I am a gamer and I'm not dead.

[CannibalCorpses]

I'm not sure what you're here to discuss. Is this supposed to be an open conversation about whether the rest of us feel like gamers are dead? Whether we feel like gamers are alive? Or is just a statement?

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm trying to figure out what you want the rest of us to do. We can't properly respond without some prompting from the OT about where the discussion is meant to flow. It may not always flow that way, but you might want to give us a heads up so we can at least start some dialogue.

Fair enough. I thought about adding a "WHO'S WITH ME?" but the first post already sounds a little grandiose.

I think we can reclaim the word while addressing some of the things that made those journalists decry it. So, who's with me?

I guess its an open conversation.

'Reclaim the word'? *boggles* it never left us...well it never left me. What do you call someone who plays games on average 12 hours a day? Yup, a gamer...

 

[Fulbert]

I am a gamer and I'm not dead.

Are you sure you aren't? You've been proclaimed dead by THE game journalism [https://twitter.com/leighalexander/status/507534472343207936], and she really should know better.

 

[G00N3R7883]

I stopped caring what other people think about my favourite hobby a long time ago. I haven't even read the articles that have formed part of this recent controversy.

I've worked for almost 10 years, but I've never worked with anyone who you might describe as a games enthusiast. A couple of my colleagues have played the odd game here and there, but mostly my colleagues have never touched a game. I'm sure you can imagine the kind of looks and comments I get from those people when I mention gaming. At best its the awkward silence (like in a cartoon when a tumbleweed slowly rolls by), at worst its the "wouldn't you rather spend your time doing (whatever their favourite hobby is)".

Being primarily a PC Gamer, I also had to put up with the "PC Gaming is dead/dying" articles for a long time.

I learned to just ignore everything like that. I play games because I enjoy them and they make me happy. My enjoyment and happiness is not going to be spoiled by the people who don't like games/gamers.

 

[veloper]

I am dead and I'm liking it so far.
I can still do everything, except click on any more clickbait from Gamasutra, but that is only a small price to pay.

 

[UmberHulk]

Is their really nothing else you can define your self with because basing part of your identity around your hobby is a bit lame. I mean i like to fish but I'm not going to through a fit because some one says fishing is dead.

 

[KingDragonlord]

You are not a pair of shoes (I assume), you do not need a label. People are made up of a myriad of different traits, such as the highest number you have ever counted to sequentially (that one is important. When it happens, you'll know). Enjoying games, be it video, table top, cards, hopscotch, etc is just a single aspect of the greater whole.

It just seems there was some confusion caused be people putting the cart before the horse and letting the label define them, rather than the other way around. It was not necessarily the case but it was interpreted as such because social media is pretty terrible at emulating social interaction accurately.

Labels are mostly quite bad, they lead to generalizations which leads to prejudice (which leads to the dark side).

I'll continue to call myself a gamer as long as I have the traits of one (love of games). If and when I lose interest in games, that is when I'll have no more use for the term.

You're mixed up when it comes to this label thing. Though it all depends on how you define it. The term gamer is descriptive, not prescriptive. So if labels are prescriptive by your definition, then gamer is not a label, its just a trait.

We shouldn't let it become a bad word. All it means is "person who loves games." If loving games is somehow proven to be bad, thats when we start distancing ourselves from the term, not because some people who call themselves gamers are engaged in bad behavior.

If we're doing that, then I could easily declare the words "journalist" and "feminist" to be foul and tainted just on the basis of the behavior of many journalists and feminists. Journalists harrassed Princess Diana to the point that she died in a car accident for crying out loud. Some of them hound and harass celebrities for a living disclosing every sordid detail of their lives.

Some feminists believe "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women" (Dworkin, this is one of the quotes of hers that people use to attribute the infamous "all sex is rape" position to her, though the actual quote is absurd enough on its own).

But they don't run from their labels, they ask you to disregard the badly behaved and the extremists among them. Journalists point to heroes like Woodward and Bernstein and there is a whole wave of feminism that holds pretty much the opposite of Dworkin's attitudes about sex (there seems to be a pretty heavy divide among feminists on this topic). If they get that consideration, why don't we? Why are we the ones who have to answer for the badly behaved among us?

 

[KingDragonlord]

Is their really nothing else you can define your self with because basing part of your identity around your hobby is a bit lame. I mean i like to fish but I'm not going to through a fit because some one says fishing is dead.

