The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.
- Thread starter hodj
- Start date
- Status
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Fana: "I mean you post on this specific message board and not for example neogaf because you specifically said you want to challenge social positions of this specific board. In what way are you NOT literally a social justice warrior."
That is in no way what I "specifically" said. Let's see the quote in question, shall we?
"I don't have a bubble. After months of waiting, I was finally made a member of Neogaf. That was months ago, and I haven't made a single post there yet. Why? Because I'm not interested in having my views repeated back to me ad nauseum. I want to be challenged. I want to be proven wrong sometimes. I want to question my own beliefs and see if they hold up under scrutiny."
So...
I DON'T want to have my own views reinforced in a bubble of close-minded peers.
I DO want to have MY views challenged.
I DO want to question MY OWN beliefs.
Where do you get "I want to challenge social positions of this board" from that? Heck, where do you get "SJW" from somebody openly inviting having his views challenged and welcoming being proven wrong?
Once again, Fana, you've managed to make statements that have literally nothing to do with anything I've said. Now I don't think you're intentionally being dishonest. I just think you're FAR too over-eager to find evidence (*wink*) that supports whatever caricature you think I am. I'm going to recommend to you what I've recommended to others in the past: Before you make a judgment call on me based on a supposed view of mine, take a moment. Take a deep breath. Re-read whatever post of mine you think expresses this view and ask yourself "Are the words Tanoomba is using REALLY communicating what I'm about to accuse him of saying?" If the answer is "No" (as it would have been for your last several posts), then sit it out. Or respond to what I've actually said. Either way is fantastic.
That is in no way what I "specifically" said. Let's see the quote in question, shall we?
"I don't have a bubble. After months of waiting, I was finally made a member of Neogaf. That was months ago, and I haven't made a single post there yet. Why? Because I'm not interested in having my views repeated back to me ad nauseum. I want to be challenged. I want to be proven wrong sometimes. I want to question my own beliefs and see if they hold up under scrutiny."
So...
I DON'T want to have my own views reinforced in a bubble of close-minded peers.
I DO want to have MY views challenged.
I DO want to question MY OWN beliefs.
Where do you get "I want to challenge social positions of this board" from that? Heck, where do you get "SJW" from somebody openly inviting having his views challenged and welcoming being proven wrong?
Once again, Fana, you've managed to make statements that have literally nothing to do with anything I've said. Now I don't think you're intentionally being dishonest. I just think you're FAR too over-eager to find evidence (*wink*) that supports whatever caricature you think I am. I'm going to recommend to you what I've recommended to others in the past: Before you make a judgment call on me based on a supposed view of mine, take a moment. Take a deep breath. Re-read whatever post of mine you think expresses this view and ask yourself "Are the words Tanoomba is using REALLY communicating what I'm about to accuse him of saying?" If the answer is "No" (as it would have been for your last several posts), then sit it out. Or respond to what I've actually said. Either way is fantastic.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Quaid: "Wow I just read that Vice article 'Everybodys a Gamer!'. What a load of absolute garbage. How can a grown person be that fucking stupid? It boggles the mind."
I don't get it, Quaid, what about that article makes it "a load of absolute garbage"? What does the author say that you qualify as "stupid"? Seemed like a perfectly reasonable article to me.
I don't get it, Quaid, what about that article makes it "a load of absolute garbage"? What does the author say that you qualify as "stupid"? Seemed like a perfectly reasonable article to me.
Chanur
Shit Posting Professional
- 30,460
- 50,958
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,860
- 8,266
The entire premise of the article is flawed. It is constructed on the use of the term (lower-case) 'gamer' being used in its literal sense. 'Someone who plays games". Of course we are all, or have the potential to be 'gamers'. However, the term (upper case) 'Gamer' conjures certain mental imagery associated with an idea of an enthusiast group. We've had this discussion before I believe.
