Quantcast
45-Year Old Dumbass Threatens 11-Year Old Kid Over Fortnite -_-

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 45-Year Old Dumbass Threatens 11-Year Old Kid Over Fortnite -_-

pokoko said:

Bullshit.  Don't try to weasel your way out of something you said.  It's right there in black and white.

"That's just standard 11 year old online behavior. 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 just said that the 11 year old should not be accountable for their actions.  It looks silly for you to lie about that when anyone can just see what you typed.  There was absolutely nothing fallacious about my argument.

It's also kind of funny that you say you grew out of that behavior.  "burp."  I mean, what the heck was that?  Trying to show us what "normal" 11 year old kids do?

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. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 19 September 2018

Around the Network

Here's hoping this will make parents of kids who play online more aware of the importance of parental controls. They shouldn't be allowing their kids to communicate with random strangers, whatever the medium.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

Bullshit.  Don't try to weasel your way out of something you said.  It's right there in black and white.

"That's just standard 11 year old online behavior. 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 just said that the 11 year old should not be accountable for their actions.  It looks silly for you to lie about that when anyone can just see what you typed.  There was absolutely nothing fallacious about my argument.

It's also kind of funny that you say you grew out of that behavior.  "burp."  I mean, what the heck was that?  Trying to show us what "normal" 11 year old kids do?

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. 

My daughter is 7.  She will not "grow" out of such behavior because she will not "grow" into it.  I will see to it.  I know 11ish year old kids who, while not perfect, are well behaved.  You don't grow in or out of such behavior.  You either choose to do it or you don't.  There are consequences.



V-r0cK said:
lol what a douchbag.

That's putting it lightly.

melbye said:

Funny how much stupid behavior Fortnite inspires

Yeah, sure, blame the game as usual, Jack Thompson. =P

LivingMetal said:
melbye said:

Funny how much stupid behavior Fortnite inspires

Like divorces.  But I'm 46.  Proud of it.  You should see the reactions from kids of friends when they see my collection.  One of the kids asked me, "What is your favorite thing to do in this house?" referring to my game collection.  My answer was, "Spend time with my family."  And then I'd call out a few of my favorite games.  The kid in question and his brother play Fortnite BTW.

It's why I want to be a gamer dad. My children and their friends would look up to me like I'm a younger, fatter Gandalf. :D

Mar1217 said:
Accounting for the fact that we don't know the individual personally. Is it possible that he was povocted first ?

Anywoo, death threats to anyone is a no-no people.

Especially over A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. *mails unstable grenades to the SOB's cell, assuming he's still incarcerated* I hope the guards don't open it first.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Mar1217 said:
Accounting for the fact that we don't know the individual personally. Is it possible that he was povocted first ?

Anywoo, death threats to anyone is a no-no people.

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. Dude's fucking 11. 

Zoombael said:
Tsts... Multiplayers. So typical.

Says the obvious single player. =P

John2290 said:
This is why I don't want cross play with Xbox. From my experience it's infinitely more toxic. I gave up on live after MW3.

I didn't want cross play with Xbox because of all the underage children shouting faggot and the n-word every second. Some people just don't know how to look after their kids. -_-

PwerlvlAmy said:
deskpro2k3 said:

this why ps4 is the best place to play folks

Nintendo is for me. 

And for me!! WA!! HA!! HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Hedra42 said:
Here's hoping this will make parents of kids who play online more aware of the importance of parental controls. They shouldn't be allowing their kids to communicate with random strangers, whatever the medium.

It's the same rule in real life, so IT SHOULD BE that rule in gaming, internet, etc.



Some days I just blow up.

CaptainExplosion said:

And apparently he's a father of three himself.

I can't believe somebody threatened a child's life over a god damn video game. -_-

He doesn't deserve to be around children for what he's done.

Is this your first week on the internet? 



Around the Network
LivingMetal said:

My daughter is 7.  She will not "grow" out of such behavior because she will not "grow" into it.  I will see to it.  I know 11ish year old kids who, while not perfect, are well behaved.  You don't grow in or out of such behavior.  You either choose to do it or you don't.  There are consequences.

That's great but that doesn't really contradict what I said. "growing out" is just terminology. All I am saying is that I spent most of my life with a parent who did not parent well. There were consequences but at least when it came to online trash talking I did end up not doing it once I got older. Granted I was never a huge trash talker but it definitely happened more in the past compared to now (and I would say I was a "well behaved" 11 year old, there is a difference between how you act in public and online).  

If you are saying that you will make sure that your kid never becomes that kind of toxic person, than good on you. Parenting is very important and that is what I partially based my reply on. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

Bullshit.  Don't try to weasel your way out of something you said.  It's right there in black and white.

"That's just standard 11 year old online behavior. 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 just said that the 11 year old should not be accountable for their actions.  It looks silly for you to lie about that when anyone can just see what you typed.  There was absolutely nothing fallacious about my argument.

It's also kind of funny that you say you grew out of that behavior.  "burp."  I mean, what the heck was that?  Trying to show us what "normal" 11 year old kids do?

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.  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.  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. 



CaptainExplosion said:
V-r0cK said:
lol what a douchbag.

That's putting it lightly.

melbye said:

Funny how much stupid behavior Fortnite inspires

Yeah, sure, blame the game as usual, Jack Thompson. =P

LivingMetal said:

Like divorces.  But I'm 46.  Proud of it.  You should see the reactions from kids of friends when they see my collection.  One of the kids asked me, "What is your favorite thing to do in this house?" referring to my game collection.  My answer was, "Spend time with my family."  And then I'd call out a few of my favorite games.  The kid in question and his brother play Fortnite BTW.

It's why I want to be a gamer dad. My children and their friends would look up to me like I'm a younger, fatter Gandalf. :D

Mar1217 said:
Accounting for the fact that we don't know the individual personally. Is it possible that he was povocted first ?

Anywoo, death threats to anyone is a no-no people.

Especially over A FUCKING VIDEO GAME. *mails unstable grenades to the SOB's cell, assuming he's still incarcerated* I hope the guards don't open it first.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

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. Dude's fucking 11. 

Zoombael said:
Tsts... Multiplayers. So typical.

Says the obvious single player. =P

John2290 said:
This is why I don't want cross play with Xbox. From my experience it's infinitely more toxic. I gave up on live after MW3.

I didn't want cross play with Xbox because of all the underage children shouting faggot and the n-word every second. Some people just don't know how to look after their kids. -_-

PwerlvlAmy said:

Nintendo is for me. 

And for me!! WA!! HA!! HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!

Hedra42 said:
Here's hoping this will make parents of kids who play online more aware of the importance of parental controls. They shouldn't be allowing their kids to communicate with random strangers, whatever the medium.

It's the same rule in real life, so IT SHOULD BE that rule in gaming, internet, etc.

That's exactly what I mean but it's not confined to 12 year olds. There are older sounding dudes also that go at it and try to sound 'hood' while doing so. I can count on my hand the times I've had friendly interactions on live, it culminated in me not renewing it after Mw3. With PSN I can count the ammount of times I've gotten that kind of aggression over the span of ten years as opposed to three years with live, I haven't used live since 2011 so I can't speak for it now. Something about the PSN userbase, people are more relaxed. With PSVR the community on their litterally has zero toxicity and EVERYONE is friendly. 



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

pokoko said:

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. 




AngryLittleAlchemist said:
pokoko said:

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.