Devin Faraci - Guy who called us terrorists

[Something Amyss]

using that argument you could tie every single discussion even remotly in that area back to her since it was the shirtstorm surrounding her that started the whole thing. But the idea was to drop her since this isn`t about her anymore.

Except this isn't remote. I mean, she was named as a focus of the very thing you're complaining about. That's like saying "I want to talk about yogurt, but shame on you for bringing up dairy products."

You have zero clue what i do besides the few posts here on this website so don´t go around and tell me who i condemn or not, thats just pretentious

I don't know what you do besides what you post on this website. But then, I only addressed what you were doing on this website. Nothing else is relevant, and a "you don't know me" argument doesn't change that. Yes, you could be completely different elsewhere. This could be some elaborate ruse. I really don't know, and I really don't care. I'm judging you based on the words you have written. You've condemned Faraci, you've gone after Quinn and you've made excuses for others who have gone after the folks in question. No pretense, just your own post history.

Maybe you should apply your own argument.

Simply repeating what I said doesn't work. Sorry.

The point i was trying to make that both versions are equally true and false.

No, they're not. Only one claim can be true here. If people got offended by "SJWs," then I am correct. People did get offended by SJWs. Using your logic that it's my burden to prove your claim false, it's your burden to prove my claim false, i.e. you need to prove to me that there was nobody offended. Since you can't monitor the entire internet, you can't prove that (and that was even your own argument).

More reasonably, we should both be obliged to prove our own claims. You can't prove yours, so you shifted the burden to me. That's the point I was making. To try and shift it to me is just silly and demonstrates you don't know how things like discussion or debate work.

Unless you can monitor the entire internet you simply can`t prove which side got offended first and which side attacked first.

Which is irrelevant, because nobody has to be offended "first" for my claim to be true. The only thing that makes my claim not true is if nobody actually got offended by "SJWs." I'd say it's pretty clear you're offended, which would be evidence in itself.

Sorry but for me that sounds like claiming victim bonus for "social justice warriors" because the term was created with mean intent...

Sure, whatever you say. If pointing out the actual meaning of a term as a pejorative is "claiming victim bonus," fine. Whatever that even means, because I don't know.

I´m a gamer, someone runs around throwing insults at gamers in general, it hits me. So what throwing around a single hash tag changes everything? If he is so considerate to use #notallgamers then why didn´t he just avoid generalizing them in the first place.

If the hashtag, or specific comments make exclusionary claims, then yes, it does change everything. If you say you're not talking about all gamers, you've literally changed the context of....Well, everything.

either this is a language thing or i don`t know why that word gets you that much, but i meant "funny" like "wierd" or "odd"

Yes, and it's "weird or odd" that she got brought up is "funny" because she's directly related here. I'm not sure why this is a difficult concept.

How the hell do i rationalize their behavior?

Do you really need a laundry list of excuses and rationalisations as to how Quinn/Sarkeesian isn't a real victim and whatnot?

You claim that you don`t feel associated to what you see as my definition of "us" yet you keep trying to prove something based solely around that definition.

No, I don't feel associated with your concept of gamer, which means that I am lumped in with people who make bomb threats or rape and death threats. The people Faraci was talking about, whether you personally like him or not, are people committing federal crimes and being complete jackasses. And you're self-identifying with them and using "gamer" as a blanket term to back it up. But seriously, those gamers can go fuck themselves. And honestly, while you claim you're against them, I've seen you lump yourself in to them far more than you've said anything against them.

Faraci is pissed off at people making bomb threats, and you're saying "why me?"

*You* shouldn't even be a factor. *You* are choosing to identify with these people, ones *you* claim to disapprove of.

And what I said was "if that's a gamer, I don't want to be a part of it." I'd ask what was so hard to understand, but you carefully constructed a narrative in which Faraci was calling you a terrorist (rather than comparing criminals to terrorists), leaving out tweets that provided context or ignoring the parts where he makes exclusions, so I'm pretty sure you're choosing to misconstrue me, too.

