this post was submitted on 18 Jan 2024
186 points (81.6% liked)

Showerthoughts

29723 readers
1109 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics
    1. NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
    2. Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
    3. Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct-----

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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...

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 129 points 10 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 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:

It is what is

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

[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago

I agree, I've said that about this phrase before! I can hate the player too. Not one of my favorite maxims.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Legislation is not the only game being referred to by this saying.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Any system can be abused. Amoral assholes will always exist. We have a system that rewards amoral assholes with wealth and power. Hate both the player and the game.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Of course you can hate both. But I think the phrase tries to make you focus on systemic issues instead of individualising them.

I can hate Elon Musk. But if he wasn't there, someone else would fill the dipshit shaped hole the system leaves for him.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I understand the meaning, and you're right that the system would just reward a different dipshit. But Elon is there, and he is a dipshit deserving of scorn. If it was someone else being a dipshit, then I'd hate them for being a dipshit.

The system should prevent people like Elon from amassing so much wealth and power. But even if it did, he would still be a dipshit.

Hate the game, hate the player, because both fucking suck.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Clearly these people are unfamiliar with the prisoner's dilemma.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago (4 children)

And what do you know about Nash Equilibriums?

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (18 children)

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.

load more comments (18 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

In this particular context regulatory capture and political donations is the unseen bullshit of the claim. Corporations DO make the rules

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

The system is large and powerful. However, it's perpetuated by individuals. Apathy is a lack of empathy...

[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago (2 children)

You are literally defining the meaning of the phrase. That is not a shower thought.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Two hundred up votes, dont hate the player hate the game

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Yes.

Just like "it is what it is", that statement is a "thought terminating cliche" and that is what it's doing.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

I always reply that I hate both.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

It occurs to me that a great many sayings exist for the speaker to self justify their own actions

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

Yup, that's why people say it. "I'm an arse hole, but what do you expect?"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's not related to that phrase at all

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

It’s related in the sense YaksDC would rather hate it than try to figure out why people say it

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Learn to recognize systemic problems rather than personnel problems.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Playing the game is a choice.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (6 children)

Working to pay rent and stuff is a choice?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

These are the shower thoughts I have. Got a whole ass manifesto cooking up there.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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 no matter how arbitrary or stupid the set of rules that determined the winners or losers are.

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 a choice to make the experience miserable for everyone else.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago

I think you just made that definition of fascism up.

load more comments
view more: next ›