Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
A gamer is someone who regularly spends a significant amount of their free time thinking about or playing games as a matter of preference.

Good definition. Just saying "a gamer is someone who plays games" is the widest possible definition and it doesn't make much sense. You aren't an athlete because you play hopscotch once in a while and you aren't a politician if you talk about politics on an internet forum.

I don't think the word 'gamer' is used to describe anyone who has every played a game/is currently playing a game. This seems obvious because people who have played/are playing games do not necessarily identify themselves as 'gamers.' It is clear that 'gamer' can and does refer to something beyond the most absolutely literal meaning.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Do you have the degree of commitment to deserve the label of gamer?

Do you have the degree of poverty to deserve the label of a bum?
Seriously, when did gamer became a title of honor? I am glad it is not that much of a title of infamy, but it is nothing to be proud about either.

Wow, quote out of context of the year award, try reading the full post (grumble...) be on the lookout for sarcasm it can really trip you up when skimming.

I dislike all this comparator, it is just people trying to force a pecking order: it is enough to have the emotional attachment of having gaming a part of who you are.

That is what I am saying, there always seems to be this pressing need to have a hierarchy when the sense of being part of a group should be enough.
If you associate and identify with a group, what others have to say about your membership is just being bossy or elitist (figure we need all the support we can get anyway).

Felt a real need to sort that out because I am confident in my gamer-ness and do not need to put down others who are not as awesome as I am...

 Melissia wrote:
Long version? Not a suitable discussion for this particular thread, don't want to derail it.

PM?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:
Wow, quote out of context of the year award, try reading the full post (grumble...)

Sorry. It was not meant to criticize you, it was meant to criticize the mentality you described. But taking that quote out of context misrepresented your message.

Hybrid Son of Oxayotl: I'm not interested in typing out a long essay about that sort of thing so I'll just link you here instead; if you honestly want more information on the topic, that site (a general "women in geek culture" site that also includes gamers) covers it quite regularly.

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think the word 'gamer' is used to describe anyone who has every played a game/is currently playing a game.

It does, to me.

 Manchu wrote:
It is clear that 'gamer' can and does refer to something beyond the most absolutely literal meaning.

Words have multiple meanings. Doesn't mean that we should value all meanings equally.

Thanks.

 Melissia wrote:
Doesn't mean that we should value all meanings equally.

That would be a major wrong turn.

The issue is meaning rather than value. What do people mean to evoke with the term 'gamer'? Generally speaking, the term is used to distinguish one type of person from another. Like all labels, it is inherently exclusionary.

The question here is, who gets excluded? Is it (a) people who have never played any game at all ever or (b) something more narrow? If we go with (a), then the term is pretty useless. But going with (b) opens up a huge can of worms. As discussed ITT, some people would like it so narrow as to require ~20 hours per week of DOTA.

 Manchu wrote:
What do people mean to evoke with the term 'gamer'?

That depends on the person. Some people are donkey-caves and intentionally go out of their way to only include those whom are exactly like them. Others are not.

 Manchu wrote:
If we go with (a), then the term is pretty useless. But going with (b) opens up a huge can of worms. As discussed ITT, some people would like it so narrow as to require ~20 hours per week of DOTA.

If that is your assertions, the conclusion I come up with is "therefor A is superior and B should be tossed out, shat on, burned, and then the ashes pissed on, then the whole toxic slurry dumped in a nuclear waste disposal pool."

I disagree that the "A" discussion is worthless, however.

Discussion?

I am talking about definitions not discussions.

The more kinds of people a term describes, the less useful it is to distinguish one person from another.

Drawing distinctions is what terms like 'gamer' are for.

Let's go back to the cyclist example. If I see stranger riding a bicycle, it would be fair to describe him as a cyclist. (More of a British English thing TBH.) But I would not describe myself as a cyclist, despite the fact that I have ridden a bicycle in the past. I would not describe myself as a cyclist even while riding a bicycle.

Now if I see a woman who I don't know riding a bicycle and I say 'she's a woman therefore she cannot be a cyclist' -- that's clearly sexist. The answer to that sexism is not to pretend that everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle in their lives should be described as a cyclist.

I agree with this. My parents have both played a video game at least once in their life, but they have not played one for a very long time, and if I was to talk to them about one, I would be met with a complete lack of interest. Basically no matter what game I would be talking about. So, why call them gamers?
(Well, except if you include board games. We do play board games regularly.)

As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.

HBMC really brought up a good point. People choose to be gamers. They choose it not only by how they spend their resources but also by how they think of themselves (and by implication others).

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
Wow, quote out of context of the year award, try reading the full post (grumble...)

