A boycott, by definition is an attempt to punitively coerce others.
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?
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?
If you ever believed that any video game was going to be available for the rest of your life I don’t really know where to go from there…
I have never once in my life had the expectation that any digital entitlement I have purchased would be usable for the rest of my life.
Not only would that be an insane, illogical, and entitled perspective to hold; but it is also directly contradicted by every TOS/EULA of every single streaming service I have ever signed up for, and the T&C of every single digital purchase I have ever completed.
I am at a loss as to why you, or anyone else has ever had a different expectation.
Also, are you saying that when you accept an employment offer that you don’t have the expectation that compensation increases and career mobility will be available independant of sexual favors? That’s weird.
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.
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 Obviously you disengage for a particular reason, and if that reason no longer applicable, you would no longer disengage right?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?
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?
In your own words, what is the difference? Does it make a practical difference to the creator whose work is no longer being consumed?
A boycott, by definition is an attempt to punitively coerce others.
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?
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?
If you ever believed that any video game was going to be available for the rest of your life I don’t really know where to go from there…
I have never once in my life had the expectation that any digital entitlement I have purchased would be usable for the rest of my life.
Not only would that be an insane, illogical, and entitled perspective to hold; but it is also directly contradicted by every TOS/EULA of every single streaming service I have ever signed up for, and the T&C of every single digital purchase I have ever completed.
I am at a loss as to why you, or anyone else has ever had a different expectation.
Also, are you saying that when you accept an employment offer that you don’t have the expectation that compensation increases and career mobility will be available independant of sexual favors? That’s weird.
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.
I would consider it a moral failure if they boycotted and attempted to punitively coerce game developers and publishers.
If you want to have some different “gotcha” conversation, you don’t need my participation, you can talk to that strawman all on your own…
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?
Why is it not coercion if your boss simply ignores you instead of propositioning you?
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?