'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=POLOPOZOZO;45839758]there are plenty of other things to be embarrassed about when it comes to video games than other people who play them[/QUOTE] Like Horrible business practices, abuse of consumers, DRM, corrup-Oh yeah, none of these exist at all. They totally don't exist. Nope never. Everything is fine. Perfectly A-okay.

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45839462]Well there's this thing about how language changes over time...[/QUOTE] It's literally a slang term, and I don't even see why you would defend an offensive term like this lmao.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45839917]It's literally a slang term, and I don't even see why you would defend an offensive term like this lmao.[/QUOTE] "offensive"? Yeah okay. It's a stupid word, yeah, but what's the harm in using it in the context of "stupid feminists who are crazy extremists"?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45839917]It's literally a slang term, and I don't even see why you would defend an offensive term like this lmao.[/QUOTE] sounds like something a feminazi would say

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45840225]"offensive"? Yeah okay. It's a stupid word, yeah, but what's the harm in using it in the context of "stupid feminists who are crazy extremists"?[/QUOTE] Because it's a snarl term that doesn't really mean anything?

I don't think I heard anyone use the term "Gamers" since I was in college 4 years ago. I just here "gaming", or even "Console Gamer", "PC Gamer". I To me, that just says "Hey, I tend to play games on consoles than PCs." I'd call my self a PC gamer, even though I really don't game, that much.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45840407]Because it's a snarl term that doesn't really mean anything?[/QUOTE] I'm going to have to side with Ownederd on this one. Assigning labels at this point isn't the right way to approach this discussion. And it is kinda offensive when you compare people who, for better or for worse, are fighting for women's rights (or at least claiming to fight for them,) to people who have literally killed millions of Jews. At the very least, it's a bit unfair.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45840407]Because it's a snarl term that doesn't really mean anything?[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminazi?show=0&t=1409359228]Merriam-webster [/url] and their friend [url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminazi] Oxford [/url]would like a word with you. Even if it didn't mean exactly what he was saying, how is it offensive?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45840407]Because it's a snarl term that doesn't really mean anything?[/QUOTE] But it does mean something. "stupid feminists who are crazy extremists" Just like he said.

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45829792]Here on this very forum, you can talk about the nutty feminazis and you'll get "stop posting tumblr straw-feminists" as a response (you have done this yourself a few times). Post some shit about a 13 year old dickhead who doxxed somebody: "ugh gamers are ridiculous". Because it's only a vocal minority when it's your side talking shit.[/quote] see this was a valid critique [quote]FP SJWs at work, using logic and reason as usual.[/QUOTE] but then you went and said this. you would think that, having just been generalized against based on a vocal minority, you'd be less likely to then imply a generalization yourself. like what the fuck man. neither you nor they are justified in the fact that you're both making generalizations based on generalizations based on generalizations. it's a spin-cycle of bad reasoning.

[QUOTE=Diet Kane;45828135]Leigh Alexander wrote the piece. Take from that what you will.[/QUOTE] its a piece alright

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45840483][URL="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminazi?show=0&t=1409359228"]Merriam-webster [/URL] and their friend [URL="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminazi"] Oxford [/URL]would like a word with you. Even if it didn't mean exactly what he was saying, how is it offensive?[/QUOTE] Well, I don't know about you, but I don't go around and comparing people to actual God-fucking-forbid Nazis as a shallow generalization (unless if they're actual radical white nationalists, then it makes sense). If you're just going to shout out "heh...... FEMINAZI", then no one is going to care about your argument.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45840739]Well, I don't know about you, but I don't go around and comparing people to actual God-fucking-forbid Nazis as a shallow generalization (unless if they're actual radical white nationalists, then it makes sense). If you're just going to shout out "heh...... FEMINAZI", then no one is going to care about your argument.[/QUOTE] But that doesn't mean it has no context nor meaning.

Where is the news in this article?

[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;45840859]But that doesn't mean it has no context nor meaning.[/QUOTE] Context as a insult that relies on a loud minority? Sure.

---

[QUOTE=smurfy;45828155]"gamers" became irrelevant around the time they started rejecting certain games for not being 'real games'[/QUOTE] You mean just like movie aficionados started claiming some films just aren't really films or some music fans consider only some types of music to be real music? :)

[QUOTE=Swilly;45839771]Like Horrible business practices, abuse of consumers, DRM, corrup-Oh yeah, none of these exist at all. They totally don't exist. Nope never. Everything is fine. Perfectly A-okay.[/QUOTE] uh yeah sure those things too

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45841203]Context as a insult that relies on a loud minority? Sure.[/QUOTE] Feminazi is a negative term. Its applied to people you don't like. Kind of like how you call people redpills and neckbeards.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;45841388][B]Feminazi is a negative term. Its applied to people you don't like. [/B] Kind of like how you call people redpills and neckbeards.[/QUOTE] Thank you Captain Obvious? Why do you act like it's a bad thing that I don't want to listen to reactionaries? Then again, the term "redpiller" isn't really much of an insult because people *actually* identify with it - and you'd have to be crazy to do so.

