Devin Faraci - Guy who called us terrorists

[Cronenberg1]

I never thought I'd say this but, I miss Jack Thompson. Remember that asshole, that guy deserved the hate he got. Now we all hate people who want to rid gaming of misogynistic assholes and make gaming a more inclusive place for women? This is just sad. If we don't want people criticizing gamer culture then we should start by getting rid of the people who give us a bad name.

And the classic strawman once again rears its ugly head...
No, people don't get hate for "wanting to rid gaming of misogynistic assholes" (which is already a stupid proposal, since it would require shifting through every single one of the hundreds of millions of gamers, and even if you pinpoint one or two, what can you actually do about them?).

No, they are getting hate for the ass-backwards, deceptive and dishonest ways they are going about it (if we give the benefit of the doubt and say that they are all honest and not just pushing the sjw agenda for publicity) and the in-your-face, aggressive support they receive from the media and certain corners of the internet based on ideology.

Also, again, how would we "get rid of people who give us a bad name"? Such a thing is not just hard, it's flat out impossible! Seriously, think about it! What can you do about a misogynistic asshole on the internet?

Argue with him? How does that differ from what is already happening?

Ban him? That just bottles up the problem, ready to blow up another time or on another forum. Not to mention, I am only moderately computer-savvy and I am quite confident that if I got banned from anywhere, it would take me about ten minutes to switch IP, create a new e-mail address and make a new profile to continue where I left off. If one is dedicated enough to the point to get banned, they are dedicated enough to get back again no matter what you do.

Try to go after him off-line? Dox him? Did you hear that popping sound? That was your moral high ground evaporating into thin air and you becoming just another online bully.

This is the internet. You literally cannot do a thing about these people here, and anyone who says otherwise, including the journalists proposing the idea, are either naive fools or people you should be very, very afraid of.

Did I say we should go through every individual person and judge them as a troll or not troll? no I did not. We will never get rid of all trolls but we can attempt to create spaces that actively discourage those kinds of people from commenting. Badass Digest has a mostly troll free comment section because anyone who might want to troll there will quickly find there comment ridiculed by the other commenters or deleted. We cant get rid of them but we can push them away into areas where they can be ignored. Also I never said anything about doxxing or finding someone IRL, don't accuse people of creating straw men if you're just going to make one yourself.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

The poster in question insisted that by saying "gamer," he meant "every gamer." I argued on that point. There is no dishonesty there, and no twisting.

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.. 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.

That's not how language works. We often use plural terms to refer to large bodies without referring to the sum total. We say "Americans are obese," for example. This is a very common thing to say, on the internet. It doesn't mean every American is obese, yet it's an acceptable phrasing. For that matter, I can say "I had eggs" for breakfast without anyone coming along and saying "no you didn't! I had an egg for breakfast, so you couldn't have had all the eggs." You can like women without liking all women, and you can talk about Christian belief even though not every Christian believes in the exact same things. I note you later say that English isn't your primary language, so maybe you're not aware of this, but it's pervasive in its application. Second language students often have difficulty with nuance, slang, and common usage. However, since you're not a native speaker, I'd ask you not to "quibble" with me.

Adding "s" can mean any number more than one. Context is usually used to determine the precise number, if there is a precise number mentioned. Now, we can reasonably infer that he didn't mean "all gamers" by his language (including the hashtag #notallgamers), so this should have been a moot point in the first place. Even if he didn't, however, the English language in no way dictates that adding an "-s" means everyone unless otherwise specified. This is actually sort of an important point, since if this is the reason everyone's so outraged, they're outraged under a false pretense.

If you decide he means all gamers despite the context, it's on you. It's also false, at least according to his own statements.

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).

I don't care if it's hyperbole. That's no more significant an argument, and it simply shifts the "quibbling" from one minor point to another.

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

That wasn't one of them. Hell, this whole thing is arguing over what someone said on Twitter. The idea that there are major points is kind of farcical.

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.

If he's going to insist what another person meant based on what words mean (as he did, and he then defended it by doing more of the same), then yes. He brought up word meanings.

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 in their place, people who disagree with you.

By your logic, you are "attacking" my character, accusing me of being "smug," and basically just doing the exact same things. If these are negative, don't repeat them. If what I said was problematic, then what you said is problematic. And you're certainly not going to convince me with that attitude (well, at least, by your own logic).

For the record, I haven't been "waving away the other guy's objections." Unless you mean factually incorrect points, like when the OP said nobody got offended when SJWs did things. I even went so far as to say that if he's offended or hurt by this, he might well want to consider that other people might similarly be so--far from waving him off, I asked him to consider others. From the "SJW" to Faraci himself. And now you've turned around and dictated what Faraci meant, which is somewhat hypocritical.

 

[Something Amyss]

Gamer(s) plural can go both ways.

There is no "both ways." "Gamers" is any number that is more than one. That includes all of them. The problem here is that, against Faraci's own use of language to specific and sometimes exclude, someone has decided that it must mean "all the gamers" to the exclusion of the rest of the definition. I gave you examples in my last post, which you are free to ignore, but I repeat: Faraci said not all gamers, so this line of reasoning should have been moot from the beginning.

 

[TransGamer]

The easy answer to nutsos is to ignore them. This man doesn't even warrant a page of discussion, let alone five.

 

[Frission]

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.

The poster in question insisted that by saying "gamer," he meant "every gamer." I argued on that point. There is no dishonesty there, and no twisting.

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.. 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.

That's not how language works. We often use plural terms to refer to large bodies without referring to the sum total. We say "Americans are obese," for example. This is a very common thing to say, on the internet. It doesn't mean every American is obese, yet it's an acceptable phrasing. For that matter, I can say "I had eggs" for breakfast without anyone coming along and saying "no you didn't! I had an egg for breakfast, so you couldn't have had all the eggs." You can like women without liking all women, and you can talk about Christian belief even though not every Christian believes in the exact same things. I note you later say that English isn't your primary language, so maybe you're not aware of this, but it's pervasive in its application. Second language students often have difficulty with nuance, slang, and common usage. However, since you're not a native speaker, I'd ask you not to "quibble" with me.

Adding "s" can mean any number more than one. Context is usually used to determine the precise number, if there is a precise number mentioned. Now, we can reasonably infer that he didn't mean "all gamers" by his language (including the hashtag #notallgamers), so this should have been a moot point in the first place. Even if he didn't, however, the English language in no way dictates that adding an "-s" means everyone unless otherwise specified. This is actually sort of an important point, since if this is the reason everyone's so outraged, they're outraged under a false pretense.

If you decide he means all gamers despite the context, it's on you. It's also false, at least according to his own statements.

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).

I don't care if it's hyperbole. That's no more significant an argument, and it simply shifts the "quibbling" from one minor point to another.

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

That wasn't one of them. Hell, this whole thing is arguing over what someone said on Twitter. The idea that there are major points is kind of farcical.

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.

If he's going to insist what another person meant based on what words mean (as he did, and he then defended it by doing more of the same), then yes. He brought up word meanings.

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 in their place, people who disagree with you.

By your logic, you are "attacking" my character, accusing me of being "smug," and basically just doing the exact same things. If these are negative, don't repeat them. If what I said was problematic, then what you said is problematic. And you're certainly not going to convince me with that attitude (well, at least, by your own logic).

For the record, I haven't been "waving away the other guy's objections." Unless you mean factually incorrect points, like when the OP said nobody got offended when SJWs did things. I even went so far as to say that if he's offended or hurt by this, he might well want to consider that other people might similarly be so--far from waving him off, I asked him to consider others. From the "SJW" to Faraci himself. And now you've turned around and dictated what Faraci meant, which is somewhat hypocritical.

I really hate cut up posts. You know that? Anyway I also wanted to clear up that it was most of your posts.

Anyway, Americans themselves have problems with the phrase "Americans are obese" . It's accepted because we know that Americans have a national obesity epidemic, but even then it's not actually a factually correct statement. Not all Americans are obese. In French as well we can say "Les Américains sont obèse", but it's a generalization. The same way you can talk about Christian beliefs or women because you believe you speak for most Christians or you are the "True" Christian and Women, because while you may not be attracted to all women, you are still attracted to women as a sexual orientation. Unless you guys made some major changes, you're still pretty much rooted in some way to French.

For the two following posts you inserted you own personal preferences by declaring that you don't care about the validity of his arguments and that this whole matter was "minor", thus absolving you of having detracted from the original point by mentioning the other man's english.

Hypocrisy goes both ways, buddy. "Follow what I say not what I do and all that". The problem is that someone has to point out that you have been insulting and you have been dismissing arguments based entirely on a manner that I will say is "smug". It's been an enduring trend. Perhaps I have not gone about it in the best way, but I feel that it was correct to inform you about that.

He was wrong that no one was offended by SJW did things. Then you were right to bring that to attention. However, that doesn't mean that you didn't act in such a way, looking at previous posts (If you want to, I will highlight them in a separate post).

I haven't dictated what Faraci have said merely arguing against the supposition that people shouldn't be offended because Faraci only meant a few people. Frankly we'll never know what he meant, but unless I missed a rule in English that without "everyone" he can never be referring to most constituents in a group, he was incompetent and said a statement that could give offense to a high amount of people. I'm not going to dictate whether he did on purpose or not so don't tell people whether they're allowed to be offended or not.

 

[Frission]

Gamer(s) plural can go both ways.

There is no "both ways." "Gamers" is any number that is more than one. That includes all of them. The problem here is that, against Faraci's own use of language to specific and sometimes exclude, someone has decided that it must mean "all the gamers" to the exclusion of the rest of the definition. I gave you examples in my last post, which you are free to ignore, but I repeat: Faraci said not all gamers, so this line of reasoning should have been moot from the beginning.

No it means that Gamers can refer to some gamers or all of them. It doesn't mean that he wasn't referring solely to gamers as just a few individuals to the exclusion of the definition. In your last phrase, you are dictating what he said.

 

[Verlander]

"Gamer" seems to be less of a description, and more of an undesirable gang nowadays. Anyway, given the recent situations, I honestly can't fault Faraci. Maybe it's because I feel total disconnect from the "community" nowadays? Female dev was a prick, her ex boyfriend was a prick, they screwed over a rubbish competition, stirred the hornets nest of pricks, someone drew a stupid cartoon, and pricks on the internet harrassed and bullied two women to the point where there is a legitimate concern for their safety. Yeah, totally sounds like a club it's cool to be in.

 

[Frission]

Even still, I NEVER DIRECTLY COMPARED GAMERS TO GANGSTERS. I compared a word that had a specific meaning being replaced with a broader definition to another word that could be argued to have had a specific meaning that could be argued to have been replaced with a broader definition in order to illustrate that people making these threads and supporting these controversies seem to be confusing the new definition of gamer with the old one, and are taking offense to it because they consider themselves "gamers" under the new definition, even though the people they are taking offense to had spent the days prior to making the specific comments they took offense to, establishing exactly which type of "gamers" they were talking about and insulting. And then they took offense to further replies when they complained that they didn't realize that gamers would be incapable of understanding figurative speech and context and that they had to be so careful with their word choices so as not to have their words twisted into meaning something they clearly had no intention of conveying, simply because it could be mis-portrayed as meaning such when taken out of context.

You know this still doesn't change the fact that no one has a monopoly on what gamers mean any more. You have your idea and thus you're not a gamer, but I say that it's anyone who plays games, so a high percentage of people are gamers.

Sorry if I was accusing you racisme or anything like that. The other guy really did use the Muslim example, and I'm still shaken up by that. That being said, re-read the last paragraphe. Have you seen how byzantine it is? Language is confusing.

Me? I disagree that misunderstandings are the fault of the reader: "inferred that this is what I was saying there is not a mark against me, but against them for a lack of comprehension". It goes back to this thread isn't it? I ignored this thread and everyone in it because it was a classical case of someone with poor communication skills or a hot temper with a large social media audience who messed up. A clown, a buffoon who would only inflame spirits and waste time. I joined in because you two were dictating whether people should be offended or not with very screwy debating logic and with the time in R&P, I dislike that more than any political affiliation. Thing is you can't insult people for getting angry at a poorly thought out and insulting phrases.

We don't know what he meant, whether it was out of inadvertence or malice (personally I think both possibilities are bad), but you can't insist that people who are offended shouldn't be. I came in mainly to counter what was being said.

 

[Frission]

"Gamer" seems to be less of a description, and more of an undesirable gang nowadays. Anyway, given the recent situations, I honestly can't fault Faraci. Maybe it's because I feel total disconnect from the "community" nowadays? Female dev was a prick, her ex boyfriend was a prick, they screwed over a rubbish competition, stirred the hornets nest of pricks, someone drew a stupid cartoon, and pricks on the internet harrassed and bullied two women to the point where there is a legitimate concern for their safety. Yeah, totally sounds like a club it's cool to be in.

Then join the people who say that they don't feel targeted. It's much healthier.

However, if I was someone outside of the whole "games" thing I would still say that you're ALL GAMERS. Yes, you play games so you're a gamer. Gamers tearing apart the term gamer is a fascinating sort of self-cannibalization.

 

[Frission]

Gamer(s) plural can go both ways.

There is no "both ways." "Gamers" is any number that is more than one. That includes all of them. The problem here is that, against Faraci's own use of language to specific and sometimes exclude, someone has decided that it must mean "all the gamers" to the exclusion of the rest of the definition. I gave you examples in my last post, which you are free to ignore, but I repeat: Faraci said not all gamers, so this line of reasoning should have been moot from the beginning.

No it means that Gamers can refer to some gamers or all of them. It doesn't mean that he wasn't referring solely to gamers as just a few individuals to the exclusion of the definition. In your last phrase, you are dictating what he said.

Actually, Faraci dictated what he, himself, said, Zachary is simply pointing out that the context needed to justify that he was only talking about certain people within the gaming community and not the entirety of the gaming community at large is there on his twitter account, but is being purposefully ignored and omitted by the people trying to get other games that his words do not apply to to be offended by his comments.

May you link that? His page is a bit ... messy. He said some other, pretty reprehensible things. I can believe what you're saying however.

Personally there's also the possible interpretation that he is just backpedaling or that he genuinely didn't mean that. Either way as I've said I'm just countering your own narrative (which seems to have been countering another guys narrative). For me, whether he's malicious or inept it's still pretty bad and he should be ignored.

EDIT: Seriously, even if I was still the position that I wholly agreed with him I would still say to not defend this guy. Someone who's incompetent and vicious is just as bad when he's mangling what you agree with.

EDIT EDIT: I'm still saying that Zach sounded like he was dictating what Devin said. Pushed to the other extreme opposition is not really the best excuse.

 

[Something Amyss]

I really hate cut up posts. You know that?

I hate large responses with unclear borders. I don't think it matters what we like or dislike. You respond to me as you see fit, and I will do the same.

Anyway, Americans themselves have problems with the phrase "Americans are obese" .

But I'm an American, and I don't have problems with it. Since you claim the use of "gamers" means "every gamer," why doesn't your argument get immediately invalidated by that fact? I could rage and say that you're painting us with a broad brush, but the important thing is I knew what you meant, and you did not speak incorrectly.

It's accepted because we know that Americans have a national obesity epidemic, but even then it's not actually a factually correct statement. Not all Americans are obese. In French as well we can say "Les Américains sont obèse", but it's a generalization.

I think we're making some headway. Yes, it's a generalisation. You can speak generally by adding -s to something without meaning "everyone." You can also speak to a significant number of the population, which makes "Americans are obese" factually correct enough for American music founded on polyrhythm and dissonant "blue" tones.

The same way you can talk about Christian beliefs or women because you believe you speak for most Christians or you are the "True" Christian and Women, because while you may not be attracted to all women, you are still attracted to women as a sexual orientation.

I'm not Christian at all. I'm an atheist. Shocking, I know, to find an atheist in 'Murrica, but even when non-Christians speak to what Christians believe, they're speaking generally, or about a large body of Christians. As for women, you correctly understood the meaning without assuming all women. Isn't it wonderful how we can understand each other, even across different languages?

For the two following posts you inserted you own personal preferences by declaring that you don't care about the validity of his arguments and that this whole matter was "minor", thus absolving you of having detracted from the original point by mentioning the other man's english.

And I do think this whole thing is rather minor, but that's no different than you inserting your personal preferences by declaring that I am quibblng.

Hypocrisy goes both ways, buddy. "Follow what I say not what I do and all that". The problem is that someone has to point out that you have been insulting and you have been dismissing arguments based entirely on a manner that I will say is "smug". It's been an enduring trend. Perhaps I have not gone about it in the best way, but I feel that it was correct to inform you about that.

If you're trying to prove I'm insulting by doing the same to me, you failed. I merely pointed out that you were violating your own standards. Standard for which I care little, I should add. I don't care beyond your own lack of internal consistency. For example, if someone tells me "cheese" is an offensive word and then calls me "cheese," they are attempting to insult me even if I am not insulted. I got a PM as a result f this thread calling me a terrorist and comparing me to ISIS. Judging from the response in here, I should be offended. I'm still not.

You're probably not going to insult or offend me, so any attempt is probably futile. The problem is, in trying to make such a point, you merely end up behaving in a way you claim is problematic, while I don't.

However, that doesn't mean that you didn't act in such a way, looking at previous posts (If you want to, I will highlight them in a separate post).

I contest that "such a way" is not what you contend. That quoting me will probably in no way demonstrate anything where I agree my conduct has been as such.

I haven't dictated what Faraci have said

OT: The guy seriously compared gamers to ISIS.

Yup. You did. Sorry.

Frankly we'll never know what he meant, but unless I missed a rule in English that without "everyone" he can never be referring to most constituents in a group, he was incompetent and said a statement that could give offense to a high amount of people. I'm not going to dictate whether he did on purpose or not so don't tell people whether they're allowed to be offended or not.

You gave an example in French that would mean the same as the rule in English. You then argued we took from French, so unless things were changed, we still had much in common. My French from college agrees on both points. There is nothing of which I am aware in the French tongue that precludes the kind of speech I have mentioned. You have actually confirmed that, no word twisting necessary, by understanding what I mean when I give examples, and by using the exact form of speech conversationally. Hell, here's another one:

People don't like cut up posts either.

Well, I'm a person, and I like them fine. Several other people on here use them. If you are correct that this is incorrect language, you've done it several times without any issue.

Except that's the problem. It's. Not. Incorrect. You are right to say people don't like it. Because some people (more than one person) don't like it. I'm also not wrong to say people do like it. Some people prefer posts this way. The only way either of us becomes incorrect is if we try to assert all people, which you claim this language indicates. I doubt you seriously meant to claim that.

Your own posts prove my point. You have literally done the same thing he did. And that's not even "my opinion," because he qualified his earlier posts.

As for knowing what he meant, we will only "never know" if you don't take him at his prior qualifiers.

 

[Something Amyss]

In your last phrase, you are dictating what he said.

No, he did.

So when someone says gamers, it's the same as every gamer unless there is an added differentiation.

His words, not mine. He specified an exclusion, that the default meaning is everyone without an "added differentiation."

Edit:

Personally there's also the possible interpretation that he is just backpedaling or that he genuinely didn't mean that.

Actually, no. Go look at his Twitter feed. It goes the other way. Faraci gets less composed as people rattle him and starts speaking less specifically. This isn't backpedaling. He had already made his qualifications known, so it should have been a moot point. You ignored this like four times now.

Further edit: Yes, when I said he was rattled, I was sort of editorialising. That was unintentional. Ironically, it demonstrates Zeconte's point. As things get drawn out, it's more likely we'll shorthand. I have said previously he appears rattled, and that's what I referred to.

 

[Frission]

His words, not mine. He specified an exclusion, that the default meaning is everyone without an "added differentiation."

... and you did the reverse. How long have we been going on? I'll keep this short, because the more I add the more the arguments gets distracted, due to the process of cutting up the post, but you know what. Let's forget about it. We all have our own styles.

I'm going to disagree on the way you keep on trying to push me into this role where I'm saying that people should be offended. Maybe you're doing it on purpose, maybe not. Well I say that I'm not doing this, I've been repeating that several times. I'm just arguing against the idea that there's no way people could be offended by this, so I'll ask you a question. Do you think there is a reason people may be offended, and how valid do you think it is? Just give it to me straight.

I always thought that people should not dictate if people should be offended. They can change how valid they feel that "offense is" however.

You know what else? Forget about what I said about your posting style. I started this because I found the way you posted to be somewhat unpleasant, but that not something that is possible to change, not on this thread or any other thread, the same way you can't change how other people interact with others by a single forum post.

I was going to write a tirade about the way I dislike your tone about what you said to the responses I gave to examples you gave, except I'm not even sure if you're doing it on purpose. I mean I seem to have implied that you must be a Christian because I added up a you in the wrong place. So yeah, tone and intent don't carry well over the internet. It's not my business unless the intent is really too obvious.

