Age means almost nothing.

TheSlogs·Nov 4, 2015·118 votes·5,612 views

A 7 year old can behave better than a 23 year old. A 27 year old can be incredibly toxic. A teenager who is in school is still a human being with valid opinions. That 43 year old, he is not too old to have fun playing a game.

Saying someone is a 10 year old is not an insult. Maturity and skill level are things that vary from person to person, not age to age.

So please stop using someones age like it is an insult. Also, don't assume someone is of a certain age. You are more than likely wrong.

113 Comments

RueianNov 4, 201514 votes

age means you have more experiences to make you cynical.

TNHA BaritoneNov 4, 201513 votes

Never seen anything more accurate.

kJsNov 4, 201513 votes

Age tends to correlate with maturity. That's probably why people use it as an insult.

LOL SpammerNov 5, 20151 votes

I disagree, although there may be a larger portion of people who mature as they get older, you will see just as many immature 20 year olds as 10 year olds.

kJsNov 5, 20152 votes

That is how it is. Part of being mature is responsibility and doing the 'right' thing.

People who have that experience and have developed a mature sense of outlook in life tend to understand maturity better than those younger than them.

Keyword: Tend

FluxBoundNov 5, 20153 votes

But maturity does not equal proper manners and etiquette.

Chaotic ReksNov 4, 20155 votes

meanwhile Annie

JerrBear7Nov 5, 20154 votes

This is due to the stereotype that 12 year olds are annoying, feeders, and immature.

WhiteGuyWannaBeNov 5, 20152 votes

From what I've heard male empathy does not fully develop until after 16, so if they have had a bit of a rough childhood they are going to be far more likely to display sociopathic behavior online. Female empathy develops a little earlier but 12 year olds of either gender are going to tend to be less enjoyable to play with due to lack of development. I am well aware that there are many many exceptions to the general rule, but that is definitely a strong trend.

TurquoiseYoshiNov 4, 20153 votes

It's even worse when people complain about having more toxicity when kids are out of school, and trying to make it some sort of funny advice to people who apparently have nothing to do all day (from people who are the same way).

AnomanderNov 4, 201535 votes

While I agree with the OP I also know that when school is out I notice a increase is toxic behavior. This is because kids are more likely to be toxic then adults. This however doesn't mean that age in it's self should be used. However Children in general do lack maturity. This is because in general they lack experience. A 7yr old who is raised well and has been exposed to a lot of social interaction will behave well in most situations. This is because of how they were raised and their experiences.

Most children are less exposed to social interaction because they are younger. This has nothing to with a persons age but more with their lack of experience.

You could take a person who is 90+ yr old who lived as a hermit and they will know nothing of social interaction. In this regard the 90+yr old is a child to social interaction.

However because children lack this experience they are more likely to be toxic. So when the kids are out of school you will see a increase in toxic behavior.

TurquoiseYoshiNov 4, 20151 votes

To spin that another way, think about the people who have time to play during the day, when kids are in school. They, most likely, do not have jobs (unless they are playing on lunch break), and thus do not have positive societal interaction most of the time. Many kids are taught in school to have positive interaction, and to be nice to other people, whether consciously or not. They also have more recent interaction with all types of people, meaning that they have more recent experience, despite having less overall experience.

Not trying to refute your point, or say that it's flat-out wrong, but there are other ways to think of things that shed more light on different situations :D

AnomanderNov 4, 20153 votes

I can see your point however it is still more the OVERALL experience in comparison to the recent that makes up a person behavior. Except in extreme cases behavior is derived primarily from rote. Behavioral patterns and a persons general personality is primarily derived from environmental influence. And for all intents and purpose it becomes muscle memory where people will respond based on their personality that has developed.

Luckily children lack this ingrained behavior and can learn. This allows them to change far easier then a adult. However this also means that because they lack this overall ingrained experience they are also far more likely to have swings in behavior based on outside influence.

A adult will act like themselves in any situation regardless of external influence. Excluding extreme cases. Where a child is far more likely to change based on the given situation due to a lack of ingrained responses.

Now to get to my point. Because children lack this OVERALL experience they are more likely to respond to a given situation in kind. Negative to Negative. Positive to Positive. This is how they learn. Where adults will respond more based upon past situations and can cope with a situation without drastic responses in general.