I'm pretty confused at this point. How do you even go about talking about a specific kind of behavior from a subgroup of a group without assigning it some kind of name. How are you supposed to call these people out?

[QUOTE=Kybalt;45842069]I'm pretty confused at this point. How do you even go about talking about a specific kind of behavior from a subgroup of a group without assigning it some kind of name. How are you supposed to call these people out?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=RichyZ;45833366]then why even use the term call a spade a spade, a radical feminist is a radical feminist the instant you start the namecalling and mudslinging is the instant a discussion turns toxic and the "other side" gets ammo to use against you[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45842041]Why do you act like it's a bad thing that I don't want to listen to reactionaries?[/QUOTE] the more important thing is that the greater "conflict" between radical feminism and mens rights activism is ultimately pointless, particularly because 1) radical feminism is on the irrelevant fringe, 2) men's rights activism is a response that gives unnecessary and undeserved attention to radical feminism (because, really, they're crazy, we're all already aware of that), 3) the things that men's rights activists complain about are just as likely to be perpetuated by men (if not more) as they are by women and, 4) people who actually understand feminism are considerate to the problems that men experience. i can explain that last part, if needed. it is when we pretend that it isn't a childish internet shitflinging contest that we start to irrationally assume things like "all feminists are tumblr" or "all people who were misinformed about feminism by crazy bloggers are redpillers". what we need moving forward, then, is open-mindedness and civility in further discourse. that being said, i apologize for being an asshole lately.

[QUOTE=joes33431;45840683]see this was a valid critique but then you went and said this. you would think that, having just been generalized against based on a vocal minority, you'd be less likely to then imply a generalization yourself. like what the fuck man. neither you nor they are justified in the fact that you're both making generalizations based on generalizations based on generalizations. it's a spin-cycle of bad reasoning.[/QUOTE] FP has plenty of people who can argue SJ without going full retard. Basically if you count out guys like sigma, jeep-eep, milkandcooki, person11, and MaxofS2D, you can have some pretty reasonable arguments. Once you include any of these guys all bets are off and you have no idea what's going to happen. They are FP's SJWs. I mean there has already been two pages of discussion over my word choice (rather than the point I made). It's like tone policing but over word choice. Also your posts seemed fine (and indeed less combative than mine) so I don't think your apology was really necessary, but whatever. Edit: removed ownederd from the list because he doesn't deserve to be lumped in with those crazies.

Don't forget Max of S2D, especially when he was a mod and would ban for speaking out against SJW bullshit.

This article is completely revolting and I can't believe some guys were actually defending it at the start.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45842041]Then again, the term "redpiller" isn't really much of an insult because people *actually* identify with it - and you'd have to be crazy to do so.[/QUOTE] There are radical feminists who embrace the term feminazi. When you use these terms you're painting the other person as a crazy so yeah, these are negative terms that you pretty much apply to people you don't like. What do you mean by reactionaries? You mean gamers who don't want to be told they're shitty losers and nerds who hate all women by corrupt games journalists? [QUOTE=Kuro.;45849393]Don't forget Max of S2D, especially when he was a mod and would ban for speaking out against SJW bullshit.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;43663836]Not really at all. Check your privilege. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight][/QUOTE] rip

[QUOTE=FlakAttack;45848766]FP has plenty of people who can argue SJ without going full retard. Basically if you count out guys like sigma, jeep-eep, milkandcooki, person11, and MaxofS2D, you can have some pretty reasonable arguments. Once you include any of these guys all bets are off and you have no idea what's going to happen. They are FP's SJWs. I mean there has already been two pages of discussion over my word choice (rather than the point I made). It's like tone policing but over word choice. [/QUOTE] Hi there. I'd like to remind everyone that there's actually no such thing as an "SJW." It's a term which refers to people based on relative comparisons instead of objective descriptions. The only reason people consider me an "SJW" is because my views on social issues relating to discrimination are sightly more extreme than theirs. Likewise, there are countless people out there on the internet who would call FP posters "SJWs" for basic no-brainer shit like being respectful to transgender people and supporting same-sex marriage. The term is really just a meaningless pejorative and whenever anyone uses it, the conversation they are having is made worse for it. Hopefully this clears up some confusion :)

[QUOTE=Ownederd;45842041]Thank you Captain Obvious? Why do you act like it's a bad thing that I don't want to listen to reactionaries? Then again, the term "redpiller" isn't really much of an insult because people *actually* identify with it - and [B]you'd have to be crazy to do so.[/B][/QUOTE] so then you're still using it with a negative connotation, ie an insult.

[QUOTE=xxncxx;45854249]so then you're still using it with a negative connotation, ie an insult.[/QUOTE] No, it's because what they actually are? There are plenty of those kinds of people who outright identify as "nazi". Then again, why should anyone care if they get fucked-over verbally? [B]edit:[/B] they want people like me (and you) sterilized so i should obviously respect their choices! duh