Prunebutt

Well, isn't that what we're doing here? The entire point is to communicate you stance to others.

What you're doing here is not a coordinated effort.

And there's quite a few AAA titles that have suffered simply because the customer base actually can communicate.

Lol. Whut? I can point to no example like that and ample examples where these kinds of "boycots" did squat (like e.g. with the original Modern Warfare 2 not having a server browser).

That's why I said calling Marxism-Leninism "authoritarian Marxism" is silly, because the logic isn't coherent.

Of course it is coherent from an anarchist model of authority: It's a marxist ideology, based on the monopolisation of power in the party. Where is the logical incoherence? It's only "silly" once you apply a definition that's not part of the anarchist model. If you call that logically incoherent, you've got to point out how the anarchist model is internally inconsistent (i.e. not by relying on a marxist definition).

you've given no evidence of me being suddenly incapable of changing them

Lol. As if that's something I'd be able to prove. I've given ample examples of why I believe that is the case.

sbut the fact is that it's the most successful form thus far.

Your whole point rests on this (debatable) point. But it still doesn't really connect o the point I made.

which is just generally silly and a misanalysis of authority that goes against Marxist analysis of authority in general.

"Your analysis doesn't adhere to my model of analysis, which is why it's silly" is such a tankie take. And it doesn't help you case that you're supposedly (still) able to change your view. If you only accept other models of analysis based on how well they fit into your already held beliefs and not on how much their logic is coherent, you'll never evolve your worldview beyond your already held beliefs.

I didn't say "join a gameworker's union". Joining a union is a good idea, no matter where you are and what you work as.

Not consuming a product is simply that: inaction. And the publisher won't even notice it, if it's not connected to a publicity campaign (like e.g. BDS)

The "bullshit" part was a personal judgement and not vital to the point I was making. The "class of bureaucrats" bit wasn't refuted by you (except some form of "nuh-uh" right now) and also not really the point (it was rather a description of how I see the results of vanguardism). The main point was that Marxism doesn't require Vanguardism, expanded with personal evaluation because I have emotional stakes in the matter and I am not an automaton. Answering "vanguards were actually good, tho" to that point was the non-sequitur bit.

So you're just easily distractable if a personal evaluation is sprinkled in. That's not really worthy to be condemned, but doesn't exactly help a discussion.

I framed it in a practical manner, the fact that vanguards have succeeded in their goals is evidence that they work.

I still stand with the statement that the argument is moralistic, but I disagree to disagree. It was still a non-sequitur, though. Youdidn't address that part.

Traditional media see video games usually still as some waste of time for kids and have a strong pro-employer bias.

🙄

Edit: You asked how to help and I answered. Were did I state that it's a moral imperative to help if you're unable to?

Vanguardism proving its practicality by being tested in real life and verified by existing practice is a practical argument.

Even if that was the case: it still didn't connect with the statement I made. And you formulated it in a moralistic manner.

My views are more stable and consistent now, because of all of the buildup to forming them today.

Maybe. I don't know you. I only know your comments on lemmy. And those point me to the conclusion that you don't want to challenge your beliefs. You can claim otherwise till the cows go home. That's the conclusions my observations point to.

Again, I'll reiterate, I'm just more disappointed that it seemed you never even gave me a chance

I've given you ample. But the you post non-sequiturs about how great vanguardism is when I told you that Marxism doesn't require vanguardism. That's not something a thorough sceptic would do.

• Support the Rockstar workers fighting the unfair dismissals.
• Join a union yourself.
• Help ending capitalism by starting to organize in your neighborhood/social circle.

Morality has little to do with my argument.

"Vanguardism did good" is a moralistic argument that didn't connect to the statement. It's as simple as that.

we can have a better convo in the future

As I've explained a bunch of times already: I don't think you're ideologically flexible enough for that to be the case.