Always the first thing I turn off, but surely there are some people out there that actually like it. If you’re one of those people is there a particular reason?

  • papalonian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    30
    ·
    1 day ago

    Because I like it. There shouldn’t need to be much more “reason” than that.

    People that can’t leave others alone for having different preferences than you, why?

    • ElPussyKangaroo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Motion blur in video games doesn’t really work for many people. For example, it induces nausea for me. For others, it makes it difficult to identify and analyze a scene properly.

      The OP’s question asks you why you leave it on. Your answer could very well have ended at “Because I like it”, but you chose to read it in bad faith and proceeded to make it about preference bashing, which it’s clearly not.

    • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      24 hours ago

      Perhaps the phrasing is wrong, but you could give op benefit of the doubt and think about what you like about it since it’s the de facto standard. For example, you could say “it makes me feel like I’m actually going faster, but also I just like it and your question is dumb”. Informative and mean at the same time!

      If a gay man asked you “what do you find attractive about women” or the N other combos of that question would you helpfully say “get lost weirdo, I like what I like and there is no point in discussing it”?

      Note while you’re shitting on op, op at no point said your opinion is wrong just that they wished to understand. You’re the bad guy here, with unnecessary hostility in response to a question.

      • papalonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        22 hours ago

        I’m fairness, I also never explicitly said anything that op said was wrong. Or anything explictly about op at all for that matter.

        Any hostility you can infer from my comment can be equally be inferred from OP’s title.

    • CiderApplenTea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      23 hours ago

      So let’s just stop talking to each other all together, surely there’s no point in gaining other perspectives

      • papalonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        13
        ·
        23 hours ago

        That’s exactly what my comment said! Good job 👍🏽

        OP’s title, and similarly phrased ones for other commonly disliked settings, aren’t actually looking for dialogue… they’re just “hey guys, light mode, amirite?” jokes phrased as questions

          • papalonian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            22 hours ago

            The same reason mine can’t; because I didn’t care to phrase it as such. If I were actually interested in starting a dialogue, I wouldn’t have phrased the last line of my parent comment the way I did. I would have asked the question in a neutral or positive tone to show the reader that I’m not attacking their position, explicitly or implicitly.

            “People that XYZ, why?”

            This phrasing is automatically othering anyone that would be able to respond. Without any other context, it can easily be interpreted with more hostility, especially online.

            “What are the benefits of using motion blur?”

            This phrasing puts no implicit judgment on the person, and instead seeks to find positive attributes of the subject in question. Any bias that can be inferred is positive.

            While I concede that op certainly could have asked the question in genuine earnest, my time on the Internet has taught me that the likelihood of that is far less likely than that of op asking a sarcastic question.

            • Shapillon@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              19 hours ago

              It’s something that I really dislike on the internet.

              We lose a lot of cues because writing and empathy due to not being in same physical space. In the end we tend to assume the worst about each other and react much more agressively.

              Imho it’s kinda similar to how road rage or videogame flaming work.

              quick edit: I agree that OP’s question could be loaded otoh not that we assume it is with such a limited context.

    • FelixMortane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      Best and most correct answer here … and this comes from a guy that hates motion blur and lens flare

      • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        21 hours ago

        The best and most correct answer is “let’s just sit in silence and not discuss why we like or dislike things”?

        Are you from the Midwest? That’s a super duper Ohio answer right there.

          • frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            22 hours ago

            My general life experience since leaving the east coast is that westerners would rather talk about hiking and farmers markets than anything that is actually real and Midwestern folks would rather avoid conflict at all costs to the point of being somehow more passive aggressive than people from Seattle. Ohio, specifically places like Cincinnati, is the poster child for the Midwest.