Boards›Player Behavior

Emotions < Truth - enforcing mindless conformity is the opposite of justice

SirPurrr··71 votes·3,600 views

This happened recently in a normal game where I was mid. Our Nidalee jungle dived a Swain with my help and we both died to another player who came. The Swain flashed mastery and the Nidalee went into all chat to say Swain missed all his skillshots. Swain responded that she missed a bunch of spears too. It just seemed like friendly banter but Swain repeated that comment when Nidalee missed some other spears. The once cocky Nidalee now calls for reports "Swain so toxic - enjoy the permaban" or something extremely similar.

This is where I come in and say in our chat "get over yourself" + "that doesn't merit a report and it's absurd that you'd want him banned for it - that's just banter". A minute later or so, the Nidalee dies and then says it's my fault and calls me stupid. I wasn't even near where she died. I respond with "you play the victim but then resort to berating and scapegoating others" I don't like hypocrisy and I have every right to call out this unfair behavior. I don't care if he doesn't like it because there's nothing wrong with me simply having an opinion that is extremely well justified and highlights a real problem. I didn't go make up nonsense generalizations about his childhood, his character, his life etc. I focused on exactly what I observed and stated something within the scope of that experience. It's probably exactly because he recognizes I'm right that he gets mad at me. Not all feelings are valid and I won't care about feelings which have zero basis in reality. I do not care if others agree or not. This is the truth and it wasn't expressed as harassment or anything of the sort. It was simply honest and Nidalee had to go pretty overboard for me to actually feel he merited a response.

The thing is that people REALLY hate to be called out on their BS even when it's 100% justified. They hate it more than if you spout profanities left and right. Truth is more frustrating but it's also freeing and hopefully someone can later recognize that what they did isn't OK. Anyway so now this Nidalee says to report me too for the above comments. Then, the 4 others (who are mostly on Discord) call for reports on both of us. I respond with "I don't care about your judgment. I care about truth. Nothing I did merits a report.". Even more on the team join the mob. I respond "state your evidence of anything toxic that I said". All I get is people spamming "report X" and "evidence lol". I don't budge. I repeat that I did nothing wrong and that the accusation is baseless. Now some of them, probably realizing they're full of shit say "report X for inting." I had a poor showing but was very obviously not inting and my performance was on par with the rest of the team (who were also losing heavily ever since early game).

I used to have a very positive opinion of people and was a super happy kid. I believed in rationality and that we should all aspire to be ethical and fair actors in an effort to improve the world. I despise people who would choose to lie in order to get what they want and it seems there are far more in the world than I ever realized back then. I was insulated. You can see even in the media with its portrayals of people going against the grain. I see articles claiming that James Damore is a mysoginist and thinks women shouldn't be in tech. Just outright horrible lies. Smear campaigns. It doesn't matter if you agree with the person or not. Be fair with your assessment, don't straight up lie about them and pretend they said completely different things. It sickens me. Trump is also a notorious liar even when there's video evidence. It's on every side of the spectrum and it makes me sad. If the world has problems but we are honest and have the goal to improve it, it's doable. It's not if we act like this though and that bothers me a lot. So much self-serving BS. So many fake people. So little actual value placed on ethics and truth. I don't bend to it. I won't say shit smells like roses or I believe something I don't. That seems incredibly superficial and I accept that the consequence of this will be that fewer people will like me. I don't care because I don't want empty friends either.

The problem is that the report system in this game will eventually punish me for situations exactly like the above even if I state my opinion without resorting to ad hominems etc. but others don't like it. I do not call people bad or randomly talk shit to them because they played something poorly. That's childish and stupid because I know they already are trying to do their best and so what use is it to call out that they haven't measured up yet? Just to rub it in and feel superior or excuse your own performance? Pathetic and pointless. That's not what I mean by honesty.

I might talk about strategy though or builds if it's something someone brings up. For example, if some guy calls my build garbage and that I'm an idiot for using it - let's say Bloodrazor on WW, I might respond that I like it for my playstyle and it actually performs quite well even in higher ELO. I won't just say "oh shit, you're right... it's terrible" and I also won't be silent like most people. I might say that it has tradeoffs like being worse as a damage sponge but I won't just agree because they gang up on me and want to scapegoat the Bloodrazor WW as the reason the game isn't going well. It's so common to see this kind of behavior. Something isn't going well so they search for someone different and then they harass that person to displace blame even if logical evidence doesn't point to that being the primary factor. Occasionally, I will agree if presented with good evidence but most of the time people just talk shit and don't even have any argument. They'll just spam ping and make rude comments. There's no orientation to truth or improvement. It's just empty harassment. There's no deeper thing to learn. However, even just responding in the mild way as above will occasionally lead to chat restrictions and calls for reports just because I don't agree with them and argue back. Arguing isn't a bad word btw. It's just presenting an idea and offering some evidence from it. It's also not like I'll make these comments in the middle of a fight or while CS is dying. I'd limit my talking time to recalls, deaths, or lulls in gameplay where I have no other options. This is why I don't like this system. I think most of how it judges is based on report frequency. You have no chance to defend yourself and the mob wins. If the mob doesn't like you because you stand up for yourself (not talking about retaliation or being mean), their judgment will eventually come back to bite you. Truth doesn't matter. Fairness doesn't matter. Justice doesn't matter. You have no chance to defend yourself or get an impartial assessment of the full chat with context. And yes, EVERYTHING is context dependent but again I am not defending harassment. It's just impossible to even understand a lot of comments and what they mean without it. The way this system has evolved, it seems like it's basically a catch all for anything someone might not like somewhere. Even defending your build with evidence when they all want to scapegoat you counts. The hilarious thing is that I'd be the victim in that situation yet I'd get the punishment because I don't bend to the group consensus regarding my build or play. Of course if I just say nothing then I am infinitely less likely to get reported but I shouldn't have to tacitly accept BS to just play a game. I should have a right to state a contrary opinion as long as I don't resort to harassment and mean spirited behavior. This system is NOT ethical as it stands. It's expedient and effective but for the 1% of people who are like me, it's going to be completely wack. I've never gotten banned but I basically feel like anything I say which someone else might strongly disagree with puts me at risk of reprisal. It feels stiffing - like being in a communist country and having to tout the party line. It's disturbing. If I had an impartial judge for my behavior - sort of like a jury of other random players, I'd be much more OK with it. However, I think if you have a far higher than average report frequency for behavior like above, you will eventually get a chat restriction unless you simply stop responding. That is not a solution. I've employed it on my main account but it's troubling that it has come to this.

People would rather me lie so someone feels better instead of actually being honest. For example, in the above situation, if they just said "let's just focus on the game" or something like that, great! I barely talked and would be happy with that. To lump me in with Nidalee though just for stating an opinion that annoyed him further shows no backbone and is disgusting to me. My comment was fair and entirely deserved. I think what pissed them off the most was me stating that I don't care about their judgment and I value the truth instead. They want to feel they can influence me and that they have power that I must respect. When I reject that concept, I refuse to be part of their group/tribe and that makes me bad in their minds because they care about the tribe/group to a higher degree than any ethical concept or even reality itself. So many people do this and it's the only thing that makes me a bit depressed sometimes... knowing that other people are like this and I don't function that way. I don't want to function that way either. Belonging isn't my drive if it means sacrificing what's real but unfortunately I pay the price for it since the mob has some power eventually. That's why there's supposed to be a more objective system which moderates those forces. Currently, the one we have is probably good for the vast majority but it feels completely unfair to me. I know that I'm free to not play the game and they have a right to implement whatever system they want - including no chat - but it's seriously messed up.

I know I rambled a lot. This isn't my normal account and I haven't even bothered to edit the post. I'm just highlighting the problems and hope someone actually cares about this stuff too. I just hope SOMEONE out there cares enough to want to fix the edgecases and fight for a better system. Also, I did not get punished after that game but the calls for reports reminded me of times I did so I had to write this. If no one reads it or gives a shit, so be it. I have zero benefit to writing this but I did my part to help improve something in this game.

129 Comments

ModUlanopo22 votes

The thing is that people REALLY hate to be called out on their BS even when it's 100% justified.

I gave a feeling you weren't following the "Three Gates of Speech" theory. In general, you should perform three checks before you speak:

  • Is it true?
  • Is it necessary?
  • Is it kind?

I find - often - that people who offer "criticism" in League really only consider whether or not they consider it to be true.

I would like to suggest that offering the "truth" is unlikely to get you what you want.

Truth is more frustrating but it's also freeing and hopefully someone can later recognize that what they did isn't OK.

Questionable.I feel the Backfire Effect and Confirmation Bias make this generally untrue.

SirPurrr30 votes

{quoted}

I gave a feeling you weren't following the "Three Gates of Speech" theory. In general, you should perform three checks before you speak:

  • Is it true?
  • Is it necessary?
  • Is it kind?

I find - often - that people who offer "criticism" in League really only consider whether or not they consider it to be true.

I would like to suggest that offering the "truth" is unlikely to get you what you want.

Questionable.I feel the Backfire Effect and Confirmation Bias make this generally untrue.

Yes, I think it's necessary because Nidalee was singling out the Swain unfairly and asking for punishments (even hoping for a ban) just because he said she missed some spears. This wasn't sarcasm btw. He was making that much very clear. It's bully behavior and that's why I needed to confront this player.

This "cult of kindness" is not helping anyone. It's the opposite of what kindess actually is... which is caring for others's wellbeing, valuing fairness, wanting things to be better etc. In reality it's just a fear to try to correct injustices in the world or stand up to bullies. Because you think it's not "kind" for you to say something those people might not like, you sit silently and condone it indirectly by not speaking up. That's not OK. You can be friends with all sorts of people - deeply flawed people with abhorrent ideas but you have to still be true to yourself and say what you think is right.

