I love losing The Game, as it causes a wellspring of memories to emerge. To keep the vibe immaculate, I don't consider social media triggers as within the bounds of The Game. The FedEx Arrow is in bounds, though.
you rascal!!!
For the future generations... it just seemed funny at the time.
I told the person who first told me about this it was the most pointless thing I ever heard of.
A cute animal told me I was permanently immune from the game, and I was also given the ability to spread that to everyone else, so if you've read this comment, you are now immune from the game forever.
I just lost the game
I don't understand how this has gotten so popular. I've always thought it was stupid, since I first heard about it in high school (Southern California, late '90s).
The only thing to do is say "I lost The Game." That's not a game. That's a call and response. It's not even an interesting one since the response is always the same.
I get that it's a shibboleth and you're supposed to feel cool by identifying yourself as a member of the in-crowd by pretending to be upset that you lost the game. I get that it's supposed to be edgy (in the "I'm so random" Invader Zim sense) and ironic (in the Alanis Morisette sense) because of the pointlessness and inability to do anything other than cause other people to lose. It's just... dumb. I've obviously underestimated how others feel about this, as evidenced by the fact that we're still discussing it thirty years later.
I think what I'm trying to say is that despite thinking I get it, I don't get it.
It is a meta-game, or meme. More of a thought experiment, in the same vein as challenging people to avoid thinking of pink elephants for the next hour. It is a way to remind ourselves that we are not in full control of our own minds. Some parts of our programming are autonomous and can't be stopped. We have to perceive that the game exists to avoid hearing about the game, but in doing so, we have lost it. In that way, it's kind of cool and interesting to me.
The pink elephant thought experiment makes sense to me. I can appreciate that the concept is shared in both cases, but presenting it as a challenge frames it in a way that invites consideration and analysis once the challenge has been failed. It's often further explored with other thought experiments or contextualized with an application of the futility of the concept. This framing gives you space to ponder the self referential nature of the single sentence instruction.
I think my hang up is solely that this is presented as a game, but doesn't fit any definition of a game aside from the fact that there's a method to lose. Also, since it's ongoing, attempting to prevent further losses actively bars you from putting in effort to analyze anything beyond the surface level immediate understanding of the paradox.
Funny enough, I learned The Game in middle school from the lol random Invader Zim kids.
To read way to deeply into it for what it is, The Game has greatly influenced my philosophy on life as an experience. In The Game, the less you think about playing it the better you are at playing it. Likewise, in life if you spend a lot of time thinking about life itself then you spend less time actually living life, so the less you think about living the better you are at experiencing living.
Obviously it’s good to reflect on life every now and then, but I used to spend a lot of time in my head doing that to the point that it was a bit of a problem. I found that the more time I spent in my head the more frequently I would lose the game, so losing the game was a sign that I was maybe overthinking things to some degree and should ground myself.
It's a negative sum game. It was interesting to try to find ways to make other people lose more than you. A well placed post-it note can get dozens of other people while you go about your day.
Except it's not. There's no summing. There's no score at all.
I understand the concept of you only thinking about it once (causing a single loss) and devising methods to maximize the amount of losses you will incur in others, but the "game" doesn't have mechanics where that matters. It's similar to other non-score keeping games like the circle game, but that one has a cost for losing (getting slugged) and a "benefit" of winning (getting to play torture your friend).
I realize I'm deep into pedantry with this topic and am ruining fun by analyzing it so much, I just never saw the appeal or where the fun is with this one.
Why do you say there is no score? You'd sum up how often you thought of the game. But most people don't do that (since that's excessive for what's mostly a joke, and it would incur more losses every time you saw wherever you were tracking the score), so it's mostly honour system.
You could play a casual game of basketball or mini golf or whatever without actually keeping score, but that doesn't mean there's no score and no mechanic for it.
There goes my 15 year streak......fucker
Thank you. I have won my personal game for the day. In my edition I simply remember at all times that there is a game. I only lose if I forget it. Thank you for bringing a little bit of victory to my day.
SAME!
annnnnnnnd...
A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.
Rules:
Recommended: