http://www.patreon.com/jimquisitionhttps://bsky.app/profile/commandersterling.bsky.socialhttp://www.thejimporium.comOver time, the word "addictive" has been ...
I don’t think there’s any one cause for this bs making off unless you just wanna say capitalism, but my god when I got my first smartphone and every app had “addictive!” as the positive rating I knew I was already in my way to becoming a buzz kill baba, and rightly so.
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.
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.”
Yes, it all boils down to “I don’t care what harm may come. I want my treats!”
Also, anyone “pedantically” arguing it needs a biological mechanism is just flatly wrong, no pedantry involved to call them such. Of all the fucking things in psychology to suddenly insist on a biological mechanism, addiction, a highly profitable affliction to deliberately cause,… Well it makes sense why they suddenly demand a specific type of mechanism to dismiss the obvious and well explored ones
Stef rules on this issue
I don’t think there’s any one cause for this bs making off unless you just wanna say capitalism, but my god when I got my first smartphone and every app had “addictive!” as the positive rating I knew I was already in my way to becoming a buzz kill baba, and rightly so.
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.
It’s not low key ableist, it’s plainly ableist. Literally blaming a sick person for their disease.
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.”
Yes, it all boils down to “I don’t care what harm may come. I want my treats!”
Also, anyone “pedantically” arguing it needs a biological mechanism is just flatly wrong, no pedantry involved to call them such. Of all the fucking things in psychology to suddenly insist on a biological mechanism, addiction, a highly profitable affliction to deliberately cause,… Well it makes sense why they suddenly demand a specific type of mechanism to dismiss the obvious and well explored ones
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?”