I used those provocative words because I see them from both sides when they debate endlessly and wish they can see how what they accuse "the other side" of often is exactly what they do as well. I hate the culture war. I'm tired of it honestly. It only widens the divide between people who should all be on the same side.

One more point about "whataboutism". I've been accused (without merit in my opinion) by people that think I'm one of the "ALL lives matter" crowd . That assumption stems from me saying that in this case, I'm focusing on not just the mental health of abused gamer girls but their abusers too. That's the culture war at work. The problem is this assumes I lack any understanding of nuance and can't think of each case individually. Which, to be perfectly honest, is what I believe is something you struggle with. (Not trying to be insulting - it's hard to focus on a fundamental disagreement between people without pointing out where you believe the disagreement stems from).

Which brings me back around to the culture war. I use words like 'jingoistic' and 'liberal points' when I feel a person is arguing from a biased position instead of thinking critically. I use them just as frequently (probably a good deal more) when debating conservatives. Maybe it's a counterproductive strategy but logic and reason don't work anymore.

Bottom line: I am ready to agree to disagree once I believe an impasse is reached. But I am still willing to objectively consider any response you might have. I'm pretty sure that you are aware that you have changed my mind before. In case you aren't, well you know now. 🙂

Those must be some pretty serious blinders if you can't see how things like "liberal points" and "jingoistic" are pretty much exactly about culture war.
I mean... do you know what jingoistic means in the context you used it?
What war are you referring to if not culture war by using that word?

Anyway, I appreciate your attempt at introspection even if you believe that examination yielded no new insights... and the apology, though unnecessary.
You know I only engage this way with someone I think is reachable in the first place... which is what I assumed the original poster was doing when they said "less toxic than the others" and pointed out the whataboutism whatever word won't set you off

I am sorry I annoyed you. I mean that seriously. Sometimes my tone in a larger sense can reflect a feeling that I'm not having. I feel like I'm speaking in a tempered measured tone but that is obviously not coming across and I'm sorry. My annoyance is simply that discussion is stifled because you get hung up on optics and technicalities. I'm sorry if I came across as angry. I have a harder time tempering my responses sometimes now that I am the way I am. Suffice it to say while I fundamentally disagree that mental health article that focuses on a specific class of people in a specific case can't be expounded upon, I never FELT angry even if my responses might have seemed that I was. Apologies if I said something that offended you. Truth be told I felt that the original guy was being a bit of a jerk but it takes way more than that to anger me. You on the other hand did not give me that impression for what it's worth.

EDIT - I reread the exchange several times and I either have a mental block that precludes me from seeing it or you have wildly misread what I wrote. I'm not only not propagating any culture war, I'm distinctly arguing against the shit that culture wars created. I don't know - signals getting crossed somewhere.

This comment was edited on Jun 3, 2023, 20:45.

What rules? What points?

My own annoyance is how you've made 4 posts within some culture war context angrily lashing out. Not everything is culture war...

You also keep saying "incorrect" like someone can't have an opinion that "what about male gamers" is missing the point as a reply to an article about female gamers.

Literally could have just disagreed and calmly explained why but instead it went to:

"Liberal buzzwords" "your close-minded, painfully tiny and narrow view will help nothing beyond you feeling better about yourself" "jingoistic" "scoring pointless activist points" "brainless" "intellectual laziness" "liberal points"

like wtf is that venom
Why couch it in the context of culture war, I mean you've even got jingoism in there.

My annoyance stems from the fact that in so many incorrect and arbitrarily applied "rules" is that if a topic is mentioned and it fits one's agenda to do so then any attempt to reframe or redirect the discussion is ridiculed as "whataboutism" and therefore dismisses any valid point that the person may have included. That is supreme intellectual laziness to me. Sorry if that bothers you, but I'm not beholden to your "rules". If that means that I'm thus to be subjected to your insulting offhand dismissal so be it. I'm annoyed by it; it didn't ruin my day or even really warrant further thought. But you seem to think I'm enraged or something - you do you I guess.

Prez wrote on Jun 2, 2023, 06:09:
Nope. I thought you knew me better than that. Guess not. I'm not using your classic go-to straw man argument of "whataboutism" but instead challenging the very premise of the article saying it will accomplish nothing because its focus is too narrow. Call that whatever you want but don't insult me. Maybe you would rather be pacified by the brainless response of "saying bad things about girl gamers BAD". Or, you know, you could engage more intellectually and realize the problem is much wider. But no just score your liberal points. That's fine. Intellectual laziness, especially from you, is surprising.

So a third reply in that tone...

I guess I don't understand why you're lashing out about that reply or saying stuff like "liberal points" etc.
The article was about concerns regarding female gamers and you minimized that with "Well what about male gamers? And what about the perpetrators?"
The poster even said you weren't toxic like the other replies. I thought it was pretty innocuous. You don't need to flip out in the face of criticism.

Nope. I thought you knew me better than that. Guess not. I'm not using your classic go-to straw man argument of "whataboutism" but instead challenging the very premise of the article saying it will accomplish nothing because its focus is too narrow. Call that whatever you want but don't insult me. Maybe you would rather be pacified by the brainless response of "saying bad things about girl gamers BAD". Or, you know, you could engage more intellectually and realize the problem is much wider. But no just score your liberal points. That's fine. Intellectual laziness, especially from you, is surprising.

