An official definition of the word "gamer"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gamer?s=t

Gamer

noun

1. a person who plays games, especially computer or video games.

If you're one of the people who continues to associate the word with exclusive groups beyond this basic meaning,

If you're someone who rejects the "label," and claims "I'm not a gamer, I just play video games,"

If you play video games, but generalize "gamers" as everything you dislike about video game players,

If you've ever used horrible analogies such as "I like movies, but it doesn't mean I'm a movier,"

just... stop. Stop it. Stop doing that.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

- - -

[edit] Seeing as my post seems to have rubbed several people the wrong way, I thought I'd repost this reply here, in the hopes of explaining my position on the topic a little better, and in the hopes of opening up an actual discussion.

I see the barrier as one of "gamers" and "people who like video games," with some people creating an arbitrary classification of each group in their own mind, which is why I reject the movement against the term "gamer."

I used the movier analogy because I've actually seen people use that as an example, despite the fact that it's not an actual word, and there are other terms to describe movie fans. But why is it that other hobbyists don't reject similar terminology? People don't really ever say "Hey, I may like to read a lot, but I'm NOT a reader. Don't put me in some box. My hobby doesn't require classification."

I don't think that readers say that. I don't think writers say that. I don't think runners say that. I don't think hunters say that. So why is it a big deal for some video game fans to consider themselves gamers? Why do people have such a negative association with that word, and where did it come from?

[edit] I'm also posting this here, due to poorly wording an aspect of the original post, and wanting to clear that up:

Absolutely, and that was poorly worded on my part. I meant that to tie into those who reject the word gamer solely to distance themselves from generalizations.

As in, "I'm not one of THOSE people, I just like video games."

But just like people themselves decide if they are a runner or reader based on their own personal view of what that means, they should definitely be the ones to decide if they wish to associate the term "gamer" with themselves. I just feel that determination should be based on time spent and enjoyment of video games, not the desire to separate themselves from stereotypes.

... in the words of @brad, 'If you look down on someone because of the games someone plays, you might just be an insufferable person'

Why does it matter to you so much? I don't call myself a gamer because it's a gross-sounding word that, regardless of the dictionary definition, is associated with self-identification tied to the consumption of a commodity.

If you want to call yourself a gamer, then go for it. I think the vast majority of people out there define and interpret the term exactly as it's laid out in the definition.

It's not that horrible. It's a hobby, for crying out loud. A past-time. A distraction. Why do we require a classification for people who partake in a particular hobby. All it does is create barriers and make playing video-games seem like a bigger deal than it actually is.

Gamer

noun

1. a large African animal that has a long nose and that eats ants and other insects

If you go by that definition the word basically has no meaning. How many people have you ever met that refuse to play any sort of game, be it card, board, video or even more traditional games like cops and robbers or whatever?

The way I see it gamers are the people that call themselves gamers, the people that enjoy "gamer culture" etc. It's not about judging people or anything like that, more about having an easy way of describing people with a certain kind of interest (which isn't necessarily actually playing games).

I thought the term was "moviegoer" or "movie buff" or whatever.

Anyway, when someone says that they "play video games" or they say that they "are a gamer", I usually assume that they might know something about more than Call of Duty, Mario, and/or phone games at least. I'm not trying to be an asshole or an unlikeable person, I'm just associating a word with a meaning. It's like if someone were to claim that they are a film geek when they can only really say anything about a handful of Steven Spielberg films and Transformers.

'Gamers' are people interested in game theory.

JOHN NASH IS THE ULTIMATE GAMER BRO

Wrong.

Gamer

noun

1. someone who makes games

I just don't consider someone who plays FIFA 95% of the year a gamer, sorry dude.

Never had a problem with the term gamer and I look down on those who do. LOOK DOWN ON THEM.

Please don't be that guy.

Actually, I see the barrier as one of "gamers" and "people who like video games," with some people creating an arbitrary classification of each group in their own mind, which is why I reject the movement against the term "gamer."

I used the movier analogy because I've actually seen people use that as an example, despite the fact that it's not an actual word, and there are other terms to describe movie fans. But why is it that other hobbyists don't reject similar terminology? People don't really ever say "Hey, I may like to read a lot, but I'm NOT a reader. Don't put me in some box. My hobby doesn't require classification."

I don't think that readers say that. I don't think writers say that. I don't think runners say that. I don't think hunters say that. So why is it a big deal for some video game fans to consider themselves gamers? Why do people have such a negative association with that word, and where did it come from?

You don't get to decide which games count and which games don't. Stop being a jerk.

I don't really understand the hostility towards this word to be honest. My friend was going on a rant similar to a lot of people in this thread, and all I could wonder was why it bothered him so much, haha.

I'm a movier, I'm a shaker, I'm a giver, I'm a taker.....

I'm a movier, I'm a shaker, I'm a giver, I'm a taker.....

I'm a joker, I'm a smoker, I'm a midnight toker.

Mountain Dew broke it :(

Utilizing a title to describe a hobby allow for arbitrary barriers that differ on an individual basis. So as you can see from @pinner458 above, someone who predominately plays one game isn't a "gamer". Someone else might say that a person who avoids major AAA releases isn't a "gamer".

And to your other points-- my girlfriend is a PhD student in 19th century American literature and has read more than 20 versions of me combined (Multiplicity style) and has never referred to herself as a "reader". I own and have watched probably as many movies as she has read books and I would never call myself a cinefile.

A title associated with a passion or hobby is worthless and especially problematic when it is tied to an activity that involves consumption and materialistic goods.

I 100% agree.

People who try to change the meaning of words are weird to me.

Apparently that makes me old and stupid, but I like to use words for their meaning and not perceptions of words. I don't know, maybe I'm the weird one for using words properly.

@random45: It's because it's a self-imposed classification. People consider themselves "a gamer" or "not a gamer", and that means something to them. So when someone "breaks" that preconception part of their identity is being attacked.

Think of it this way, if you consider yourself a cool person and someone you think is a jackass also considers themselves a cool person the natural reaction is to either stop considering yourself cool (as you don't wanna identify with that person) or reject their claim at being cool. You can switch out the classification with pretty much any self-imposed identity, but you'll still see the same reaction.

Mountain Dew going "HEY GAMERS ISN'T GAMING COOL" might as well be Your Dad wearing a shirt with your favorite band on it.

Is there anything specific that inspired this thread, or is it just a general public service announcement?

@spaceinsomniac: Context.

"I just don't consider someone who plays a video game to be a gamer, sorry dude"

The word "gamer" is too vague for the modern day. You are either now a "casual gamer" or "core gamer". Casual gamers play games to pass time within a short-time period e.g. 15mins - 1hr. Core gamers are enthusiasts of the industry who play games more than the average casual gamer.

Who EVEN cares?

I largely agree with what you're saying here, except for this. If someone only occasionally plays games and doesn't consider themself a gamer, that's fine. If someone reads infrequently and doesn't consider themself to be bookish, that's also fine.

The split seems more like the split between "hardcore" (ugh) and "casual". If you play a lot of games, you're a gamer. If you go watch a lot of movies, you're a moviegoer.

There aren't any other connotations that come with them (besides the obvious, like if you read books you're probably able to read). I don't see why being a moviegoer would imply you like popcorn or why being a gamer would imply you're a woman-hating, Dew drinking, Cheetos fingered, asshole. Those are just blatant generalizations.

I will agree that the word itself kinda sucks though. HEY GUYS IM A GAMER. I PLAY VIDEO GAMES. IM A GAMER ARENT GAMES GREAT.

If someone asked me if I was a gamer I'd probably just say "yeah, I play a lot of video games, sure".

As long as gaming is an important part of who you are you are a gamer. Even if the only game you've ever played is WoW or CoD.

@ares42: Maybe this is a younger person idea of how "labels" work, but I do not consider people who are "jerks" (in so much as I can't stand them as human beings for one reason or another) to be "cool". Therefore they aren't "cool" no matter how much they think they are. Therefore the meaning of the word hasn't changed.

Someone isn't just "cool" because they say they're "cool". It's up to other people to consider them "cool" for them to be "cool" and if those people are also terrible people then what they consider "cool" is again "not cool" and therefore they are using the word "cool" incorrectly also.

So, it continues to stem from people not using words properly. You don't just decide you don't want to be "cool" if someone else is "cool" unless you're a child ("Well, if he's cool I don't want to be cool because I don't want to be like him"). That's not how words work!

It's more complicated to define with slang (like "cool"), but gamer continues to mean the same thing it always has. A person who purchases and plays games. It doesn't mean anything else just because you don't like some people who also purchase and play games.

"I'm not buying a hotdog anymore because Hitler liked hotdogs!" That's nonsense.

Sorry, but it drives me crazy that people don't understand how to use words. I know this makes me a terrible person on the internet or whatever, but I can't help it because I love words so I like to show them (and in turn other people) respect by using them properly.

Sorry if my response is passionate. It is not intended to be aggressive towards you or anyone else. =)

Yo cornbred! Let's talk words again! (if you run away I don't blame you).

Last time we talked (still need a better word to refer to internet talking I realize) I said that word usage dictates word meanings, for better or for worse, and not the other way around. So the idea that words can be used "properly" is thin I think. Is proper what is written in the dictionary? Whose dictionary? Usually when we say "using words properly" we mean "using words within their most popular definition". Popular may = proper, but is right?

Your stance doesn't make you Old and Stupid, but have your ever looked at / thought about Prescriptivism? I think that's what it's called. Basically it is this very idea:

1) we apply a meaning to a word
2) usage outside that meaning is wrong

The problem is that in real life, here is what happens:

1) someone says something or uses a word outside its most popular meaning
2) You still understand exactly what they are saying

Damn! If you understood, then what's the point of the rule? (this is like correcting people who say axe instead of ask - you know what they mean, so why the correction? So your ears feel better?) Rules are for clarity. But if the clarity is there.. does the "proper" use matter?

Prescriptivist attitudes are great for teaching English but they don't hold up in small communities and groups (gamers maybe?) where they develop their own lexicon, pronunciations, etc. And when you take one of those groups and combat it with a more popular general group... well.. you get hoighty toighty people who feel like urban speak is for the dogs and slang is uncultured.

That said, it does make sense for sane people like you to somewhat disregard / despise people like me, who would basically be happy to watch all grammar / pronunciation / usage rules burn to the ground.

:D (I am partially kidding, but only god knows where).

My problem is with the people who classify gamer not as a description of a hobby, but as a mental illness. They feel it's something wrong with you or somehow more wasteful of your time than other more acceptable recreations. I mean, I generally dislike people who call themselves foodies but I have the decency to keep it to myself and not try to get laws passed to wreck their pass-time.

To me the term "gamer" always meant a gaming enthusiast (like we are), not just somebody who plays games. I know lots of people who play games but don't do it regularly and/or they might only play one type of game, or one specific game all the time. So I think that is where the whole "casual" vs "hardcore" gamer stuff comes from. The people who live and breathe games (like we do) and the people who don't. That doesn't mean that people who don't play a lot of games or play often are somehow less of a person or some silly bullshit like that, but they aren't as serious about the hobby as we enthusiasts are. To each their own, I guess.

It amazes me how many people get upset of stupid stuff like this. It' so ridiculous.

@gorillamopena: @rockyraccoon37:

I'm not looking down on them at all, I'd just prefer the term to mean someone who actually participates in the culture. Yes someone who plays games is a gamer.

@pinner458:

So does someone need a certain number of forum posts to be a gamer? X amount of convention lanyards?

ive always had the belief that if you play a game(no matter what it is)you are a gamer,however i also believe there is a difference in types of gamers.i think the casual gamer and hardcore gamer works great,because it describes the difference between someone like most people on game forums,to a guy who only plays barbies horse adventures.i dont think casual gamer should be used to look down upon people in a bad way,i mean if all you like to play is madden you shouldnt be treated badly,but you would be a casual gamer and there isnt anything wrong with that.i think people need to realize there are casual gamers and there are hardcore gamers,there isnt anything wrong with either,but there IS a difference.

Who cares?

@harknett: Hey what happened to this post? "You don't get to decide which games count and which games don't. Stop being a jerk." I'm not making a decision for anyone or saying what should or shouldn't be the consensus, that's just my feeling on the word. That doesn't make me or anyone a jerk.

I've always thought of it as a bit of a in-joke, like a silly marketing term, a mythical creature that doesn't really exist, but I didn't really know people care about the term so much. Maybe I'll just stop using it altogether.

I'm just being pedantic, but I never liked the connotation with the term "gaming". It insinuates that the only objective in video games is winning (like in game theory, or "gaming the system").

@geraltitude:

Yo cornbred! Let's talk words again! (if you run away I don't blame you).

No problem. I don't run away. If I don't respond it's generally because a conversation is beginning to go in circles and I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. I don't need to have the last word, and I don't need to "win" a conversation. It's not in my nature to expect others to agree with me. So, I show respect by not responding further. Usually it wouldn't really be good for anyone for the conversation to continue anyway. (Just so you have insight on why I often stop responding haha)

Last time we talked (still need a better word to refer to internet talking I realize)

Talked is fine. I am not against slang, and the internet slang for talking online is "chat" which is really just another word for "talking" anyway. We are exchanging ideas through language so it still counts even through text, I suppose.