Now how does this make children more or less toxic. It really doesn't. However it does create a far more volatile response to a possible negative situation. In a game where you WILL lose there is always negative situations and positive as well. When a person lacking ingrained responses is exposed to these situations they are more likely to respond in extremes because they lack these ingrained responses and that leads to more toxic/extreme behavior.

However the Opposite is also true and when faced with positives they can become extremely happy. (see kid on Christmas)

TurquoiseYoshiNov 5, 20152 votes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFlcqWQVVuU My only thought seeing the last line.

AnomanderNov 5, 20153 votes

I wanted to end it on a happy note.

Baddest HookerNov 5, 201510 votes

{quoted}

To spin that another way, think about the people who have time to play during the day, when kids are in school. They, most likely, do not have jobs (unless they are playing on lunch break), and thus do not have positive societal interaction most of the time.

Most of the people who play during the day are the people who work evening/night shift, part time or who are their own boss(self-employed).

Don't assume things

TurquoiseYoshiNov 5, 20151 votes

For the first one, shouldn't they be sleeping? I've never worked a night shift, so I don't know how that works.

True, self-employed people are also in this spectrum, but then they aren't getting interaction with many people, meaning that they are on equal footing to the people who don't interact often.

AnomanderNov 5, 20154 votes

I used to work nights.... I would get off work at 7am and play Ultima Online till 2pm depending on if I had other things to do. Then sleep till 9-10 pm and then go to work at 11:00( it was maintenance so 20 min paid lunch break)

TrumpetNov 5, 201513 votes

Or college students between classes (a really popular one and probs the largest demographic)

T RexHasTinyArmsNov 5, 20151 votes

I may be wrong but the adult age population that plays league and does not work during the day hours that school occupies in theory SHOULD be larger than the population that does.

There is only one adult age group that should be expected to work the hours that school occupies and play during the hours kids are off school: People who work office jobs. While some of these people may be 18 year olds who started working at the front desk or something and work standard business hours with out a college degree, the majority will be college graduates who work traditional careers, so we are limiting this to 22+ for the most part.

Here is a list of people who are over the age of 18 who should be expected to have free time during the hours of traditional school:

Anyone working labor or service jobs to either save for college or to make ends meet. Plumbers, electricians, mechanics, retail workers, etc. Many of these people will have great social exposure and will either have decided they can make good money without taking out loans for a college degree, or will be saving for college.

Anyone who is currently in college. From 18-22 I had a great deal of free time during the day because I didn't schedule all my classes in the morning and often had a day or two with more classes and a day or two during the week where I would be free for 5-6 hours at a time in the middle of the day. This is particularly true for people who are not working during university because they have the funds to not work and are focused on school and the social aspects of college.

Anyone in graduate school. My junior and senior year of university I worked a a psych hospital where I would do two doubles on the weekend and get 32 hours out of the way so I could work 1 day during the week and put away a full time job's worth of pay in my savings. I used it to pay rent, food, etc while I attended graduate school and 24-27 I actually worked less than I did from 20-23. Many of my graduate courses were in the evening because some people work and complete their graduate course work part time during the evening. The majority of my free time was during the middle of the day or after about 10 pm.

Anyone working night shift or who works doubles/extended hours. I worked over nights at the psych hospital sometimes and would get up at 8 or 9 to go to work at 10 or 11 and be done at 6 or 7 in the morning. I'd stay up till noon or 1 and then go to sleep and get up in the evening. My cousin works as a nurse and I think they work 6-6 or 8-8 for overnights at her hospital So add 3-4 hours to one side of that shift and you're probably in school hours, if not, then the fact that nurses work 12 hour days and only 3 days a week usually means they have two days off that would be school days.

There are many more groups of people between the age of 18-30 who will have a Monday or Tuesday day off or not be working during 9-5 hours than groups that age who work 9-5 Monday to Friday and have the weekend off. It makes sense that they'd be frustrated when you go from 90% of your games being college kids and people on their day off playing, to at least 50% of your games being kids who are on school break.