This comment was edited on Jun 2, 2023, 06:24.

That poster correctly pointing out that you replied to an article about female gamers feeling suicidal about abuse in online games with "what about the male gamers?" warranted two over-the-top replies like that?
Touched a nerve huh?

Hey, I got an idea! Try to solve the ocean's plastic problem by focusing on removing all Coke Zero bottles manufactured in the last 100 days. That makes the same amount of sense as this. But again, you can pat yourself on the back while you feel better about yourself again. Yay you!! \o/

I guess I would have made you happy if I was equally jingoistic as you and claimed "Abusing girls in games BAD". Too bad I don't care about scoring pointless activist points.

Not at all interested in your incorrect application of liberal buzzwords. You're close-minded, painfully tiny and narrow view will help nothing beyond you feeling better about yourself

Prez wrote on May 30, 2023, 04:04:
I have the deepest sympathy for anyone with suicidal thoughts. It is a level of desperation and despair that I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'm pretty sure, however, just as many gaming dudes are inclined to think that way. Mental health is a much larger problem than this very narrowly focused study indicates. I'd be willing to bet many of the perpetrators of such abuse have severe mental health issues themselves. This study is way too narrow. The problem is far larger.

Ahhhhhh more whataboutism, but at least this was less toxic than the last. It's no secret than women and known minorities take way more abuse than anyone else when it comes to gaming. The whole point was to highlight how bad it is for one of those groups.

Quite frankly the mental health of the abusers doesn't even measure with their capacity to spread abuse. They are the problem and need to be gotten rid of whether there are real life reasons behind it or not.

Viva la Dirt League is known for their brilliant high quality comedy skits, and rightly so. But if there is one video that legit makes me tear up every time I watch it, it's this one:

https://youtu.be/P51yWUeHKJo

I have the deepest sympathy for anyone with suicidal thoughts. It is a level of desperation and despair that I wouldn't wish on anyone. I'm pretty sure, however, just as many gaming dudes are inclined to think that way. Mental health is a much larger problem than this very narrowly focused study indicates. I'd be willing to bet many of the perpetrators of such abuse have severe mental health issues themselves. This study is way too narrow. The problem is far larger.

Beamer wrote on May 29, 2023, 10:02:
Speaking of all of this, what happened to that poster that once told us all that screaming obscenities at 14 year old girls in video games was the only thing that prevented him from harming people in real life, and therefore we should all be ok with it?

In jail after committing a mass shooting? I'm glad I have completely forgotten him, whomever he was...

drloser wrote on May 29, 2023, 03:40:

opie wrote on May 29, 2023, 00:05:
"1 in 5 people have suicidal thoughts. 1 in 14 people self-harm."
so less than average. got it.

Someone is thinking while the others are virtue signaling.

Uh... You're both really far from signaling, and actually signaling your own virtue, or lack thereof.

This isn't about how many female gamers have suicidal thoughts. Reread carefully, instead of in a haze of self righteous outrage over your own ignorance and anger at likely being called out.

It says how many feel suicidal "because of the abuse." Which would imply that all of those suicide stats the other culture warrior just mentioned also apply, and this is in addition to those causes.

I'm not surprised you failed to see that. You so needed to be right in your own head that you didn't bother thinking very hard. If you did, what else wouldn't you be right about?


Speaking of all of this, what happened to that poster that once told us all that screaming obscenities at 14 year old girls in video games was the only thing that prevented him from harming people in real life, and therefore we should all be ok with it?

* REMOVED *

This comment was deleted on May 30, 2023, 09:08. Reason: The sarcasm makes it sound just like the toxicity it mocks.

opie wrote on May 29, 2023, 00:05:
"1 in 5 people have suicidal thoughts. 1 in 14 people self-harm."
so less than average. got it.

Someone is thinking while the others are virtue signaling.

"1 in 5 people have suicidal thoughts. 1 in 14 people self-harm."
so less than average. got it. sucks, but no one is going to care how many men feel this way.

Mr. Tact wrote on May 28, 2023, 22:29:
Only one in 10? I would have guessed at least 2 or 3 in 10. If you exclude WoW, it has been decades since I played a multiplayer game with random people on the internet. Simply not worth it.

the griefers in wow were something else. i remember once i was helping a lowbie clan member level when we got raided by these mid level horde characters. i just switched to me lvl 60 main and went on a rampage with those two. i was a druid so anything they did i could easily counter in one of my forms. and being 20 levels higher than them they couldn't see me in stealth but i could see them. it took an hour before they begged me to stop.

when i was still leveling my druid this rogue griefer jumped me. i knew i had no chance so i just ran... straight into the ocean and switched to sea lion form. of course he didn't give up. took some water breathing potion and kept chasing me for like an hour before i guess he ran out of potion.

Only one in 10? I would have guessed at least 2 or 3 in 10. If you exclude WoW, it has been decades since I played a multiplayer game with random people on the internet. Simply not worth it.