Silence avoids confrontation at the cost of your own principles and your soul - it avoids hurting the ego of the bully at the cost of also not doing what's right for the victim. Which matters more to you? This is a safe but cowardly wait to live. Even if speaking up against injustice may not right it immediately and could even make things worse temporarily, it has an effect long-term. If more people did it, the bully eventually would get the message that it's not acceptable. It applies to everything though, not just bullying. If you try to live outside of truth and focus on being "nice" instead, you're exacerbating the problems.

At least stating your piece will plant a seed in people's mind and possibly get a conversation going. It'll create a tiny splash through the global social network and enough splashes make a wave. Even if it doesn't, you at least tried and sometimes people will be receptive even if not immediately. I don't believe in hiding from one another for convenience. Ethical pillars override my desire to protect someone's emotions and the quest for truth (which will never end) is always a higher value. Attempting to have progress without working from the foundation of truth, will just have it all be twisted, reversed or worse. This happens with a lot of SJW types I've seen. They don't even value truth or real progress. They value feelings above that and a lot of what they say isn't based on deeply held principles. It's based on status plays - just virtue signaling to try to extract privilege from their social networks. It saddens me because it could be such a noble thing but I've learned that many of them are basically game theory psychopaths - constantly adjusting to the social landscape to try to predict and perfect "the right opinions." Some are good guys too but it has been copted as a movement and there are enormous propaganda machines at work. I'm rambling again though... so I'm out. It may not be the most eloquent, clear or concise writing but I think the gist of what I mean is still accessible with some effort. I apologize for leaving it in this terrible state.

BTW: Don't misconstrue my position as being "kindness" = "cowardice". That's a complete strawman. I value kindness too but maybe I don't see it the same as you. I put truth above kindness but they can usually coexist and if they can't, the short-term pain of the truth will still sting less than a life living a lie. I also think actions speak louder than words. You can't say you're kind but then when a bully picks on someone, you don't want to get involved and say anything out of fear of hurting the bully's feelings (Nidalee in that case.)

SEKAI7 votes

{quoted}

This "cult of kindness" is not helping anyone. It's the opposite of what kindess actually is... which is caring for others's wellbeing, valuing fairness, wanting things to be better etc. In reality it's just a fear to try to correct injustices in the world or stand up to bullies. Because you think it's not "kind" for you to say something those people might not like, you sit silently and condone it indirectly by not speaking up. That's not OK. You can be friends with all sorts of people - deeply flawed people with abhorrent ideas but you have to still be true to yourself and say what you think is right.

Silence avoids confrontation at the cost of your own principles and your soul - it avoids hurting the ego of the bully at the cost of also not doing what's right for the victim. Which matters more to you? This is a safe but cowardly wait to live. Even if speaking up against injustice may not right it immediately and could even make things worse temporarily, it has an effect long-term. If more people did it, the bully eventually would get the message that it's not acceptable. It applies to everything though, not just bullying. If you try to live outside of truth and focus on being "nice" instead, you're exacerbating the problems.

At least stating your piece will plant a seed in people's mind and possibly get a conversation going. It'll create a tiny splash through the global social network and enough splashes make a wave. Even if it doesn't, you at least tried and sometimes people will be receptive even if not immediately. I don't believe in hiding from one another for convenience. Ethical pillars override my desire to protect someone's emotions and the quest for truth (which will never end) is always a higher value. Attempting to have progress without working from the foundation of truth, will just have it all be twisted, reversed or worse. This happens with a lot of SJW types I've seen. They don't even value truth or real progress. They value feelings above that and a lot of what they say isn't based on deeply held principles. It's based on status plays - just virtue signaling to try to extract privilege from their social networks. It saddens me because it could be such a noble thing but I've learned that many of them are basically game theory psychopaths - constantly adjusting to the social landscape to try to predict and perfect "the right opinions." Some are good guys too but it has been copted as a movement and there are enormous propaganda machines at work. I'm rambling again though... so I'm out. It may not be the most eloquent, clear or concise writing but I think the gist of what I mean is still accessible with some effort. I apologize for leaving it in this terrible state.

You're having a field day while basing on the assumption that kindness equates to cowardice and avoidance.

Boy, wouldn't it be a shame if the assumption is false. Oh wait.

Between you and me, being kind is literally the hardest thing to do for us puny humans. Because being truly kind means this person will from the bottom of their heart, believe every single person is redeemable. Because being legitimately kind also means when standing up against evil, they will attempt to save BOTH the victims and the villains.

A truly kind person is someone who will look straight into the eyes of criminals, killers, mass murderers, and say this to their face: "I will never forget you for what you did, and you will stand trail for what you've done. I will stand and fight you tooth and nail to my last fiber against your sprees. But ultimately, I forgive you, and I truly believe you can be so much better."

Being kind is not whatever shit you want to ring onto the notion. It is not about avoiding confrontation and dwell in silence. It is not running away from all confrontation and turning eyes away from evil. It is however, having a god damn standard for a start, being a state of mind where you can truly see the world via the eyes of others, to truly surpass instincts to value things in terms of self gains and losses, and to perfectly co-exist and find peace in the irrational idea that everyone can be at their best and take rational steps towards it.

Being kind is not BS, it is the most powerful form of human psyche.

Ifneth2 votes

I will interrupt with a nitpick. Not everyone is redeemable or even wants to be redeemed. Some will even use attempts to change them as chances to refine their mask of sanity. One day, scientists might find a reliable cure, but hitherto such people must either be deterred, ostracized, or confined.

This Is Your Dad1 votes

I find that in a sense, being kind is a burden on authenticity. I find it hard to trust people that are kind because they often spread ill will behind your back and are only kind OUT of cowardice. So I talk to this guy that I absolutely hate, and he thinks it's okay to be an ass because I still talk to him out of kindness. I have this guy on my track team that everyone hates but he's popular. He brags about how great he is and how he can beat everyone in every event, calls people names, insults them and never has a good thing to say about anyone. He believes everyone loves him. All I hear from everyone is they want to get away from him. Who is really winning from this kindness?

NGCM1013 votes

Don't overgeneralise. People can still can still be kind because they like you or enjoy your company and do not talk ill of you behind your back.

KirbyKrash2 votes

You are not being kind to him, you are being nice. BIG difference. Nice doesn't mean you are being honest, or have good will towards the person. You simply don't want to offend, or be a jerk, or spend time correcting/fixing, or care enough to help. (avoiding confrontation) KINDNESS, is where you are truthful, but wont be a jerk about it, AND are probably willing to help/listen/fix the problem/thing. Big difference.

TeCoolMage5 votes

I've agreed with most of the things you've said in your post but the idea that not "calling people out" for justice is somehow cowardly.

It's okay to give input but in the end condescension (whether justified or not) leads to resentment, and lengthens the time a person takes to learn.

That's where your method fails - you hope that you planted a 'seed' in Nidalee's mind, and that he'll regret what he did and wish for forgiveness or something. But we both know that's probably not going to happen. In the end they'll probably enter another game tilted more. Personally I would've tried to make Swain's insult s sound more like jokes and say something like "lol I once played Nidalee and kept hitting minions" or tell nidalee to calm down

I agree that truth > emotions, but I disagree that justice > emotions

SirLime6 votes

{quoted}

I've agreed with most of the things you've said in your post but the idea that not "calling people out" for justice is somehow cowardly.

It's okay to give input but in the end condescension (whether justified or not) leads to resentment, and lengthens the time a person takes to learn.

That's where your method fails - you hope that you planted a 'seed' in Nidalee's mind, and that he'll regret what he did and wish for forgiveness or something. But we both know that's probably not going to happen. In the end they'll probably enter another game tilted more. Personally I would've tried to make Swain's insult s sound more like jokes and say something like "lol I once played Nidalee and kept hitting minions" or tell nidalee to calm down

I agree that truth > emotions, but I disagree that justice > emotions

Yes, it's probably true. It's better to be more delicate about it and not hammer them with it. They'd need some time to process too. The article about the backfire effect was interesting. I could have been less direct. Although, I think that if people had the pursuit of truth as their highest value, they would inevitably have a much thicker skin so some of this wouldn't apply.

Conscious hypocrisy and lying are some of the things that I don't have a thick skin for. My school experience was quite good and happy but perhaps the only time I remember crying in school was in really early grades when someone told the teacher I said something that I did not (it wasn't meant to be a joke either). I don't even remember what it was but I remember being upset. Insults wouldn't phase me because it's just some person's opinion but untruths were painful because they forced our two realities to collide and warped them together. In a sense, if someone insults me, I am free to interpret it, analyze it for truth/lessons, process it etc. but a lie about me moves outside of my realm of control and analysis. It enters and potentially affects my world in a powerful way. I can't filter it because it can affect others too. It's an attempt at changing the ground my feet are on and it may affect me in ways totally outside of my control (due to the judgment of others) in a way that is not the result of my authentic behavior. I think lies are infinitely worse than any insults someone can muster. I would rather someone told me to jump off a cliff or whatever sadistic thing popped into their head rather than an outright lie about me. Lies behind someone's back are the worst because they have even less of an option to set the record straight. Their reality is potentially warped by this malevolent actor and they don't even know it.

ModUlanopo9 votes

This "cult of kindness" is not helping anyone.

That's where you're being foolish. Kindness isn't weakness. It is also a powerful tool for getting what you want.

Silence avoids confrontation at the cost of your own principles and your soul

This is a load of nonsense, as is the rest of your post. It's also a huge strawman.

I'm not telling you to remain silent at all times and places. I'm telling you to genuinely consider the benefit and power of what you say. Most of the time, speech like you suggest is nothing more than bullying with a different name.

AirKingNeo10 votes

That's where you're being foolish. Kindness isn't weakness. It is also a powerful tool for getting what you want.

No, he's 100% correct. This quasi-kindness idealism completely removes the ability to tell people that they are wrong or that they should stop doing something morally bad.

This is a load of nonsense, as is the rest of your post. It's also a huge strawman.

