安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Just like me. (Kill me)
I mean, if someone stabs you in the arm with a fork and appears not to notice a problem with that, it’s okay to explain that that’s a painful and damaging action; you don’t have to take stock of the fact that they volunteer at a shelter. If you review a game and discuss what you feel are its shortcomings, you don’t also have to find room to discuss all the good bits of all the other games that developer has made. This is not some active disregard of those things - they are simply not what’s being discussed in the first place.
Note that this is separate to discussions of, say, extenuating circumstances: maybe the stabby person is blind, or panicking, or has motor control issues; maybe the game developer was rushed by their publisher. Criticism of an action is also not condemnation or final judgement of a person. You may forgive them, you may understand the cause or impulse, but those things do not alter the fact that stabbing is nonetheless an action that causes pain and damage and should be avoided where possible.
It should not be a separate discussion. An action without context is meaningless, and a formalistic approach that isolates and dissects an action without taking context into accout is, at best, misguided and unhelpful.
There was context:The topic provides context, and the existing discussion provides context. When I criticised your actions as having negative effects, I was not condemning you as a person, so there was no need to bring up other good things you do. You clearly understand this: you’re here arguing about the way I’m discussing things, without feeling the need to tack on “but maybe other things you’ve said at other times are more sensible” or some such discussion of other good I may have done in my life. It’s okay for discussion to be about something specific.
You talk about “taking things into account”, but this presumes the accounting being done was about you, rather than about the effects of making particular choices. It’s like if I asked someone to take their muddy shoes off the lounge because they’re making it dirty, and they insisted I “take into account” the fact that they washed their bedsheets this morning. Great, that’s lovely, it’s nice that they know how to clean other things and do so, but it changes literally nothing about the accounting of “muddy shoes make the lounge dirty”. Looking at things in context doesn’t mean “steadily expand the domain of discussion until we hit something that paints me in a better light”; it’s about having information that would alter the conclusion if not known. So if I’m discussing this person’s overall cleanliness, those bedsheets are providing context, but if I’m discussing the problem with putting muddy feet on the furniture, they’re not context, they’re cover: a distraction, a deflection.