fucking no? I'm fucking retarded lol. its just funny to see people continually make the same fucking mistakes. Shut the fuck up and wait for the facts. The facts decide everything, whether u like them to or not. Abide by this rule or be condemned to eternal stupidity

are dumb, reactionary and morally inconsistent

You will keep crucifying people over Google docs, completely vague and easy to doctor evidence and u will keep tripping face flat over your silly moral frameworks like the redditors that u are. Another flaw of democracy.

Ok. I agree with the relative meaning of words with reference to the context in which they live in. I and the author disagree on the use of these words because we have different frames of reference.

Empathy argument

I genuinely think attempts to quantify empathy are even worse than attempts to quantify intelligence. The only proper objective measurement is a complete lack thereof. This leads to radically different definitions of the word -> making it easy to employ some custom definition to demonize groups of people you don't like (This makes me sound like some far right larper, i'm not).
also,

you don't need empathy for that

ehh i take that back. That would prove the commenter's point. I am simply discontent with the definitions used in modern discourse today.
Good laws (the ones that govern) are to some extent, built on the mirroring of another's experience, but steeped in rationality ( cause and effect), empirically observable phenomena. Bad things are bad because they cause bad things to happen. I like this much more, and that is why i proposed the constraints I did.

Physical harassment of players (cause, involuntary involvement of affected) -> actively endangers affected, (effect) [BAD]
doxxing (cause, involuntary involvement of affected) -> actively endangers affected, [BAD]
death threats (cause, involuntary involvement of affected) -> indeterminable effect, dependent on actor [waivable but very sus]
Trashtalk, flaming (cause, voluntary involvement of affected) -> ??? does not actively endanger affected, standalone, worst case scenario it lowers performance [Waivable]

Using this framework (enlarged in scope), it becomes much easier to optimize for the good of other people while minimizing preexistent biases . At least to me anyway.

Case study: I write a lot of code. If i push some trash unlinted code to production, and (for comfort, let's say this is some informal environment, some forum or something) and people on this forum flame the fuck outta me for it and call me retarded, i wouldn't exactly say these people are inhuman. I am expected to perform and i fell short. What comes next is the product of my own ineptitude. I can choose to let it harm me or not.

The only good argument against "being mean" is that it isn't constructive. Doesn't further progress. In a formal environment (platchat or wtvr), there would be no place for those types of comments. But in an informal one (vlr/twitter), all is permissible.

equality argument

Out of scope. As is bulk of our essays, tbh. You don't need to read this part, but i'll try to condense. I think equity is a useful tool to attain equality of outcome. That is a good thing to try to do. It gives ample opportunity to the people who can, in fact, hack it. I will forever be on the side of elevating those types. However the problem arises when most people start to think the reality of such programs (the outcomes will still remain inequal, even if it closes the gap a little) is caused by "inefficient equity" and tweak this proposed "equity" to get the outcomes they want , which is why the bulk of these programs start out good and quickly become corrupted.

Good case study: GC <- example of a good program (for now)

EDIT (sigh): remapped to avoid confusion, equity (properly applied equality) is affordable up to the point where it allows the capable % of concerned groups to catch up. Past that, it just promotes the incapable.

Mimesis was besides op's argument

This was only used to disagree with his base inherence thing. No more no less.

FINI: We will most likely agree to disagree, as we have different frames of reference. Ngl i was kinda just bored, and trying to pick a fight with a 0 star user for fun. I didn't even end up steelmaning my amoral man. Whatever tho. My bad 🤷‍♂️. I need to stop arguing on fucking vlr of all places. THIS IS WHY I SAID TO TURN YOUR BRAIN OFF AND JUST ENJOY THE SHOW

The 5 min window can suck my cock, respectfully. Vlr is unusable on mobile

The fact that he uses "inherently human" implies an absolutist view, "social context" is literally humans copying other humans (mimesis) => this is why it differs by society

empathy + egalitarianism

I do not care for the modern west's context window

if u can't see that 90% of posts on vlr impacts players mental health u are an edgy teen

ehh no. I'm sick of the empathy card being played all the time tbh, completely arbitrary foundations and easy to employ against outgroup ideology. I am a principled person. I am not incentivized to go against established societal precepts because optimization towards common societal good is desirable. The prosperity of the individual will always be directly linked in some part to the prosperity of the collective. I don't need "empathy" for that.