You're from Montreal, yes? I'll put it in terms you should have experience with. When I use the term 'Biker', are there certain images that are created in your mind? Is everyone who rides a bike a Biker? My argument is that the term 'Gamer' denotes a certain engagement in video game culture, in the same way the term 'Biker' indicates engagement in a certain culture. Whether that Biker rides 5 bikes or 1, or if he goes to one biker bar or another is irrelevant. Bikers get excited about seeing cool motorcycles, know what bikes are coming out, have knowledge of motorcycle history, have favourite brands or producers. What games a Gamer plays, how often they play them, where they play them are irrelevant to the identity 'Gamer'. These terms indicate engagement in an enthusiast culture, they aren't just fucking verbs describing what these people do. The entire notion is ridiculous.
No, that business woman with a level 70 Paladin isn't a 'Gamer' simply because she plays World of Warcraft, just like I'm not a 'Biker' because I own a dirt bike. That guy who plays Angry Birds on his way to work doesn't make him a 'Gamer', just like I am not a 'Biker' because there's a rusted out Raleigh mountain bike in my shed.
Soygen
The Dirty Dozen For the Price of One
- 28,585
- 45,256
Exactly, Quaid. It's the constant attempts at minimizing the enthusiast element of gaming. The fact that Vice just hired Leigh Alexander, who called the enthusiast gamers wailing hyper-consumers and childish internet-arguers, just compounds my feelings on that shit article.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 27,150
- 56,901
Its an obvious attempt to change the statistics of who plays those games. They'll go, "55% of gamers are women! So why should CoD appeal only to men? SEXISM" even though probably 95% of the CoD players are men. But they'll trot out a survey or apple app store stats to say "gamers" are X% women, and have it all neatly packaged in a jezebel or salon article and generate clicks and outrage. By redefining "gamers", they can target any particular gaming segment and then call them out for not appealing to the audience.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Hmmm... I think we're just gonna hit the same impasse we did with the Gone Home discussion.
I just don't get what it is you think you're protecting by trying to make this distinction. Some people believe if you play video games, you are a gamer. I don't see why someone should be considered "fucking stupid" for saying so. My mom plays 2048 on her phone all the time and I have no problem considering her a gamer in that sense, even if she would never in a million years use the term to describe herself.
Put another way: There is virtually no harm done in using the term "gamer" to encompass all those who play video games that I can think of. It doesn't hurt the industry, it doesn't hurt the games, and it doesn't hurt the gamers themselves. What is there to be gained by insisting the term "gamer" not be used to describe "casuals" besides looking like an elitist snob?
I don't know where you got this upper case/lower case distinction from, but since my early teens my friends and I used "hardcore gamer" to describe people like us who didn't just play games, we CARED about games. We followed the industry and would immerse ourselves wholeheartedly in deep, satisfying games for hours and hours. The fact that we would use the term "hardcore" implied there was such thing as gamers who were NOT "hardcore", and this was years and years before mobile gaming and Facebook brought gaming to the masses. Before the Wii, even. So I just don't see the value in not just disagreeing with someone who thinks people who play games are gamers, but calling their opinion "garbage" and insulting them as "fucking stupid". If anything, that kind of reinforces the point the author made about some gamers feeling threatened by the evolving definition of the word, even though the fact that there are so many more gamers today than there used to be has been nothing but fantastic for the industry as a whole and for ALL gamers, regardless of where on the spectrum of "core" they fall.
I just don't get what it is you think you're protecting by trying to make this distinction. Some people believe if you play video games, you are a gamer. I don't see why someone should be considered "fucking stupid" for saying so. My mom plays 2048 on her phone all the time and I have no problem considering her a gamer in that sense, even if she would never in a million years use the term to describe herself.
Put another way: There is virtually no harm done in using the term "gamer" to encompass all those who play video games that I can think of. It doesn't hurt the industry, it doesn't hurt the games, and it doesn't hurt the gamers themselves. What is there to be gained by insisting the term "gamer" not be used to describe "casuals" besides looking like an elitist snob?
