nothing but fuel my "not in good faith" sentiment though.
 
Ah the classic, 'you can't complain about anything because there are children dying in Africa' rebuttal
Eeeh. Complaining about EA isn't quite the same as claiming them to be the worst American company and even voting it as such. Especially considering that they actually treat their employees quite well by most reports I've heard. They have done well in matters of representation and diversity, both in their games and in their workplace. But gamers value shit like video game endings more than proper working conditions. Not to say people couldn't criticize endings they don't like, but have some perspective. Voting EA to be worst is quite hyperbolic and a sign of immaturity. When there's stuff like consumer credit reporting agency hiding a data breach from puplic in which personal information of over 150 million were stolen, company with their employees having 25 suicide attempts in a decade, media company broadcasting right-wing propaganda, health insurance company with multiple lawsuits against them or bank charing late fees for mortgage payments for something that was the bank's fault etc. No need to bring up kids in Africa. But EA does deserve criticism and that's absolutely allowed. Op isn't against that either, nobody is.
 
Last edited:
The hyperbole on gaming forums is exhausting. More often than not it comes across as a crux for people with poor communication and articulation skills. I just hit ignore on people like that.
 
Just fyi, your selective quoting and your missing the point (willingly or not) do nothing but fuel my "not in good faith" sentiment though.
You really are missing the point. No one really cares if it fuels your sentiment. You’re just displaying your lack of understanding and thats ok. Sounds like you need to disengage and withdraw participation in this discussion.
 
With the rise of no limit spending facilities in some games I hardly consider some of these companies victimless that's just plain being reductive. The rest of your arguement is pure strawmen. Now Op's overall point of the bigotry that's on display in this community and their cooption of minorities language is an actual one but using that to white wash any and all complaints against companies in this industry is an entirely pointless affair.

Anyone that's lived in a third world country has seen a lot of shit in regards to how certain companies operate here in the first world, they also do other there, the difference is there's almost no means of enforcing the regulation to keep them in check. So you'll find companies like coca cola poisoning rivers india. Even in gaming you see the same old bullshit to prevent any sort of unionisation. You can complain about how moaning about about multi-national corpations is a first world problem but that just strikes me as something someone says when they haven't seen first hand the horrors these types of companies completely unchecked.

You take for granted a heck of lot in your handwaving of the importance of "consumer rights"
So you proved my point by getting triggered by examples I gave, then used those same examples? Why are you bring up how companies operate and unionization and stuff when this topic has nothing to do with this thread??? What did I handwave in any of that LOL...and when did I address what you or what anyone said regarding those issues anywhere in here???

I said that people exaggerate because what they are targeting are what they believe are victimless companies...somehow you took that to change the whole subject to mean that I BELIEVE COMPANIES ARE BLAMELESS OF ANYTHING...

Are there any people of color struggling to understand the OP? Didn't think so.

Like where is your empathy man? You read the OP's words but you are understanding. You are hearing but not listening. Because when you change the subject like this...who said anything about "white wash any and all complaints against companies in this industry is an entirely pointless affair"...

Like using the term "white-wash" when ZERO people here are saying to do anything like what that means in real life. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE OP MEANS... YOU JUST DID IT RIGHT HERE

Literally no one here is saying to "white-wash" anything because the whole thread has nothing to do with restricting or encouraging criticism of anything!
 
I recently made a comment about GFAQs that (in retrospect) feels much more appropriate here. In my younger days the bulk of the forums I visited were on GFAQs so I'll always associate that kind of talk with that site. PC Master Race was something that always bothered me a bit. I can appreciate dark humor but that's a bit much to say the least.

Thank GOD? A bit hyperbolic, and insensitive to co-opt the language of religious people, no?
I hope this is a sarcastic comment cause if not... then we're being a little pedantic, aren't we?
 
Last edited:
The phrasing is clear hyperbole used in a satirical or otherwise ironic fashion to make a point.
People always say this, but I have a hard time believing it. At the very least it reaches a point where posters do not or cannot post in a way that is not satirical, and at that point what's the difference between satire and sincerity?
 
So you proved my point by getting triggered by examples I gave, then used those same examples? Why are you bring up how companies operate and unionization and stuff when this topic has nothing to do with this thread??? What did I handwave in any of that LOL...and when did I address what you or what anyone said regarding those issues anywhere in here???

I said that people exaggerate because what they are targeting are what they believe are victimless companies...somehow you took that to change the whole subject to mean that I BELIEVE COMPANIES ARE BLAMELESS OF ANYTHING...

Are there any people of color struggling to understand the OP? Didn't think so.

Like where is your empathy man? You read the OP's words but you are understanding. You are hearing but not listening. Because when you change the subject like this...who said anything about "white wash any and all complaints against companies in this industry is an entirely pointless affair"...

Like using the term "white-wash" when ZERO people here are saying to do anything like what that means in real life. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE OP MEANS... YOU JUST DID IT RIGHT HERE

Literally no one here is saying to "white-wash" anything because the whole thread has nothing to do with restricting or encouraging criticism of anything!
That litterally occurs in the post I was quoting, your already saying how these companies operations are victimless when there already exists examples of people going into crippling debt playing addictive games designed to extract money. Noone believes these companies are victimless because they're not so why are you even stating it..

Breh i'm black. I know exactly what the OP is referring to I've lived in a third world country. That's precisiely why I consider consumer rights in industries like this to be as important as they are.Yes there are a lot of douchebags that care about consumer rights and don't give a shit about minorities but the two things aren't mutually exclusive unless you believe there are no minorities complianing about consumer rights? You can recognise the trend but still feel strongly about consumer rights in the industry the these things aren't mutually exclusive.
 
Last edited:
I think the internet in general is a cesspool of hatred and outrage over every little things. I still don't get the constant complaints about Switch online lol, or censoring a few R-rated things from localizations here and there.

Games are just for fun for me, so it sucks how whatever forum it is I visit, from here to GameFAQS to Reddit, the most discussed topics are usually complaints of some sorts.
 
I think the internet in general is a cesspool of hatred and outrage over every little things. I still don't get the constant complaints about Switch online lol, or censoring a few R-rated things from localizations here and there.

Games are just for fun for me, so it sucks how whatever forum it is I visit, from here to GameFAQS to Reddit, the most discussed topics are usually complaints of some sorts.
It must be human nature as just in general (even before the internet) uniting people under a banner of outrage (either for good or evil) always seems to be very easy.
 
That litterally occurs in the post I was quoting, your already saying how these companies operations are victimless when there already exists examples of people going into crippling debt playing addictive games designed to extract money. Clearly noone is trying to white was this... Imaginary examples I'm sure.
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.
 
Top