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…

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    10 months ago

    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.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      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

    • zeppo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      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.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        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.

        • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          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.

          • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            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.