Calling myself a gamer does not exclude me from being anything else. That is apparently something you have decided but its not something I hold to. Its a describes a part of me. I'm also a developer, a troubleshooter, a designer (less so than the first two), a brother, etc. I wouldn't allow any of those other descriptors become sullied either.

 

[Ramzal]

I was dead? I didn't know that. No more chemistry needed!!! Seriously though, blaming the many for the actions of the few tends to lead to profiling... which is never a good thing. Can we cut it out, please?

 

[Jacques Joseph]

I can´t seem to understand the rage about this "gamers are dead" thing. From the first moment I read those articles (I did not read them all, mind you, but I still read a couple of them), I automatically understood that to basically mean only a specific sub-group of all gamers. Which does not mean such a generalisation is okay, but the problem is not with the thing they´re trying to say but with the way they´re trying to say it, which is quite different.

Basically what this article says.
I didn´t read the whole article, sorry about that, but it seems to be making pretty much the same point I´m trying to make, especially this part:

Spoiler

Critic Dan Golding echoes Alexander, writing that ?When videogames changed, the gamer identity did not stretch, and so it has been broken? adding that while ?the ?consumer king? gamer will continue to be targeted and exploited while their profitability as a demographic outweighs their toxicity, the traditional gamer identity is now culturally irrelevant.?

Kotaku?s Luke Plunkett clarifies what these critiques mean to him: ?Note they?re not talking about everyone who plays games, or who self-identifies as a ?gamer?, as being the worst,? he writes. ?It?s being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming?s widening horizons. If you call yourself a ? gamer? and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person.?

Just be careful if you use the term gamer because, you know, guilt by association.

Language is powerful. Language is the source of power in any culture, and writers of all people should know this. Using the term ?gamer? this way as a ?catch-all term? for ?reactionary holdouts? invariably casts too wide a net. It sounds disdainful. It perpetuates a stereotype. And it perpetuates the war.

OT: So yeah, I still consider myself a gamer, specifically one that has trouble understanding why these articles generated so much hate...

 

[Stryphoon]

"I'll continue to call myself a gamer as long as I have the traits of one (love of games). If and when I lose interest in games, that is when I'll have no more use for the term."

That is a single trait. So long as you choose to use the label rather than just clearly stating the trait, you will need to accept that some people will misunderstand you because for many that label has grown to mean so much more than just liking games.

"You're mixed up when it comes to this label thing. Though it all depends on how you define it. The term gamer is descriptive, not prescriptive."

Of course gamer is a label, it is a single word that has many different meanings to many different people.

"We shouldn't let it become a bad word. All it means is "person who loves games." If loving games is somehow proven to be bad, thats when we start distancing ourselves from the term, not because some people who call themselves gamers are engaged in bad behavior. "

Again, you're definition is not necessarily the same as everyone else's. Fighting to save a label/word we don't need is silly and will just keep happening over and over again in future. Many groups that have been viewed in a negative light have fought for decades to get rid of their labels stigma and are still doing it. They generally want equality or justice, we just want to not be misunderstood and that issue has been approached in virtually every way other than, you know, explaining and clearing up the misunderstanding.

"If we're doing that, then I could easily declare the words "journalist" and "feminist" to be foul and tainted just on the basis of the behavior of many journalists and feminists."

Many do. Also, journalist is an occupation, not a sociopolitical position. How a journalist acts is kind of up to who they work for and at least they (generally) have to put their name on things rather than internet handles.

"Journalists harrassed Princess Diana to the point that she died in a car accident for crying out loud. Some of them hound and harass celebrities for a living disclosing every sordid detail of their lives. "

Yes, and that event caused a massive public outcry against journalists with the laws eventually being amended.

"But they don't run from their labels, they ask you to disregard the badly behaved and the extremists among them. Journalists point to heroes like Woodward and Bernstein and there is a whole wave of feminism that holds pretty much the opposite of Dworkin's attitudes about sex (there seems to be a pretty heavy divide among feminists on this topic). If they get that consideration, why don't we? Why are we the ones who have to answer for the badly behaved among us?"

Could we not learn from their example? Is this really a never ending battle we need to jump into? We have seen again and again and again and again how a label for a group of people will always be open to interpretation and this always have detractors.
Having the benefit of being a comparably new medium, we have the advantage of knowing how this sort of thing has played out in the past (generally not ideally).
Is a word with no set definition really worth all the hassle? Personally, I have no issue converting to "I play video games" rather than "I am a gamer" because what that will need to become is "I am a gamer. Here is My personal definition of the term so as not to be misunderstood..."