I don't know where you got this upper case/lower case distinction from, but since my early teens my friends and I used "hardcore gamer" to describe people like us who didn't just play games, we CARED about games. We followed the industry and would immerse ourselves wholeheartedly in deep, satisfying games for hours and hours. The fact that we would use the term "hardcore" implied there was such thing as gamers who were NOT "hardcore", and this was years and years before mobile gaming and Facebook brought gaming to the masses. Before the Wii, even. So I just don't see the value in not just disagreeing with someone who thinks people who play games are gamers, but calling their opinion "garbage" and insulting them as "fucking stupid". If anything, that kind of reinforces the point the author made about some gamers feeling threatened by the evolving definition of the word, even though the fact that there are so many more gamers today than there used to be has been nothing but fantastic for the industry as a whole and for ALL gamers, regardless of where on the spectrum of "core" they fall.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Soy: "Yup, agreed. On the bright side of that argument, money talks."
Exactly. Which is why, no matter who tries to use X stats to push Y narrative, it won't mean shit. Keep buying the games you like and developers will keep making them. Who gives a shit if some clickbait article is trying to rustle jimmies?
Exactly. Which is why, no matter who tries to use X stats to push Y narrative, it won't mean shit. Keep buying the games you like and developers will keep making them. Who gives a shit if some clickbait article is trying to rustle jimmies?
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 27,150
- 56,901
So you don't think "journalists" or activists generating fake outrage and then applying public pressure via misleading stats (or outright lying) to get things changed is "problematic" ?
Just keep on and nevermind those people lying in the press trying to get things changed. Is that really your position?
Quaid
Trump's Staff
- 11,860
- 8,266
-I just don't get what it is you think you're protecting by trying to make this distinction.
I'm not 'protecting' anything. Should I be? I'm criticizing flawed logic, nothing more.
-Some people believe if you play video games, you are a gamer. I don't see why someone should be considered "fucking stupid" for saying so.
Those people are incorrect, and should be considered 'fucking stupid' for the reasons I detailed above. What I'm talking about here is the difference between a verb and a noun. I'd think an English teacher would understand the differences between the two, and how their use determines meaning.
-Put another way: There is virtually no harm done in using the term "gamer" to encompass all those who play video games that I can think of. It doesn't hurt the industry, it doesn't hurt the games, and it doesn't hurt the gamers themselves. What is there to be gained by insisting the term "gamer" not be used to describe "casuals" besides looking like an elitist snob?
Straw man that is totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Nobody is making this argument. You are using your own perceived moral superiority to deflect the conversation to where you want it to be.
-I don't know where you got this upper case/lower case distinction from, but since my early teens my friends and I used "hardcore gamer" to describe people like us who didn't just play games, we CARED about games. We followed the industry and would immerse ourselves wholeheartedly in deep, satisfying games for hours and hours. The fact that we would use the term "hardcore" implied there was such thing as gamers who were NOT "hardcore", and this was years and years before mobile gaming and Facebook brought gaming to the masses. Before the Wii, even. So I just don't see the value in not just disagreeing with someone who thinks people who play games are gamers, but calling their opinion "garbage" and insulting them as "fucking stupid". If anything, that kind of reinforces the point the author made about some gamers feeling threatened by the evolving definition of the word, even though the fact that there are so many more gamers today
than there used to be has been nothing but fantastic for the industry as a whole and for ALL gamers, regardless of where on the spectrum of "core" they fall.
The terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' do not, and never have, referred to level of engagement or enthusiasm with regards to gaming or gaming culture. They have always referred to amount of time devoted to the hobby itself. In some cases the terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' are equated to player skill. Again, irrelevant to enthusiast engagement.
I'm not 'protecting' anything. Should I be? I'm criticizing flawed logic, nothing more.
-Some people believe if you play video games, you are a gamer. I don't see why someone should be considered "fucking stupid" for saying so.