LegendaryLemurNov 5, 20154 votes

I think you left out the 'unemployed' conscientious objectors (the socialists who refuse to contribute to a broken corporate oligarchy's imagining of an economy)

T RexHasTinyArmsNov 5, 20151 votes

Not really. I'm reasonably conservative given that I was raised in a pretty liberal city. Unless you're the kid of someone who is supporting you or you're affluent enough to not need to work, I don't think there should be a system in which someone can voluntarily refuse to work in any capacity and still have access to the means needed (computer, internet subscription, electricity account, etc) to play this game. If you're not working and don't ever intend to because you object to cultural norms then at best society is obligated to provide you w/ enough to live if we don't want to let you starve, and I don't think there should ever be a system that provides computers and other first world luxuries to people who are voluntarily indigent.

So yeah, I wouldn't expect that group to be playing lol, and if they were I'd be disappointed in society and not want to list it bc it would just frustrate me thinking about it. Then again, I'm probably biased bc I think if oligarchies are structured right they are a really cool form of government (ours isn't one btw) and I also really like republics which is what the US was before the civil war and some constitutional law rulings that fundamentally changed our structure (selective incorporation is a really cool legal shift that changed the US away from being a republic and makes it funny when people cite what the "founding fathers" would think about something because they actually wouldn't support the current structure of the US at all probably).

LegendaryLemurNov 5, 20155 votes

Well we have very different opinions on the matter, to be sure. I think society's responsibility is to rise up and overthrow the oppressive regime of billionaires and institute an economy that gives equal pay for equal work instead of giving all the wealth to those who are already wealthy.

T RexHasTinyArmsNov 6, 20151 votes

Lol, I always laugh at things like that. I'm too high an SES to really feel motivated to change the system, but the majority of people I see speak about social change don't affect much social change. My personal belief system is a bit more in line with anarchistic ideology (so I like republics because they're more individualized but at least provide some protection for the people) so I tend to be more in the Malcom X, French Revolution school of thought when it comes to how to affect social change, and I don't tend to see much of that.

As a side note, I always wonder what people mean by equal pay for equal work? The concept of not paying privileged classes more for the same work than classes w/out the same privilege is something I am pretty in favor of because from a conservative stand point, paying the best workers the most is the best policy and race/gender/religion/etc doesn't really impact that. The concept of paying everyone who works in the hospital the same wage is imo pretty dumb bc I've never seen a society where that worked well. Why go to med school for 8 years or get a BSN which takes 4 if you could make the same money answering the phones for the hospital?

PS Oligarchies are awesome if the system is more akin to plato's republic, where the best educated most affluent and successful people of society also have an intrinsically felt sense of moral duty to act in the best interest of the society (both low and high). It's the only form of government I've ever thought might be a stable socially progressive system because the education and power of those in charge can allow them to prevent abuse of the poor and help everyone basically (of course it is pretty terrible if the people in charge don't have this sense of moral duty because they have the power to abuse a great deal of people).

LegendaryLemurNov 6, 20151 votes

Equal pay for equal work is usually used (at least in current American politics) to refer to differences in pay based on gender.

I was using it completely differently. What i am talking about is how having money is the easiest way to make money, making wealth accrual automatic for the already rich.

People who are 'forced' to work to feed their families are compelled to take whatever wage the corporate and political elite deign to give them, rather than pay them commensurate to the value of their labor.

I am not personally in favor of equal pay for equal time (your 'paying everyone who works in the hospital the same wage'). There are various communist, socialist, georgist, etc ideas for how exactly to disperse the wealth. (For example you can pay the medical student for his studying and accrual of knowledge instead of making him pay for it).

What's clear to me is that the current system is not doing anything close to a good job, and in fact there is an entire industry (the 'wealth defense industry') devoted to preserving the status quo and income inequality coupled with a political hegemony controlled by wealthy corporate interests actively working to stop the 'common people' from unifying and using their legislative (government of the people) might to change the system.

I guess i should have used some other phrase like "Labor theory of value" instead of "equal pay for equal work". Basically i'm just saying that the people who own the means of production and financial capital shouldn't be able to exploit people who don't.