I said that word usage dictates word meanings, for better or for worse, and not the other way around. So the idea that words can be used "properly" is thin I think. Is proper what is written in the dictionary? Whose dictionary? Usually when we say "using words properly" we mean "using words within their most popular definition". Popular may = proper, but is right?

I have to break this down a bit:

Is proper what is written in the dictionary? Yes

Whose dictionary? The most common accepted "proper" word definitions are collegiate. I know where you're going with this, though.

Popular doesn't necessarily mean proper. I don't think devolving language works like that. General "popular" language is slang. There isn't anything wrong with slang, most of the time, until it changes the meaning of a word. This is, for example, why gay is now apparently a derogatory term when it's actual meaning is happy. But as you are saying language evolves (because humans would rather give words away to bad people who misuse them and turn them into "bad words" now) so using the word for it's proper meaning is no longer acceptable because everyone else understands it for it's slang usage.

I don't do this to mock you, so I hope you don't take it that way, but proper means: "truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine." So when I say proper I am speaking in terms of "legitimately" or "basically" not in terms of "popular speech" which again "popular speech" tends to be slang not proper. This is why they had schools for being a proper lady or proper gentlemen at some point in history (and, who knows, that may still exist somewhere) because proper isn't necessarily popular. Or at least that's how I have always understood it to mean.

Your stance doesn't make you Old and Stupid, but have your ever looked at / thought about Prescriptivism? I think that's what it's called. Basically it is this very idea:

1) we apply a meaning to a word

2) usage outside that meaning is wrong

Yes that is defining how I see words, but it precludes slang which I find acceptable language. Trust me I say "fuck" more often in life than I tend to use in text. I don't find it to be a reprehensible word, but others do, so I try to refrain from using those words when I interact with people I don't know out of respect to their morality that I don't know.

The problem is that in real life, here is what happens:

1) someone says something or uses a word outside its most popular meaning

2) You still understand exactly what they are saying

This is a common fallacy. I am not imposing grammar on people. I am fine with people using whatever grammar they want if it's understandable (and so often it's not and I still say nothing because it's not my place), but when you start changing the meaning of words I 100% no longer know what you are talking about until you define it. Because when we start doing that then words don't mean anything anymore.

That's not to say slang is bad, though. Again this comes down to me being old. If "gamer" is now a slang term for something else I don't know about it- which is what I am possibly finding out with all these discussions. As I get older I find that will happen and I accept that. Slang is popular, but not proper. Slang does not change the meaning of a word- it changes the popular understanding of a word.

Damn! If you understood, then what's the point of the rule? (this is like correcting people who say axe instead of ask - you know what they mean, so why the correction? So your ears feel better?)

That's a poor example. People who say "axe" aren't actually saying "axe" that's just how they speak (intonation of their voice). Small aside to enlighten on this point- I grew up in a ghetto and that's the experience I base this knowledge off of. Mileage could vary, I'm sure.

Rules are for clarity. But if the clarity is there.. does the "proper" use matter?

It's a little strange for me to read them being thought of as rules, as for me it has always just been proper (as opposed to slang), but ya I guess technically they are rules to proper usage. To that point I do think the rules matter because again without "proper" definitions words no longer mean anything. Slang is what causes them to evolve in the popular mindset. Words actual definitions never change. Gay still means happy, but people don't use that word anymore they use the slang word now.

Prescriptivist attitudes are great for teaching English but they don't hold up in small communities and groups (gamers maybe?) where they develop their own lexicon, pronunciations, etc. And when you take one of those groups and combat it with a more popular general group... well.. you get hoighty toighty people who feel like urban speak is for the dogs and slang is uncultured.

I disagree for multiple reasons. This part is opinion of course so we don't have to agree on this. Your theory here presumes that the correction is to hold it over people's heads that they are using it wrong. What I combat is the devolution of the word into slang. When that happens (the example again: the word gay) it becomes slang and the original definition is no longer used. Why should such an innocuous word be destroyed to turn it into a term for hate? "I hate "gamers"- they're so crass and live in their moms basement, but talk shit and play COD. I'm not a gamer even though I purchase games. That would imply I'm a terrible person." That's what people are doing with it. I don't really understand how anyone who could possibly see that think it's ok and that's the slang I am against.

