Submitted 5 months ago by ViscloReader@lemmy.world to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
I’m talking in the context of the “capitalist rules”. If you say the aforementioned sentence, you remove the responsibility of the player by dismissing the fact that the winner makes the rules.
PS: Doesn’t work for every context: if the player aims to change the rules because he doesn’t like them, he might see winning as a way to change them. “You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain” I guess…
You are literally defining the meaning of the phrase. That is not a shower thought.
Two hundred up votes, dont hate the player hate the game
Hate the upvoters lol
Well, I thought of it while taking a shower so…
Yes.
Just like "it is what it is", that statement is a "thought terminating cliche" and that is what it's doing.
Is labeling a phrase a “thought-terminating cliche”, a thought-terminating cliche?
Well I’d say it’s a hate-terminating cliche. As in, “Hey let’s stop thinking about how much we hate that guy, when he’s trying to feed his family”.
“Trying to feed your family” does not excuse everything.
Yes, but the game is the problem. That’s why the ecological footprint is problematic, it pushes the responsibility towards individuals rather than changing laws.
It occurs to me that a great many sayings exist for the speaker to self justify their own actions
I always reply that I hate both.
So you disagree with the saying? Why?
Because it implies that there are just two options while I think there is a third.
Yup, that’s why people say it. “I’m an arse hole, but what do you expect?”
My first thought after hearing that saying 20-something years ago was “the player perpetuates the game.”
If people refuse to play, there is no game to hate.
If people refuse to play, they die. The game evolved over millions of years.
There are many types of game. The saying is specifically designed to perpetuate one particular game.
The player’s job is to play optimally; the rules dictate what is and isn’t optimal play. Not just limited to capitalism, this concept is a big part of game theory.
Yeah, this phrase makes way more sense within the context of a game or game theory. For me, it goes back to fighting games or sports. People play to win in those settings. The rules are heavily defined, and the players must abide. These other examples are people misusing the phrase.
Playing the game is a choice.
Working to pay rent and stuff is a choice?
Duh. You could just lie down and die, but here you are choosing to eat and drink and sleep.
You silly goose, so fixated on surviving.
Referring to yourself as a “player” usually implies that your goal is to outdo everyone else, not just get by.
Everything is a choice.
True freedom is the realisation that you can literally do anything.
Learn to recognize systemic problems rather than personnel problems.
In line with another phrase I hate, " If you can’t take me at my worst you don’t deserve me at my best". It is just the person saying it trying to cover their awful behavior.
It’s not related to that phrase at all
It’s related in the sense YaksDC would rather hate it than try to figure out why people say it
The definition of fascism at the end of the day is “fuck you, I have mine, stop complaining because you are a loser”. Yes, fascism is the extreme end point of that view but ultimately that is what fascism is. Who cares what is fair, the losers are losers and the winners are winners and fascists are 0% interested in examining that any closer.
I hate the phrase “don’t hate the player, hate the game”. I’ll hate the player too lol. You know what playing a sport where bad behavior is technically possible and in the best interests of a player to do, but a player refuses to do it because of a love of the sport and the desire to be a good opponent? It is called good sportsmanship. Sports/videogames are miserable experiences when it is just ruthlessly competitive people playing who will exploit any advantage, fair or not and have zero interest in sportsmanship. Is there a broken mechanic or rule? These types of people will exploit it over and over and over and over again and just keep saying “Don’t hate the player hate the game” even though it is them, the player, actively making the experience miserable for everyone else.
I think you just made that definition of fascism up.
These are the shower thoughts I have. Got a whole ass manifesto cooking up there.
We are all playing by being here.
I think we should flip the board but I'm not going to die holding my breath.
Oh bummer turns out our daily meals were coming from some of those pieces on the game board. We flipped the board, and now we can’t eat.
Yeah that’s been the critique since the phrase was popular. That and the fact that they chose to play the game.
No, the phrase saying “Don’t hate the player; hate the game” refers to games that people are embedded in, not games they chose to play.
It automatically assumes people are “embedded” in it, and that it is impossible to not participate. It is not as neutral a saying as you seem to think.
Don't forget that recycling is your responsibility and corporations have no control over how reusable their packaging is. /s
zeppo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
That’s the entire point of the phrase, as far as how I’ve always interpreted it: don’t blame people for doing what’s best for them within a system they don’t control.
themeatbridge@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I can hate both. Morality is not subject to the whims of legislation. If you’re a billionaire, you’ve done something immoral. Playing “within the rules” does not absolve you of all morality.
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The reason that doesn’t make sense, is billionaires are the only ones with the power to fix the economic system thru political donations.
The saying isn’t meant for your example, because they’re not just players. Their also the refs and the ones who wrote the rules for the game.
Like:
That makes sense if said between prisoners about how shitty jail is. But if a prison guard beat an inmate and then said that, it doesn’t make sense.
Just because it’s not true 100% of the time for 100% of people doesn’t mean it’s worthless. By that logic no phrase should exist
zeppo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I agree, I’ve said that about this phrase before! I can hate the player too. Not one of my favorite maxims.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 months ago
Legislation is not the only game being referred to by this saying.
Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 5 months ago
If a game inevitably leads to billionaires unless you can count on all individuals being moral people, I take the liberty of hating the game that sets things up like that.
Mango@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Clearly these people are unfamiliar with the prisoner’s dilemma.
Jeknilah@monero.town 5 months ago
And what do you know about Nash Equilibriums?
someguy3@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Legality is not the same as moral or ethical. The rules of life, civility, and good society are not preordained. Aka we make our own norms and values.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 5 months ago
No, we don’t make our own norms and values. There’s no reason to believe that is any more flexible than our reliance on iron or potassium to survive.
novibe@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
But also, morality does fuck all to help you survive. Morality is absolutely useless for an individual, much to the contrary.
Empricorn@feddit.nl 5 months ago
The system is large and powerful. However, it’s perpetuated by individuals. Apathy is a lack of empathy…
kjPhfeYsEkWyhoxaxjGgRfnj@lemmy.world 5 months ago
In this particular context regulatory capture is the unseen bullshit of the claim