Maybe you are right that i might be a tad thin skinned in that regard i don´t know.
But if i feel offended by him using the term gamer then i am offended by it.
If you don`t feel like he meant you when he used the term gamer then nice for you.

I don't need to "feel" anything. I just need to look at his tweets. He's clearly not talking about every last gamer and I have done nothing wrong. Not only have I not made bomb threats to Sony or doxed feminists, I've not made bomb threats to or doxed anyone. I also totally don't plan to.

If you are thin skinned, maybe apply that to others, too. Faraci seems pretty pissed off right now, and his comments seem to have gotten hastier. But if you're upset, why can't he be? This was addressed on page one. Hell, my comment on the fact that being "thin skinned" only goes one way is a reason why you quoted me.

The fact is, when "feminists" and "SJWs" post around here, there are comments about "growing thicker skin" and "looking to be offended." We get entire threads coming up because of that. Insult and offense are often very one-way streets. The gaming community has issues with "feminists" (and they don't really care whether you're a feminist or not, hence the quotes), "political correctness" (a word a certain Inigo Montoya quote s best suited for), and "SJWs". When anything related to those comes up it's all STUF and stop being offended. When someone insults another group, though, it's all STFU! I'm offended!

None of the people who rage about political correctness are in here telling you to stop being offended by being compared to terrorists. Nobody's going around calling you a Social Justice Warrior because you don't like a group you're part of being slurred or mistreated. To use an example of your own posts, nobody was discrediting you because this isn't "how a real victim acts." No, you get off light, because it's different. Because ponies.

So i would say lets agree to disagree and call it a night.

I'm not going to agree to disagree with someone who has misrepresented the facts. There's a difference of opinions and then there's flat disingenuity. You can respond to me or not respond to me, and it doesn't make much difference either way. But agree to disagree? Not likely.

 

[GabeZhul]

@Velventian
But there is truth to what you say. There does need to be a new term, because the word "gamer" no longer means what it did before. Before, the word "gamer" specifically applied to these people, the ones who obsessed over them, the ones who played online FPS's and hurled abuse at "newbs" and "casuals", the ones who took it beyond a hobby. And this seems to be the type of "gamer" that all these articles being written and complained about are referencing. They are the ones who are dying, and furthermore, they deserve to die out, to be replaced by people who don't take it so damn seriously, who are more inclusive and accepting and respectful.

I don't think "gamer" ever meant that. Maybe the negative gamer sterotype was/is like that, but raging out against a stereotype like that is... well, just wrong.

And it also feels like backpedaling, like when you say that all black people should be thrown into jail, and when people call you out as a racist you say "Ah, but when I said 'black people', I only meant the stereotypical black gangster! Are you saying they don't deserve to be thrown into prison?". It just all sounds incredibly sleazy and dishonest to me, though I am certain it wasn't intentional on your part...

 

[Something Amyss]

(He uses the word gamers as a whole, not "A small subset of gamers". Therefore he means everyone who is a gamer)

That's no how language works. We cna use the label for the whole without describing everyone within.

then every game journalist from the Escapist to Gamasutra, to Gamespot are corrupt, nepotistic, corporate shills who are in bed with the developers.

See, then you shifted verbage. If you had said "game journalists are corrupt, nepotistic, corporate shills" you would have an equivalent claim. When you add "every," you're changing the meaning. The fact that you knew to add "every" to your claim indicates to me that you even know the difference.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

(He uses the word gamers as a whole, not "A small subset of gamers". Therefore he means everyone who is a gamer)

That's no how language works. We cna use the label for the whole without describing everyone within.

then every game journalist from the Escapist to Gamasutra, to Gamespot are corrupt, nepotistic, corporate shills who are in bed with the developers.