Sorry. It was not meant to criticize you, it was meant to criticize the mentality you described. But taking that quote out of context misrepresented your message.

Ah cool, I have a better understanding of you now.
I am getting defensive these days but happy I behaved myself enough to not be an .

 Manchu wrote:
Discussion?

I am talking about definitions not discussions.

The more kinds of people a term describes, the less useful it is to distinguish one person from another.

That's also why they shouldn't be used. "to label me, is to negate me" Søren Kierkegaard. We distinguish one person from another by our names.

We do have many labels that include large amounts of people like 'theist', 'christian', 'muslim', 'atheist', 'gamer' That is just our way of sorting things. People can claim thousands of labels, and labels are never used to distinguish people, but to put them into a preconceived group with preconceived notions about that group.

 Manchu wrote:
As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.

Yes, but the fact they do not identify themselves as gamer do not mean the rest of the world does not either. Whereas it would be very, very hard to find people that identify my parents as gamers.

 Manchu wrote:
I am talking about definitions not discussions.

And yet here we are, having the latter about the former.

 Manchu wrote:
The more kinds of people a term describes, the less useful it is to distinguish one person from another.

I fail to see any useful objection here.

 Manchu wrote:
Drawing distinctions is what terms like 'gamer' are for.

And it draws a distinction between someone who plays games and someone whom does not.

 Manchu wrote:
Now if I see a woman who I don't know riding a bicycle and I say 'she's a woman therefore she cannot be a cyclist' -- that's clearly sexist. The answer to that sexism is not to pretend that everyone who has ever ridden a bicycle in their lives should be described as a cyclist.

That's like arguing that not everyone who has driven a car can be called a driver. It's a distinction without relevancy.

sirlynchmob wrote:
labels are never used to distinguish people, but to put them into a preconceived group with preconceived notions about that group

Those are not mutually exclusive functions. And in fact people label themselves for the very purpose of being part of "preconceived groups."

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.

Yes, but the fact they do not identify themselves as gamer do not mean the rest of the world does not either. Whereas it would be very, very hard to find people that identify my parents as gamers.

I think what you are getting at here is that the utility of a term can be different depending on who uses it. But the contrast does not get us any closer to a 'true' meaning of gamer.

 Melissia wrote:
And it draws a distinction between someone who plays games and someone whom does not.

I think drawing a distinction between someone who regularly plays games and someone who does not regularly play game is much more useful and relevant than drawing a distinction between someone who has never ever played a game in his or her life and someone who did at least once.

 Manchu wrote:
As mentioned, my parents spend far MORE time playing video games than me and yet they do not identify as gamers while I do.
HBMC really brought up a good point. People choose to be gamers. They choose it not only by how they spend their resources but also by how they think of themselves (and by implication others).

A state of mind, an identity, a piece of themselves that lays claim their heart has been won by a leisure activity... ahem, electronic violence is soooo pretty! Oorah!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I think drawing a distinction between someone who regularly plays games and someone who does not regularly play game is much more useful and relevant than drawing a distinction between someone who has never ever played a game in his or her life and someone who did at least once.

I don't.

 Manchu wrote:
But the contrast does not get us any closer to a 'true' meaning of gamer.

There is no one true meaning of gamer, and context matters quite a bit, no?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
I don't.

Well, I can give examples of situations where the “plays game regularly” versus “does not play game regularly” distinction can be relevant, but I cannot find any where the “has ever played a game in his or her life” versus “has never played a game in his or her life” can be relevant.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Well, I can give examples of situations where the “plays game regularly” versus “does not play game regularly” distinction can be relevant, but I cannot find any where the “has ever played a game in his or her life” versus “has never played a game in his or her life” can be relevant.

Outside of the marketplace, I can't see any relevant uses for the former. And none of us have indicated that we are discussing this from a market-based perspective.

 Melissia wrote:
That's like arguing that not everyone who has driven a car can be called a driver. It's a distinction without relevancy.

Far from it. The term driver can be used broadly or narrowly. This is exactly what I am getting at with the cyclist example. Let's say while riding a bike in the park I meet someone else who is also riding a bike. We start to chat and she tells me she is training for a cross country ride that she does every year because cycling is her hobby. She then asks me if I am a cyclist, too.

I have not ridden a bike in the last two decades. I don't think about biking in any way shape or form. I cannot even imagine why I would be riding a bike in my own hypothetical. Given all that, I would reasonably answer her: no, I'm not a cyclist. And she would understand what I mean DESPITE the fact that she just saw me riding a bike.

