A Community Almost Completely Devoid of Sympathy and Empathy

"

Boem wrote:

And you just validated his point, so who is winning exactly?

Also pointing out people have different tolerance levels isn't "moral relativism", it's the exact opposite since it aknowledges the inherent differences between people and how they will cope with situations.
At least be conceptually honest when making a point, cheers.

Peace,

-Boem-

In what way did I validate his point? That "I don't have the right not be criticized?" or that my "own concerns" have already been addressed numerous times?

And this isn't about winning.

What you are describing is different than moral relativism. What he said was that some people interpret the same comment as an attack, whereas others do not. (i.e. Moral RELATIVISM)

"Tolerance" would mean that both interpret a comment as an attack, but that two people would feel the attack's force at differing levels. (i.e. Moral OBJECTIVISM)


What's your problem? I am honest and your insult, that I am dishonest, merely adds more evidence to my original argument. Clearly, I am not completely wrong to to say that this community is almost completely devoid or sympathy and empathy.

"

HwtChirino wrote:

I'm not going to provide a commentary on each of these quotes, but there should be no need for me to explain why they are exactly the problematic behaviors I have described earlier.

All i get from your post is that

1) you have a problem with responsibility
2) you come from a culture devoid of irrony and sarcasm

So yeah, the burden is on you to disprove those claims if you want people to see how those post's are "toxic" and not just a different viewpoint of affairs.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

Boem wrote:

"

HwtChirino wrote:

I'm not going to provide a commentary on each of these quotes, but there should be no need for me to explain why they are exactly the problematic behaviors I have described earlier.

All i get from your post is that

1) you have a problem with responsibility
2) you come from a culture devoid of irrony and sarcasm

So yeah, the burden is on you to disprove those claims if you want people to see how those post's are "toxic" and not just a different viewpoint of affairs.

Peace,

-Boem-

If you think the comments I provided are not problematic, it is a waste of my time to discuss anything with you. In what world do you live in, where such statements are considered civil discourse? No, I don't believe any such community should be considered a place of sympathy and empathy, of humanity.

Also, you proclaim peace in all of your posts. Why?

You seem to be doing nothing but arguing against my original post and subsequent replies, seemingly attempting to discredit everything I've argued.

Peace? Yeah, sure, bud.

"

HwtChirino wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

And you just validated his point, so who is winning exactly?

Also pointing out people have different tolerance levels isn't "moral relativism", it's the exact opposite since it aknowledges the inherent differences between people and how they will cope with situations.
At least be conceptually honest when making a point, cheers.

Peace,

-Boem-

In what way did I validate his point? That "I don't have the right not be criticized?" or that my "own concerns" have already been addressed numerous times?

And this isn't about winning.

What you are describing is different than moral relativism. What he said was that some people interpret the same comment as an attack, whereas others do not. "Tolerance" would mean that both interpret a comment as an attack, but that two people would feel the attack's force at differing levels.


What's your problem?

on the first question, both.

Joining a forum(a public place for discourse) opens one up to different views and as such to criticism of your own viewpoint.
And yes, your observation is
1) poorly formed, since it presents itself without nuance and in a dichotomy
2) already presented to these forum boards in that poor formulation multiple times.

On the second question,

You said he was using moral relativism, i'm simply stating he is not.

Your example of tolerance is also pretty poor since it doesn't even demonstrate the option to "outgrow pain", you present it as if harm is always done.(so a very narrow spectrum representation of reality)
For example, people have different tolerance levels of heights and it is perfectly reasonable to state that one tolerance level induces joy while the other induces fear.(fear of height vs people that love sky-diving etc)

So it is perfectly reasonable for somebody to be "attacked" on a forum, but not experience any harm as a result because of his tolerance level.
It is also perfectly reasonable for such a person to post a comment to a person with a lower tolerance level and this next individual experiences it as an attack since his tolerance treshhold is lower in comparison.

That's not to a say a medium treshhold should not be established for all to follow, which there is, read the forum guide-lines.
However poorly formulated they are currently they are still the medium baseline of insults and speach tolerated for all participants.

Peace,

-Boem-

"

HwtChirino wrote:

"

Boem wrote:

"

HwtChirino wrote:

I'm not going to provide a commentary on each of these quotes, but there should be no need for me to explain why they are exactly the problematic behaviors I have described earlier.

All i get from your post is that

1) you have a problem with responsibility
2) you come from a culture devoid of irrony and sarcasm

So yeah, the burden is on you to disprove those claims if you want people to see how those post's are "toxic" and not just a different viewpoint of affairs.

Peace,

-Boem-

If you think the comments I provided are not problematic, it is a waste of my time to discuss anything with you. In what world do you live in, where such statements are considered civil discourse? No, I don't believe any such community should be considered a place of sympathy and empathy, of humanity.

Also, you proclaim peace in all of your posts. Why?

You seem to be doing nothing but arguing against my original post and subsequent replies, seemingly attempting to discredit everything I've argued.

Peace? Yeah, sure, bud.

Ironically, claiming a lack of sympathy and empathy while at the same time arguing any further discussion is fruitless.

If you cant put yourself in the people making those post's without seeing toxicity but an actual point they are trying to convey, then i would argue what you claim to be empathy isn't it.

Peace,

-Boem-

I found this thread mildly amusuing.

The notion that those who are providing criticism, should be precluded from recieving the same (in any form), is a type of egocentric logic I have trouble understanding, and can do little else but smile.

In fact I would say that is the entire point of a "forum" in any sense. Literally a discussion in which many points are discussed and/or debated.

Otherwise what we would have is a mere collection of statements. How droll.

"

DarthSki44 wrote:

I found this thread mildly amusuing.

The notion that those who are providing criticism, should be precluded from recieving the same (in any form), is a type of egocentric logic I have trouble understanding, and can do little else but smile.

In fact I would say that is the entire point of a "forum" in any sense. Literally a discussion in which many points are discussed and/or debated.

Otherwise what we would have is a mere collection of statements. How droll.

I never argued what you are describing.


It's as if you all are unable to comprehend my original point.

You are the second person to turn our attention to the silly argument: "No one should be excluded from criticism."

What is my argument? Not that one, and it never was.

My argument is beyond simple: in fact, it is stated in my title. That's it.

I then cited examples.

All of this followed by not one person responding in agreement but speaking as if I am a fool to describe the phenomenon entitled in this thread.

You found this thread mildly amusing? How wonderful for you. Whereas I find it dumbfounding.

/hug

A game marketed with edgelord flavour sold to hopeless masochists turns out to produce a community full of assholes? Now there's a shocker.

They're not all assholes though. But the people doing decent stuff aren't on the forums; they're playing the game. If you want to see the better side of the playerbase (well, sometimes, haha) hang out on some of the better in-game chat channels (i.e. not Global 1 hahah).

Op, anything you want to claim is not something new. I am not one of the oldest but 6 years ago these same topics were seen in the forum. "The game is dead" is one of the most recurring themes along with the scammers. It is nothing new and the old forum guys get tired of seeing the same thing over and over again...

By the way, your topic is not new either.