[0] https://twitter.com/LiaSae/status/1367074344313237507?s=20
It just takes one person to write a rant and then its all over. Thousands of examples but a similar one was VSCode having to remove the santa hat from an icon on Christmas because someone claimed it was extremely offensive. I know I'm starting to sound like an American conspiracy theorist about the war on christmas, but the reality is that you just can't show any kind of personality, humor, or fun on the internet without putting yourself at risk.
I guess puns might be immune. We still have puns. Unless some alt right jerk uses them as a way to make fun of Japanese people (there is a stereotype from a while back), then we lose puns too
Except when someone deems the subject too serious (“how dare you make jokes about that”). So no, we don’t still have puns.
What I’d like to know is why the American culture in particular seems so hostile to any form of humour. This isn’t something I have seen in other Western European countries to this extent (though it is spreading in thanks to the Internet).
Some of those are somewhat valid points, but the trick is to find people who don't mind the humour, and then spend the most time with them :)
Survivor bias, no doubt.
Sprinkle the code and documentation with random references to your favourite animal. That surely can't offend anyone, right?
It really doesn't matter if you don't listen to it.
Unfortunately a lot of people do, and some people that matter do. I hope this will change.
But if you don't have that, then (I have found) it's easy to ignore.
So the pragmatic strategy is to surrender early, when the cost of surrender is still small (just your own shame of yielding to evil people).
We need to end cancel culture, not capitulate.
If you're a lowly employee with a family, doing some open source or blogging or whatnot on the side, and that side activity attracts the wrath of professional victims? You're suddenly in risk of significantly derailing your life (and that of your family!), possibly damaging it permanently. So you capitulate, just to survive.
If you're not charismatic – you don't try to defend yourself – they'll run through their investigation and find something or find nothing, and then give a fairly fair verdict (or as fair as anything on Twitter ever is).
In this case, the author could've engaged, probably, and said something like:
> This was actually meant to be sarcastic; you're meant to notice how unreasonable it is, and disagree with the narrator, but the narrator doesn't represent my views, which are [XYZ]. Your advice would be good, if I actually agreed with what I'd written, but the point is that it's outlandish and bad, because I'm calling out attitudes in the game industry.
> The feature I'm documenting there is usually used for bad. Your suggestions would be good ones, if I actually believed in that bad, but I don't. Do you have any ideas for how to make it more obviously sarcastic?
I think the author probably missed the boat on this, though; the Twitter mob grows quickly.
The person who tried to warp this in to a social issue because they didn't like that they were being called out for using IAPs (being an abuser themselves really), is evil. This person is a harm to society.
If they had the intention you think they had? Evil. But I didn't get that from reading the archive.is link upthread.
No, thanks. I'd just rather my online persona is squeaky-clean under my real name, and anything controversial (oh, I don't know, like holding even one opinion that's got a potential to become controversial a year or two down the line) is under a pseudonym.
From a business standpoint: They've shown they're willing to make a scene, while simultaneously making it just controversial enough that you can justify pulling it down (and therefore averting the issue) without major loss of face.
In other words, nobody's primary business is controversial documentation.
Completely untrue. Lefty "SJW" Twitter is full of humour and personality. Shitposting takes precedence over serious discussion, massively, to the point where more centrist or right-wing twitter circles seem completely dry in comparison. If your humour and personality aren't accepted, that's on you.
Since humor is now banned on the internet, would you mind deleting your comment as good praxis?
:)
Unfortunately, it seems to me the structure of the movement itself makes many people too timid to actually push back against toxic behavior like this.
Edit - I found an archive of the tweet https://archive.md/VpYl2
Is that even a thing? Never ever have I heard "mobile players = women" even on the worst dumps of the internet, like 9gag. But then again, I'm not on Twitter.
The author was making some pretty clear points about how capitalism produces meaningless addictive games. Accusing author of sexism seems like a non-sequitur to me, especially as the whole comment is completely free of any gendered pronouns, e.g. "These individuals".
(Either way I think the argument that this means the article is intrinsicly sexist is definitely reaching. It seems the accusation of gatekeeping is more valid, though I think this requires a pretty uncharitable interpretation of something which is clearly aiming elsewhere)
Didn't read it that way. The text seems factually true to me.
The fact that the PR author does not even care that a piece of documentation is lost and there is no attempt to at least rewrite it is disappointing.
Someone please think of the old developers
As in: if you don’t have something “we” to say, don’t say anything at all.
Language is a way of conveying meaning.
Hyper focusing on the words being used, diminishes time spent on the transaction of mind.
Life is... when you really think about it... absurd.
On the other hand, this is the whole point of writing poetry. You focus on the particular shape of words and try to fit them to an arbitrary, meaningless, pattern.
This person is referring to the #gamergate controversy from like 6-7 years ago, I understand that much.
But how does a progressive, left-leaning person go from that to being offended by a satire about capitalism? I have no clue. It's like becoming a caricature of yourself.
You can tell because leftists aren't offended by vanilla leftism.
It was an accurate observation, but despite best intentions, it sounded like a teenager on a rant. Not exactly a good look.
Just my two cents - seems that some agree and some don't.
It is quite typical to dismiss anti-capitalist critique as being youthful and immature