Wow, so combative! Let me try to "weasel my way out" of it a second time: 

Acknowledging that a behavior is normal and normalizing it are not the same thing. I admit that if you wanted to read that comment as an acceptance of bad online behavior than it is fairly bad. I should have explained that while I believe that behavior to be "normal" it isn't "good" either (although I already over-explain myself on this site as is). However, that isn't what it is, it is a pure acknowledgement of the fact that in the real world ... not in some idealized non-toxic community ... it kind of is normal for that age bracket. 

Does that make it right? Nope, but I never said as such.

About the accountability, you are absolutely right that I said he should not be held accountable. He shouldn't be held accountable for someone who is four times his age giving him death threats. Which is what Mar was saying he should be accountable for. Should he be held accountable for being a douche? Yes, but that's not really something specific to this incident. He's probably a douche all the time (assuming he was trash talking), and that is a separate problem entirely. Maybe the death threats were caused by it, but in a rational society only one person should really be accountable: the adult. Being held accountable means that you are required to justify actions (or to face justice from them). The 11 year old doesn't have to justify being a dick, the 45 year old has to justify how he responded. 

In real life, one of the biggest problems that adults have during the tween-teen era of their kid's life is that they don't act as if what their teen is doing is normal or relatable. They act like it's completely unfathomable behavior. Because of this there is no relatability there, and the ability to pass down lessons comes from an alienating figure instead of someone you can connect with. From my point of view, acknowledging that something is in fact normal for an age bracket is not normalizing it. Does that sound stupid as fuck? Sure, but I believe it to make some sense. Understanding why the problem exists and how it relates to the persons youth is the first step to creating a better connection so that important lessons can be passed down. Normalizing it is just passively accepting it for what it is, which is not what I stand for. I just acknowledge that yes it is in fact a normal behavior, not necessarily a good one, but one that is realistic. And that yes, I believe the person who should be held accountable is the adult.

By the way, I have no idea how you think "*burp*" is offensive or like an 11 year old. We're talking about trash talking first of all, not shitposting, so it doesn't even have to do with what we're discussing. But it also isn't ironic in anyway. The only reason I even said that was because you wrote this: "lol that's normal." Not only an extreme exaggeration of what I said, but one that is only useful to misrepresent my point and to make it look ignorant. So maybe you should first look at how you deconstruct arguments, and then ask why people respond in kind. 

Typing all of that does not make what you originally said go away.  "It's normal and instead of criticizing him for the possibility of that happening all accountability should be put on the party that is mature."  You literally said that an 11 year old should not be criticized or held accountable for using slurs or insults.  You can't change what you said. 

  On top of that, you went the "fallacious argument" route when there was nothing fallacious about it.  

And are you serious about trying to make people look ignorant?  Is that something you should be talking about?  How about your first post in this thread?  "Yes people, I povoct, You povoct, He/She/Me povoct, povoct, povocting, povoctology.  Anyways being "povocted" is not an excuse and that question should not even be in this equation."  Mocking a person repeatedly for a spelling mistake then you say, "maybe you should first look at how you deconstruct arguments, and then ask why people respond in kind"?  That's an absolutely amazing example of hypocrisy.  

So maybe you should first look at how you deconstruct arguments, and then ask why people respond in kind. 

So you're really going to make a Spongebob reference joke as if it was some great insult against Mar? Ok .. I think you are trying WAY too hard to prove a point that isn't really going anywhere. 

It doesn't make it go away but I sure as hell clarified what I meant. I can understand that I wrote a lot, however it should be fairly obvious that in the comment you are replying to, I did not deny what I said, and in fact I clarified it. So I don't really get your point ... of course typing all of that doesn't make what I said go away, I literally clarified it further for you. 

"If you want to say that you didn't mean that exactly, that would be fine, but you're trying to act like you didn't say what you said."

Literally one of my first sentences in my respones: " I admit that if you wanted to read that comment as an acceptance of bad online behavior than it is fairly bad. I should have explained that while I believe that behavior to be "normal" it isn't "good" either (although I already over-explain myself on this site as is)."

What do you think "I should have explained .." means? It means exactly what you state would be acceptable: that the way it was interpreted was not what I meant, at all.

Your whole "switch it around on ya!" tactic doesn't work because you don't understand the basic foundation of .... a joke. 

At this point you're being unreasonable. It's clear you don't have an argument. 

Right, right, like the entire world is going to know about a Spongebob reference, yet me adding "lol" to what you said is terrible, even though it fit perfectly with the way you said it.  Looked to me like you were mocking them.  Still looks like that, in fact, even if you're saying it's a joke now.  

There was nothing wrong with my argument.  I responded to what you said.  Then you tried to say it was a fallacious argument, then you clarified.  Don't leave out all the details.

I mean, somebody posted the meme before you replied criticizing it as some kind of rude act. Even if you didn't see that or you were too busy replying to have seen it, it's odd that you're trying to paint me as some rude person when A ) Mar wasn't offended by it  B ) He didn't even respond to it and C ) My point isn't that I wrote "burp" because adding "lol" to a sentence was a rude act towards me (I don't consider that rude, that's ridiculous), it was that your exaggeration towards my statement made me take your reply less seriously ... "burp". I honestly do not know why you are trying to go back and argue about these pointless trivialities. Again when I said you should think about how others respond and why they did so, I did it because we were already multiple responses in and I felt you were representing me from the get go. Making a Spongebob joke isn't really equal, but even if it was I wasn't trying to argue about some random details from square one, I was merely explaining to you WHY I did what I did. 