See, then you shifted verbage. If you had said "game journalists are corrupt, nepotistic, corporate shills" you would have an equivalent claim. When you add "every," you're changing the meaning. The fact that you knew to add "every" to your claim indicates to me that you even know the difference.

That's the thing about wordage. Gamer means person who plays games. And when you add the -s, you apply it as people who play games. So when someone says gamers, it's the same as every gamer unless there is an added differentiation. Every gamer is a misogynistic bigot. Gamers are misogynistic bigots. A small subset of gamers are misogynistic bigots. The first two are the same sentence, but the only difference is the wording. The third sentence points out the fact that there are groups inside the whole. I was using false dichotomy to show off the stupidity. I probably should have used different grouping (Maybe kept with the gamer sentences just earlier) but my point stands that when labeling a group bad as a whole, it tars the discussion. Bad wordage on my part.

If we were in an english language class, professors would argue that "Gamers" and "Every gamer" are the same. Having just taken English 28, which this topic was a major point, it was drilled into my head on the use of english language structure. It sucked majorly.

 

[Velventian]

/snip

Yeah sorry "does undermine your point" probably wasn´t the best way to go about it but i am glad that you understood what i wanted to say.

Of course feminazis don´t want to be labeled as such and try to refute the term. And it will be the same for those extremists in the gaming community if we ever figure out a word for them.

But it doesn`t matter if those people don´t like it, the internet has social rules just like real life. You play nice and others will play nice too. But those people don´t play nice so they get called out for what they are.
So hopefully soon people who abide the rules won´t have to suffer anymore because of those that break the rules and then try to hide in the crowd.

Why does it always have to be the actions of a few that divide so many -.-

 

[SentimentalGeek]

I never said gaming forums were some kind of crazy mra woman hating rapist/terrorist breeding ground. But that is an impressive strawman you have going there, way to prove how reasonable you're being.

What I said was, that people of the anti-SJW crowd specifically feel the need to go out of their way to make anti-SJW threads. You don't, for instance, see threads cropping up that say how much they love Anita and agree with everything she says and how she's the best thing to happen ever, but boy do you see threads saying how horrible of a person she is and how much she deserves to be hated. You don't see threads stating how much of a stand up guy Devin Faraci or Moviebob are, how they're the best thing ever and everyone should follow them on twitter for well informed and agreeable opinions, but boy do you see threads demonizing them and saying how much everyone should hate them.

I would go so far as to say that people supporting "SJW" issues is the norm, so much to the point that they don't feel the need to go out of their way to advocate their point of view. However, there is a small minority that doesn't agree with this, and goes out of their way to vocalize their disagreement and demonize anyone who doesn't agree with their anti-SJW point of view. It is this small minority that is not only being insulted by these people these threads are made about, but are the same minority that are trying to argue that EVERYONE should feel insulted by these people, even though they happen to largely agree with them and disagree with you.

Excuse me? You're in a thread where 'gamers', with no care to define or absolve the overwhelming majority of non trogdolytes have been referred as worse than ISIS, and too dumb to read - which you yourself were only too happy to fall all over yourself to excuse in your opening post in this thread. Oh, and the media retweeting and reporting solely on the aforemention trogdolytes is exactly what you define as highlighting the opposite side to engender hate.

 

[SentimentalGeek]

I don't think "gamer" ever meant that. Maybe the negative gamer sterotype was/is like that, but raging out against a stereotype like that is... well, just wrong.

And it also feels like backpedaling, like when you say that all black people should be thrown into jail, and when people call you out as a racist you say "Ah, but when I said 'black people', I only meant the stereotypical black gangster! Are you saying they don't deserve to be thrown into prison?". It just all sounds incredibly sleazy and dishonest to me, though I am certain it wasn't intentional on your part...

Yes, because you were born a gamer and have absolutely no control whether or not you associate with and label yourself as gamer. Let's just forget that gamer doesn't refer to only one thing, but that it is a currently contested label that different people apply differently. False equivalency much?

