tak13 said:
That sounds like... Oh you nintendo fans stop victimizing Nintendo and calling anyone who is critical towards it, a hater! You should have written it like this: Everyone who is critical of a company is a hater e.t.c. Since hypersensitive fans of all companies (not just the nintendo ones) can label a person who is critical against their favorite company, as a hater! I don't think that at least here the writer does that... When someone hardly ever says/recognizes a positive thing about something or constantly spins something positive into a negative thing or even fabricating a negative thing or in an irrelavant topic says something negative about it... Can he be considered a critic? Critical and hater keep up in some cases... Wherefore, how someone expressing its hatred? By being critical of course! How else? However, the criticism by a hater is spiteful, subjective, unjust, misguided, obsessive, repeatitive, ignorant, virulent and biased in contrast with the pure/unfeigned criticism... |
Here's the thing though; the fanbase belonging to the console that is doing the worst are usually more defensive, as with fans of football teams who aren't doing great, fans of actors who keep flopping or getting poor roles, fans of artists who sell less music than they think they desverve etc. It's a natural part of fandom, so in this particular case; we are not all equally dosing out the labels and calling people haters.
I myself am a perfect example; in the UNITY thread I wrote long posts that were critical of Nintendo, the vast majority of users never answered the arguments but simply called me a hater. I explained my viewpoints several times but the label persisted, despite the fact that I made some really good and also obvious points. When faced with true statements that are hard to bear or do not fit with the image you have of someone or something, it's the cheapest and easiest way to try to invalidate these statements by trying to invalidate the person(s) who make them and I think that's exactly what's happening with the OP.
I see the same thing in politics here in Sweden, which has a horribly polarized debate climate. Person A makes claim which is rooted in values that person B does not approve of but makes a fair and perhaps even important point; person B states that person A's views and values are atrocious and should not be listened to. Right there is where the debate turns into debaccle; instead of countering arguments with arguments, some choose to simply label the opposition as untrustworthy, harboring some agenda or quite simply as hateful and ignorant.
A couple of months back here, if you said that we should have border controls, you would be labelled a racist and a hater; now that the social democratic government have changed their minds on this subject due to an insane number or immigrants and refugees and asylum seekers, the label disappears because the right (or rather; left) people have decided that it's necessary.
So, the point was clearly valid the whole time, but was not deemed acceptable until the opposition agreed, so the hater (or racist) label was still applied in the beginning, they simply move this label around and adjust the parameters for hate (or racism) and carry on.
It's much the same with Nintendo, I was one of those who was very skeptical even before the Wii U released and I made some compelling arguments for why it would go south, I was labelled a hater and people said that I was just upset that the Wii had sold the most in the 7th generation.
I was also probably the first user to suggested that it was likely we would see a Wii U replacement as early as in 2016, and was once again labelled a mere hater, ignorant, hidden agendas etc.
What happened? Well, we all know that, people came around to the same conclusions in time.
Did that change my status as a "hater" though? Mostly not, now it's simply; "even a broken clock is right two times a day").
Calling people haters is counterproductive is the vast majority of cases because it stiffles discussion and leads to less nuanced debate, regardless of whether or not someone is actually "hating". Answer arguments with arguments and see the community flourish for it; the OP has so far only implied that Pachter is a hater because he's been negative about Nintendo, which is rather ridiculous seeing as how almost everything they've done this generation has had negative impact on them and their economical state and their fans and Pachter is an adviser and consult to investors who regard these things as very important, as they should.
The "hater" label is worthless and a most basic technique to apply when you have no proper arguments.