That's a very bold statement. I'd prefer you back yourself up with an argument.

Also, he is correct in that quoted statement. Being silent means you are complicit in whatever wrongdoing you saw happen because you refuse to stand up to it.

Most of the time, speech like you suggest is nothing more than bullying with a different name.

Another bold statement, especially considering he's talking standing up against injustice. Please back yourself up with an argument.

ModUlanopo5 votes

No, he's 100% correct. This quasi-kindness idealism completely removes the ability to tell people that they are wrong or that they should stop doing something morally bad.

You just proved my point. You think the statement is automatically justified if you believe it to be true, then you cloak it in with a half-baked "moral" justification. If that's all it takes to make speech acceptable, then why bother to have social rules at all? (You do have to have social rules, by the way. The alternative is chaos.)

At the end of the day, why you say something is just as important as what you say. Most of the people "speaking truth" in League do so from a place of arrogance. It makes them feel good to talk down to someone. It makes them feel less small and powerless. If the OP were sincere in their efforts to help people, then they would choose methods based in sympathy and understanding, because they are ultimately more effective. That the OP chooses otherwise indicates they are either lazy or their motives are not what they say. I suspect the latter.

I would encourage the OP to spend time considering that frisson of satisfaction they get from "telling the truth." You can tell the truth all day long and still not be a good person.

AirKingNeo6 votes

You just proved my point. You think the statement is automatically justified if you believe it to be true, then you cloak it in with a half-baked "moral" justification. If that's all it takes to make speech acceptable, then why bother to have social rules at all? (You do have to have social rules, by the way. The alternative is chaos.)

And if it is true? You're just implying it's always false or something. Not sure what would be half-baked moral justification. For example, let's say I tell my support to not build Sunfire Cape because that is incorrect. They get super pissed off and call me toxic or something. That's my example situation. OP's situation is him standing up for someone else, a much nobler and courageous cause. I'm not even sure what's you're talking about in 'Social Rules'. I just think League players need to get rid of this quasi-kindness where people think any disagreement is toxic or bad. OP thinks standing up for people (or even yourself) and saying the truth shouldn't be reportable or even punishable. Overall, it's basically saying, "Not being allowed to talk against wrongdoing is something wrong with League."

At the end of the day, why you say something is just as important as what you say. Most of the people "speaking truth" in League do so from a place of arrogance. It makes them feel good to talk down to someone. It makes them feel less small and powerless.

Well, no; in an argument what you say is more important than why, and in problem-solving (like a conflict) why you say/did something is more important than what.

You're implying all players are arrogant. Neither I nor the OP is talking about 'talking down to someone to make them feel small and powerless'.

If the OP were sincere in their efforts to help people, then they would choose methods based in sympathy and understanding, because they are ultimately more effective. That the OP chooses otherwise indicates they are either lazy or their motives are not what they say. I suspect the latter.

I wouldn't be sympathetic to a bully. You're calling the OP lazy despite any evidence. Perhaps he isn't lazy, but rather it's just human nature, or his nature, to stand against injustice. Again: I wouldn't be sympathetic to a bully.

I would encourage the OP to spend time considering that frisson of satisfaction they get from "telling the truth." You can tell the truth all day long and still not be a good person.

Telling the truth is inherently good though. It makes people aware and allows them to adapt. The only of two exceptions is to prevent traumatic experiences for children, but League players are far above that age and nothing going on is going to be traumatic. The other being repeated harassment, which no one is talking about.

TattooedOni2 votes

There isn't anything noble or courageous about arguing with people in a video game. It's just arguing, not helpful. The OP could have easily supported the player he perceived as being picked on with a kind word of support to them and then moving on and playing the game. Anything else is just ruining the experience of other players. I have been flamed in game and I just ignore them or mute them if they are distracting me. I don't need anyone to argue on my behalf no matter what the "truth" of the situation is.

AirKingNeo5 votes

You imply arguing isn't helpful. The age of enlightenment has already proved this wrong; Arguing is how we find the truth.

Then the attacker is given zero reasons to repent or feel remorse. No one but the attacker is having their experience lessened.

TattooedOni2 votes

The age of enlightenment didn't take place in a video game. Arguing isn't helpful, it just allows people to feel superior to the other person and the truth doesn't actually play into it. The argument you start in chat is distracting to everyone who can see it, and if it doesn't have anything to do with coordinating a strategy its useless for the purposes of the game. The attacker probably gets more enjoyment out of getting people to argue than they do playing the actual game. Why would anyone who acts by flaming other people in a game repent or feel remorse because someone argued with them (the original target or their gallant saivor?) when they can just add a new target to the pile.

AirKingNeo3 votes

The age of enlightenment didn't take place in a video game.

Not sure what that has to do with what it proved.

Arguing isn't helpful, it just allows people to feel superior to the other person and the truth doesn't actually play into it.

Then it wouldn't be an argument. That would be harassment, but we're talking about an argument.

The argument you start in chat is distracting to everyone who can see it, and if it doesn't have anything to do with coordinating a strategy its useless for the purposes of the game. The attacker probably gets more enjoyment out of getting people to argue than they do playing the actual game.

Pretty sure people already got annoyed by the guy being a dick in chat. Rather, they're glad someone else is telling them to stop.

Why would anyone who acts by flaming other people in a game repent or feel remorse because someone argued with them (the original target or their gallant saivor?) when they can just add a new target to the pile.

Not sure how it being 'in a game' matters. They aren't adding a new target. They get angry because they're losing, being told to stop.

Silent Gravity4 votes

{quoted}

Pretty sure people already got annoyed by the guy being a dick in chat. Rather, they're glad someone else is telling them to stop.

If my neighbors are having a yelling match at 3 in the morning, I don't care which one is right. They're both annoying me.

If two people are having a flame war in game, I don't care which one is right. They're both annoying me.

If one person is flaming, one person is trying to explain their decisions, and one person is "standing up for" the flamed one, then only two people on my team are playing the game. That sucks. They're all annoying me.

ModUlanopo6 votes

I just think League players need to get rid of this quasi-kindness where people think any disagreement is toxic or bad. OP thinks standing up for people (or even yourself) and saying the truth shouldn't be reportable or even punishable. Overall, it's basically saying, "Not being allowed to talk against wrongdoing is something wrong with League."

League has a very specific set of guidelines for responding to toxicity. I tend to agree with them.

I wish I could find it from the old Boards (I don't have time to really look because I have a long week ahead of me), but there was a tremendous post on this subject by Madmanwithabox in response to a woman who asked people to stop their misogynistic chat, partly because she was a woman. The short version is that, yes, we will absolutely 100% support someone who chooses to stand up to toxicity, _as long as they do so without adding to toxicity themselves."

So, if the op wants to say, "Hey, that isn't cool. Knock it off", that's perfectly okay. Likewise, if the OP wants to suggest, "Hey, maybe stack some armor?", that's okay too.

This does NOT mean the OP has blanket approval to say whatever they want, so long as it's presented as "criticism." I think that's the nuance that's being lost here.

For example, let's say I tell my support to not build Sunfire Cape because that is incorrect.

I'm just going to point out that I have bought item 3068 on Leona as support. More than once, actually.

scazzman3 votes

{quoted}

League has a very specific set of guidelines for responding to toxicity. I tend to agree with them.

I wish I could find it from the old Boards (I don't have time to really look because I have a long week ahead of me), but there was a tremendous post on this subject by Madmanwithabox in response to a woman who asked people to stop their misogynistic chat, partly because she was a woman. The short version is that, yes, we will absolutely 100% support someone who chooses to stand up to toxicity, _as long as they do so without adding to toxicity themselves."

So, if the op wants to say, "Hey, that isn't cool. Knock it off", that's perfectly okay. Likewise, if the OP wants to suggest, "Hey, maybe stack some armor?", that's okay too.

This does NOT mean the OP has blanket approval to say whatever they want, so long as it's presented as "criticism." I think that's the nuance that's being lost here.

I'm just going to point out that I have bought item 3068 on Leona as support. More than once, actually.

except league. admittedy considers ANYTHING negative to be punishable if you type it out in chat. and for anyone on a 14 day ban. "shut up" is all it takes for a permaban. trolls have figured this out and have taken to bombarding people with reports on dedicated bait ban accounts where they use a combination of chat and gameplay trolling in order to bear poke and garner reactions

scazzman2 votes

also. since riot uses an automated system. they will hover just outside the line of punishable behavior. and as long as they avoid directly hurling insults in chat. they will never get banned. also most of the people who bait ban tend to do it on smurfs anyway, so theyre willing to go to any length, including instaban worthy behavior, in order to try to bait people into asking for reports or flaming them in chat

scazzman2 votes

its incredibly easy for a troll to buy a bunch of level 30 accounts. go into low elo. troll games. and then counter report anyone with the balls to say something. they dont even have to. they just have to not buy 6 boots. and avoid using trigger words

HalcyonDweller1 votes

As a bystander, the nuance wasn't lost completely. I know you got a lot of downvotes in this thread but I think that's just because people felt really combative and weren't actually thinking about what you said.

You made some great assertions in this thread so don't sweat all the downvotes on previous comments.

One thing that I think might have helped to get people to listen to you, would be if you had made a clearer distinction between telling the truth from arrogance and telling the truth in an effort to help. It seems to me like people on the other side of the argument thought you were lumping them all together with the people who use "truth" as an excuse for demeaning their allies.

Or heck, maybe you were grouping them together, and I could see why if you were. They were basically making the excuse that anything can be said as long as it is the truth. But I don't think that they were really saying this, it seems like they were taking issue with "PC-culture" rather than with whether or not "truth" is a valid excuse for something.

Maybe I'm just rambling though. What do you think?

ModUlanopo1 votes

Maybe I'm just rambling though. What do you think?