 

[Mikeybb]

I'm reminded of this scene over the past few weeks

Gamer: I'm not dead!
Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Journalist: Yes he is.
Gamer: I'm not.
Dead Collector: He isn't.
Journalist: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Gamer: I'm getting better.
Journalist: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

 

[KingDragonlord]

"I'll continue to call myself a gamer as long as I have the traits of one (love of games). If and when I lose interest in games, that is when I'll have no more use for the term."

That is a single trait. So long as you choose to use the label rather than just clearly stating the trait, you will need to accept that some people will misunderstand you because for many that label has grown to mean so much more than just liking games.

Well, seeing as how my definition is pretty close to the ones found in dictionaries, on wikipedia, used by the editor of this very site and basically everyone else who doesn't have an axe to grind right now in this debate and none of those sources support this other definition, I don't care how the willfully obtuse perceive me. There is no pleasing them anyway.

"You're mixed up when it comes to this label thing. Though it all depends on how you define it. The term gamer is descriptive, not prescriptive."

Of course gamer is a label, it is a single word that has many different meanings to many different people.

But you talked about letting the term define me. Calling one self a gamer or a lover or a liberal is not defining oneself by that term to the exclusion of all other potential descriptors. Thats my point.

"We shouldn't let it become a bad word. All it means is "person who loves games." If loving games is somehow proven to be bad, thats when we start distancing ourselves from the term, not because some people who call themselves gamers are engaged in bad behavior. "

Again, you're definition is not necessarily the same as everyone else's. Fighting to save a label/word we don't need is silly and will just keep happening over and over again in future. Many groups that have been viewed in a negative light have fought for decades to get rid of their labels stigma and are still doing it. They generally want equality or justice, we just want to not be misunderstood and that issue has been approached in virtually every way other than, you know, explaining and clearing up the misunderstanding.

Redefining a word to an arbitrary overly narrow definition that is not supported by its construction or any authoritative source is far sillier, especially when we already have words for those groups of people "Trolls" or "Griefers" the latter of which is especially descriptive and a much better fit.

"If we're doing that, then I could easily declare the words "journalist" and "feminist" to be foul and tainted just on the basis of the behavior of many journalists and feminists."

Many do. Also, journalist is an occupation, not a sociopolitical position. How a journalist acts is kind of up to who they work for and at least they (generally) have to put their name on things rather than internet handles.

And gamer is a hobby, not a sociopolitical position. Whats your point?

"Journalists harrassed Princess Diana to the point that she died in a car accident for crying out loud. Some of them hound and harass celebrities for a living disclosing every sordid detail of their lives. "

Yes, and that event caused a massive public outcry against journalists with the laws eventually being amended.

But it didn't cause journalists to ditch their label. In fact whenever possible they made a point to refer to the specific subset of journalists engaged in this kind of harassment.

"But they don't run from their labels, they ask you to disregard the badly behaved and the extremists among them. Journalists point to heroes like Woodward and Bernstein and there is a whole wave of feminism that holds pretty much the opposite of Dworkin's attitudes about sex (there seems to be a pretty heavy divide among feminists on this topic). If they get that consideration, why don't we? Why are we the ones who have to answer for the badly behaved among us?"

Could we not learn from their example? Is this really a never ending battle we need to jump into? We have seen again and again and again and again how a label for a group of people will always be open to interpretation and this always have detractors.
Having the benefit of being a comparably new medium, we have the advantage of knowing how this sort of thing has played out in the past (generally not ideally).
Is a word with no set definition really worth all the hassle? Personally, I have no issue converting to "I play video games" rather than "I am a gamer" because what that will need to become is "I am a gamer. Here is My personal definition of the term so as not to be misunderstood..."

Learn from what? We still have people proudly calling themselves journalists and feminists. Are you saying they should abandon those labels too? Whatever replacement term you come up with, if it catches on, the trolls will start using it too and whatever taint you think the term gamer bears will just transfer to it. If you don't come up with a term, someone will because its enough of a thing for a term to be useful.

You don't just cut and run, that gives these people power. It sets a precedent that we can be shamed into just doing whatever people want for no good reason. There is absolutely nothing that abandoning this perfectly logical word does to make any of the actual problems in any way better.