 Manchu wrote:
I have not ridden a bike in the last two decades. I don't think about biking in any way shape or form. I cannot even imagine why I would be riding a bike in my own hypothetical. Given all that, I would reasonably answer her: no, I'm not a cyclist. And she would understand what I meant DESPITE the fact that she just saw me riding a bike.

And yet, you were bicycling, therefor, you were in the act of being a cyclist, IE, a person who rides a bicycle.

(for the record, I understand what you're saying from an intellectual standpoint, but philosophically I find myself rejecting it)

 Melissia wrote:
for the record, I understand what you're saying from an intellectual standpoint, but philosophically I find myself rejecting it

I would say you are rejecting it as a matter of ideology rather than philosophy. But it is really just a matter of language. Perhaps if I clarify the ideological intent: using the term 'gamer' in a more narrow manner than the broadest possible one does not necessarily validate sexist attitudes about video games and/or who plays them.

One thing everyone posting ITT can probably agree on is that any coherent definition of 'gamer' cannot be so narrow as to preemptively exclude women.

I disagree that it needs to be narrow in the first place, really. "Gamer" is a perfectly serviceable word for "a person who plays games", and trying to change it to "a person who plays as much games that I like as I do" is very narrow-minded to me.

If you have some (as yet unexplained in this thread) need to narrow it, you can add qualifiers-- but then you start to step in to dangerous territory whereupon people say "well, they're casual gamers, they're not REAL gamers", the arrogance of which we really should be avoiding because it clouds our judgment.

Your assertion that this is based on "ideology" instead of "philosophy" is a little bit insulting. I said "philosophy" for a reason-- this is based off of me finding that there have been consistent ethical problems with using labels to exclude people and make those whom aren't excluded feel better about themselves through the exclusion. Not out of partisanship or some other nonsense.

Ideology is not a bad word. But it does mean something distinct from philosophy.

Taking offense to the distinction is a matter of misusing words as swords and shields rather than signifiers.

That seems to be your main problem with the way the term 'gamer' is actually used (as a kind of tribal affiliation) as opposed to the way that you would prefer (to undermine that tribal affiliation).

 Manchu wrote:
Ideology is not a bad word. But it does mean something distinct from philosophy.

Ethical concerns are philsoophical, not ideological.

 Manchu wrote:
That seems to be your main problem with the way the term 'gamer' is actually used (as a kind of tribal affiliation) as opposed to the way that you would prefer (to undermine that tribal affiliation).

Tribalism is the root of a lot of violence and hate, yes.

Would it not be reasonable to propose that being a "gamer" is a choice by the person to identify as such and not defined by an exterior definition?

I can tell someone I am a "gamer" who does not know me and to them: I am.

Others who know me at the local hobby store may not see me play there but if I tell them I am a gamer: I am.

I tell you all in this forum I am gamer, by what means can you say I am not a gamer?

Will there be any criteria or objective evidence that can make me not a gamer if I say I am???

The only time we get all upset is when someone claims they are a gamer and are only doing so for other reasons: their claim is not genuine and not with feeling.

A poser is someone looking for acceptance without liking the reason for belonging to the group.

A gamer is someone who possesses the properties of what it is to be a gamer like how a table and chair have attributes that make them what they are.

 Melissia wrote:
Ethical concerns are philsoophical, not ideological.

Ethics is a field of thought connected to but autonomous from philosophy. Ideology informs ethical outlook.

 Melissia wrote:
Tribalism is the root of a lot of violence and hate, yes.

No argument there. And I understand that 'capturing' words from your ideological opponents is a pretty popular tactic. But I'm not posting ITT to fight these ideological wars but just rather to make some observations about how the term 'gamer' is actually used and why. And it is actually used to create identity and community.

 Talizvar wrote:
Would it not be reasonable to propose that being a "gamer" is a choice by the person to identify as such and not defined by an exterior definition?

It's a little bit of both. In my example above about cycling, the woman who is training for her cross country event would be pretty skeptical of me claiming to also be a cyclist if I was all out of breath, falling off the bike, and didn't know much about the parts of the bike or how to change gears or what the names of famous events are, etc.

 Manchu wrote:
Ethics is a field of thought connected to but autonomous from philosophy.

Ethics is just one of the many topics which are included under the philosophy "umbrella" topic (similar to how "chemistry" follows under the umbrella of "physical sciences". Indeed, it's one of the most important branches of philosophy in terms of its impact on the real world and the actions of real people.

 Manchu wrote:
But I'm not posting ITT to fight these ideological wars but just rather to make some observations about how the 'term' gamer is actually used. And it is actually used to create identity and community.

I don't think any one is disagreeing with how it's used; the debate in this thread appears to be over how it SHOULD be used.