I think, in general, people spend far too little time examining their motives. They think they're doing the right thing, their brain jolts them with the "aren't you a good person?" endorphins and they call it a day. I guess I just don't work like that. I'm driven to ponder the twisty pathways of human behavior.

As to the rest of it, you're both wrong and not wrong. It's getting late, though, so I'll just have to leave my answer at that level of vague. :)

HalcyonDweller1 votes

{quoted}

I think, in general, people spend far too little time examining their motives. They think they're doing the right thing, their brain jolts them with the "aren't you a good person?" endorphins and they call it a day. I guess I just don't work like that. I'm driven to ponder the twisty pathways of human behavior.

Props then, it's good to consider things carefully like that.

As to the rest of it, you're both wrong and not wrong. It's getting late, though, so I'll just have to leave my answer at that level of vague. :)

Aww shit, now I'm gonna keep re-reading what I've said wondering which part is which XD Thanks anyway, I enjoyed reading your comments in this thread.

[slayer-pantheon-thumbs]

NGCM1015 votes

Why are you talking like that? Are you not an Advisor? You should be more polite.

  • Plus the other dude was right. [slayer-pantheon-popcorn]
ModUlanopo4 votes

You should be more polite.

Well, golly. It's almost like you want me to not tell the "truth". Funny how that works.

(In case you missed it, the whole point of this thread is making the argument that it's okay to tell people whatever you like as long as you're helping them by speaking the truth, at least as you understand it. The problem with this argument is that there isn't one objective truth. There are a lot of perspectives and opinions. My rebuttal remains that any sort of criticism that doesn't stem from sympathy probably isn't worth much and is all too often just a pretext for being mean.)

AirKingNeo5 votes

That isn't an excuse for harsh unprofessionalism. Rather, you're acting unprofessional and using this as a dumb excuse. It's a dumb excuse because you've already pointed out you're aware of 'no one objective truth'.

You have also made many statements without evidence or argument to prove.

My rebuttal remains that any sort of criticism that doesn't stem from sympathy probably isn't worth much and is all too often just a pretext for being mean.

That's a very dangerous line of thinking. You're implying criticism is inherently mean. There are situations in life where criticism, not from sympathy, will be needed. It is dangerous when you don't give it.

ModUlanopo2 votes

There are situations in life where criticism, not from sympathy, will be needed. It is dangerous when you don't give it.

Please provide an example. Keep in mind, however, that I extend Asimov's maxim on violence to emotional violence, as well:

https://i.imgur.com/2Nnotbs.jpg[/img]

What I mean by this is that, whenever we say "I'm doing it for their own good", you have already acknowledged the negative aspects of the action and you're effectively admitting that you can't think of a better solution to the problem.

There's a reason why "first, do no harm" is the first core concept of the Hippocratic Oath. I think there's dangerous hubris to be found in believing we are wise and perceptive enough to feel comfortable arguing the harm is outweighed by the good. I also think, at least with regard to League, that people offering "advice" or "criticism" frequently overvalue the good that they are doing. I think this behavior routinely helps no one and ends up being a net negative for the community and all involved.

That isn't an excuse for harsh unprofessionalism.

Maybe I'm being confusing. My apologies.

The OP is arguing that it's okay to criticize people as long as it comes from a genuine place. The moment I do that, however, the accusations fly that I'm being unprofessional or rude or whatever. This isn't the first time this has happened. It won't be the last.

What this exposes, at least from my perspective, is the rank hypocrisy of the argument. This isn't an attempt to create an environment where more and better criticism can be given and accepted. Instead, this is an attempt to sanction and normalize adding to toxicity under the rubric of "honest criticism".

At the end of the day, if you can't say something without adding to toxicity, you shouldn't say anything at all.

AirKingNeo5 votes

An example? This thread is an example. The OP defending someone, me telling you that you are being unprofessional. These are all criticism that doesn't require violence.

What I mean by this is that, whenever we say "I'm doing it for their own good", you have already acknowledged the negative aspects of the action and you're effectively admitting that you can't think of a better solution to the problem.

That makes no sense. Of course, the action is negative, that is why you are acting against it. You are doing it for the sake of someone because that is the right and proper thing to do. What else would be a better solution then? Rather, let me put it this way: How do you intend to solve a problem if you don't even realize there is one or point out there is one in the first place?

There's a reason why "first, do no harm" is the first core concept of the Hippocratic Oath. I think there's dangerous hubris to be found in believing we are wise and perceptive enough to feel comfortable arguing the harm is outweighed by the good. I also think, at least with regard to League, that people offering "advice" or "criticism" frequently overvalue the good that they are doing. I think this behavior routinely helps no one and ends up being a net negative for the community and all involved.

This is humanity. They aren't perfect; that's why we are human; able to learn. Just the opposite actually. Other people undervalue advice given to them, and that creates negativity. It wouldn't matter if someone overvalues their advice, because advice doesn't hold the downside. The only downside is someone not doing it, which isn't the fault of the person giving advice.

The OP is arguing that it's okay to criticize people as long as it comes from a genuine place. The moment I do that, however, the accusations fly that I'm being unprofessional or rude or whatever. This isn't the first time this has happened. It won't be the last.

Have you ever thought that maybe there's a line that the OP thinks exists where you are going to far? I've already mentioned it myself when that criticism becomes harassment.

What this exposes, at least from my perspective, is the rank hypocrisy of the argument. This isn't an attempt to create an environment where more and better criticism can be given and accepted. Instead, this is an attempt to sanction and normalize adding to toxicity under the rubric of "honest criticism".

But you aren't giving just honest criticism. You are insulting the OP. The OP never said anything about allowing insults, but you're insulting him. That's exactly the part where you are being wrong and unprofessional.

Be smug, make example fools of idiots who are pretentious, but don't make direct insults and baseless accusations.

At the end of the day, if you can't say something without adding to toxicity, you shouldn't say anything at all.

Then you contradict yourself with the following statements made by you:

This is a load of nonsense, as is the rest of your post. It's also a huge strawman.

That's where you're being foolish. Kindness isn't weakness. It is also a powerful tool for getting what you want.

You just proved my point. You think the statement is automatically justified if you believe it to be true, then you cloak it in with a half-baked "moral" justification. If that's all it takes to make speech acceptable, then why bother to have social rules at all? (You do have to have social rules, by the way. The alternative is chaos.)

That the OP chooses otherwise indicates they are either lazy or their motives are not what they say. I suspect the latter.

Not saying you must be perfect. Err is to be human. However, at least admit the fault.

ModUlanopo2 votes

Then you contradict yourself with the following statements made by you:

That was in reference to within the game. Other venues have other rules and cultures.

JESUSSAYSNO4 votes

I don't think that Necessary and Kind always go together. Criticism is necessary for improvement, if it comes from inside or not, doesn't matter. If I hear a player tell me exactly what I did wrong with my gameplay, I will typically agree with it, if not in the moment, then upon reflection. Kindness has nothing to do with Necessity when considering LoL a competitive game. Now in normal games, sure, kindness is more applicable, but kindness is far from necessary in productive environments, so long as there is sufficient motivation to continue.

Kindness is really a blight on the current western culture in general, and it would be so much better off if we were all just honest instead of kind. Because being honestly kind to somebody is the most rewarding thing you can possibly do, and its also the most rewarding thing you can receive. I'd rather show tough love to see a result I want, white lies and omission of truth for the sake of kindness is a form of social cancer in my opinion. Cultivate a culture of honesty and truth, not one of kindness, because a positive truth is leagues better than a white lie.

SEKAI3 votes

{quoted}

I don't think that Necessary and Kind always go together. Criticism is necessary for improvement, if it comes from inside or not, doesn't matter. If I hear a player tell me exactly what I did wrong, I will typically agree with it, if not in the moment, then upon reflection. Kindness has nothing to do with Necessity when considering LoL a competitive game. Now in normal games, sure, kindness is more applicable, but kindness is far from necessary in productive environments, so long as there is sufficient motivation to continue.

Kindness is really a blight on the current western culture in general, and it would be so much better off if we were all just honest instead of kind. Because being honestly kind to somebody is the most rewarding thing you can possibly do, and its also the most rewarding thing you can receive. I'd rather show tough love to see a result I want, white lies and omission of truth for the sake of kindness is a form of social cancer in my opinion. Cultivate a culture of honesty and truth, not one of kindness, because a positive truth is leagues better than a white lie.

The real issue is that Western culture never practiced kindness. Or rather, the practice for it barely even took off and you're already talking as if being kind is the problem, rather than the civilisation being practically fundamentally hard grounded in cruelty and and self-centrism for the very most part of its history that's in the way of the development of active kindness.

Also you know know what a white lie is, a white lie is a lie that typically both party (the teller and the listener) both know it to be a lie where the listener already knows the answer to the question. It's told not for deception purposes, but for psychological relief purposes. Very different.

JESUSSAYSNO6 votes

Western culture has been massively successful, and its shortcomings do not match its successes by a longshot. Kindness cannot and will never trump truths. To say that lack of kindness is an issue is ignorent. We didn't reach the level of civilization we're at now through kindness, we reached it through truth. And truth isn't cruelty by nature, truth is objective and can be applied by great individuals to create greatness of the highest caliber. Again, a kind truth is better than kindness. The two are not the same. Kindness is naive, idealistic, and unrealistic. I want my kindness not to come from my personality, but from my reaction to reality.

If some dumbass is acting like a twat, calling people slurs or something, you don't let them say it uncontested. They are incorrect, wrong, and awful as a human being, that is a truth. Abhorrent behavior needs to be punished, else culture falls to ruin.

Post modern ideology is cancer. Subjectivity is limited in scope, and you are not the extent of the world. To assume that everyone lives on their own plane of existence with their own version of truth is absolutely ignorant. We all live on Earth, we're all humans, and by being human, we're subjected to the rules of society and human engagement. What society we live in impacts this, of course, but truth is not internal, it's external. Hell, even our thoughts are biological, they have an existence that is within reality.