That said, it does make sense for sane people like you to somewhat disregard / despise people like me, who would basically be happy to watch all grammar / pronunciation / usage rules burn to the ground.

I don't intend to disregard or despise anyone who would like to change the meaning of words to create new slang. That's honestly fine. There's nothing wrong with the word "cool" as it continues to imply the same thing only about a persons personality as opposed to their temperature. Do you see what I mean, here?

:D (I am partially kidding, but only god knows where).

You are truly fun to discuss things with =)

If you have the time to read all of this response you're a champ. I can be long winded, I know.

@cornbredx:

I am going to do my best to format this in a way that makes sense... Hold fast duder!

No problem. I don't run away. If I don't respond it's generally because a conversation is beginning to go in circles and I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. I don't need to have the last word, and I don't need to "win" a conversation. It's not in my nature to expect others to agree with me. So, I show respect by not responding further. Usually it wouldn't really be good for anyone for the conversation to continue anyway. (Just so you have insight on why I often stop responding haha)

G: Makes sense! Circular internet arguments are about as exhausting as digital life can get. Note me down as feeling the same.

Popular doesn't necessarily mean proper. I don't think devolving language works like that. General "popular" language is slang. There isn't anything wrong with slang, most of the time, until it changes the meaning of a word. This is, for example, why gay is now apparently a derogatory term when it's actual meaning is happy. But as you are saying language evolves (because humans would rather give words away to bad people who misuse them and turn them into "bad words" now) so using the word for it's proper meaning is no longer acceptable because everyone else understands it for it's slang usage.

G: Hmmmm. I need to think about all this for some time I think, but my gut feeling: if we understand a word for it's slang usage, couldn't we just say its meaning is no longer slang? I guess where I would take your line of thought to is this: can words change meanings in Appropriate and Inappropriate ways? Or is all meaning change "wrong" so to speak. Curious where you stand on that. For me, all change is change, regardless if some I disagree with or if some comes from a negative place ("Gay" for example, or the British word for cigarettes). And because change is natural, all change is "right".

I don't do this to mock you, so I hope you don't take it that way, but proper means: "truly what something is said or regarded to be; genuine." So when I say proper I am speaking in terms of "legitimately" or "basically" not in terms of "popular speech" which again "popular speech" tends to be slang not proper. This is why they had schools for being a proper lady or proper gentlemen at some point in history (and, who knows, that may still exist somewhere) because proper isn't necessarily popular. Or at least that's how I have always understood it to mean.

G: No confusion about your tone, so no worries. But ok, to start, it seems we are thinking about slang differently. For me, slang is the first step in a word's rise to becoming part of the language. "Fuck" is slang but it's 100% as much a word as "Closet". "Yo" is a slang word that hasn't reached the "official" level of "Fuck" in my head. A better example may be "Duder". Right now it is Giant Bomb slang. But it's possible (small chance) that it catches on in a big way and ultimately replaces the word "dude". Thus, a slang word became a real word. Kind of like when they put Homer's "D'Oh" in the dictionary and English professors everywhere started crying. I realize know when you say "Proper" there is a combo of "Common Morality + Correctness" at play here, whereas I was thinking strictly "Proper = Right/Correct".

This is a common fallacy. I am not imposing grammar on people. I am fine with people using whatever grammar they want if it's understandable (and so often it's not and I still say nothing because it's not my place), but when you start changing the meaning of words I 100% no longer know what you are talking about until you define it. Because when we start doing that then words don't mean anything anymore.

G: This is true but I wonder how often it is true. It's easy to get a little..hm.. what's the word.. general? when it comes to something like this but here's what I want to say: I can understand what you mean even when you use a word that I don't know. A good example is understanding statements about science words you don't know the definition of. The flip side is that I can also understand what you mean when you use a word I do know in a way I'm not familiar with. Very often I think context helps us understand the meaning behind statements even if we don't understand each piece of the statement.

That's a poor example. People who say "axe" aren't actually saying "axe" that's just how they speak (intonation of their voice). Small aside to enlighten on this point- I grew up in a ghetto and that's the experience I base this knowledge off of. Mileage could vary, I'm sure.

