[cenophor]

They are wannabes because it makes the author of the parent comment feels better.

Anyone who isn't objectively the best at something is probably automatically a wannabe. So at the end of the day it's just a wannabe calling everyone else wannabe. Don't waste time on understanding people like that.

[pbhjpbhj]

I don't think that's a reasonable analysis. Wannabes want to achieve notoriety but aren't prepared to, or can't, do what it takes to get there. A subjective analysis clearly shows they're not going to "make it" - and if they did some introspection they would realise it too. That's a wannabe, and the World does seem to be chock-full of wannabes.

Some people just want to make great games, don't care about getting famous, etc.; they're not wannabes.

Some people want to do a job, get paid; they're not wannabes.

Some want to be famous and rich, and have the chops to go with it; they're not wannabes.

@Karsteki, I don't think it's intended as an insult, it's more "being realistic, most people making games won't succeed because 'everyone' wants to succeed and most don't really have what it takes".

[cenophor]

The moment you said "subjective analysis" already invalidated the rest of your argument and supported what I said -- you are just saying it's okay to use you a set standards that are not universally accepted to judge others. It's probably not your intention to come across that way, but it is exactly this type of thinking that brews toxicity.

The OP of that "wannabe" comment could have finished the sentence without saying anything about wannabes and still get the same point across. So why bother calling everyone else who can't get their games paid wannabes?

Do we have any evidence that these wannabes are not "some people just want to make great games, don't care about getting famous"? What's wrong with wanting to become famous as a goal in the first place? Who decides who has the chops and who doesn't?

You simply can't unless you are objectively the best at something. The complexity in deciding what is objectively the best makes such efforts futile, and therefore everyone who thinks it's okay to call others wannabes is just conveniently glossing over the fact that they are also wannabes by someone else's standard.

[ehnto]

That's a mentality that broods on the internet and it's so counter-productive, you see it in all kinds of groups. Your car only producing 400hp not 1000hp? Lame. Not deadlifting 300kg? Not good enough. Not making 6 figures? Why even work!

I think it's because what tends to get 'promoted' on the internet is exceptional situations, I think people can get caught up in the thought that exceptionalism is all that's good enough. Spend enough time in real communities though and you realise that the world is full of people having a blast just doing their best, and that there are a million different ways to enjoy and be successful at different hobbies/careers.

[simonjgreen]

It's called elitism, and by far one of the most toxic elements of the tech community imho

[ethbr0]

Elitism is a problem, but so is egalitarianism.

Just because we all tried, doesn't mean we should all be rewarded and congratulated for trying. Results matter.

So, balance somewhere between the two is best.