Wait a minute .. NOW you admit I clarified?

Your last response: "If you want to say that you didn't mean that exactly, that would be fine, but you're trying to act like you didn't say what you said."

This response: "then you clarified"

Which one is it?

And again ... really do not understand why you are so obsessed with the timeline of events. I might have referenced something in the past but I was only doing so because you were making a comparison to an 11 year old about the "burp", and I felt I needed to explain. The last time I wrote the word "fallacious" was two hours ago. Why do you keep bringing it up? It doesn't even matter anymore because I already clarified what I meant. Argue from that standpoint or don't argue at all, I'm not interested in hearing how offended you are by the first reply.

I don't care what you're interested in hearing about, to be perfectly honest.  I'm simply saying that you're a hypocrite who changes your argument and then acts like you didn't.  *burp*  If you're saying now that what you said at first was wrong then I'm fine with that.  Just don't try to act like I was wrong to point it out and don't do all that rationalization over what you said and then try to paint "lol" as some kind of ridiculous exaggeration.  *burp*  Adding "lol" didn't make what you said look ignorant, what you said did that all by itself.  You were wrong.  That argument is over, as far as I'm concerned.  

I don't care what you're interested in hearing about, to be perfectly honest.  I'm simply saying that you're a hypocrite who changes your argument and then acts like you didn't.  *burp*  If you're saying now that what you said at first was wrong then I'm fine with that.  Just don't try to act like I was wrong to point it out and don't do all that rationalization over what you said and then try to paint "lol" as some kind of ridiculous exaggeration.  *burp*  Adding "lol" didn't make what you said look ignorant, what you said did that all by itself.  You were wrong.  That argument is over, as far as I'm concerned.  

By the way before you go, do you understand the definition of the word fallacious? I am not doing this to "1up!" you or offend you, I'm genuinely asking. This is something I fuck up a lot of the times myself. People use the word fallacious wrong and as such it can get confusing.

In it's literal definition fallacious means : "based on a mistaken belief" and a fallacious argument means is an argument based on a false notion or interpretation. 

So if you admit that I clarified what I said, doesn't that mean that technically the word choice of fallacious was right all along? You're agreeing that I clarified something I didn't mean for you to interpret. Therefore, your arguments against that interpretation were fallacious. 

I didn't change my argument and I'm not a hypocrite. All of your past few responses have been pretty bad because they call out random things to try and make a connection that isn't there. But sure Pokoko, be passive aggressive. That's very helpful in a discussion. 

If you're admitting that what you said wasn't what you meant to say, then that would make what you said fallacious.  My argument was based on what you said, not what you meant to say.  Fallacious is simply the existence of a fault.

That's exactly why I called you that.  You did all of that but you're trying to act like you didn't.  "lol" is bad but *burp* isn't.  "lol" is bad but seemingly mocking someone's spelling isn't--and even if you claim you didn't in the first line, you typing "Anyways being "povocted" is not an excuse" damn sure looks like you are.  You supposedly didn't change your argument but your first response to me wasn't, "hey, I didn't mean it that way," it was, "*burp* Oh did I just sense a fallacious argument in here?".  You just rationalize it after the fact.  The problem seems to be that you just say whatever you want and just assume that everyone will look at it exactly the same way as you even when there is no reason to assume that.  

... Again your responses don't make a lot of sense. 

I DIDN'T admit what I said was wrong. It wasn't. Just because someone clarifies something for you doesn't mean they're going back on what they said. That's ridiculous. I even said while clarifying that I should have over explained myself specifically so people like you wouldn't get a misinterpretation of what I said. What I said wasn't wrong, what you took from it was. 

"lol" is bad but *burp* isn't"

A ) Remember that I didn't take "lol" offensively so the criteria isn't what's offensive, I just took it as a wrongful exaggeration B ) you said "lol" first, then I responded with *burp* ... so yeah ... it was mocking your over-exaggeration ... it wasn't bad. Just like how you used "*burp*" as a critique against me with your last response by emphasizing it and using it over and over again, I used it against you originally to signify how ridiculous your exaggeration was. So either you were wrongful in your last reply, or I was never wrongful to begin with. 

"but seemingly mocking someone's spelling isn't"

How can you write seemingly in the same sentence where you try to make it seem like I was concretely mocking someone? I mean haven't you taken a step back and said to yourself "Wow, i'm trying to make someone look like a jerk for a meme". 

"You supposedly didn't change your argument but your first response to me wasn't, "hey, I didn't mean it that way," it was, "*burp* Oh did I just sense a fallacious argument in here?". "

Wait ... what? How does mocking your exaggeration imply that I DID change my argument? That point doesn't even come close to making sense ... at all. Fallacious literally means "based on a mistaken belief". Wouldn't that imply that in fact I NEVER changed my argument? Wouldn't that work against you and prove that I always thought you were misinterpreting my point? 

Honestly the whole problem is that you are over-thinking things that aren't there, and trying really hard to make points that don't make sense, and just being ridiculous. But sure, keep blaming me man.