Ex 1:
If
the game is forced on the individuals required to "play" it... Such as war or an area in conflict etc. Using tactics to win or survive may not always be fair or morally right. In this instance, hating the player is
useless and the quotes logic seems to ring true. This also covers situations where the rules say you can do certain things, the rules are followed and the other players just
don't like that you are able or competent at taking advantage of and succeeding at
the game.
However...
Ex 2:
If
the game is not forced, there is no situation requiring life threatening survival choices or there was not agreement to start a
game with certain parameters .. This saying is used to absolve someone of the act of wrong doing to another by convincing either or both the perpetrator and victim that there was no other choice. Fairness, rules , laws and social norms seem to get lumped into this version of the definition and it's implied that the victim is wrong for holding the perpetrator responsible for their actions. More specifically, calling life a game and using this quote to avoid responsibility for being unfair, deceitful or
cheating on purpose and existing outside laws, rules and social norms.
Don't hate the player, hate
the game.
Ex 1:
We were at war, I did what I had to do.
Don't hate me, hate that our country had to go to war.
Ex 2:
We work in an office with no cameras and loose rules on handling theft. Don't hold me responsible for stealing your things, hate the office for letting me get away with it.