No, a more apt comparison would be:

Me: "All gangsters should be thrown into jail."
You: "So you're saying everyone who listens to gangster rap and call themselves gangsters should be thrown into jail?"
Me: "No, I'm saying all gangsters, you know, people who run around urban areas with guns selling drugs and participating in drive by shootings and gang beatings and other criminal activities?"
You: "Well, not everyone who calls themselves a gangster is actually in a street gang! You shouldn't generalize like that!"
Me: "Okay..." [adds you to my ignore list]

You heard it here folks - the best comparison to people associating themselves as gamers is an identity that's ridden with criminality, and it's on our heads if we choose to accept that(!)

 

[Frission]

(He uses the word gamers as a whole, not "A small subset of gamers". Therefore he means everyone who is a gamer)

That's no how language works. We cna use the label for the whole without describing everyone within.

then every game journalist from the Escapist to Gamasutra, to Gamespot are corrupt, nepotistic, corporate shills who are in bed with the developers.

See, then you shifted verbage. If you had said "game journalists are corrupt, nepotistic, corporate shills" you would have an equivalent claim. When you add "every," you're changing the meaning. The fact that you knew to add "every" to your claim indicates to me that you even know the difference.

Okay I had enough. I called out other users when they did this and I'll do it now.

You're debating in a dishonest manner, whether it's by twisting what your opponents say, generalizing, quibbling the definition of gamer, or just going for the low point and saying how words work. This style of debating is petty. I may as well say that "Then game journalist from the Escapist to etc..." isn't a structurally sound sentence. However, as I've said quibbling language is pointless and doesn't get any message across.

For example you can't actually use a label without describing everyone, since you're painting people with a shared brush. Describe any other group as possessing a trait, not matter how superficial and think how that would sound.

Here, I'll do devil's advocate and say that what the original poster said is a hyperbole. Or that media isn't a hive mind or that a community is capable of fostering a culture (without necessarily saying anything on the character of the individuals that belong to that group).

See? There's points to be made without quibbling basic English.

Before anyone else says InsanityRequiem started quibbling word meanings, now he didn't. The whole point that this Devin may have not mean all gamers was originally brought up the opposition. In my opinion it's a bad defense and the guy should have just been marginalized from the start.
For the rest of your posts: make your point without waving away the other guys objections by being smug or attacking their character, because all you're accomplishing is either pushing away those who are neutral or just further cementing people who disagree with you in their place.

OT: The guy seriously compared gamers to ISIS. He's a clown and shouldn't be defended or acknowledged. It hurts everyone involved.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

I don't think "gamer" ever meant that. Maybe the negative gamer sterotype was/is like that, but raging out against a stereotype like that is... well, just wrong.

And it also feels like backpedaling, like when you say that all black people should be thrown into jail, and when people call you out as a racist you say "Ah, but when I said 'black people', I only meant the stereotypical black gangster! Are you saying they don't deserve to be thrown into prison?". It just all sounds incredibly sleazy and dishonest to me, though I am certain it wasn't intentional on your part...

Yes, because you were born a gamer and have absolutely no control whether or not you associate with and label yourself as gamer. Let's just forget that gamer doesn't refer to only one thing, but that it is a currently contested label that different people apply differently. False equivalency much?

No, a more apt comparison would be:

Me: "All gangsters should be thrown into jail."
You: "So you're saying everyone who listens to gangster rap and call themselves gangsters should be thrown into jail?"
Me: "No, I'm saying all gangsters, you know, people who run around urban areas with guns selling drugs and participating in drive by shootings and gang beatings and other criminal activities?"
You: "Well, not everyone who calls themselves a gangster is actually in a street gang! You shouldn't generalize like that!"
Me: "Okay..." [adds you to my ignore list]

That's like claiming furries are dog fuckers because a handful of dudes did that.

Can you fucking not?