OP is 100% justified in attempting to remove a cancer from the community, because in this case, the Nidalee is lying to themselves, and spreading anarchic chaos and pain. Are you accepting, tolerant, and complacent in these toxic beliefs?

SEKAI4 votes

{quoted}

Western culture has been massively successful, and its shortcomings do not match its successes by a longshot. Kindness cannot and will never trump truths. To say that lack of kindness is an issue is ignorent. We didn't reach the level of civilization we're at now through kindness, we reached it through truth. And truth isn't cruelty by nature, truth is objective and can be applied by great individuals to create greatness of the highest caliber. Again, a kind truth is better than kindness. The two are not the same. Kindness is naive, idealistic, and unrealistic. I want my kindness not to come from my personality, but from my reaction to reality.

If some dumbass is acting like a twat, calling people slurs or something, you don't let them say it uncontested. They are incorrect, wrong, and awful as a human being, that is a truth. Abhorrent behavior needs to be punished, else culture falls to ruin.

Post modern ideology is cancer. Subjectivity is limited in scope, and you are not the extent of the world. To assume that everyone lives on their own plane of existence with their own version of truth is absolutely ignorant. We all live on Earth, we're all humans, and by being human, we're subjected to the rules of society and human engagement. What society we live in impacts this, of course, but truth is not internal, it's external.

OP is 100% justified in attempting to remove a cancer from the community, because in this case, the Nidalee is lying to themselves, and spreading anarchic chaos and pain. Are you accepting, tolerant, and complacent in these toxic beliefs?

Western culture has only been successful and leading the rest (for now) for about 500 years, and really only hit the jackpot out of almost sheer luck, and you're already acting as if the west owns the god damn place. I am always deeply troubled by the kind of eurocentric 1 dimensional horseshit the school in the west always teaches these days, that comes at the complete ignorance and downplaying of all the other civilisations and their development/contributions.

Speaking of truths, western culture was also separated from any notion of truth-seeking and whatever as early as the ending of the Classical Greese, until they reunited with it through trading of knowledge with the Middle Eastern world more than 10 centuries later. So I am always extremely puzzled by how we always claim that west is "so much truthz", no, it's not the case, not when witchhunts and prosecution of "heretics" and whatever continued to be a somewhat frequent occurrence until after the start of early modern history in the 1800s. In fact, 1800s was a pretty big century because that was around time when women and people having different skin pigmentation were finally recognised as actual people, at least in law, because many people today are still campaigning against that. "We reached it through truth"? Funny.

You also made the assumption that kindness can not be practical, which is completely false, which I'd talked about already. Nor does kindness by definition enables and turning a blind eye to falsehoods and wrong doings, which is another false assumption, which I'd also talked about.

There is this thing in the west which I'd noticed, that we like to brand anything civil, understanding, tolerating as being weak in some way. No, civility and kindness is NOT whatever nonsense special snowflake out of touch weakling you want to make it to be. The west is never in the stages of being ruined by the notion of kindness, it is only ruined by the rejection to it.

JESUSSAYSNO3 votes

I had a long, close to 1500 word response typed out, browser crashed. I'm winding down for the night, so I'll write a TLDR.

Western culture in its modern definition isn't exclusively Eurocentric. Western culture takes and optimizes what exists in the world, at the potential cost of casualties elsewhere. Technological and social improvement has overall trumped regression, and that hasn't changed. The act of mindless acceptance of beliefs without considering the truth of action is what made witch hunting and the KKK viable socially. Racism and bigotry typically disregard truth in favor of a fantasy of falsehoods. Over time these falsehoods are being eliminated and society has benefited.

Never did I say kindness wasn't practical. Kindness as an ideology leads to a very corrupt culture. See the Soviet Union and the principles of communism that allowed the Soviet Union its corrupt power. There must always be an arbiter of good and evil, and that arbiter needs to be within ourselves, guided by scientific truths and the desire to make the world a genuinely better place. Without the ability to determine good or evil, we allow external forces to determine what is right and wrong, and can be complacent in abhorrent behaviors. Do you think all Nazis were psychopaths? Many of them were just average people who got FUCKED by WWI and wanted to do something about it, and the cultural hate of the jews was manipulated into them. That acceptance of hate was the problem. We need to strive to be good, not to be accepting or tolerant. The Nazi ideology was, and continues to be in the blackest circles, abhorrent and disgusting, but it rose in favor due to negativity and hate on a societal level.

There's this huge mixup between being a bigot and being intolerant. If somebody is committing abhorrent behavior, it's your obligation as a good human being to do something about it and be absolutely intolerant at the face of evil.

Being tolerant and accepting isn't being Good. Being good can include tolerance and acceptance, but only based on truths.

Being intolerant and hateful towards evil doesn't make you evil. Being kind and accepting to evil makes you evil.

SEKAI5 votes

{quoted}

I had a long, close to 1500 word response typed out, browser crashed. I'm winding down for the night, so I'll write a TLDR.

Western culture in its modern definition isn't exclusively Eurocentric. Western culture takes and optimizes what exists in the world, at the potential cost of casualties elsewhere. Technological and social improvement has overall trumped regression, and that hasn't changed. The act of mindless acceptance of beliefs without considering the truth of action is what made witch hunting and the KKK viable socially. Racism and bigotry typically disregard truth in favor of a fantasy of falsehoods. Over time these falsehoods have been eliminated and society has benefited.

Racism and bigotry was commonplace because they were thought to be scientifically and rationally justified. The fact people could be prosecuted for being "heretics" came about at the time when a faith was considered absolute and therefore could not be disobeyed, the fact mistreatment of other races was okay'ed was due to a series of studies that arbitrary attributed certain features with underdevelopedness unscientifically but was still published as a scientific study hence enabling people to be racist towards them, and KKK came about because it was founded very shortly after the legislation that finally recognised black people as people which one can very easily see that it was a kneejerk response to it. "Progress" and "truth" do not exist in a vacuum, it exists when others are objectively proven wrong in what they do or think, it is impossible for those at the time of tension to really tell what's really right or not because they have not been into the future where a debate has already been properly resolved. Therefore using the results to work backwards is utterly invalid and void.

Just like as, elementary schoolers we were all told rocks fall faster than feathers before the concept of vacuum was introduced, or that it was thought plants do not feel pain until we find traces that they probably do, or how we all accredited the famous triangle theorem to Pythagoras until we found that some random nameless Babylonian beat him by almost 10 centuries, current knowledge should all be treated with a bit of uncertainty because it can all be false one day. And that is the essence of progress and truth to much extent.

If we do not improve upon from what we had, through re-assessment and taking in more ideas, technological and social improvement wouldn't have been possible.

Which is why, you're here telling me that being considerate of others and judging their ideas without prejudice is wrong is both the very notion of "regression" you personally abhor (hence a contradiction) because it completely ignores how current progress even came about to begin with, and it is also completely false because it's never a step back to be open to others. What, are you gonna tell me the ultimate society is when I stab any stranger, and reject any other people's ideas on the spot because it's different to mine?

Never did I say kindness wasn't practical. Kindness as an ideology leads to a very corrupt culture. See the Soviet Union and the principles of communism that allowed the Soviet Union its corrupt power. There must always be an arbiter of good and evil, and that arbiter needs to be within ourselves, guided by scientific truths and the desire to make the world a genuinely better place. Without the ability to determine good or evil, we allow external forces to determine what is right and wrong, and can be complacent in abhorrent behaviors. Do you think all Nazis were psychopaths? Many of them were just average people who got FUCKED by WWI and wanted to do something about it, and the cultural hate of the jews was manipulated into them. That acceptance of hate was the problem. We need to strive to be good, not to be accepting or tolerant. The Nazi ideology was, and continues to be in the blackest circles, abhorrent and disgusting, but it rose in favor due to negativity and hate on a societal level.

There's this huge mixup between being a bigot and being intolerant. If somebody is committing abhorrent behavior, it's your obligation as a good human being to do something about it and be absolutely intolerant at the face of evil.

Being tolerant and accepting isn't being Good. Being good can include tolerance and acceptance, but only based on truths.

Soviet Union collapsed because it died a painful slow death after Stalin took power and ran it down to become a totalitarian regime. For what it was worth, the only fault of the Soviet Union before Stalin was pretty much that it was poor as its ideological model was unsuited for competitive economy. A failed experiment based on a noble idea such as communism which was based on social well-ness and kindness, does not outright say there's anything wrong with them; if that's the case then we can all say democracy is such a bad idea because Ancient Greeks first seriously practiced the idea and went under. Ofc not.

If you think the central idea of kindness and various aspect of communism is corrupt, then you can say disability support and infrastructure are corrupt and those without legs should never climb a god damn stair, pension support are absolutely corrupt because old people should just die from this world who gives a shit, public schooling should be damned because if you ain't born rich enough for schools well too bad sucks to be you, public health fund and insurance of any sort should go to hell because once again if you ain't got rich papa to pay off your broken leg that was not even your fault well good luck sucking it up with a broken leg because fuck you. But I guess having some sort of actual decency is a problem?

Also, how in the actual fuck was Nazi regime born because of kindness? What? It came about seeking revenge for defeats in WW1, and then spiraled out of control into some ultra nationalist and racist shit, which part of it even had anything to do with "acceptance" being anywhere near the root of the problem? Aren't you grasping the straws a little too hard?

No.

You're also keep repeating the question notion that kindness come at the expense of the improvement, willingness to seek truth, or action against the wrong doers. No, that's not the case, at all. The only difference of a kind person and a normal person is that the kind person can see anybody including criminals eye to eye as a person (doesn't mean they will ignore their actions and whatnot), which while simple, it's also the hardest step for anyone to take. That's it.

JESUSSAYSNO2 votes

I don't have the time to write out another full long hand response, but you are fundamentally failing to understand my points, or I'm failing to bring them across. In multiple points you're directly agreeing with my stance.