Those people are incorrect, and should be considered 'fucking stupid' for the reasons I detailed above. What I'm talking about here is the difference between a verb and a noun. I'd think an English teacher would understand the differences between the two, and how their use determines meaning.
-Put another way: There is virtually no harm done in using the term "gamer" to encompass all those who play video games that I can think of. It doesn't hurt the industry, it doesn't hurt the games, and it doesn't hurt the gamers themselves. What is there to be gained by insisting the term "gamer" not be used to describe "casuals" besides looking like an elitist snob?
Straw man that is totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Nobody is making this argument. You are using your own perceived moral superiority to deflect the conversation to where you want it to be.
-I don't know where you got this upper case/lower case distinction from, but since my early teens my friends and I used "hardcore gamer" to describe people like us who didn't just play games, we CARED about games. We followed the industry and would immerse ourselves wholeheartedly in deep, satisfying games for hours and hours. The fact that we would use the term "hardcore" implied there was such thing as gamers who were NOT "hardcore", and this was years and years before mobile gaming and Facebook brought gaming to the masses. Before the Wii, even. So I just don't see the value in not just disagreeing with someone who thinks people who play games are gamers, but calling their opinion "garbage" and insulting them as "fucking stupid". If anything, that kind of reinforces the point the author made about some gamers feeling threatened by the evolving definition of the word, even though the fact that there are so many more gamers today
than there used to be has been nothing but fantastic for the industry as a whole and for ALL gamers, regardless of where on the spectrum of "core" they fall.
The terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' do not, and never have, referred to level of engagement or enthusiasm with regards to gaming or gaming culture. They have always referred to amount of time devoted to the hobby itself. In some cases the terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' are equated to player skill. Again, irrelevant to enthusiast engagement.
- 51,401
- 250,797
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Skangela: "Is Tanoomba really arguing that you can apply the 'Gamer' label to anyone barely an hour after he argused that you can't apply the SJW label to him because of nuances? Embarrassing..."
Some people believe a gamer is someone who plays video games. This is not radical thinking.
Some people think a gamer is only someone who immerses themselves in game culture. That's fine.
There is nothing to be gained by making this a battle.
"Nuance" has nothing to do with the SJW argument. However you choose to define "SJW", I'm not it.
Cad: "So you don't think "journalists" or activists generating fake outrage and then applying public pressure via misleading stats (or outright lying) to get things changed is "problematic" ?
Just keep on and nevermind those people lying in the press trying to get things changed. Is that really your position?"
I don't understand what you think you're preventing here by raising a stink. A journalist's job is to get readers, and they WILL bend the truth, sensationalize non-issues and generate conflict in order to do so. This has ALWAYS been the case as far as I know. Today's journalists are not trying to change the video game industry. They CAN'T do that. They're just trying to get attention so more people click on their articles. Your reaction is part of their strategy, most likely.
Now, if a journalist outright lies or makes up stats to try to prove a point, we are lucky enough to live in a time where we have tremendous access to information that will prove them wrong. But Chris Scullion's "We're all gamers" article is not an example of that. He's taking one side of a debatable issue, and some gamers' response is to shout him down in an apparent attempt to prevent somebody down the line from using his definition of "gamer" to say something they don't want to hear... And even THAT would have no effect on the industry, since in the end all that matters is what sells. So you're shitting on some guy's (not irrational and completely harmless) opinion in order to prevent something that would also be completely harmless (if perhaps somewhat less rational). Makes sense to me.
"There's never been a better time to be a gamer." That was the first line of the article, a sentiment I strongly agree with and have expressed before several times. "And yet there are some gamers who are unhappy with the way things are going." Why? Because people are using the word "gamer" in a way they don't approve of. Because people have begun to criticize video games as an art form (the way they deserve to be criticized). Because attention-hungry journalists are doing what journalists have always done. I don't understand these gamers. If you give a shit about video games more than you do about arguing useless bullshit, then it's a fantastic time to be a gamer! Enjoy it and stop looking for things to be pissed about. Honestly, I don't think you realize how much you have in common with SJWs.
