I still hate the word "entitled"

 Ya know, 5 years ago, I wrote an article called "I hate the word entitled", and it mostly focused the fact that most of the time I see conservative types calling people entitled, it's often a form of gaslighting to tell you to shut up and accept the system as it is. Like, being anti work, and being on the left economically, I get called entitled a lot. I mean, I dare say I should be able to exist on this planet for free? That we should strive to work less and get paid better? You bet your butt I do. Guilty as charged, and don't see it as a bad thing. But I get called "entitled" for it. And entitled normally comes down to these guys defending systems that are crappy toward people.

But, in more recent times, i find myself using it more and more. I call the democrats entitled when they demand my vote. I called gamers entitled for complaining about paid customization in free to play games. So why do I sometimes use it?

Well, it comes down to this. I at least try to look at how different systems work, and I try to come up with the best way to do things. With voting I strongly believe that my vote is my voice and I am free to express it as pleased. In a democracy, politicians are supposed to be responsible to the voters, because otherwise we fall into autocracy. But, democrats often demand I support them, no matter what, even if they flat out alienate me. I see this as entitled because I see it as an illegitimate demand against a valid system that is in place for a good reason, and that running the system any differently would lead to worse circumstances. If the democrats were not entitled, then voters would be responsible for their party's success or failure, rather than those parties being responsible for their own. And that sets a dangerous precedent for the health of democracy.

And with gaming, I literally wrote a huge post about the history of game monetization, and how we went from paid games, to paid games with DLC, and subscription models, and free to pay but pay to win games, all discussing the problems with each of those systems. Paid games I have little problem with. I mean you put out a game and charge with it. Fine. You then put out half a game and nickel and dime me for the other half and ruin my game experience if i dont buy it, I have greater problems with that. You put out a free game and nickel and dime me with pay to win scams, and it's gonna alienate me. You demand i pay a $15 subscription monthly and ill laugh in your face and never touch your game. I have very well defined ethics of paying for games. I will pay for a product, but I want the whole thing, up front, and i dont want to be nickel and dimed. The only other acceptable model to me is free to play games that aren't pay to win. But, I understand that devs need to make money somehow so if they want to replace DLC with customization or dare I say, release a game for FREE, but then charge for different skins and the like, who am I to care? I mean, that stuff doesn't impact the game experience. You arent locking people out of maps. Or weapons. Youre giving them the complete experience, with no scams, you're just charging for colors and stuff. Unless that stuff amounts to an in game advantage, I literally couldn't care less.

That said, when I see people screaming and acting outraged over them charging for skins in a free to play game, that's high quality and has the game play of what would otherwise be a $60 AAA title (because it IS essentially a $60 AAA title), then I'm not gonna complain. And i understand that in order to make this business model possible, the monetization has to come from skins. And if you dont like it, well, don't buy it. But save this outrage. How are developers supposed to make money? I do believe developers are there to make money. That's capitalism. They put out a product to make money. The real question is how they make money. And if they can come up with a model that makes the core game experience completely free, but stuff like skins for characters and guns paid, why do I care? It literally doesnt affect anyone playing. It's totally optional. 

That said I call people entitled if they get outraged over that.

I mean, honestly, I look at it like this. If the models for the world werent this specific way, then the world would be worse. That isnt to say we cant debate the nuances of those models. Maybe halo does overcharge for skins. But when people seem to be screaming over something of no consequence, or demanding people do something they shouldnt have to do, well, i kind of have an issue with that.

Why is that any different than say, a labor issue? Well, here's the thing. We've discussed this before, me being an indepentarian and all, but people are forced to work to LIVE. And this subjects them to exploitative business practices that they cant say NO to. And if we cant full on liberate people, like I would like to with UBI, we should at minimum do the social democratic thing and try to make workers as comfortable as possible. After all this system exists for the benefit of all of humanity, not just a few. By advocating for strong labor oriented policies that benefit workers, Im advocating for what i consider an objectively better world. A world where more people are happy and healthy and fulfilled. I try to reduce the exploitation as much as possible. Ideally I'd like to liberate people from being forced to work at all. 

Honestly, it's like this, I think everyone can reach a point where if enough positive change occurs, they can become a conservative. it's not that their core values change. It's the fact that the circumstances change to fit their values. If you move society sufficiently left where we had a UBI and universal healthcare, and social democratic labor policies giving people living wages and mandatory vacation time and blah blah blah, I might become a "conservative" in the sense that I wouldn't want to change things. Because I would see the system as working, and I would see the complaints demanding more radical change, or in some cases a return to good old days that were never that good, as kind of illegitimate. Like thinking them though, I would just stop seeing a problem with things. So I would then become conservative in that I would defend that system. Even full on socialists would suddenly become conservative if they achieved "true socialism." It's how people work. You want change, but assuming your change has a set end goal that you accomplish and you aren't being driven by pure outrage (a common trait of a legitimately entitled person IMO), then you might not want much more change beyond that. So you might see people who want more change as entitled. 

It's the same with gaming. As I see it, if we get to the point AAA developers are replacing charging $60 for a HIGH QUALITY game, with releasing it for free, with the catch that there are completely voluntary cosmetic microtransactions to fund this, am I going to have an issue with that? HELL NO! Because to me, it's a complete reversal of previous trends toward increased nickel and diming in ways that mattered. My previous complaints about monetization revolved around two things. First of all they revolved around charging people for access to the game, or content for the game. I disliked the idea of being charged for access to additional maps via DLC. Or being charged a subscription to access a game i previusly paid for. The other issue I had was in game advantages. For example, having to pay to use a certain weapon, with that weapon being potentially overpowered. I like the idea that once you buy a game, the maps should be free, the guns should be free, the only additional acceptable content would be purely cosmetic and in no way impacts the game experience. That's the deal I think is fair. But if you're just gonna make the game FREE, and the maps free, and the entire shebang, FREE, with the monetization being limited to completely voluntary cosmetics, I dont have a problem. And that's exactly what Halo infinite did, and the community is...angry....for some reason.

I don't get it. Quite frankly, i think people are stupid. And maybe they are, in rare instances like that, entitled. I mean, devs gotta make money somehow. Isnt it better to provide a free experience with no in game advantages, and have monetization limited to what color your spartan is? That seems fair to me. 

So, yeah, i guess, if you somehow still demand what are considered unreasonable changes that dont fit into my theory of justice, after all of the conditions that are based around my theory of justice are met, then you can, in rare instances, be entitled. But for the most part, my views otherwise remain unchanged on the matter. Dont stop trying to make the world better. Just make sure you're actually, you know, making the world better and not either tilting at windmills and demanding something literally impossible, or being a reactionary jerk and demanding that we go back to some past that was never that great in the first place (sorry zoomers, but the era of paid DLC was crap and I will never wax nostalgically for it). I guess that's what I really have an issue with. When I call a lot of leftists entitled, it's often because I find them demanding something that's not even possible. Like $3000 UBI on top of welfare. A nice thought but good luck running the math on that one. And when I call a lot of others entitled, it's because they're screaming at what i consider the best of all possible worlds and wanting to go back to something worse or something. 

If you're legitimately making the world better, I'll never call you entitled, and I'll defend you from people calling you that. I still hate the word in those contexts. I just understand that after a certain point people do end up becoming entitled when they bite off more than can be reasonably chewed.