Over time the truth is distilled from testing and determining fact from fiction, and goodness can only come from truths. As time progresses, we as a culture and as a race become better. This has been fairly consistent across history, with minor setbacks along the way. The rise and fall of major cultures in the last 3000 years doesnt mean the world is regressing, human progression is a constant. The truth becomes clearer through scientific enlightenment and discovery. I'm not preaching dogmatism, I'm saying that there is objective rights and wrongs that can be distilled based on a collection of factors, including objective impact on reality, cultural acceptance, and scientific evidence. Your determination of what is right and wrong makes you who you are as a human being.

From my point of view, I'm seeing you deny the idea that there is an objective right and wrong, which by proxy condones the social acceptance of destructive and bigoted behavior. Please tell me I'm wrong, because I don't believe you think this, but your words speak otherwise.

There's a difference between communism and democratic socialism. Socialism works, communism doesn't. There is a STRONG difference between the two ideologies. Many first world countries employ socialism and public benefits to great success. I'm all for various forms of systemic personal assistance, within reason. You're not comprehending what I'm saying, and you're putting words in my mouth because of it. School shooters are a problem, but to understand why they're a problem you need to actually delve into the psychology of sociopathy and how it's formed, and uproot the beliefs that cause it before they become as awful as it can become.

Acceptance and kindness towards evil beliefs, like the Nazis had, were what lead the Nazi party to their power. Accepting and being kind toward a racist doesn't fix their behavior. It allows them to continue being racist with no punishment.

I think kindness and acceptance are not by nature good, but they can exist within good. Acceptance of the abhorrent makes you evil.

Acceptance as a word has been highjacked recently to mean inclusion of diversity. It means 'to not reject'. Acceptance of evil beliefs, like Nazi idology, is inherently evil. I'm pro diversity so long as it benefits the culture. I'm not pro acceptance, because acceptance without merit or critical thought is ignorant and leads to destruction.

Acceptance is a tool, as an ideology it's flawed and leads to major problems. The germans prior to WWII were tolerant of bigotry and look where it got them.

TrulyBland2 votes

{quoted}

Acceptance is a tool, as an ideology it's flawed and leads to major problems. The germans prior to WWII were tolerant of bigotry and look where it got them.

Tolerance of Bigotry had nothing to do with the rise of Hitler, acceptance as an ideology had nothing to do with it either. Please, open up a history book.

You also seem to generally confusing the words kindness and acceptance. They are not the same thing and do not even require each other. You can absolutely be kind without accepting. Take a look at norwegian prisons and their low recidivism rate for a good example of when being kind (without being accepting) yields phenomenal results.

JESUSSAYSNO1 votes

Accepting him as a leader lead to the rise of Nazi Germany. Him and his ideals seduced the downtrodden population, and they ate it up because they were desperate after the crippling economic effect of WWI. I've taken dedicated WWII history courses through a very well educated professor. I'm well aware of the situation. The German population accepted the idea that the Jewish population needed to be exterminated.

Kindness and acceptance are not the same, and I'm not using them as synonyms, but both are relevant to the conversation. I'm suggesting that there is a time and place when kindness and acceptance towards various beliefs and people is intolerable.

IE you don't accept or show kindness to Isis. Most people don't accept or show kindness to the KKK. Most people don't accept or show kindness to bigots. I'm saying that there is a line that is crossed where the two concepts become corrupt, and by being corruptible, they are not purely good, and can be used for evil purposes, intentional or not.

They're concepts that are fundimentally unaligned with good and evil, and can be represented within both sides, making following them as ideals to be flawed, as they can be twisted to suit a megalomaniac's will under the right conditions.

I'm a little baffled that there's any argument against this at all.

TrulyBland4 votes

Accepting him as a leader lead to the rise of Nazi Germany. Him and his ideals seduced the downtrodden population, and they ate it up because they were desperate after the crippling economic effect of WWI.

Exactly. Not reluctantly. Not because of accepting for the sake of accepting. Not because of the "ideology of acceptance". Simply because they felt that it was a good way to solve their problems. What lead to the rise of Hitler is completely and utterly unrelated to the topic that you are trying to discuss, because it's not based on blind acceptance. It was very very conscious acceptance. That's what makes the topic so terrifying.

Kindness and acceptance are not the same

Immediately followed by

I'm suggesting that there is a time and place when kindness and acceptance towards various beliefs and people is intolerable.

And a barrage of other claims you put on both of them at the same time. Some of them I'd even point out as false.

You have not managed to write these two terms independently from one another at any point in what you are writing. Whether you use them as synonyms or not, you are trying to mash them together every single time you can, and bind them together in a single statement, even though most of the time the arguments you make really just apply to acceptance. And only to blind acceptance at that.

It's like saying "I oppose ice cream and rape" and then using arguments against rape to support your position. Until you are willing to discuss these subjects seperately, in all honesty, there is no point arguing with you.

SEKAI2 votes

{quoted}

I don't have the time to write out another full long hand response, but you are fundamentally failing to understand my points, or I'm failing to bring them across. In multiple points you're directly agreeing with my stance.

Over time the truth is distilled from testing and determining fact from fiction, and goodness can only come from truths. As time progresses, we as a culture and as a race become better. This has been fairly consistent across history, with minor setbacks along the way. The rise and fall of major cultures in the last 3000 years doesnt mean the world is regressing, human progression is a constant. The truth becomes clearer through scientific enlightenment and discovery. I'm not preaching dogmatism, I'm saying that there is objective rights and wrongs that can be distilled based on a collection of factors, including objective impact on reality, cultural acceptance, and scientific evidence. Your determination of what is right and wrong makes you who you are as a human being.

From my point of view, I'm seeing you deny the idea that there is an objective right and wrong, which by proxy condones the social acceptance of destructive and bigoted behavior. Please tell me I'm wrong, because I don't believe you think this, but your words speak otherwise.

That is not what you presented, what you said was basically the consideration of and accepting other people's idea is toxic because you say it's all "mindless" and supposedly bad.

You are the one who is incapable of understanding points. What I was refuting was that your ideal is completely self contradictory and questionable.

You can not simultaneously support the rejection of other things because supposedly that's for the "progress" and "truth" because supposedly they're holding those back, while ignoring that the essence of progress and better understand of the world, which you harp on so much about, came about because we look at other things and re-assess what we had. Had we all use your kind of logic, this progress you so love, would not have been possible at all. But you're completely arguing while holding the thing backwards.

As I was saying, truth and whatever, do not exist in a vacuum. While you claim you do not preach dogmatism, but that's literally what you've been doing. Your arguments have been using way too many assumptions, and ones that contradict each other at that.

There's a difference between communism and democratic socialism. Socialism works, communism doesn't. There is a STRONG difference between the two ideologies. Many first world countries employ socialism and public benefits to great success. I'm all for various forms of systemic personal assistance, within reason. You're not comprehending what I'm saying, and you're putting words in my mouth because of it. School shooters are a problem, but to understand why they're a problem you need to actually delve into the psychology of sociopathy and how it's formed, and uproot the beliefs that cause it before they become as awful as it can become.

Socialism and communism were both first brought to the wider attention by Karl Marx in his writing on social theories, when he theorised the general trend of the development of societies and what he argued was the end game and what it should emphasise (end game being communism and emphasis being social security). Marx also did not differentiate between the terms in his work because to him, one is just alternative form of the other, and he used the terms interchangeably; it was only separated by Lenin and co. iirc after basing Marx's ideology to form USSR, to help clear up some boundaries, but despite that he was still very well aware of the fact the 2 terms have a lot of overlaps.

USSR was also operating mostly under socialism even by today's definition before Stalin took a more totalitarian approach. People are only taught to dismiss communism thesedays because much like Marx didn't really separate the terms, the US propagandist in the Cold War instead did not bother separate the difference either and used "communism" to refer to USSR, their arch-enemy at the time, despite USSR was technically socialist that later became totalitarian.

Socialism is only getting rebranded because people want its benefits, but do not want to be associated with the arch-enemy because that would mean accepting defeat in terms of ideology and political vision, which was one of the main spark for the conflict. That's it. Socialism and communism, as far as the general ideological notion and what it aims to do, are completely identical.

USSR also failed not because of ideological problems, at least not directly, but mostly because of managerial aspects. It was the iron-fisted approach of Stalin and the incompetence of the later leaders that officially ended USSR, not its underlying ideology. This is the exact same for Ancient Greece, which went into such a turmoil and then under not because the notion of democracy they held was faulty and wrong itself, but because its implementation and arguably its other managerial aspects were severely lacking that became an issue.

And just like you harp about how school shooters need to be understood via delving into psychology and stuff and uproot the problem there, you also need to take a closer look on what you want to criticise on.

Acceptance and kindness towards evil beliefs, like the Nazis had, were what lead the Nazi party to their power. Accepting and being kind toward a racist doesn't fix their behavior. It allows them to continue being racist with no punishment.

This is bulls. In this way of reasoning you can twist everything as being caused by anything you want to put on the burning stake.

Nazis didn't rise to power because of acceptance or some shit, because it was cashing in on the revenge plot, and on the antisemitism that have been part of Europe's culture for literally eons.

What you've written here is not a legit argument, but it's definitely bullshit.

I think kindness and acceptance are not by nature good, but they can exist within good. Acceptance of the abhorrent makes you evil.

Acceptance as a word has been highjacked recently to mean inclusion of diversity. It means 'to not reject'. Acceptance of evil beliefs, like Nazi idology, is inherently evil. I'm pro diversity so long as it benefits the culture. I'm not pro acceptance, because acceptance without merit or critical thought is ignorant and leads to destruction.

Acceptance is a tool, as an ideology it's flawed and leads to major problems. The germans prior to WWII were tolerant of bigotry and look where it got them.

You didn't read at all. Here, I will quote my very first post on what it means to be kind.

"You're having a field day while basing on the assumption that kindness equates to cowardice and avoidance.