Shroom JunkieNov 5, 20156 votes

{quoted}

You could take a person who is 90+ yr old who lived as a hermit and they will know nothing of social interaction. In this regard the 90+yr old is a child to social interaction.

https://media.giphy.com/media/fIQkFFMOKhi8M/giphy.gif

Dangerous ManNov 6, 20151 votes

{quoted}

While I agree with the OP I also know that when school is out I notice a increase is toxic behavior. This is because kids are more likely to be toxic then adults. This however doesn't mean that age in it's self should be used. However Children in general do lack maturity. This is because in general they lack experience. A 7yr old who is raised well and has been exposed to a lot of social interaction will behave well in most situations. This is because of how they were raised and their experiences.

Most children are less exposed to social interaction because they are younger. This has nothing to with a persons age but more with their lack of experience.

You could take a person who is 90+ yr old who lived as a hermit and they will know nothing of social interaction. In this regard the 90+yr old is a child to social interaction.

However because children lack this experience they are more likely to be toxic. So when the kids are out of school you will see a increase in toxic behavior.

7 year olds are in bots anyways so don't assume like that. Id say at LEAST 10 year olds get up to bronze and stubborn ones can get silver. But 10 year olds would be more annoying because they don't care about consequences as much as a 7 year old would not want to lose his/her game under any circumstance .-.

RavenstikerNov 5, 20153 votes

a more correct way is to call them a 12 year old COD rager who gets 0s on his grades. Or an even better one is to call them a Non-believer in Mundo & Draven

ZenfroNov 5, 20153 votes

Some 10 year olds are completely toxic and stupid, but most of the time 10 year olds are actally decent at the game and just want to play it for fun. summoner 1

DormidonNov 5, 20153 votes

Topic starter is 10 years old heh

Ginger976Nov 5, 20153 votes

{quoted}

A 7 year old can behave better than a 23 year old. A 27 year old can be incredibly toxic. A teenager who is in school is still a human being with valid opinions. That 43 year old, he is not too old to have fun playing a game.

Saying someone is a 10 year old is not an insult. Maturity and skill level are things that vary from person to person, not age to age.

So please stop using someones age like it is an insult. Also, don't assume someone is of a certain age. You are more than likely wrong.

Sounds like something a 12-year old would say.

DrProfVibeCheckNov 6, 20151 votes

That means blindly useing age to insult people is so easily understood as a bad thing that a 12 year old would know. :^)

AnomanderNov 4, 20152 votes

My 7 yr old behaves better then most adults.

kJsNov 5, 20152 votes

Behaviour ≠ Maturity

It's nice that you have a nicely behaving child though.

AnomanderNov 5, 20152 votes

Maturity has a direct impact on behavior. Behavior is no indicator of maturity. Which is why I put my 7yr old Behaves better and never mentioned maturity.

61939590DEL1Nov 5, 20151 votes

{quoted}

Maturity has a direct impact on behavior. Behavior is no indicator of maturity. Which is why I put my 7yr old Behaves better and never mentioned maturity.

I'm lost for words yet so many unnecessarily words. This is what your were trying to say "My 7yr old son behaves better & has never mention the word maturity". We all can think there's no way in hell you a parent due to this poor grammar but yea put this up on the pedestal than it's a like "Oh your grammar matches your age ", which is FALSE. We adults make mistakes in grammar more often than we realize to put a age on that is weak for someone with higher education.

AnomanderNov 5, 20151 votes

I said what I meant to say.

I made three statements. Not one.

Don't try to correct me.

You just seem like a ass.

We all can think there's no way in hell you a parent due to this poor grammar This is what your were trying to say

"Your were trying" "You a parent"

And you're correcting me?

I'll admit I made a error in my punctuation. I should have added quotation marks

Maturity has a direct impact on behavior. Behavior is no indicator of maturity. Which is why I put "My 7yr old behaves better" and never mentioned maturity.

However before you try to correct someone else or say they used too many words you might want to check your own writing.

I mean next time just say "you no write no good." I think it about sums up your thoughts.

And yes I am a Ass. I admit it. I am proud of it. I will always be this way.

HoodwinkNov 5, 20153 votes

a ass

Professor WardNov 4, 20152 votes

i know very few adults that will call me a %%%got with downs 420 noscope

Spizzle9000Nov 5, 20152 votes

First off, you do have a valid point that there are children who are more mature than adults.

But, saying someone is 10 in a disrespectful manner IS an insult because an insult is a disrespectful comment. If it's spoken with the intent to be an insult, it is an insult.