 

[GabeZhul]

Yes, because you were born a gamer and have absolutely no control whether or not you associate with and label yourself as gamer. Let's just forget that gamer doesn't refer to only one thing, but that it is a currently contested label that different people apply differently. False equivalency much?

Two things:

-One: My example with black people were there to point out the error in associating an entire group with the stereotype of that group and then trying to wiggle out of a controversy by using the same stereotyping to claim that one wasn't referring to the entire group after all. Whether said group is self-identified or not has nothing to do with the underlying logic.

-Two: You are arguing for my point. The term "gamer" is a contested one, though without adjectives it generally refers to game-hobbyists, people who play games but they are not either extremely dedicated to the hobby or only play casually.
However, the stereotypical basement-dweller, FPS player, team-speak-poisoning asshole you are referring to is not a "gamer". It is a stereotype, and not even a particularly widespread one, as it is but one of the many stereotypical "gamers" in popular media (alongside the nerdy glasses guy, the fat, immobile MMO player and the chick who is underestimated but beats the boys at the end, often for comical effect). Bringing such stereotypes into the discussion is silly at best and completely dishonest at worst, and I would like to ask you to stop doing so.

 

[Velventian]

/snip

You seem to be rather versed with the whole interpretation of language thing so i would like your opinion on that^^

In my mind the term assigned to a group should represent that groups currently most relevant trait.
Which is why i don´t think harassers/extremists shouldn´t be labeled as gamers since thats not the most relevant trait to them.
The most relevant part is not that they play games, but that they harass people and are extremists.
My reasoning as to why i think those people shouldn´t be described as gamers.
Whats your take on it?

 

[Frission]

I don't think "gamer" ever meant that. Maybe the negative gamer sterotype was/is like that, but raging out against a stereotype like that is... well, just wrong.

And it also feels like backpedaling, like when you say that all black people should be thrown into jail, and when people call you out as a racist you say "Ah, but when I said 'black people', I only meant the stereotypical black gangster! Are you saying they don't deserve to be thrown into prison?". It just all sounds incredibly sleazy and dishonest to me, though I am certain it wasn't intentional on your part...

Yes, because you were born a gamer and have absolutely no control whether or not you associate with and label yourself as gamer. Let's just forget that gamer doesn't refer to only one thing, but that it is a currently contested label that different people apply differently. False equivalency much?

No, a more apt comparison would be:

Me: "All gangsters should be thrown into jail."
You: "So you're saying everyone who listens to gangster rap and call themselves gangsters should be thrown into jail?"
Me: "No, I'm saying all gangsters, you know, people who run around urban areas with guns selling drugs and participating in drive by shootings and gang beatings and other criminal activities?"
You: "Well, not everyone who calls themselves a gangster is actually in a street gang! You shouldn't generalize like that!"
Me: "Okay..." [adds you to my ignore list]

Pointing out that gamer is normally used to refer to people who play games, so the equivalence doesn't hold either.
The thing with contested labels can refer to different things, so that argument actually works against you. It's just going to get more people confused and/or offended. Like here:

You heard it here folks - the best comparison to people associating themselves as gamers is an identity that's ridden with criminality, and it's on our heads if we choose to accept that(!)

Honestly the guy would have no problems if he had just specified misogynists, or wannabe terrorists instead of something as broad as gamers. I suppose that's the problem with Twitter's character limit, but it's a massive mistake in PR.

The strawman is also a bit distasteful, not to mention that this is stepping into the weird territory of "gangster culture" and rap music. Jeez, a guy in another thread used the rational of Muslims to say "that they're probably not all terrorists(!), but most of them are" as a comparison to gamers. Isn't their a way to get the point across without stepping into racism?