Boy, wouldn't it be a shame if the assumption is false. Oh wait.

Between you and me, being kind is literally the hardest thing to do for us puny humans. Because being truly kind means this person will from the bottom of their heart, believe every single person is redeemable. Because being legitimately kind also means when standing up against evil, they will attempt to save BOTH the victims and the villains.

A truly kind person is someone who will look straight into the eyes of criminals, killers, mass murderers, and say this to their face: "I will never forget you for what you did, and you will stand trail for what you've done. I will stand and fight you tooth and nail to my last fiber against your sprees. But ultimately, I forgive you, and I truly believe you can be so much better."

Being kind is not whatever shit you want to ring onto the notion. It is not about avoiding confrontation and dwell in silence. It is not running away from all confrontation and turning eyes away from evil. It is however, having a god damn standard for a start, being a state of mind where you can truly see the world via the eyes of others, to truly surpass instincts to value things in terms of self gains and losses, and to perfectly co-exist and find peace in the irrational idea that everyone can be at their best and take rational steps towards it.

Being kind is not BS, it is the most powerful form of human psyche."

Hawkefire1 votes

SEKAI, are you forgetting the fact that it was western culture that was the first culture to outlaw slavery? And also one of the first to actually take action against racism?

SEKAI2 votes

{quoted}

What? Western culture never practiced kindness...what? Do you even read history? Have you ever heard the phrase respect your elders? How about the phrase do onto others what you would expect others to do unto you? Kindness and respect has always been a part of western culture, a very big part in fact. To say that it hasn't is frankly ignorant of what western culture really is.

{quoted}

SEKAI, are you forgetting the fact that it was western culture that was the first culture to outlaw slavery? And also one of the first to actually take action against racism?

The first to attempt abolishing slavery were Ancient Greeks and the Romans, but both of whom only had interest in 'debt slavery' (forced into unconditional labour and servitude to return debt), and they did not touch on other forms of slavery and the practice was thus still commonplace; also, non-Greeks and later non-Romans, either by blood or by allegiance, were still viewed by the Greeks and later Romans as barbarians and either inferior or inherently slaves (a belief even great thinker like Aristotle who pioneered the concept of "ethics" also held).

The first civilisation that attempted and issued blanket ban on slavery were the Indians and quickly followed by the Chinese.

.....

You also said western culture is the first to "take actions against racism". Though the thing is that, many other cultures never had a racism issue, at least nowhere as extreme as what occurred in the west, to begin with. For a couple more notable examples regarding the cultural juggernauts: The Chinese never seemed to really care about race for the very most part and there is no records suggesting they did either (they only really cared when it's about their emperor's ancestry, which they believe only Han people were legitimate, but otherwise they just didn't care), and the Indians had anti-racism and anti-discrimination logos that traced all the way back to their ancient epics and was in fact never exposed to the notion of racism until British colonial rule that introduced it to them. In fact, if we take the examples of East Asia (since it's not like most people know about small CA and SEA nations), the most racist locations are easily Korea, Hong Kong, and Japan, and outside of Japan which did have a history of racism that followed somewhat similarly with the colonisers who had arrived at the US, the other 2 are only racist due to the exposures to western culture.

Sure, the west wrote the laws against racism, which others also did, okay. But the thing is, being one of the first among the racists which they were a part of (not just being a part of, they were leading the charge on the damn thing because no other racists quite did it like the west who even went so far to introduce and develop state sponsored scientific racism and other things), to come to realise and take step to right their behaviours which while is definitely good, but it's still not "the first".

.....

Also yes, considering the west has been the big player who was behind the largest scale on slavery trade yet; largest death numbers from genocide and slavery; highest presence in ethnic cleansing campaigns in history; state sponsored the largest drug trade until very recently (taken over by the rising narco-states who live off selling drugs); behind the largest wars the humanity has seen (WW1, WW2) and outside of Middle East which was ruined by the west's proxy wars, the west is really the only people who are even fighting wars out of their own accord today; with other regions heavily inspired by Abrahamic religions, the west together with Middle East and a couple other less prominent places, are the only places to EVER have issues with LGBT people; the fact west centrism and supremacy are still so unbelievably ingrained in public school programmes and mass media that focus on stroking their own cock while also dedicating the most amount of time than any other regions (outside of warzones and totalitarian regime like NK) to shat on other people/nations with a rotating list of accusations and insulting portrayals while criminally and intentionally ignoring the most to elaborate and promote almost any positivity from and towards other cultures/civilisations; the fact racism in the west is still so rampant it rivals the most underdeveloped nations despite being supposedly currently the most advanced region; the fact the west has statistically the highest homicide and violence tendencies; or even simple things like how the west has the highest divorce rates that left the most amount of children growing up in broken (or at least more broken) family environments who will then continue the cycle by producing more broken families for children to grow up in, etc; these all point to the notion the west has some fundamental attitude problems even today. This isn't to say the west only has problem and no good things out of it, but let's not forget that it has a HUGE shadow of fuckery as well.

Sure "Western culture never practiced kindness" may be a little bit unfair, but I would not pretend they were, have been doing anything anywhere close to being particularly great as a whole as far as humanities are concerned. "Respect your elders" and "do unto others what you would expect others to do unto you" are something that exists in every culture, because it's the basis of even having a viable society, and merely having the base minimum really shouldn't be a reason for celebration.

Hawkefire1 votes

I strongly disagree with you that China hasn't harbored racist views. There are several studies showing how the Chinese people are fairly racist towards other peoples, and tend to hold such people in less respect (although whether they are more racist than other cultures is definitely debatable). China in particular also practiced slavery through the 1930's to the 40s.

I also strongly disagree with you on the view on the humanities side of things, considering the humanities movement and study is one that is almost entirely created out of western belief. On top of that, multiculturalism is 100% a western invention. I could go further into why I disagree with you fundamentally on this issue, but that would be delving too far into politics and I would rather not do that, unless you truly insist on doing so. Although at that point I would almost suggest swapping to pms as the mods tend to get touchy when it comes to politics (for somewhat good reason, given todays climate).

The west is also not responsible for the highest numbers of human death and slavery. China and the mongols holds the title for causing the highest numbers of deaths, because of Mao and communist party and the mongols because they were extremely bloodthirsty and their lifestyle involved waging a ton of war.

The most slavery is held by the middle east and Africa, where it is still practiced to this day.

To say that western culture has not been doing anything great for humanity is honestly a really ignorant thing to say, and somewhat insulting.

SEKAI2 votes

{quoted}

I strongly disagree with you that China hasn't harbored racist views. There are several studies showing how the Chinese people are fairly racist towards other peoples, and tend to hold such people in less respect (although whether they are more racist than other cultures is definitely debatable). China in particular also practiced slavery through the 1930's to the 40s.

There have only been a so handful of racist incidents there, almost all of which were post 1900s, and politically instigated and not socially so. And I didn't say there was none, I said "nowhere as extreme".

The practice of slavery in China has also been banned since 1910.

But if you have to talk about China still practicing slavery until the 40s, well, look no further than the fact it really doesn't matter in that instance, because despite the legal stance, obviously it still "lives on" for a while or worse, into different forms. When slavery was abolished, many quickly switched to using terms like "forced labour" or "unfree labour", which was in use the most during the Interwar Period (WW1, WW2) to put the convicts into work but also more importantly it was to coerce minority or weaker individuals into doing free labours (Australia, where I reside, was also extremely guilty of this by shoving indigenous individuals and migrants into this position when building the nation), and the practice lasted to about the 60-70s, shortly after it was outlawed by abolition of forced labour in late 50s (but I'm pretty sure it's still used on the convicts today here and there, even say in the US, and I'm not referring to community service sentences but "penal labours" where it's recognised and described as a "legal slavery" by being explicitly allowed in the US Constitution, and still left intact and practiced to this very day). Slavery isn't that far back into history, even in the most free states, if you really have to get into the specifics.

I also strongly disagree with you on the view on the humanities side of things, considering the humanities movement and study is one that is almost entirely created out of western belief. On top of that, multiculturalism is 100% a western invention. I could go further into why I disagree with you fundamentally on this issue, but that would be delving too far into politics and I would rather not do that, unless you truly insist on doing so. Although at that point I would almost suggest swapping to pms as the mods tend to get touchy when it comes to politics (for somewhat good reason, given todays climate).

No, multiculturalism is just most associated with western culture because that's what propaganda means, where you claim yourself is better and others are worse. Sure, promoting harmony among different cultures is cool, absolutely, ain't got no issue against that. But let's not forget there's also places like say, China, who had already been busy and finishing setting up autonomous states within its border for the purpose of giving large minority groups self governance, many decades before there was even an idea for "multiculturalism" first being thought of in the west. Similarly, India is both the most religiously and ethnically diverse nation currently in the world, but I don't think there's much discussion about multiculturalism that involve the mentioning of India. It's really not that multiculturalism is strictly "western", it's just that western nations use the term as their slogan the most.

The west is also not responsible for the highest numbers of human death and slavery. China and the mongols holds the title for causing the highest numbers of deaths, because of Mao and communist party and the mongols because they were extremely bloodthirsty and their lifestyle involved waging a ton of war.

A lot of the death blamed onto China were presented and assessed questionably. For instance, the Tiananmen Square "Massacre", where the popular claims are continued to be disagreed by eye witness accounts, including "foreign" parties who were present at the time such as a Spanish TV crew. Most recent sources (including wikileaks, if you think they're credible that is) indicate minor brawls in the square itself that resulted in no death and just that people gathered in there were eventually pushed out by the police, and the real fight happened elsewhere which resulted in about 5 hundreds deaths (including law enforcer deaths who represent 1 to 2 for every 20 civie death or so) as sad as it was (ofc it is) but it was a far cry from the claimed tens of thousands of civilian deaths labeling it "massacre". And the supposed "45 million death" in Great Leap Forward is also a question mark as the guy who proposed it supported the notion opium was actually beneficial to China, at least I wouldn't trust that particular number at first glance, especially when the entire WW2's casualty with warfronts across the entire globe was only just a little bit higher than that which makes the number less likely; also, most of the death in GLF was caused by the greatest famine in human history, which while Mao certainly had some contribution in making it worse with a few policy mismanagement, large deaths was never avoidable, especially in the kind of tattered state China was in right after going through several wars and strifes back to back. China also rarely invades other civilisations, it has had a historical reputation to not do so, most of its interaction with other cultures and civilisations outside of the land we now call China has always been mostly migration and trading.

