you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 1 point 3 months ago (41 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (40 children)

    Because it establishes that the creator's authority is not absolute and the consumer has quite a bit of sway in how products are created and commercialized. Unless you are one of such people who believe indirect coercion of the free market doesn't count as coercion? If the creator of a for-profit work must (more or less) present their work in a specific way otherwise no-body will buy it, that is coercion and a slight to the creator's authority, no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (39 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (38 children)

    I appreciate that sentiment, but let's stay on topic. This and the original article, movement, etc, are for commercial ventures no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 38 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (37 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (36 children)

    Yeah I mean I agree with you on the topic of video games in general. It's cool. But like I said, this original article, movement, etc, is for video games that are sold to customers for money and for profit.

    If YOU choose to engage with them commercially then you do so at the creators direction and on their terms.

    Yes, and I said that the consumers in general can coerce creators by choosing which works to engage with. Again, If the creator of a for-profit work must (more or less) present their work in a specific way otherwise no-body will buy it, that is coercion and a slight to the creator’s authority, no? (Bolded for emphasis)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (35 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (34 children)

    I think you responded to the wrong post 😅

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (33 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (32 children)

    Sorry, it took me for a surprise because I don't believe I have expressed any preference for a type of video game here. No, I am not insinuating that developers won’t be able to make money if they don’t “comply” with some draconian corporate strategy they loath. Like I said earlier, it's a hypothetical scenario.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (31 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (30 children)

    Then, going back to the original post, you would be okay with saying that there isn't really a "necessity" in the "course correction", and that if the 3,700,000,000 gamers wanted otherwise, they probably would get it, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (29 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (28 children)

    I would see it as a moral failing of society to choose ongoing victimization of create workers for their own convenience.

    Why? It's not a failure for a consumer to want what they want. You even said yourself earlier:

    If a thing stops being something I want to engage with, I stop engaging.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 28 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (27 children)
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago (26 children)

    In your own words, what is the difference? Does it make a practical difference to the creator whose work is no longer being consumed?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (25 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (24 children)

    A boycott, by definition is an attempt to punitively coerce others.

    Punitively coerce by witholding your sale. The same sale that would have been witheld by your disengagement.

    If your employer attempted to coerce you into physical relationship to “earn” a promotion, would that feel different to you than them simply overlooking you for said promotion?

    The issue here is that the condition is unrelated to your employment. The end of life plans of the video game is directly relevant to whether you might want to purchase said game or not.

    would that feel different to you

    Are you trying to say that the difference is just vibes?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (23 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (22 children)

    We're not talking about my expectation, we're talking about the hypothetical expectation of the boycotting gamers that you yourself brought up a couple of posts ago, and why you would consider them not buying video games a tragedy, while it is not a tragedy if you do not buy a video game.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago* (21 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (20 children)

    Why is it not coercion when you disengage with a work? Obviously you disengage for a particular reason, and if that reason no longer applicable, you would no longer disengage right? Or do you just randomly disengage with works that you are completely satisfied with?

    you can talk to that strawman all on your own…

    In your own words, could you explain what you believe the strawman is, and why it does not apply in your case?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (19 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (18 children)

    Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no? And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (16 children)

    Which word in the above post are you having trouble with?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (14 children)

    to compel to an act or choice

    In both cases, if the person needs what the other person is witholding, he is compelled to meet their demands, no?

    Ask direct complete questions

    "Even if your boss simply ignores you, the assumption is that there is a reason underneath, no?" and "And if you need what your boss has bad enough to change your behavior, you are coerced into it, no matter if the demand was properly communicated (proposition) or not (ignoring), no?" are complete questions, in fact, they are straight up yes or no questions, the simplest of them all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (12 children)

    What do you mean burden of proof? It's the dictionary definition. That I put literally right on top. To be compelled to act. Are you saying that in one case, you are not compelled to act, despite needing the same thing from the same party?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (10 children)

    To force (a person) to do something; drive or constrain

    You are driven to meet the other party's demand in both cases, please stay focused. We are talking about selling your work to consumers. The entire goal is to get the consumers' money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (8 children)

    If you don't need to get the consumer's money, then why would a boycott be a moral failure? You don't need them. Even in this case there is no practical difference between two cases of propositioning and ignoring.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

    You are objecting when you are disengaging from these works, are you not? Unless, going back to a previous question, you are the type to disengage with works you are completely satisfied with?

    : to feel distaste for something

    This is the definition for object I mean. If you wanted to pull out the dictionary thing again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (4 children)

    It's different, but it doesn't make one coercion and one not coercion, if, again, going back to the original point, the goal is to get the consumers' money. Not my goal. The goal of the creator of these works. These works are intended for commercial sale. The base assumption is that the creator of these works intend, and are driven to, get the consumer's money. Or is that the part you are having trouble understanding?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    So in your mind, they are charging money for these things, but they do not intend to make money from these things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments