Devin Faraci - Guy who called us terrorists

[SacremPyrobolum]

Pretty silly to be invoking a variation of Godwin's Law with your real name.

 

[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.

... It's hard to communicate when someone takes what you say in one place, removes it from the place you said it, and posts it somewhere else that you're not a part of and says it means something different. It's hard to communicate when you communicate your thoughts perfectly clearly, and someone goes out of their way to ignore what you actually said and focus on one little thing out of all the rest to attack you for it based on an altered meaning of what you actually said.

Communication is a two way street. When you communicate from your end perfectly clearly to anyone who understands how to read and understands what they read (IE possesses reading comprehension), and the other end doesn't understand you, how is it a failure on your part? All you can do is reexplain yourself in other terms and hope they understand. But what if they don't understand then? Do you reexplain it again in a different way? What if they perfectly understand you and are purposely feigning ignorance to attack you over something they know you didn't say? What if they're so incapable of understanding that nothing you say to them will get them to understand, because they're not actually interested in listening to you?

How is that a failure to communicate on your part rather than theirs, exactly?

Well are we talking in generalities or in this specific circumstance. See? The fact that wasn't cleared up first may have been an error in communication. Are we talking about communication in general of just Devin. I'm for the former, but you may be of the latter. Notice that you're also centered on the relationship between me and you or me or them, with your last sentence" on your part rather than theirs".

Communication isn't a black and white issue. You're taking the viewpoint of someone who's being misunderstood. Look at it like this: Imagine there's someone whom you don't understand or who seems to be advancing something you dislike or disagree with, but you're not sure. So you ask them. What if they then accuse you of being purposely ignorant and attack you? It results in a breakdown of communication. Look how quickly you were to jump on the assumption that they were being purposefully ignorant. Don't get me wrong, that is possible, but it's not a conclusion you should assume until the very end when you've given up. How do you know what the other guy is doing or if he's not understanding you on purpose?

You are also assuming malice in what could simply be something due to poor education, a different background, lifestyle or history. Diversity not only means diversity in race, religion or sex, but also thought. It's too easy to jump to the conclusion that the other person is trolling, when the issue may just be that something is going wrong with communication. In that case I will say that something went wrong when Velventian said that Zachary was a troll. Something made Velventian give up trying to answer Zachary (or it could have been arthritis from typing, I dunno).

There's a flaw in your premise. Take for example this situation. You communicate more or less clearly (I thought at times that it was hard to decipher, but I'm not sure who's fault that is), and we can both read and understand right? I mean I've hopefully been purposefully typing the correct phrases, instead of just randomly hitting keys and getting a comprehensible sentence, Chinese room style. Yet, we disagree and I outright don't understand you.

Why is that? I like to think that I'm earnest in this and I hope you are as well, so why does this happen? Is it a difference in values? Maybe, but that's still an easy answer. I'm here because I saw a guy was being insulting and unprofessional and I thought you and Zachary were being insulting to some of the posters here, or outright dishonest in debating tactics. I don't know what you were trying to do however, since your motives were never stated. It could well have been because you disliked inaccuracy in reporting and there was a piece of evidence that justified or explained Devin Faraci's behavior which wasn't available to me, since you or Zachary stated there were qualifiers to explain this(I PM'ed Zachary about it, but no response yet Back at square one).

It's too easy to say that it's other guys fault for not understanding. Too easy to push away responsibility in the matter. It's a tragedy when people don't understand each other and I say that it's a bigger source of conflict then the "Lucifer effect" or "G.I.F.T". To explain, I think that there's more fighting on the Internet, because body language and tone is not here, so it's easy to misconstrue or just misunderstand. Don't get me wrong there may be people who just like acting "dicks" because they can, but like with Velventian it's possible that it's because of bad communication rather than malice from the other party.

I'll now address your first two points about being deliberately misleading. Truth is I only have an imperfect understanding of what happened in twitter, and you don't know frequent twitter either so it's hard to known what qualifiers Devin had "put up" and what he meant. I PM'ed Zachary and I'll search for the qualifiers myself. Hopefully I'll see if the OP was misleading or not. I don't think so, but I may stand corrected.

As well for when you said "someone goes out of their way to ignore what you actually said and focus on one little thing out of all the rest to attack you for it based on an altered meaning of what you actually said." Well all I can say is THAT'S the reason I hate cutting up posts. It's not conductive to discussions, and I guess I'll be forced to live with it.

EDIT: Okay Zachary sent a message. I'll try to dive in and look for the qualifiers or ask someone else for them. Because I might as well practice what I preach and do my research. Or mooch off someone else. Either of those.

 

[Cronenberg1]

http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/31/why-i-feel-bad-for-and-understand-the-angry-gamergate-gamers/
Devin has written a very honest sort of apology for some of the things he said. I strongly encourage everyone to read it, even if you don't agree with him.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/31/why-i-feel-bad-for-and-understand-the-angry-gamergate-gamers/
Devin has written a very honest sort of apology for some of the things he said. I strongly encourage everyone to read it, even if you don't agree with him.

Except for still using the same B.S. ableist language and body-shaming, albeit in a kind of backhanded way this time, and going full-on Godwin, sure I guess you can kind of construe there's a non-apology somewhere in there.

 

[AJ_Lethal]

http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/31/why-i-feel-bad-for-and-understand-the-angry-gamergate-gamers/
Devin has written a very honest sort of apology for some of the things he said. I strongly encourage everyone to read it, even if you don't agree with him.

Apology my ass, that article came across as condescending.

 

[major_chaos]

Oh for the love of... Look I get it, you don't like Quinn, you don't like Anitia, and you don't like assholes willing to paint everyone with a wide brush? Good, I agree with all of those things, now you know what you should do? Stop. Talking. About. it.

All that happens when you make these threads is you give the people you are supposedly against more attention, more fame, and more pageveiws, while also giving their adherents a platform to call you sexist garbage and ignore the hostility from their own side by mentally inserting qualifiers that don't exist. If you just ignore these people that will do more harm to them than a million threads. Zoe Quinn's next game would have quietly flowed by in the tide of artsy indie sludge, but thanks to this whole controversy I guarantee whatever she does from now on will have massive support and a huge spotlight, ditto for Anita who would have been just another nobody on youtube if it weren't for the backlash making her into a sensation. But no, you had to make an issue about it and now you have caused these people you don't like to devour this entire goddamn site, instead of fading into obscurity to preach to their tiny choirs. So please, as someone who just wants to talk about vidogames can you just let it go?

And before you hit me with "its not about them, its about integrity in games journalism!", If you ever though than games journalism had any journalistic integrity what-so-ever,

Spoiler: Then well...

It has always been a tabloid mess of lies, clickbait, and bias and Don't know how recent events change anything

 

[Connor Voskamp]

As a person of jewish decent that identifies as a gamer I am offended by this. Mr Devin needs to check his privilege.

 

[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.

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.

See, I disagree. There are many labels I'm more likely to get before then - Father, Consultant, Boss, Adult etc. I'm sure many people are the same. "Gamer" is the kind of label that you choose, that you would embrace, based on a (rather sedentary) shared interest. Without referring to myself as such, I just become someone (like nearly everyone in the world) who plays games.

The reason it's an issue at all is that it's something that I used to want to be known for. I liked that I played games and was part of a community. This last year or so, however, the actions of the most vocal of the community have made me sick, and it's the actions of the worst that are at the forefront of the minds of outsiders. Hell, it reminds me of the "Skinhead" community, originally a multicultural group of fans that loved ska music. Mention skindheads to people now, that's not the image that comes to mind. It's a shame.

 

[Velventian]

See, I disagree. There are many labels I'm more likely to get before then - Father, Consultant, Boss, Adult etc. I'm sure many people are the same. "Gamer" is the kind of label that you choose, that you would embrace, based on a (rather sedentary) shared interest. Without referring to myself as such, I just become someone (like nearly everyone in the world) who plays games.

The reason it's an issue at all is that it's something that I used to want to be known for. I liked that I played games and was part of a community. This last year or so, however, the actions of the most vocal of the community have made me sick, and it's the actions of the worst that are at the forefront of the minds of outsiders. Hell, it reminds me of the "Skinhead" community, originally a multicultural group of fans that loved ska music. Mention skindheads to people now, that's not the image that comes to mind. It's a shame.

Bingo!
Negativ associations tend be quicker formed and harder to break. Nowadays skinhead is 99% insult, i actually didn`t even know that that wasn´t its origin so thanks for enlightening me(time to wiki).
Its a good example how a small fraction of extremists elements can become the prime focus of something simply because the are the loudest part.
And it wasn´t the previously "normal skinheads" that started to change the meaning of the term to what it means now. It was the media, the public. People heard "skinheads this, skinheads that" and the term got turned from an description to an insult because there was no useful differentiation between the rational part (probably the bigger part) and the more extreme elements.