 

[Frission]

/snip

You seem to be rather versed with the whole interpretation of language thing so i would like your opinion on that^^

In my mind the term assigned to a group should represent that groups currently most relevant trait.
Which is why i don´t think harassers/extremists shouldn´t be labeled as gamers since thats not the most relevant trait to them.
The most relevant part is not that they play games, but that they harass people and are extremists.
My reasoning as to why i think those people shouldn´t be described as gamers.
Whats your take on it?

I have no idea, English isn't even my first language. You're probably way better suited at this than me. For me, the whole point I guess it that you stay away from words that are poorly defined like gamer precisely because they could have meanings that you didn't know. Hence, why some people here think that this means everyone who plays games, some people think it means the "hardcore" crowd or enthusiasts, and some people just use it as a synonym for bad people (which could set the two previous groups off).

If anything, this whole fiasco is an example of people with access to mass media with no training in PR and thus they purposely or inadvertently make the situation worse and worse either due to their unprofessional-ism or lack of self control.

EDIT: I'm not a fan of corporations, but at least they have better self policing than this, since the guy says he has full support of his boss.

 

[jaibryan]

does he even play video games?

 

[Something Amyss]

-snip-

I'm sort of disappointed that I spent so much time on that post, only to have it ignored. Ah well. At least I tried.

That's the thing about wordage. Gamer means person who plays games. And when you add the -s, you apply it as people who play games. So when someone says gamers, it's the same as every gamer unless there is an added differentiation.

No, it means more than one gamer.

 

[SentimentalGeek]

Honestly the guy would have no problems if he had just specified misogynists, or wannabe terrorists instead of something as broad as gamers. I suppose that's the problem with Twitter's character limit, but it's a massive mistake in PR.

The strawman is also a bit distasteful, not to mention that this is stepping into the weird territory of "gangster culture" and rap music. Jeez, a guy in another thread used the rational of Muslims to say "that they're probably not all terrorists(!), but most of them are" as a comparison to gamers. Isn't their a way to get the point across without stepping into racism?

I've been amazed how quickly the self-professed progressive/Good? side has been in employing bigotry in their spiels. I don't for one moment believe devin didn't specify the subset of gamers he was talking about because of Twitter's character limit - it'd literally take one more word (prefixed with extremist, misogynistic etc).

I mean, I'm not ecstatic about some of the high-profile allies we critics have on our side, but even they're somehow being made to look good by folks like devin, and his apologists/enablers.

 

[llubtoille]

Why are you informing us of this person, only to tell us to ignore him?
I literally wouldn't have known about him were it not for you advertising him XD

 

[Frission]

-snip-

I'm sort of disappointed that I spent so much time on that post, only to have it ignored. Ah well. At least I tried.

That's the thing about wordage. Gamer means person who plays games. And when you add the -s, you apply it as people who play games. So when someone says gamers, it's the same as every gamer unless there is an added differentiation.

No, it means more than one gamer.

Gamer(s) plural can go both ways. Generally however, without an added disclaimer, gamer(s) can refer to the whole group. Frankly an adult doesn't have be defended about this aspect.

Long post sometimes get ignored, although getting called a troll is the best version of "winning" in an Internet discussion. That being said there's also the part I said about potentially dishonest debating. People don't like cut up posts either.

I've been amazed how quickly the self-professed progressive/Good? side has been in employing bigotry in their spiels. I don't for one moment believe devin didn't specify the subset of gamers he was talking about because of Twitter's character limit - it'd literally take one more word (prefixed with extremist, mysoginistic etc).

I prefer to assume it's incompetence or just miscommunication instead of malice. A person in a writing profession shouldn't be so inept however and I just think that Devin just wrote something stupid at a spur of the moment. No need to defend it, because he's only hurting his "cause", but no need to fixate since Devin's an idiot.

 

[Frission]

Why are you informing us of this person, only to tell us to ignore him?
I literally wouldn't have known about him were it not for you advertising him XD

It's actually a pretty stupid analog of how this whole apparently started. Someone saying that we should ignore this only gave the whole thing more exposure. What can you do -\'-'/-?