If that's what the other guy was referencing, then it's a misleading characterization of the situation. The original comment was:
>Meanwhile, Chinese and Korean kids widely DEMAND pay to win, and see people who complain about Pay2Win as "Losers in life", because, to them, it's just two valid paths, and if someone pays to win at a game, then it's just a mark of status. Btw, did you also know that parents in central china have protested over the right to cheat?
The article says:
>In response, angry parents and students championed their right to cheat. Not cheating, they said, would put them at a disadvantage in a country where student cheating has become standard practice. “We want fairness. There is no fairness if you do not let us cheat,” they chanted.
The comment is claiming cheating is "a mark of status" and "just two valid paths", whereas in the qz article parents wanted to cheat because not cheating would put them at a disadvantage. Those aren't really comparable, because in the latter case they're presumably not supporting cheating in and of itself, only because they don't want to be put at a disadvantage. A parallel would be how in the US, democrats are against voter ID laws, because it would disadvantage minority voters. They don't (presumably) want election fraud (although republicans do think so), they just don't want a regime where their side is disadvantaged.
Ok, I was just providing a link for you. If you wanted to discuss whether cheating is good in this specific scenario, you should have put that as your comment to the parent.
And if you read my last comment more carefully, I wasn't faulting you, only the original characterization.
>If you wanted to discuss whether cheating is good in this specific scenario, you should have put that as your comment to the parent.
I think it's fair game to call the claim misleading, even if the parents are technically protesting for the right to cheat, for the reasons outlined in my previous comment. Again, going back to the example of democrats being against voter ID law, it would be misleading to characterize that as "democrats protesting for the right to commit vote fraud", even though they're technically supporting making election fraud easier.
Source?