And that´s what the public and media is going to do with gamer if people like Devin go to twitter and post lines like that.
Every time there is another shooting in America or somewhere else and the shooter gets identified as a gamer by the media the term gamer suffers for it.
Hell, twice after such shootings, people who know i am a gamer came up to me and wanted to know if i own any guns...
If the public's view of gamers shifts from "person who plays the nintendo" to "people who harass women online or send bomb threats" just wait for the next a politician gets on his soap box and says that gamers are evil and uses the action of those extreme elements to push his/her agenda by exploiting gamers as a boogeyman.

 

[Velventian]

http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/31/why-i-feel-bad-for-and-understand-the-angry-gamergate-gamers/
Devin has written a very honest sort of apology for some of the things he said. I strongly encourage everyone to read it, even if you don't agree with him.

I wouldn´t quite call it an apology honestly and i am pretty sure he isn´t trying to apologize.
He does however seem to make an honest attempt to emphasize and that's worth something as well. So at least kudos for that.

What i don´t get is why he still seems to be missing the point about gaming journalism...
Core Argument: They can fuck whoever they want but a personal relationship has to be disclosed! Or they have to recuse themselves.
"That´s because they don´t understand networking or, frankly, making many friends."
Unless gaming journalism takes place in Sodom and Gomorrah i highly doubt that everyone slept with everyone.
And as far as i know we are not living in the world of My Little Pony where "friendship is magic" so there have to be some who aren´t best buddy's with everyone else.
So if a gaming journalist doesn´t want to disclose their relationships, then just let someone else write the article.

If however someone has a personal relationship, refuses to disclose that relationship, insists on writing the article themselves and then delivers a nearly 100% positive article on the subject or product one would have to be blind to not see that there`s something wrong here.

If they want to endorse the product of a friend they can do so on their private twitter or private youtube etc... as a private individual but not as a reporter/journalist.

And if Devin Faraci really think "it's time to stop knocking people down and start trying to help them up. " that would be a point to start because i think wanting to not be bullshited by the press is something everyone can understand.

 

[Frission]

See, I disagree. There are many labels I'm more likely to get before then - Father, Consultant, Boss, Adult etc. I'm sure many people are the same. "Gamer" is the kind of label that you choose, that you would embrace, based on a (rather sedentary) shared interest. Without referring to myself as such, I just become someone (like nearly everyone in the world) who plays games.

The reason it's an issue at all is that it's something that I used to want to be known for. I liked that I played games and was part of a community. This last year or so, however, the actions of the most vocal of the community have made me sick, and it's the actions of the worst that are at the forefront of the minds of outsiders. Hell, it reminds me of the "Skinhead" community, originally a multicultural group of fans that loved ska music. Mention skindheads to people now, that's not the image that comes to mind. It's a shame.

Of course, but those are of your own choice. I would prefer to be known as a Man, Adult, Friend, Diver etc..., but I'm sure that a bunch of other labels are put on me, not necessarily by my own choosing. Labels are not necessarily of your own choosing.

Imagine that every time you mentioned playing games a little association pops up in the head of whomever you're speaking with, wondering if you are in any way like the terrible "gamers" they've heard about. People will normally think of gamer=someone who plays games and while you can explain that you're not one of "those gamers", the problem still remains if such associations become commonplace, you may have to hide you play games at all, otherwise you will remain perpetually stuck explaining that you're not a terrible person because you like video games, and you might not always be successful. Frankly I would prefer we decried the bad vocal minority and condemn self destructive practices like the one done by Devin Faraci.

 

[Something Amyss]

... and you did the reverse.

Stop making stuff up.

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.

"Let's forget the thing I just brought up." Come now.

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.

Again, you're making this up. I'm saying you're factually incorrect when you talk about the specific words used in the English language.

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.

And you're using ad hominem tactics to avoid actual issues.

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.

But that's the thing. In this conversation, you've made the same "error" many times over. Partially because it's not an error, but beyond that, you're insisting you made a mistake while not affording that possibility to another, in this case Devin Faraci. Prior to the selectively quoted posts, there were many examples in which Devin cited the bomb threat to Sony or specified "misogynist gamers."

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...

It's a dig at people using terrorist tactics and hiding behind the concept of "jouranlitic integrity." Not hard to figure out. Especially since it's not one of his original posts, it comes from several days after the fact. But when you divorce it from all context, yeah, it's horrible. You and OP are both constructing a narrative notwithstanding the whole of the dialogue.

Speaking of....

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

It's not an error. It's a deliberate misconstrued argument he's stuck to and now you're piling on. It's dishonesty. That's the thing. I don't care about Devin Faracy. I care that someone is trying to create a new narrative to paint him as an enemy of all gamers because they have quote mined the guy and then complained that such a constructed narrative was mean to all of us.

And I can't stop you, but I won't be contributing anymore. Lie about me or Faraci all you want. But I sincerely hope you don't fool anyone.

 

[Alloflifedecays]

Dude, don't tie me in with you. Do you know who he compared to ISIS? Angry guys who use threats of extrajudicial reprisal to enforce their ideological points. That sure as shit isn't me, and if that's you, if you feel identified by that, then honestly, you deserve to feel insulted.

In the meantime, Devin remains one of the best pop culture commentators on the internet. To quote Bob Chipman,
"Say what you will about his tone or methodology, in an internet "brawl" Faraci is the sort you'd want on your side -- and not just because he works with a Hulk. He's a guy who turned commenting into a columnist gig and is now running one of the most influential film-geek news outlets on the web among not only fans but industry professionals as well. He and his site are followed/watched by an enviable legion of fellow critics from all stripes and plenty of genuine geek-culture icons. So when he fights (which is often) it draws quite the crowd -- a crowd that subsequently watched Badass Digest's gaming editor Andrew Todd post what I consider the best overall summation of this entire mess written thus far."


He's perceptive, smart and generally on the right side of things, including throughout this whole two-week farce. He loves video games and he knows assholes when he sees them. That's all it takes.

 

[Something Amyss]

It allows one to make a specific response to a specific part of the post and to let others know that is the part they are responding to with what they are saying there. There certainly can be times where people do so and take what you say out of context, but often, it is easy to see when this is happening, because important context you provided is often completely missing from the quote being responded to.

This. So much this.

Is it really that alien for people to actually look back? When you quote someone in this forum it even gives you a handy link to click on and see the previous post. Even if you're misconstrued, there's a fairly solid antidote for it.

 

[DrOswald]

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.

Devin Faraci has a problem with misogynist gamers. Supposedly the problem he has is with the "misogynist" part, not the "gamer" part. However, for some reason, he has decided that the best short hand for the people he has a problem with is "gamer", not "misogynist". For the purposes of Faraci, "gamer" is equivalent to "misogynistic gamer". This has a high probability of being misconstrued as an attack on all gamers and as an effort to equate all gamers with misogynists. The implication is that all gamers are misogynists.

The argument excusing Devin Faraci I have seen put forward is that this is ok because it is clear from context that he only means misogynist gamers, not all gamers. For the sake of clarity I will call this the "context justification" argument from now on.

I reject the context justification argument for a few reasons, but the most important can be demonstrated by hypothetical situations:

A rich man has been manipulated by his girlfriend. She was cheating on him with his best buddy while pressing him for money. He discovers this manipulation. Angry, the man writes the following tweets in sequence:

1. "My girlfriend was using me for my money while screwing by best friend."
2. "Why do some women manipulate, cheat, and lie?"
3. "Women are despicable."

In context, we could argue that his context makes it clear he is specifically talking about women who manipulate, cheat, and lie. His problem is not with women, but manipulative, cheating liars. But instead of saying "cheaters are despicable" or "lairs are despicable" or "manipulative people are despicable" he chose to say that women are despicable.

I would call a man out for saying things along these lines (and have done so in the past). That woman was a liar, not all women. The use of phrasing that implies all women are such is sexist, the implication being that this women was a manipulative, cheating liar because she was a woman. I would argue that context justification is not sufficient to avoid the negative implications of the statement. If the man has a problem with cheats and liars he should say so. He should not say he has a problem with women and hope we all get it.

Similarly, the context of Faraci's tweets is not sufficient justification. If he has a problem with misogynists then he should say so. He should not say he has a problem with gamers and hope we all get it.

Edit: messed up the quotes. Trying to fix it now.

Edit 2: quotes should be fixed.

 

[sageoftruth]

Here you go, everyone. This might come in handy.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Communicating-Thich-Nhat-Hanh/dp/0062224662/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1409688519&sr=8-4&keywords=communication