People may insult anyone any possible way they desire to. That doesn't mean it's right, but they have the right to. And generally I imagine a 10 year old wouldn't be as good at video games as someone older than they because they more than likely have more experience, knowledge, and coordination as a 10 year old.

I'm a teenager. I bet I'm better than the average 10 year old who plays LoL. But that's because my brain is more than likely more developed than the average 10 year old's brain and I'm more coordinated, less prone to childish fits, and smarter. Children have a lot to learn.

None of us are perfect, but there are valid reasons insults exist. As long as people are offended by something, being compared to said thing will be considered an insult.

People generally don't like being compared to something they aren't if there's an obvious tone of disrespect or loathing behind the words. The tone is just as important as the words.

Sorry, but not sorry.

Gregor GysiNov 5, 20152 votes

I disagree. Everyone matures over the years (that is an undisputable fact). That has the consequence that 30 year olds are in average way more mature than 10 year olds. Surely there are cases of surprisingly mature 10 year olds and 30 year old manchilds. However, those are clearly exceptions and most definetely not the usual. I'd say it should be 'Age doesn't mean everything'.

S H A Y C 0Nov 5, 20152 votes

As it turns out, there is a direct correlation between a persons age and brain development. Not even remotely surprising information, there is also a direct correlation between the stage of a persons brain development and emotional maturity. A lack of emotional maturity is the predominant cause of what we here on league forums refer to as "toxic" behavior. Furthermore, the stage of brain development will clearly have an effect on the validity of any statements made by the individual obviously, if their brain has not yet fully developed it stands to reason that the thoughts formulated inside that brain will also be underdeveloped.

Just throwing that out there, do with it what you will.

Cenobite AzazielNov 5, 20152 votes

{quoted}

A 7 year old can behave better than a 23 year old. A 27 year old can be incredibly toxic. A teenager who is in school is still a human being with valid opinions. That 43 year old, he is not too old to have fun playing a game.

Saying someone is a 10 year old is not an insult. Maturity and skill level are things that vary from person to person, not age to age.

So please stop using someones age like it is an insult. Also, don't assume someone is of a certain age. You are more than likely wrong.

Yep, call the presses, we better torn apart every profiling tool in the planet. Do us a favor and go in Call of duty and se how many toddlers will say "I'm f*** your mom last night"

I prefer to play at 12:00 pm ~2 AM. Way less rage.

SvolskiNov 5, 20152 votes

Mmmmm no young people rage more because they are less mature. Puberty, life experience, stuff like that. It's fact.

FaunTKNov 5, 20152 votes

The SJW is strong in this.

Cloud PotatoNov 5, 20152 votes

I don't think anyone willing to insult others using age cares about being accurate. In fact, taking the time to make this thread is an indicator that the insult can do its job.

DrProfVibeCheckNov 6, 20152 votes

When is acting immature a bad thing? I understand if its like a really bad behaviour issue, but everyone needs some more Fart Jokes in their lives. c:

TransgressorNov 6, 20152 votes

The insult is not targeted towards the number in itself.

It is targeted to what comes with it. What's a common trait of young people? Immaturity. What does that lead us into? Kiddies who don't give a fuck about the game, and laugh ruining the match for 9 others off like it's no big deal. They lack the matturity, and they don't have the mental capacity to comprehend this. What's a common trait of older people? Their self-esteem. They think they know better or know it all, simply because they're older. What does that lead us into? Clowns who can't take critisism or feedback whenever they screw things up, effectively ruining the game for other 9 players.

See? They don't really differ from one-another. Oh, want to know something cool? Maturity and skill level are things that vary from person to person, and also come with age. The older you are, the more skillfull you could be since you've practically had more time to train. Some young kids might have had better upbringing than some adults. Adults and kids alike might have trouble comprehending the weight of their actions, and that's got nothing to do with age as much as it has to do with mental capacity and emotional intelligence, along with nurture. All of which can be gained through the years as well, since experiences help us form opinions and create critical thoughts.

Oh, and one last thing. Those age assumptions, are exactly this; ASSUMPTIONS. Assumptions which are made based on the lack of context, which in this particular case is not knowing someone's age through the internet while playing videogames. Also, assumptions acan be inherently incoherent and flawed, that's why they are assumptions. Thanks for letting us know assumptions do their job the way they were supposed to.