G: Lol yeah ok, bad example! I see here another big difference for you and me. I am lumping in a few things here: Pronunciation, Word Choice and Grammar. I think you are strictly about Word Choice in this thread. For whatever reason I tend to say Ask like Axe (more of a cross of the two really) and people look at me a wee bit funny for that but that's just how it sits in my throat I guess. Here I am fighting against rules of pronunciation, not so much the meaning of the word Ask or Axe. Soooo maybe I veered a little off t there.

It's a little strange for me to read them being thought of as rules, as for me it has always just been proper (as opposed to slang), but ya I guess technically they are rules to proper usage. To that point I do think the rules matter because again without "proper" definitions words no longer mean anything. Slang is what causes them to evolve in the popular mindset. Words actual definitions never change. Gay still means happy, but people don't use that word anymore they use the slang word now.

G: Yes for me everything is a rule. And all rules were decided by somebody. And all decisions can be questioned. This is my general existence :P . At some point, it seems to me, there are good reasons that a rule should change. I think the big issue with language is "When is a good time to change?" You're right that without proper definitions words no longer mean anything, but English in particular is rife words that have a many, many meanings, so I feel there is far more flex in language than we tend to give it credit for. I feel I could spend a lifetime thinking about "Words actual definitions never change" and I'd never escape the mind circle.

I disagree for multiple reasons. This part is opinion of course so we don't have to agree on this. Your theory here presumes that the correction is to hold it over people's heads that they are using it wrong. What I combat is the devolution of the word into slang. When that happens (the example again: the word gay) it becomes slang and the original definition is no longer used. Why should such an innocuous word be destroyed to turn it into a term for hate? "I hate "gamers"- they're so crass and live in their moms basement, but talk shit and play COD. I'm not a gamer even though I purchase games. That would imply I'm a terrible person." That's what people are doing with it. I don't really understand how anyone who could possibly see that think it's ok and that's the slang I am against.

G: I can agree on those points! And I suppose all I could really say is that Gay is an unfortunate casualty of the ebbs and flows of language. It's not impossible to imagine that in another decade or more we come back around on the word Gay and are open to using it in a positive manner again. In fact, Gay is a great word to look at for this topic. I have made a lot of friends in the last four years who are gay and they use the word with a much more playful attitude than any of my straight friends - if regular, straight white men were using Gay the way they do I think many other SWM would be raising eyebrows and going "Hey that's not cool". So there is something very important again about groups and communities and what words mean to them. Definitions I think are much more local than first meets the eye, which I think is why I get into so much trouble online (well that and no one can hear my tone).

You are truly fun to discuss things with =)

If you have the time to read all of this response you're a champ. I can be long winded, I know.

G: Well hey, if you're gonna drop hundreds of words of text on a duder you should be willing to read the response! Plus, us long winded folk need to stick together. Gave me lots to think about as usual CornBREDX - always enjoy the conversation, genuinely!

@geraltitude: There's only a few things really I should respond to, I feel, as they were questions to me:

if we understand a word for it's slang usage, couldn't we just say its meaning is no longer slang? I guess where I would take your line of thought to is this: can words change meanings in Appropriate and Inappropriate ways? Or is all meaning change "wrong" so to speak. Curious where you stand on that. For me, all change is change, regardless if some I disagree with or if some comes from a negative place ("Gay" for example, or the British word for cigarettes). And because change is natural, all change is "right".

It is my belief that most words are neutral and humans create context which gets to your points later. Words themselves have no stance on a subject until used in specific ways. I believe slang creates context singularly from words that they do not basically have. Most any word can be used to create a negative context. We can let that become the normal definition, but why should we?

I (and many others of my generation) fought for years for people to understand that "fuck" on it's own isn't a bad word. This debate continues to this day. Context creates meaning, I guess, and slang words tend to be formed out of context. It could also be argued a large amount of English language is mostly slang anymore, by my thinking.

So, sure, you can make words mean anything you want, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to stand up and say "This isn't right" when the word with no context is given a negative connotation thus creating for it in itself a negative context when it's used.

I guess I fight to keep words neutral. Slang does not tend to be neutral in context in which case I fight for keeping it positive as opposed to oppressive. Just cut it off at the pass.

... to start, it seems we are thinking about slang differently. For me, slang is the first step in a word's rise to becoming part of the language. "Fuck" is slang but it's 100% as much a word as "Closet".

Remember that I use proper definitions to words. Slang means "a type of language that consists of words and phrases that are regarded as very informal, are more common in speech than writing, and are typically restricted to a particular context or group of people." In this particular discussion the "typically restricted to a particular context" is most apt. Slang is a way of giving a word it's own context (either good or bad). I do agree that "Fuck" is just a word, though. It's one of the few slang terms I believe no longer has any context on it's own and has become neutral. However, so many people would debate that.

