Ars OpenForum

0

0bliv!on

Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
6,695
  • #129
    [url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28317241#p28317241:36zg1rb7 said:
    Operative Me[/url]":36zg1rb7]
    [url=http://meincmagazine.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=28317181#p28317181:36zg1rb7 said:
    0bliv!on[/url]":36zg1rb7]
    And the round of articles from the end of August didn't say "Gamers who are assholes are dead", they just said "Gamers are dead." I'm not sure that you can post hoc redefine what was written.
    Click to expand...
    And I'm not sure a person who still hasn't internalized that that wasn't an attack on all gamers has the mental faculty to function as an adult in an intelligent conversation.

    Once again, since it seems to pass you by, the "Gamers are dead" article was not an insult to Gamers. It was an acknowledgement that the hardcore gamers are becoming less and less important as more and more people game. It was an acknowledgement that "people who game" is an group that is INCREASING in both size and relevancy. That gaming is becoming so popular and normal that the "hardcore" gamer, especially the ones that give gaming a bad name in the first place, are losing control of what it means to be a gamer because soon EVERYONE will be one.

    The "Death of Gamer" articles were about the GROWTH of gaming in the cultural zeitgeist. They were a celebration of gaming, not a condemnation of it. And the fact that this hasn't sunk in yet for you means one of two things:

    1) You didn't read the articles yourself, and are relying upon the interpretation of others;
    2) You have serious problems with reading comprehension

    The fact that you are still harping on this point, months after that very basic concept has been explained in damn near every thread on the subject, is a greater insult to you than ANYTHING those articles actually did say about you as a gamer.
    Click to expand...

    I read the articles, especially the Ars one. Communication requires two parties, if a significant portion of your readerbase, whether of Ars or of gaming media generally, understands the articles to mean A, and that understanding is not wholly unreasonable, then surely the author is just as responsible for that message, even if personally they meant B?

    And while clarifications are useful, clarifications that come after the fact and after being criticised for the message are justifiably seen as being post hoc rationalisations instead of being representation of the true intent at the time.

    I don't see why the authors of these articles get away with generalising just because they clarified afterwards, but others are rightfully lambasted for generalising against other groups.
     
    Upvote
    -34 (12 / -46)