Well I should have added "some people" instead of "people don't like cut up posts". My mistake due to a communication error. Funny how it always goes back to that.

Well anyway let's review one of his original quotes "I have more respect for ISIS than the Anti-Quinn people". Okay, he's doesn't directly compare gamers to ISIS. He's says he respects ISIS more. That isn't better actually...
Neither are most of the rest of his quotes. I have another question. Why are you even supporting this guy? Or are you just trying to correct an error that you saw in the OP?

I'll repeat so like this doesn't get too distracted:

"Do you think there is a reason people may be offended, and how valid do you think it is? "

"Why are you even supporting this guy? Or are you just trying to correct an error that you saw in the OP?"

 

[Frission]

In the end, that's what this all boils down to. I am acknowledging that there are multiple definitions of what "gamer" means. I am acknowledging that insulting "gamers" without qualifying what you mean could be considered insulting towards any and all people who label themselves "gamer" under any definition. But I am also acknowledging that this is not the case, because qualifications as to what type of gamer he is talking about had been made in the scope of the larger discussion taking place on twitter, from which that particular comment was purposefully removed from in order to be misrepresented. I then went on to explain that likewise, people are getting upset over articles declaring the "death of gamers" are also being taken out of context, and I am putting the proper context back into the discussion for them.

Good enough for me really. I can continue about how I disagree on who's fault misunderstandings fall on, because in a professional setting, in a job where you're meant to communicate: "It's their fault for not knowing the context" is not going to cut it, but then again this is twitter which is a horrible place for discussion and is only useful for bulletin news or narcissistic preening.

Really that's enough for me. Thanks.

 

[Lunar Templar]

After taking a few days to ponder this a bit, I've come to a couple conclusions.

I don't care what this guy says. It'll bite him in the ass just like every other time some one has shit like this. Karma is a ***** and all that.

But at the same time, I can't help but agree with the terrorist comparison, not to the same extreme of course, I'm not so dense or stupid to paint any group like that in it's entirety. But there does seem to be a growing number with in the gamer community who find it OK to send death/rape threats, post peoples personal info in hopes they get hurt, calling in SWAT teams on them, and generally do every thing they can to make some one's life a living hell, to 'terrorize' them.

Frankly, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of hearing about the latest 'notroversy' and gamer over reaction. Tired of hearing about some inbreed knuckle draggers harassing some one because they hold a different opinion then them. For all our talk of becoming more 'open and inclusive', all I've really seen is things get over all worse and more hostile toward people, from those who ether dare to not like the same gaming platform as them up to those have the 'gall' to call out gaming flaws.

maybe I'm wrong and things aren't as bad as they seem, but from where I'm sitting, it really looks like 1 step forward 2 steps back.

 

[spartan231490]

um . . . context? Who is referring to whom as terrorists?

 

[Pr0]

I don't really expect anyone to read this in this echo chamber of a forum....but having mostly kept a wide distance away from the whole Sarkesian/Quinn/Fish...whatever crap that occasionally pops up....observing it as a gamer who is completely detached from any of the arguments has led me to draw a relatively simple conclusion.

Social Justice Warriors are basically people that are over-educated and under-employed with a deep seated need to be "special" and/or "famous" by any means necessary. This includes basically manufacturing high school drama for the purposes of generating hashtag buzz that only feeds their own egos in the end...elevating people of little to no real relevance to prominence in a "gaming journalism" version of the Jerry Springer show except most of the people on this show have a quarter million dollars of student loans to pay back instead of trying to pawn their children to keep their trailers from being foreclosed on...or whatever.

All of this stuff is manufactured. Social justice warriors aren't fighting for anyone but themselves. Its not about what they're fighting about....its that you know its them fighting.

Its frankly garbage and I'm getting tired of seeing the "gamer" demographic get baited and trolled into feeding these drama queens.

So....just stop. Stop posting their crap, stop arguing over who is right and who is wrong cause none of it matters in the first place. None of these people are John Lennon or Jesus, none of them are changing the world for anyone but themselves in the end.

100 years ago you had to be a war hero or a brilliant engineer or inventor to be famous...these days it seems like everyone thinks they can just be famous for free, all you have to do is push the right buttons on the internet and voila...you're famous.

Its all garbage. Stop getting roped into it.