That's because it doesn't. This whole thing stinks of the same type of bad faith as when people try to smear leftist politicians as being sexist, racist, or anti-semitic (they even geared up to try to call Bernie, a Jewish person, anti-semitic, but I guess that was too ridiculous to stick). We're going to see this a lot going forward - the language of anti-oppression being misused to defend an abusive status quo, by people who benefit from it.
> In isolation that’s just meh. In a context where mobile players got trashed all the bloody time for being fake gamers, casuals, mindless whales, or worst of all, women? In a context of tech people often being elitist “core” gamers? Woops, you’re punching down.
I cannot take this sentence seriously:
> "mobile gamers got trashed all the [...] time for being [...] women"
Plus, Godot's text is about practices preying on mobile gamers (you can find these practices on PC too, but it is more common on mobile platforms), so it is criticizing mobile gaming (and the companies behind the predatory practices) rather than mobile gamers. So the quoted sentence about "mobile gamers" looks like a straw-man, which goes in favour of a trolling attempt.
Or is it so that if I criticize something that affects some group not specifically me it's actually punching down? It's not possible to criticize something that's being done to a group without it being a criticism of that group?
This is absolutely brilliant. PR departments must love this.
Character Flaw: X is injured. you intend to injure X as you did Y.
Structural Flaw: X is injured. X was injured by your neglect in considering the interests of X as you did Y.
"Mobile Gamer Egos" were hurt because they werent "properly considered".
The issue with this kind of structural analysis is that you have to show a duty that a person/system has towards X for their "neglect of X" to be their fault. This is routinely missising from the analysis.
I actually think isms as a structural flaw rather than a character flaw is much more pertinent in many cases, certainly most cases that cause the most damage in people's lives. However, the idea that this documentation amounts to some kind of structural discrimination is facially ridiculous, and, in my view, offensive to the real causes whose language it's abusing.
Okay, he's not an antisemite, he just supported totalitarian antisemitic regime.
"Any criticisms of Trump are bad faith smears by the Deep State defending the status quo."
Hmm.
Of course they always, are innocent of such things, always, and never sexually harass their staff either, nor dress up in blackface. All such allegations are lies, I tell you, lies!
Now those dirty right-wingers, you don’t even need proof or a single credible witness, of course they did it... /s
Leftist politicians can be all of those things..
And that's great, stupid smears are ineffective! What is not so good is solid evidence of serious racism and misogyny is also ineffective.
Historically there have been plenty of politicians closer to the so-called right who would have the power diminished by being foul. There may well be still in certain areas.
What would be nice is if A good take a little of the good sense from B and B a little of the good sense from A.
What we have isn't that, whatever labels you put on various "sides".
[1] "Jewish space laser" for example. That may not be a smear.
She might not be getting her nomination, but it's a great example of the tactic in action.
Tanden is notable only for her poor social media discipline. There are a hundred less progressive officials in the new administration, who happen to be circumspect enough to take money from Middle Eastern dictators without rivaling Trump in Twitter foolishness.
[0] https://thinkprogress.org/
[1] https://splinternews.com/the-center-for-american-progress-is...