Mongol Empire despite conquering all the way across the Middle East, and to the outskirt of western Europe as well as northwards into Scandinavia, the casualty at their hands were actually not that high at least compared to more modern days of mass killings and wars. There are 2 reasons, 1) Because the population of humans from almost 10 centuries ago were incredibly low compared to today and more recent eras to begin with, 2) Because while causing destroying much (I mean it's no deny that it ended a couple things with their conquest, including the Islamic Golden Age), they did attempt to recruit as many of the fighting members as they could and only did enough numbers on many states to subjugate them as vassals, which is why they were able to blast through so much land in around 10 years. And ofc, as you'd expect, the casualty claim on wikipedia regarding this, boasting about how many people were killed and that it's the bloodiest war in history and all that, was unsourced with a little 'citation please' flag on the side. That said, I ain't gonna attempt to justify the warmongering nature of Mongol Empire, which was indeed something we should all detest, but also same can also be said to their western version, Roman Empire as well, they probably were the biggest warmongers in history together I have to say (then there's modern day US...).

China while was a major slavery player in the east, sure, but Mongols, not so much. Mongols didn't really keep slaves and were more into either total destruction or creating vassal states, and they only played a little bit of slavery games during their conquest of the west just to capitalising on the thriving slavery economy that flourished in that direction.

The most slavery is held by the middle east and Africa, where it is still practiced to this day.

Not just held by Middle East and Africa, slavery in Europe-Middle East-Africa in its highest times, was divided among a few "axis of power" where the biggest players of could be considered to include the Vikings, Christian states, Muslim states, and African states, sharing a pie, with Vikings slaving primarily other white people, Africans enslaving mostly other black people, and Christian and Muslim states trying to enslave each other and black people; with Jewish and Italian merchants making a killing by hosting the sales (Jewish travel in between the Christian and Muslim state to sell slaves, Italian host its famous trade posts such as Venice to be a trading center for slaves), I did not count pirates.

Slavery has been banned across Middle East ever since the 1900s century, with multiple outlawings and repeated declarations that people are not to be enslaved during this century. Slavery became small minority practice since 60s, the mostly of the people there who are still practicing it today are either some fundamentalist, or because they're part of or associated to the rebel or terror organisations where many of whom are inherently fundamentalists. And just so you know, let's discount the terror organisations for political sensitivity, it is no lie that the west have been pro-rebel and sponsoring them which this becomes a problem; because it means the west governments are willingly sponsoring people like them who openly practice slavery against established governments who had already outlawed slavery a century ago, WHILE also telling the people in the west the complete opposite in that they claim they're sponsoring freedom fighters to break from the supposed dictatorship of the Middle East governments. Go figure. But hey.

As for Africa, ye slavery can still be seen as rampant, but not because slavery is not outlawed, but because just like how we got around slavery in those days, most slaves are sold and used under the term "unfree labour". The only bigger difference is that they also have sex slaves. I have not much comment on this tbh, because social welfare is still very rough in many places of Africa, and they ought to have more improvements in the near future which I hope it's happening given their recent rapid development in some parts of the region.

To say that western culture has not been doing anything great for humanity is honestly a really ignorant thing to say, and somewhat insulting.

No, I did not say that, I said "This isn't to say the west only has problem and no good things out of it, but let's not forget that it has a HUGE shadow of fuckery as well."

Lothàrs Edge1 votes

I'm going to call you on your B.S.

Provide those "several studies" as well of the credentials of those involved in the study.

What does "almost entirely created" out of Western belief mean? Define "almost entirely" in a way that supports your statement i.e. any evidence?

A 100% Western invention? Not 99.9%? 88.7%? 100%. Got it. I'll definitely take your word for it.

More false, vague and inaccurate generalizations? U.S. alone has more deaths per capita, more pollution rates per capita than most other developed countries as does Australia.

A country with 1+ billion people having "a higher number of deaths" but a lower ratio per capita... means that the rate/percentage is lower.

China and "the mongols"? Who are "the mongols"? Because of Mao and "communist party"? You sound like you came straight off Breitbart. No doubt that the Mongolians were bloodthirsty for there time, as there is no doubt that groups such as Christians or Pilgrims were also savages.

I think SEKAI is simply trying to tell you that Western culture isn't as great as it seems to think of itself (and even other cultures are fed positive, fantasy-like images of the West). We're great propaganda machines and manipulators. Great enough to have you believe that a humanities movement or the act of studying it, was all pretty much thought of by Westerners and that multiculturalism is a 100% Western "thing".

Hawkefire1 votes

I never said that western culture is perfect, and his statements on it were, at least in my opinion overly harsh. Plus he flat out stated that the west has done basically nothing great in the realm of humanities, and I strongly disagree with that.

Multiculturalism originates from the civil rights movement, which is a western creation. Seriously, grab any respectable history book and you can read all about the civil rights movement. The reason for this is largely because the west is one of the few cultures that was most open to allowing other cultures within it, and practically because in the US there was a very strong immigration movement located there. Try and find any form of multiculturalism movement in China, Japan, hell even Africa and South America. Of those lists the only one where you might find some evidence of a multiculturism-esk movement would be Africa and South America, both of which are home to former western colonies and thus are pretty heavily influenced by western culture and ideas.

On top of that, I am shocked that you don't know who the mongols are. Have you never heard of Genghis Khan? If not I strongly recommend looking up the man. During what was essentially a reign of terror and slaughter, the mongols slaughtered the peoples of the world, be they from the west or from the east. Chinese censuses prior to the mongol conquest was around 120 million during the 13th century. After conquest in 1279 their population is purported to be around 60 million. Granted the mongols influence on that stark decline is somewhat muddled, they most certainly played a significant factor, especially since the mongols practice bio-warfare and would spread the bubonic plague by launching diseased cattle via catapult. Persia dropped from 2.5 million to just about 250-thousand. Around 1 million people in Hungary were also killed by the mongols. Half a million from russia also killed, 700-thousand in Merv, and more than a million in Nishapur.

Then there is of course communist China, which is responsible for the deaths of between 49-78 million people and counting (although this is somewhat arguable, and it largely depends on how things play out in China at this moment, but it isn't looking that great and I fear we may see a resurgence). I might add, that those people killed by the communist party of China were also all Chinese people, virtually none of them were foreigners. Now you may argue that these numbers are disputed, and I do agree with you they may not be correct. But I must point out that it is extremely difficult to get this information out of China, and it seems those that try to pry too much out of China seem to end up with a bad case of death. So with the way they act about it I am far more inclined to believe these estimates, especially since China itself has the power to reveal any true numbers, but (more-or-less) refuses to do so.

Jinx Hunter2 votes

{quoted}

I gave a feeling you weren't following the "Three Gates of Speech" theory. In general, you should perform three checks before you speak:

  • Is it true?
  • Is it necessary?
  • Is it kind?

I find - often - that people who offer "criticism" in League really only consider whether or not they consider it to be true.

I would like to suggest that offering the "truth" is unlikely to get you what you want.

Questionable.I feel the Backfire Effect and Confirmation Bias make this generally untrue.

What a load of touchy feely shit. All that matters is the truth. Necessary? Kind???? Those a human excuses used to not tell the damns truth. You say the damn truth, no matter who it pisses of. The truth is ALWAYS RIGHT. ALWAYS. Make what ever bullshit excuses you want. The truth is the truth and should be said regardless. Not speaking the truth while knowing it is one of the worst fucking things you can fucking do.

Speak the truth. Fuck peoples feelings, fuck their opinions. All the matters is the black and white truth. Truth > everything else. Those that fail to understand that fail to understand what matters.

This is the biggest issue with people. Making excuses why one should not tell the truth instead of doing the easy thing and just saying the truth.

TrulyBland1 votes

So I'm assuming when you walk around you continually point at things yelling, for example, "That's a tree!", while also yelling universal mathematical truths like "one plus one equals two!" without any sort of filter?

Because according to you, that's the worst fucking thing you can fucking do.

Unless, of course, there are other relevant factors to saying things.

You talk about excuses, but you "I'm just being honest" is the excuse for people to be assholes to others by being very selectively honest and intentionally using subjective (and hence not universally true) words to attack others.

More from Player Behavior

The indefinite banning of Tyler1
Player Behavior4,799 comments
2,942
votes
14 day ban because playing Nunu Support with Smite is "stealing other people's roles"...?
Player Behavior1,525 comments
1,086
votes
Riot should add monthly status cards
Player Behavior241 comments
843
votes
Reminder that we haven't gotten our Summoner report cards yet :/
Player Behavior145 comments
619
votes
I'm not "triggered" by you throwing insults.
Player Behavior361 comments
548
votes
Black Alistar, King Rammus!!!!
Player Behavior462 comments
503
votes

More by SirPurrr

Nearly 1/3 of Kog Players Went AP Before the Latest Reworks
Gameplay81 comments
81
votes
Can't Ping Items Using the Scoreboard
Report a Bug42 comments
64
votes
Corki Base Mana
Gameplay50 comments
60
votes
MATCHMAKING is the WORST it has ever been
Gameplay18 comments
53
votes
Celerity Was Overnerfed
Gameplay29 comments
50
votes
I love playing with toxic teammates! NO SARCASM!
Player Behavior37 comments
47
votes