The way the rules are being enforced as well as who is enforcing the rules are just as important as the rules themselves IMO, if any of the above 3 change it should be made aware to the users. In this case idk if it would even be condemnation, considering she doesn't seem to mind being a tankie at all.
Yea it's a statistical guess. The statistics are weighted in a certain direction for me seeing how many times this person seems to be caught up in the same accusation and all of his profile link websites looking... the way it does. But of course it could just be that he happens to write a lot like how AI would generate text.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
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?
The way the rules are being enforced as well as who is enforcing the rules are just as important as the rules themselves IMO, if any of the above 3 change it should be made aware to the users. In this case idk if it would even be condemnation, considering she doesn't seem to mind being a tankie at all.
Yea I said it's a statistical guess... it's the very first sentence I wrote...
Yea it's a statistical guess. The statistics are weighted in a certain direction for me seeing how many times this person seems to be caught up in the same accusation and all of his profile link websites looking... the way it does. But of course it could just be that he happens to write a lot like how AI would generate text.
I don't think @eicker put all that much thought into that comment lol
Nintendo EPD division (Super Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, Splatoon) can be traced back to like the 80s.
Yeah you can see for yourself here: https://tty.fail/mrus
I mean it would be weird if he talked about migrating his projects off of codeberg if he didn't have any projects to migrate.
Fair enough man, I don't think I could resolve your internal contradictions either.
So in your mind, they are charging money for these things, but they do not intend to make money from these things.
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?
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?
This is the definition for object I mean. If you wanted to pull out the dictionary thing again.
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.
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.
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?
In both cases, if the person needs what the other person is witholding, he is compelled to meet their demands, no?
"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.
Which word in the above post are you having trouble with?
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?
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?
In your own words, could you explain what you believe the strawman is, and why it does not apply in your case?
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.
Punitively coerce by witholding your sale. The same sale that would have been witheld by your disengagement.
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.
Are you trying to say that the difference is just vibes?
In your own words, what is the difference? Does it make a practical difference to the creator whose work is no longer being consumed?