 

[KingDragonlord]

We must not be silent. We do not need the people who are supposed to be iconic of our interests behaving like this. It is unacceptable and until accountability is established we must press on.

It's kind of amazing how polarizing you make this whole thing out to be, when it's far more complex then you might ever understand (going by posts like this).

It's a bit sad that mob mentality and "us vs them" is still so active today. You might've thought people had matured past it, but there you go.

Oh please! We didn't throw down the gauntlet, these "gamers are dead" journalists did. They could have gone on decrying trolls who are the actual problem but in their anger they chose to target the rest of us.

Edit: Edited for specificity. Thank you erttheking.

 

[Erttheking]

We must not be silent. We do not need the people who are supposed to be iconic of our interests behaving like this. It is unacceptable and until accountability is established we must press on.

It's kind of amazing how polarizing you make this whole thing out to be, when it's far more complex then you might ever understand (going by posts like this).

It's a bit sad that mob mentality and "us vs them" is still so active today. You might've thought people had matured past it, but there you go.

Oh please! We didn't throw down the gauntlet, the journalists did. They could have gone on decrying trolls who are the actual problem but in their anger they chose to target the rest of us.

Who is they? Did all journalists agree to declare war on gamers? They're not a hive mind.

 

[lordloss217]

I'm reminded of this scene over the past few weeks

Gamer: I'm not dead!
Dead Collector: 'Ere, he says he's not dead.
Journalist: Yes he is.
Gamer: I'm not.
Dead Collector: He isn't.
Journalist: Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
Gamer: I'm getting better.
Journalist: No you're not, you'll be stone dead in a moment.

Haha got to love Monty python, they always up the mood

 

[Vigormortis]

Why do you even care? It's just one dumb person who wrote one dumb article. Opinion of one person is pretty much meaningless.

Actually it was a number of articles written by a number of "journalists" that spread into quite a lot more articles by quite a lot more "journalists", all of which garnered a lot of followers and advocates.

[HEADING=2]But...[/HEADING]

That doesn't make any of them any less wrong, any less dumb, any less inflammatory, or any more worth our time or concern.

It's good to care about the misinformation these kinds of people spread, since countering it is important. But this doesn't necessitate caring about them as individuals. The moment they sink into harassment and bigotry they lose that privilege.

So I agree with you.

I am a gamer. And if anyone thinks that means anything other than that I enjoy video gaming as a hobby, a pass-time, and a fascination, then they can go fuck themselves.

 

[KingDragonlord]

We must not be silent. We do not need the people who are supposed to be iconic of our interests behaving like this. It is unacceptable and until accountability is established we must press on.

It's kind of amazing how polarizing you make this whole thing out to be, when it's far more complex then you might ever understand (going by posts like this).

It's a bit sad that mob mentality and "us vs them" is still so active today. You might've thought people had matured past it, but there you go.

Oh please! We didn't throw down the gauntlet, the journalists did. They could have gone on decrying trolls who are the actual problem but in their anger they chose to target the rest of us.

Who is they? Did all journalists agree to declare war on gamers? They're not a hive mind.

You're right. I thought I'd typed "these journalists." My apologies. I'll fix that now.

But even better still, I should say anti-gamer game journalists, the ones that published these "gamers are dead" articles. They threw down the gauntlet.

 

[Erttheking]

We must not be silent. We do not need the people who are supposed to be iconic of our interests behaving like this. It is unacceptable and until accountability is established we must press on.

It's kind of amazing how polarizing you make this whole thing out to be, when it's far more complex then you might ever understand (going by posts like this).

It's a bit sad that mob mentality and "us vs them" is still so active today. You might've thought people had matured past it, but there you go.

Oh please! We didn't throw down the gauntlet, the journalists did. They could have gone on decrying trolls who are the actual problem but in their anger they chose to target the rest of us.

Who is they? Did all journalists agree to declare war on gamers? They're not a hive mind.

You're right. I thought I'd typed "these journalists." My apologies. I'll fix that now.

But even better still, I should say anti-gamer game journalists, the ones that published these "gamers are dead" articles. They threw down the gauntlet.

That makes more sense.

And as to these people, I have to quote Okeer from Mass Effect. "I will inflict on this enemy the greatest insult that an enemy can suffer. To be ignored."

 

[Something Amyss]

I'm a gamer, and I didn't take to heart articles that largely weren't aimed at me in the first place.

Who's with me?