"Yo" is a slang word that hasn't reached the "official" level of "Fuck" in my head.

"Yo" is just hello. It's neutral so as far as I'm concerned it's just a word. It's been in use for over 20 years as well (It would be interesting to know where that started actually, now that I think about it). But ya, there's nothing wrong with "Yo."

A better example may be "Duder". Right now it is Giant Bomb slang. But it's possible (small chance) that it catches on in a big way and ultimately replaces the word "dude". Thus, a slang word became a real word. Kind of like when they put Homer's "D'Oh" in the dictionary and English professors everywhere started crying. I realize know when you say "Proper" there is a combo of "Common Morality + Correctness" at play here, whereas I was thinking strictly "Proper = Right/Correct".

Dude is another co-opted word. It was quite common in the wild west as a way to label someone who was not a very good cowboy- or more to the point they were fake. In some parts of the US it's still used for it's original meaning, and others it means something else. It seems it's a slang word for "man" now, but it was gender neutral in the 80's.

Fun fact: Duder itself came from before Giantbomb. I think it comes from heavily surfer inhabited areas in Cali- it's just another way of saying "dude". If I remember correctly the term was also used in the movie "The Big Lebowski" (which was based on a real person if I recall). None-the-less, It's not something Dave Snider made up. It's real slang, people who don't know what Giantbomb is, use.

I'm fine with them adding D'oh to the dictionary, btw. Sometimes brilliance just happens =)

This is true but I wonder how often it is true. It's easy to get a little..hm.. what's the word.. general? when it comes to something like this but here's what I want to say: I can understand what you mean even when you use a word that I don't know. A good example is understanding statements about science words you don't know the definition of. The flip side is that I can also understand what you mean when you use a word I do know in a way I'm not familiar with. Very often I think context helps us understand the meaning behind statements even if we don't understand each piece of the statement.

You're describing context, but I would counter that there is no context if words have no meaning. I did learn a lot of words I know from context- and then I learned definitions from reading a dictionary (long story, I had a lot of time on my hands as a kid =P ). I still don't believe in co-opting words for negative purposes, but I know what you're saying.

I don't think context is all that matters to a word, though. There would be no context if no words had meaning. It seems to me it all falls apart if we change every word, so obviously most words stay the same. We only change the words we feel like and in the context of this thread people are just changing gamer (I say misusing because I don't believe most of them even know what it means to begin with- or intentionally are not using it correctly thus incorporating it into negative slang) to use as a word to negatively define people they don't like.

You should know, I'm a huge fan of Lewis Carroll. We don't know enough about his personal life, so no one should really get into that, but as a wordsmith he was the most brilliant man to ever live. I believe in creating words- As we discussed it's truly amazing that "D'Oh" was created out of thin air and is an accepted word now. I believe in the freedom of creativity and even building upon other peoples work to create something new. By all means, bend the rules, even break them. Creativity shouldn't be confined. I love that books can be huge best sellers and be written very poorly. I think that's a wonderful thing even if some (*cough* Twilight *cough*) probably shouldn't be popular. I like people testing the boundaries of notions and breaking the rules. However, I don't believe in standing by when a word is changed to mean something negative. I don't like when people misuse words either- outside of slang- just outright don't know what a word means and use it wrong (like "what is a video game?" we wont go there!)

Edit: If fear is begot by ignorance, then negativity begets negativity. If this is the case then the opposite is true, so we can understand that knowing the proper definition helps us to properly change it to suit other purposes. That's basically what I'm getting at. Just thought of that example to describe it.

I have no idea if that makes sense, but I need to stop haha

Ya, some things to think about.

What will be a definition of a gamer that's into fitness?

@falserelic: A gamer and a lifter?

Glifter. No wait.

Lamer.

lol.

I am an e-athlete, thank you very much.

EDIT: w00t! |\/|y 1337th p0st, d00dz!

It's an ugly word like all other ugly words. The current dictionary definition does not make this word less ugly. It's not inherently horrendous, but it has been twisted into an icon of dumbass marketing, which is pretty tiring. It's crummy all around at this point. Hopefully it dies out sooner than later.

Words matter, man, it's how we communicate! The "gamer" thing has just gotten a bit too rotten for my tastes.