Your mindset is why we got rid out of nuclear energy. Nuclear lobby bad, consumer lobby good. Consumer lobby didn't care that what they wanted was impossible (risk free free, carbon free, cheap energy) and angrily demanded by law things the industry couldn't provide, and got nothing as a result. It might very well be the case for this gaming law as well, that the result would have been less games in Europe as game producer would avoid a market that makes unprofitable demands.
I suppose the charitable interpretation is that those who would invest considerable time campaigning for this are deeply into gaming, which is an activity typically associated with younger people.
There’s also the fact that through events like Gamergate, the term “gamer” has become highly charged and is not something most adults would want to be associated with.
That's an interesting point of view. For me, people who advocate for preservation are usually older because they remember the times when you could just buy games and they would keep working forever. While younger people were born into the world where online games is the norm so they don't expect everything to last long.
I think with younger generations the perception shifted quite a bit. Gaming has become so normal that people with "radical" views and behavior are now in minority. Also the other aspects affected this - livestreaming is a good example where you need to be on your best behavior to not get banned or canceled.
More or less sure, but not 100% of course. Women are treated a bit better in my experience compared to say 10 or 15 years ago. Unfortunately, I haven't played many competitive games in the last couple of years, but before that rather than being insulted there were two outcomes: women were either treated normally (well as normal as it can get during heated rounds) or they were being hit on (I witnessed it a couple of times myself). The popularity of streaming also helped a bit since a lot of streamers are women.
You brought it up, what do you mean? If one were to bring up allegations of you associating with unpopular movements, would you not clear your name? Having checked your post history, I have to genuinely ask if you're a troll account.
I simply pointed out that gaming and especially gamers have some pretty extreme negative connotations, which is true.
I could dump you links to research detailing the connections between the online gaming community and right wing extremism, but I’m pretty sure you know what I’m talking about.
“Gamer” is basically synonymous for “neo-nazi incel”, and GSK refers to itself as a “global coalition of gamers”. That’s a pretty bad look!
Have you ever touched grass? You could also argue that posting in an online message board is linked with right wing extremism because there are right wing extremists posting stuff online.
No, it's not, and this is why you were called a shill .. not merely due to a disagreement, but due to you actively portraying your opposition as malicious, while you actively describe multi-billion dollar corporations as just people trying to "pay their rent and feed their children by selling games"
You seem to be arguing under the presupposition that there are two equal entities, industry lobbies and everyone else, and somehow that division of viewpoints gets equal consideration from the governing body.
The other person is arguing that those two entities are not equal and should not have equal weight in affecting the decisions of the European commission.
Calling them malicious for having a different view of the _purpose_ of the commission is kind of wrong (it's independent of being malicious), and from the outside just makes you look dishonest.
> If the opposition simply seeks to silence you, rather than to argue against you, how are they not malicious?
in response to:
> The industry should only be allowed to comment after the laws have been written and fulfill the goals of European citizens.
Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy. Which is something the statement you are replying to clearly doesn't agree with. And rather than accept that there is a disagreement of the purpose of the council or the acceptability of industry lobbyists influencing law or what not, you just frame it as a moral evil (maliciousness) on the part of the other commenter. A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations.
Side note: if your comment implies something hard enough (intentionally or not) that multiple people are "windmill-tilting" against something that you think you aren't saying, it deserves some reflection on whether you may have miscommunicated your point.
> Where it's clear from your framing of an "opposition trying to silence you" that you think the industry lobby has at least some right to be heard before the council votes on policy
This is an inherent feature of democracy. "The industry" consists entirely of people, of course you can't exclude them.
>A good faith reading of the comment you replied to has so many non-malicious interpretations.
"Let's not allow rich people to participate in the political process" has just as many possible non-malicious interpretations as "Let's not allow black people to participate in the political process". i.e. none
And even above I'm steelmanning by assuming that Frieren didn't want to also exclude indie developers.
