I cant even go on one forum post without seeing someone rage baiting, getting mad at someone liking sen, or someone calling players like yay with yOy in their name because they made 4th place which is pretty good
17
why is vlr so full of hate
posted in
Off Topic
Comments:
Threaded
Linear
Average age/maturity of user + the general culture of being a member of the audience, so to say. Very easy to be overly critical or even hateful/inappropriate regarding others’ performances when you’re quite secure with your role as the spectator, and feel very far removed from the idea of that player being an actual human and not just a character for your own entertainment.
I'd actually disagree a bit-- my point was that spectators like laughing at performers, not that humans like laughing at humans. A gladiator probably did not enjoy watching another gladiator fail in the Colosseum in ancient Rome as much as the rest of the audience would, so to speak.
The argument was that it's actually not inherently human to do this, and requires a level of detachment and lack of empathy that is mostly achieved because the spectator could never and will never be in the same situation as the one they are spectating, hence the concept of spectator vs performer.
I actually invite you to keep your brain on, popcorn or not.
spectators like laughing at performs, not humans and humans
terse on purpose, we're saying the same thing. Slapping labels on them does nothing. Morality and well as amorality is all mimetic behaviour. The base human is inherently neither of these things (although I'd like to opine that the base human is twisted and amoral, 4funsies :3)
Riddle me this, if we are not inherently attracted to the sufferings of our fellow man, why were the colosseums always packed? (actual reason is nuanced and boring probably, but a good demonstration of my point)
keep ur brain on
turn it off, easier to enjoy the show.
Because again, the audience in the Colosseum was filled with citizens who were not participants of the trials themselves. If the audience was filled exclusively with those who are also in line to versus a lion in a sandpit, they likely would not be cheering gleefully as the comrade before them gets mauled. Spectator versus participant.
In a way you proved my point in your response, so you’ll get there.
spectator Vs participant
u can't determine the reaction of a participant either. In cases where they were pit against each other, why do u think a participant wouldn't react gleefully if his competition was mauled down?
It is not inherently human to do this
Core of your point. I'm saying morality as well as amorality is mimetic behaviour (answer to the entire question really) . U champion morality as innately human, I'm steelmaning the innately amoral man 4fun.
that's what u should be attacking. The rest is irrelevant.
slight add: If u nibble at specifics I will give up and u win, focus on the abstract idea. Both our scenarios have holes anyway.
no what; you misconstrued their argument as "humans are mimetic which is why vlr is so full of hate" instead of "lack of empathy from the role of spectator rather than participant", they corrected you to the meaning of their original argument, and then you made an argument surrounding morality while focusing on the semantics of human vs. nonhuman?
whether you're a moral nihilist, moral relativist, moral absolutist doesn't neglect the fact that throughout history, morals are a framework in which people react off of
besides, existence of empathy and non-absolute morality/amorality are not mutually exclusive. although empathy can be activated by genuinely affirming egalitarianism which is a moral framework, empathy does not necessarily need to be activated through the existence of morals
obviously we can't retroactively determine whether participants in the colosseum gleefully reacted to his opponent being knocked down, but it was somewhat of a thought experiment. humans empathize with people similar to them and don't empathize those dissimilar even if through fake measures like labels: racism is the prime example of this as a societally created label with no genetic basis
applying the "humans empathize with people similar to them and don't empathize those dissimilar" to colosseum fighters: participants are more likely to empathize to each other despite being what you claim to be "labels" (but in this case, these labels are more than just societally cultivated with no basis: these participants have to fight each other while observers are physically and emotionally separated from the action)
further applying this to esports players: us vlr kids who will likely never step foot on a pro stage are emotionally and physically distanced from these players, making us less likely to empathize with them and thus create an environment that is more likely to be hateful
semantics about human vs. nonhuman that you seem to be arguing over the most: I also disagree with moral absolutism, but in our societal, cultural, globalized context, the meaning of being "human" is closely tied with egalitarianism, and distancing ourselves from players without thinking about them as real people can be described as "inhumane". language evolves with context, and so in our current context, this meaning of "human" is correct
I might be misconstruing your argument tho, but it's always fun to see moral absolutism being talked about on the internet
man thanks for giving me something to do while procrastinating
I wouldn't say I misconstrued his argument, I just disagree with the fact that it is somehow not "innately human" to act as vlr does ,"hateful" and bashing players and what not.
I believe it is the more fun option, and there's nothing wrong with it.
The marrying of egalitarianism and "being human" is flawed. Infact, it is an unapproachable ideal. All humans are not granted equal natural disposition, and championing of arrangements that favour such ideal will ultimately fail. It sounds really nice in theory though.
Lest we lose scope, applied to players Vs spectators: there is nothing wrong with the way vlr conducts itself. These ppl step into the arena for our entertainment, why should we not entertain ourselves? As long as reasonable constraints are applied i.e no irl harassment of the players, no threatening to actually harm them etc etc, there is nothing wrong with shitting on players for a bad game (words on the internet btw), or poking fun at them. there is nothing "inhumane" abt any of these reactions. If u see that as inhumane, your definitions are wrong.
We should hold ourselves to higher standards
Boring. What that creates is an environment where people just suck off players 24/7. Reddit tier.
EDIT 2 :
The argument was that it is not inherently human to do this
His words not mine
morals are a framework which people react off of
I'm trying to point out that the very nature of this framework stems from mimetic behaviour. No rephrasing of the argument and no misconstruing. I disagree with his (absolutist) opinion, and I posit that moral relativism (the better school of thought) is founded on the idea of mimesis
The marrying of egalitarianism and "being human" is flawed. Infact, it is an unapproachable ideal. All humans are not granted equal disposition, and championing of arrangements that favour such ideal will ultimately fail. It sounds really nice in theory though.
I agree that humans are inherently flawed and discrimination will always exist. But should we not try to view everyone as equal because it will "ultimately fail"? Is there no point in not harassing players because "such ideal will ultimately fail"? How else has progress been made in history concerning women's rights, civil rights, lgbqt+ rights?
Egalitarianism has kind of been ingrained in the West since the Enlightenment and now modern society thanks to globalization, but yeah the idea that egalitarianism is part of what makes us human is somewhat iffy; rather, I should've phrased this as empathy
if you can't see that 90% of the posts on vlr is highly harmful to players' mental and lack empathy.. I think it's clear that you weren't arguing against moral absolutism and playing devil's advocate for the sake of genuine discussion and more for an edgy teen viewpoint :( it's pretty clear that you have detached yourself from these players as actual humans which kind of demonstrates #11...
His argument is not absolutist btw. Moral relativism argues that morals do exist but relative to the societal context; in this case a societal context of empathy + egalitarianism. You're arguing from more of a nihilist standpoint
The employed parasocial fans are also the ones who typically buy merchandise, show up in-person to matches, generate hype and interest around the sport, and drive consistent stream numbers for sponsors-- something that is also very prevalent in mainstream sports.
If fans wanted their esport to succeed, valorant or otherwise, blaming and ostracizing those particular fans because you think you're better than them doesn't make much sense imo. One group hates for fun and one enjoys for fun, each side with those who take it too far, but one seems to benefit the esport more than the other.
Valorant has always had a "hate" issue and it's why it was named "most toxic game" three years in a row I believe and why articles like this exist.
https://www.nme.com/news/valorant-has-the-most-toxic-community-in-gaming-3047693
Discord