• UlyssesT [he/him]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      14
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      With that in mind as a marketing word, I really hate the smuglordery from treat defenders that say “if you get addicted to it (or if they pedantically say addition isn’t technically biologically happening because pedantic reasons) that’s on you. I’m fine. I got mine” and apply that to everything from deliberately habit-forming gameplay loops to FOMO and predatory monetization practices such as time-conditional “battle/season passes” and the like, or as had happened on Hexbear at least once: to fucking corporate sports gambling apps.

      It’s assholish and low-key ableism on top of that, seeing psychologically vulnerable people as deserving of suffering in some treat-Calvinistic way.

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        196 months ago

        It’s not low key ableist, it’s plainly ableist. Literally blaming a sick person for their disease.

        • UlyssesT [he/him]OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          126 months ago

          I called it “low-key” because I’m sure the fair-weather self-described leftists that said it during the corporate sports gambling struggle session (not going to name names) didn’t want to think it was ableist to say “if you can’t afford to gamble don’t gamble. Simple. I don’t want a nanny state telling me what to dooooooooo.” smuglord

        • UlyssesT [he/him]OP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          76 months ago

          I wholeheartedly agree.

          I fucking hate when such treat defenders go as far as saying “well that means someone can be addicted to chocolate, which would be silly amirite?” smuglord