Translating "on professional streamers, skilled gaming and ‘winners’ "

My successors might ask me why I randomly shit-talked mister "robert what" (that's how he spells it). That's because I read this article. I'll link it, and below I'll write it in a way that doesn't require too much dictionary abuse. I'll also be making fun of it, of course. 

rnd/ to consider identifying what exactly feels irksome about this allegedly pure, true (e)sports-man moment of videogame skill aka ‘winning’ – specifically, the moment when virtual projectile meets idiot skull.

RND? Probably means Read Nothing Derivative. (As in, don't read anything below this!) Truthfully, I don't know. There's no glossary.

"Let's figure out what is dislikable about the pure sportsmanlike moment of winning, specifically the First-Person Shooter mechanic of headshots."

in which there still exists a strong cultural assumption about videogames secretly ‘being fun’ – where ideologically this means ‘playing to win’, and nothing else. no win = no fun. the capitalist creed writ large in garish pixels – if you can’t stand the heat, junior, simply (in the immortal memetic mantra of the alt right gaming internet) ‘gitgud’. this game’s only for the big white fuckbois.

There still exists a strong assumption that video games are fun. Having fun, of course, really means playing to win, with the fun part being when you win. This is basically capitalism, and the only advice to losers is of course (as those alt-right boys say) "gitgud"[sic].  After all, only "big white fuckbois" are allowed to play capitalism. 

Commentary:

Weird assumption 1. Fun must mean winning. Ever played Dwarf Fortress?

Very interesting logic on display. Video games are fun > Only way to have fun is to win > Basically capitalism > (Implicit marxism: Capitalism is bad and unfair so you probably won't win) > Can't succeed? Git gud. > (Something about systemic, uh cultural racism) > Therefore, big white fuckbois privilege.

check out how famous loltube corporate-videogame streamer dr. ‘5g covid ban’ disrespect harks on about ‘chubby cheeked little gamers’, which ‘desperately’ try to peak into his private-made-public world of “violence, speed, momentum” and (therefore) get throughly headshotted – utterly disrespected. “get him outta here!” shouts doc to his congregation after each fresh kill. (apparently being headshotted by someone with ultimate videogaming skillz is what maximum fun™ is all about – which is also pretty cyberpunk, if you think about it.)

Check out Dr.Disrespect chatting about "chubby cheeked little gamers", "desperately" trying to peek into his televised world of "violence, speed, momentum", to thus become headshotted, and "utterly disrespected". Shouting "get him outta here!", to his adoring fans of the combined age of probably like 69 idunno, and uh hold on. Being headshotted by something with super video game powerz is apparently what fun is about.

Commentary:

Weird assumption 2:Remember when we said videogames' fun is winning? It's now about being headshotted by someone with ultimate videogaming skillz. We may need to clarify the definition of winning.

for those in the global state of mind of the united states of void, ‘winning’ directly maps onto ‘freedom’. aggressive self interest – in which videogame terms means ‘l33t skillz’ – directly ties into ‘liberty’. one is free, precisely because one has ‘won’ over others (who apparently did not deserve their freedom and squandered it away on being ‘n00bz’, or ‘scrubs’.) in battle royale games, only the winners get to ride away with the winnings, the lion’s share, get to bone the rose bowl queen and have oversized statues erected in their name.

In the United States, winning is basically freedom. Winning, of course, can be equated with aggressive self-interest, itself tying into liberty. Therefore, you only win because you win over others, who didn't deserve it because noobs. As an example, As an example, in Battle Royale games, only the winners get to win, and also get the lions' share, enjoy sexual intercourse with the lord of the rose container, and get free v-bucks. Dream will slap you on the bum, and call you a real gamer. -- Hold up, this isn't my Dream journal.

Commentary: 

Weird assumption 3: Winning = Freedom. Freedom = Self Interest. Winning = Self Interest. Therefore: Winning = Depriving the freedom of others. If we're talking about video games, Winning Video Game = Depriving the rights of others to play the video game. 

apparently they’ve earned their all amerikan freedom by dominating others less worthy of a nice chopper ride into the artificial sunset (just like character dutch in the classic un-rewound vhs b-movie flick predator.) to be a winner is to be a fighter, the all powerful alpha male (myth) – to be perfectly skilled in the deadly art of ‘pwnage’. better call in that airstrike little johnny, otherwise pluto-kleptocratic ‘capitalist democracy’ will die – cooperation is for filthy marxist casuals trying to take our apolitically loaded games away!

Apparently, all people who are Americans (and free) have earned it by dominating others "less worthy"[sic]. To be a winner is to be a fighter, an alpha male, to be skilled at pwning others. Little Johnny should call in the airstrike, as otherwise capitalism will die. Cooperation is for marxists attempting to take away apolitical games. More seriously: You must have the spirit of this, uh, winner self interest, because the system needs that to survive.

Commentary:

Weird assumption 4: You know, dominating others is an action. Those have to be done consciously, right? I personally haven't the time! 

Have you ever heard of the Aesop of the tail-less fox? He demanded a world of fraternity and brotherhood, for foxes without tails. Curiously, he lacked a tail. Perhaps he wasn't without self-interest.

Have you ever heard of the Aesop of the chronically failing man? He was disgusted by competition, even in the symbolic. I forgot where I was going with this.

yet, even if you’re actually there in the arena of death to do nothing but compete, to state (as your fetish demands) “there can be only fun” (that’s an oblique highlander movie reference for nutless peach fuzz born after 1986) there’s something about the moment of winning itself which seems absurd, even deliberately so.

some pull off ‘flawless victory’ headshots after headshots, their aim all but perfect. yet hidden in this painful consistency, this spartan attention to total flick-shot domination seems a kind of pathetic sadness. they say it’s lonely at the top – but that may be just because you might represent the the stale cherry on top of the whole mirthless esports dung cake, johnny san.

Even if you go into a competitive game to compete, there is something about winning which is absurd. Playing perfectly is sad, because being at the top of the esports hierarchy, and not having any practical skills is no achievement.

Commentary:

Generally speaking, I really don't get the conspiring together of video game competition with ruthless capitalist domination not nice wet dreams, but that is itself a good point.

it’s not even really a matter of smugness. sure, there appear many smug assholes in the world of sports – highly punchable faces, confident dunces with perfect corporate advertising friendly smiles, hollow skulls dying to be filled with the latest in demographic marketing opportunities. it’s more about

Introducing smugness, I will now point out it isn't a matter of snugness. Rather, it's about

This may be continued, but I need more masculine vigor to take on the rest. Can't quite find it right now.