Some people believe a gamer is someone who plays video games. This is not radical thinking.
Some people think a gamer is only someone who immerses themselves in game culture. That's fine.
There is nothing to be gained by making this a battle.
"Nuance" has nothing to do with the SJW argument. However you choose to define "SJW", I'm not it.
Cad: "So you don't think "journalists" or activists generating fake outrage and then applying public pressure via misleading stats (or outright lying) to get things changed is "problematic" ?
Just keep on and nevermind those people lying in the press trying to get things changed. Is that really your position?"
I don't understand what you think you're preventing here by raising a stink. A journalist's job is to get readers, and they WILL bend the truth, sensationalize non-issues and generate conflict in order to do so. This has ALWAYS been the case as far as I know. Today's journalists are not trying to change the video game industry. They CAN'T do that. They're just trying to get attention so more people click on their articles. Your reaction is part of their strategy, most likely.
Now, if a journalist outright lies or makes up stats to try to prove a point, we are lucky enough to live in a time where we have tremendous access to information that will prove them wrong. But Chris Scullion's "We're all gamers" article is not an example of that. He's taking one side of a debatable issue, and some gamers' response is to shout him down in an apparent attempt to prevent somebody down the line from using his definition of "gamer" to say something they don't want to hear... And even THAT would have no effect on the industry, since in the end all that matters is what sells. So you're shitting on some guy's (not irrational and completely harmless) opinion in order to prevent something that would also be completely harmless (if perhaps somewhat less rational). Makes sense to me.
"There's never been a better time to be a gamer." That was the first line of the article, a sentiment I strongly agree with and have expressed before several times. "And yet there are some gamers who are unhappy with the way things are going." Why? Because people are using the word "gamer" in a way they don't approve of. Because people have begun to criticize video games as an art form (the way they deserve to be criticized). Because attention-hungry journalists are doing what journalists have always done. I don't understand these gamers. If you give a shit about video games more than you do about arguing useless bullshit, then it's a fantastic time to be a gamer! Enjoy it and stop looking for things to be pissed about. Honestly, I don't think you realize how much you have in common with SJWs.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Quaid: "Is everyone who drives a motorcycle a biker Tanoomba?"
No. Is everyone who regularly goes to the movies a cinemagoer? Yes, although they might not be a cinephile. Is everyone who enjoys reading books a reader? Yes.
This word game doesn't prove much.
Quaid: "I'm not 'protecting' anything. Should I be? I'm criticizing flawed logic, nothing more."
Oh, so you're a contrarian too. Welcome to the club.
Watch it with the straw man accusations, though. I'm not accusing you of claiming the article was harmful, I'm just stating there's no practical reason to argue the distinction you're trying to make.
Quaid: "The terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' do not, and never have, referred to level of engagement or enthusiasm with regards to gaming or gaming culture. They have always referred to amount of time devoted to the hobby itself. In some cases the terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' are equated to player skill. Again, irrelevant to enthusiast engagement."
Citation needed on all of this.
No. Is everyone who regularly goes to the movies a cinemagoer? Yes, although they might not be a cinephile. Is everyone who enjoys reading books a reader? Yes.
This word game doesn't prove much.
Quaid: "I'm not 'protecting' anything. Should I be? I'm criticizing flawed logic, nothing more."
Oh, so you're a contrarian too. Welcome to the club.
Watch it with the straw man accusations, though. I'm not accusing you of claiming the article was harmful, I'm just stating there's no practical reason to argue the distinction you're trying to make.
Quaid: "The terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' do not, and never have, referred to level of engagement or enthusiasm with regards to gaming or gaming culture. They have always referred to amount of time devoted to the hobby itself. In some cases the terms 'hardcore' and 'casual' are equated to player skill. Again, irrelevant to enthusiast engagement."
Citation needed on all of this.
- Status