"Don't be mean to me on the internet" brother log off. Self-inflicted

Should we not try to view everyone as equal?

To some degree, yes. However, driving artificial equality in an inherently unequal environment is pointless and actively harms said environment. It can only be afforded to some degree. It's a tradeoff.

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

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.

forgive the grammar errors, I'm half asleep.

I would love to continue cosplaying someone erudite, but unfortunately I bedge. Write a response if u want to, make it exhaustive. I'll read when I wake up. bai bai

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.

it's very fun

humans like laughing at other humans in the arena
not exactly seminal work buddy
now turn off ur brain and grab some popcorn

if it's against 565 pound twt retards unfortunately I'm pulling up for him evry time. Anything else tho idrc

he fills an essential vlr niche. ppl like him must exist, as do ppl like cloudberry

slobbering on twtgirl cock as a vlr user, shameful behaviour rapid

Lowkey wanna support nAts but I stand by my hatewatching
k0m0 still mid, koalaboob clears tomorrow.

Navi run the gamut, if saadhak gets cleared by jamppi twice he needs to join fenis

take their advice

why are we entertaining twitter retards
go back, all of u

Does your preaching have the dark purpose of sowing discord among the children of Canaan?

The children of Canaan are goyim themselves, o rabbi

.

no u're too verbose. articulate and keep it terse. Classier

u write like clocksky888

doesn't work

nah put me back. I am a lot of things but I refuse to be mid

nope, doctored

Jobs. u smelly nerds.

a man is persecuted unjustly

it's bait but I'll engage regardless, who cares. With enough constraints every single post made on every forum ever has been bait.

wrong.

"I didn't choose to be born" brother if the ride stops being fun u can always hop off. Perfectly valid option.

Most parents are incapable of giving u a completely satisfactory childhood, and that isn't really a bad thing

ignoring trent tejo they are still mostly mid

No point hating them, all parents are mid. Good parents are the exception. Going off this alone, they're not being necessarily abusive tbh.

Read ur shit, get good grades, get tf out, send them a bag every once in a while

G2's cautious style of play kinda fucks with their individual stats(see Masters Shanghai), and even worse when they lose

Trent leaf jawg can do so much more individually (as shown by challengers Trent, ascension Trent, played worse players but still) , but it doesn't fit with g2's current system

B0RC0 KKKKKKK

inter defense their strong point, they've been saving strats

KKKKKKK L0min0 y0m0l

it's not exactly intellectually rigorous work lol as long as u're not retarded you can be part of .1%

eh

I saw that too. Don't really care tho. Have a nice day mr m4. Giving voice to the voiceless and allat.

I saw that.
good to know u actually have a job. Would be kinda pathetic if all that shit u did wasn't actually troll

he's always been among the best sovas itw, Tejo was just free statpadding (like any other new gimmicky op agent)

what do u do with ur immense intellectual capabilities nowadays m4

all that cooking just to never field more than 1.5 good teams at an international 💔

- Goonster

don't make me pull out the photoshop brush...

johnqt first, then bang, then zekken, narrate, then old man zellsis

are other teams saving strats during groups or smth cuz it happened in pacific too?

it makes sense to, but even then c9 had the edge. They took the lead early, all they had to do was coast and study up for playoffs. At this point I think we just kick xeppa 4fun, he's bad mojo

afraid u were (literally) on the wrong side of history fren

might as well bring vanity back from retirement too fuck it

Just checking

KOI 2-1 LULQUID K0M0

nah I could probably flyover rn and assassinate derke and it'd still be win for VIT lmao

Lowkey a good hedge tho, VIT has performing unexpectedly poorly