why should gamer imply exclusivity or be infered by the listener when said by the speaker, that they only do one thing, than when people say audiophile or bookworm.LobsterFeng said:But their point was people that read books obviously do other things. Or should be anyway. Which is what you said in your first post.jamesworkshop said:no we call them bookworms or film lovers as movie buffs, I mean why do people define themselves by their job, why do we say "i'm a crash investigator" or do we sayLobsterFeng said:Exactly. Like ExtraCredits pointed out, we don't call people that read books "bookers".Jamboxdotcom said:And this is why i hate the label "gamer". It implies, and morons like those guys infer, that we have no other interests. Imagine if they made up a group name for people who enjoy a certain food. "Oh, you're a PB&Jer! You only eat peanut butter and jelly!"
"I get in late and watch reruns of buffy the vampire slayer in a room with a carpet stained with dried tears..And yourself?"
I think it's a stupid thing for EC to have said and for other gamers to repeat.
I've never understood the "destroyer of lables" crowd if we had no lables the entire idea of meaning and meaningfull language/discussion would be negated
Nobody is just one thing, my political views are largely conservative but that doesn't mean that their is absolutly nothing that I am liberal about.
It's a semantic argument that really seems to belong to the idea of either the "euphemism treadmill" or simply trying to avoid the question, instead of defending gaming lets runs and "bait and switch" and hope that people are to dumb to notice