https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/hospital/hazards/stress/stress.html
http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Your_Industry/Healthcare_Sector/Work_Related_Stress/
http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/step1/
http://www.ilo.org/safework/areasofwork/workplace-health-promotion-and-well-being/WCMS_108557/lang--en/index.htm
https://osha.europa.eu/en/themes/psychosocial-risks-and-stress
Yes, a "singular" study.
First of all, calling you sheltered is hardly an insult - it's an observation. If "fuck you" is bullying, you have not taken a step out into the real world, worked a single job, spent any time in a public school, done practically anything outside your house. The phrase - and variants of the phrase - are used daily because people get angry. It happens. So long as they aren't railing on you or making death threats, just stand there and let them get it out of their system because one of the worst things they can do is bottle it up. This is also glossing over the fact that it is being used towards a person actively causing displeasure to the person - now if I just walked up, told you to go fuck yourself for no reason and left, then that's uncalled for. You didn't do anything. If you've been kicking me in the shins for the past 10 minutes on the bus, then you have absolutely no room to call "bullying" when I stand up and demand you quit kicking me in the goddamn shins.
Now perhaps that's difficult. Maybe your muscles spasm and you have difficulty controlling your legs, so you inadvertently wind up kicking me only because you can't help it (this would be comparable to dying a lot due to a jungler camping you or other such reasons). Now, while this makes it a little more acceptable, if you are simply saying this and doing absolutely nothing to try and counteract what you are doing - like, say, holding your leg to keep it still (in other words, staying by tower or in extreme cases abandoning the lane for some jungle creep and ganking before returning for farm whenever it's safe) - then we fall back on the "fuck you" being acceptable because you're not even trying. You're just accepting that you are directly causing others discomfort.
So, second of all, I'm not talking about anger management and I have absolutely no clue where you're even pulling that from. Anger management is learning to keep anger outbursts in control when they are inappropriate or excessive - that would fall into the category of people telling others that they should be shot because the guy accidentally bumped into him. That is excessive anger. "Fuck you" is not excessive unless all you did was sneeze. Now if you sneezed directly into my goddamn face, then oh hell yeah, "fuck you" is no longer excessive. What you're failing to draw is a proper line. Since you referenced a police study, I'm sure you'll then be aware of the "equal force" portion of "self-defense" in that you are only allowed to defend - or retaliate - to a threat up to the amount that they are threatening you with. While the wording sounds extreme, it is actually very tame - basically, if somebody punches you, you can only punch back. Using, say, a knife will escalate the situation and put you at a liability. So if somebody tells you "fuck you", you can say "fuck you" back. Simple, right? Of course this gets harder to gauge when you're crossing things - deciding the level of verbal retaliation you can rightfully respond with when somebody's kicking your shins on the bus isn't a straight and definite line. But there is a line, child, and it's drawn by using your intuition.
So the point of that block of text is this: Asking somebody not to respond to somebody who is feeding is like stepping on the back of somebody's shoes several times and demanding them to stay silent about it.
So now we have the third point - that toxicity causes more loses. Truth is it probably doesn't. I know it's hard to comprehend this, but Riot is using a stupidly common tactic when it comes to surveys. Basically, as long as the results say what they want it to say, they can make as many asinine claims about the results as they want. But let's use our deductive reasoning here: If people win games, isn't it more likely that they simply didn't have a reason to be toxic? Losing a game always carries the stigma of inherently being negative, and so would actually cause a reason for people to be toxic - winning a game, however, causes no such thing. You're never mad because you bloody won a game. This is a common case where correlation does not indicate causation. People don't win more games because they're positive - people are positive because they win more games. That makes fully logical sense and is more likely to be what the study was actually showing. News sources even do this all the goddamn time - or have you never heard the concept of "reporter bias" before? Or watched the news at all?
But let's not even touch on that. Let's touch on the topic of LCS and toxicity - there's a ton of it. More than here. Move to Korea. Try playing there. If this is your attitude towards being simply told "fuck you", then I can tell you with absolute certainty you will have a breakdown or outright uninstall League. Or consign yourself to versing AI the rest of your days, whatever works.
The reason I say this is the Asian scene follows significantly different rules and they are, by far, the most toxic players to ever be spawned. Samsung White's Imp would tell people they should never have been born just for giving first blood. The entirety of the Chinese line-ups tended to fucking hate each other. Toxicity has minimal if any actual bearing on if you are about to win a game or not, that is just tried and true fact - losing just causes toxicity while winning does not. Welcome to competition.
And hell, I've played an absurd amount of sports. You're not using a sports psychologist as a reference here - there's no way. After a collective 18 years of baseball, soccer, and football, I have had coaches completely destroy us when we're down because in those cases we're not ready to hear some bullshit about how we've just gotta try harder - no, we're well aware that we're doing fucking awful and telling us otherwise just sounds insincere. The coach would tell us how it is, what the fuck we needed to do, and that we needed to step up our game. And you know what? We would. We didn't just get sad and stop trying, we went out to win. And no, we didn't win all the time because of it, but we would fucking try, and so much harder because the fact was the coach wasn't getting us down - it was that we believed him. So we didn't spite him, we didn't tell him he was being harsh. No, in fact, if you want to use anger management as a retort, then you'll also realize that the main argument behind that is that you can control your reaction to things - so shouldn't I tell you to control your sadness if you're demanding I control anger? We're both reacting to negative stimuli brought on by other people here.
No. I won't tell you to control your sadness because it happens. What I'm going to tell you is this - you get upset at people telling you you suck because you believe them. You think they have a point. So what, you shut down after that? You suck at drawing. Are you just going to stop drawing? No, when people tell me I'm sucking ass, I tell them to fuck themselves and I redouble my efforts because I want to improve. Yeah, I may be sucking ass right there and then - but that is not where I'll be staying.
And sometimes you fail still - it happens. You'll be upset. Go play something more calming or watch some TV or do some chores or go outside. Come back later. Double your efforts. If you're so brought down by somebody telling you "fuck you" in a video game, you apparently don't even really have much of a will to play the game and get better.
Undoubtedly you're going to gloss or skim over this entire thing, so I'll provide you with a summary:
The TL;DR:
One, people have a right to retaliate towards people causing them discomfort. There are lines to be drawn here, clearly, and you should know them. But demanding somebody not retaliate when another is causing them discomfort is akin to telling somebody to stay silent when somebody keeps stepping on their heels.
Two, this is not a discussion of anger management. This is a discussion of the damages bottling stress can provide. And no, these are not massive stressors coming from this game, but more often than not the little on little on little on little on more and more little things is what weighs on a person in the long run than the big things. You will on occasion find the person suppressing big issues such as grief or abuse, but these are extreme cases as opposed to the every day cases.
Three, Riot's survey results are manipulated to benefit their own agenda. Correlation does not mean causation - in this case, toxicity does not cause loses, it's that losing causes toxicity. Riot reverses this in order to benefit their goal of trying to make their game less notoriously toxic without realizing that that's borderline impossible when demanding people rely on others to achieve a goal with minimal individual impact.
So there, I believe I've covered all of my bases. I'm going to ask politely you don't try to twist words or change the topic again, but knowing people on these boards I can say with almost utmost certainty that you will anyway.
:Maybe you should get a banshee or just any kind of early mr to shut down her early game burst
:Are you stupid? Ahri is supposed to rush a morello
or 
are much better options to rush against Leblanc as ahri. Trust me, I'm bronze.
player that pulls that shit.
and Korean*[zombie-brand-facepalm]* (inside joke guys sorry)