You're viewing a single thread.
Oddly enough for g*mer wisdom, this one is not even wrong:
I hold that it is bad as far as we are concerned if a person, a political party, an army or a school is not attacked by the enemy, for in that case it would definitely mean that we have sunk to the level of the enemy. It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in our work.
Mao Zedong, 1939
The problem is g*mers usually mean this in contexts like when their peers hate them because they are assholes.
Yes, but it also have absolutely literal sense in which it is again correct for most shooter, slasher and rpg games, if there are enemies you weren't there yet, which is important because the lack of assets usually means everywhere in game looks the same.
One of my favourite Maos. It gives you that a good thermometer for how effective an anti-capitalist movement is. Just check how much capitalist feathers are being ruffled.