"Whataboutisms": The New Way To Run A Country

This is a topic that a lot of people have been implementing to excuse their political views. It's an effort to shift the blame or even focus onto a conversation that people think they can win. Or at least tie up enough that a detractor will get tired and go home.

This shouldn't get confused with delving deeper. Someone talks about the crime rate in Chicago, and someone else brings up the lack of jobs, oppournities, and fair policing that leads youths to think crime is the only way. This isn't a "Whataboutism". It's pointing out that without those factors, Crime in Chicago would be minimized as people would have other options.

A "Whataboutism" is when we talk about what the acting President is doing, and then we talk about Hillary Clinton. Hillary doesn't have her finger on the button, any ruling power, or the ability to create policies. Hillary It isn't an off and on schedule that Trump is the president one day, and he has to come in on a Tuesday to clean the mess up that Hillary made on Monday. Every instance of Trump's messes and issues have been of his own doing.

It would be like if we elected Moderators for this forum and I ran against bastardofmelbourne. And even though I won a year ago, every time I overreached my power and banned people I didn't like and someone complained to the higher ups, Saelune would come through to yell "BUT BASTARDOFMELBOURNE, THOUGH! IMAGINE WHAT HE WOULD DO".

We don't have to have the same ideas politically. In fact, I hope we never do. Then we go to hivemind think and that leads to the death of innovation and challenge.

But we all need to be accountable. For the world to function, all need to be held accountable. And for that to function, we need to stop Whataboutisms and focus on the problems we're confronted with instead of doing some slight of hand.

Just for the record, though. Even though I voted for her, if Hillary is found to do some wrongdoing by the FBI, I'd want her in jail. If she was elected and she was found to do wrongdoing, I'd want her in jail. I voted for her because she was the only candidate I could vote for, but that doesn't mean she's faultless. No one is.

You make a great point but I would suggest removing the John Oliver video. That just smacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Whataboutism stems from inability to defend your (or in this case Trump's) actions. Trump supporters know that what he's doing is wrong, but they're either too stupid to care and to really think about why they support him, or they're racists and bigots, but they're just smart enough to know that they can't openly admit which parts of Trump's agenda appeals to them. So whataboutism is all they're left with.

I agree, it is a particularly odious tactic. It's all about 'moral relativism', the idea that no one is perfect so why bother criticizing or being concerned about anything? It's not an argument, it's an attempt to prevent an argument from happening by trying to put the people playing offense on defense. It also rallies your base and makes you look tough because suddenly THEY have to explain themselves even though YOU are on trial. And if both sides are equally as bad as each other why should the average person care either way?

And God damn it this is why I think I hate all these South Park inspired young millenial centrists with the philosophy of 'both sides are equally as bad as each other so your a dumbass for having an opinion lul durrrrrr Ima free thinking genius types' a thousand times worse then all the edgelord LARPers in racist cosplay. They both helped the world get like this, at least one of them was open in their assholery. The other just welcomed total dismissal of real issues of injustice and political corruption with 'both sides' BS.

If the Martians from War of the Worlds came and started vaporizing people with heat waves from their Tripods these whataboutist centrists last actions on Earth would be shrugging and saying 'hey those martians are dicks but maybe those humans shouldn't be clogging up their fighting machine's engines with their particalized remains, both sides have fault is all I'm sayi-'
ZZZZZZZAAAAAAAPPPPP!

There is another tactic similar to this worth discussing too. I'll also add 'controlling the conversation' to the list.

Sadly the far right have realized that using offensive, blatantly wrong and poorly worded arguments can work as a very effective tool to bait people into talking about something else, thus ensuring blatant in your face facts get buried in a wall of nothing.

People on the left need to stop taking the bait as of 2018 and if the right try to say 'what about' or try to shift the conversation back with that oh so tantilizing mean spirited slur dressed up like an argument just waiting for a good verbal smack down, they need to just steer the conversation back to its original course.

'No Mister Trump, it doesn't matter about Hillary or Obama anymore, we are talking about you!'

Sadly that might not even work, fascist choads like Trump and the frogmen don't actually care about reason or logic or facts, they care about feelings. If Trump just ran away with recently browned pants to avoid the question, if people just didn't let him dodge the issue, I bet the Alt Right frog monsters would still find a way to call it a win. I honestly don't have all the answers for how to beat these guys in debate, since facts, logic, reason, truth and basic humanity all seem to lose in the face of posteuring, rousing speeches and assurances that you are 'smart' for agreeing with their side.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
You make a great point but I would suggest removing the John Oliver video. That just smacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Oh yeah?

Well what about Alex Jones?

What about Milo Yiannopolous?

What about Bill O'Reilly?

I rest my case, all these people are shit so John Oliver is flawless.

.... do people see why this position is bullshit now?

The more time goes on, the more I hate buzzwords like "whataboutery", "virtue signalling", etc.

In their own way, I feel like they kill discussion. Firstly, I think they can easily remove the need to explain anything, promoting instead a sort of cheap and easy dismissal. In this sense they often end up further problematic because they allow people to chuck them around to dismiss things falsely.

In a sense, they're a sort of modern variant of the tedious bores who feel the need to claim their opponents are making fallacies all the time (especially as they rarely identify a genuine fallacy). This similarly is rarely about having a discussion and deeply evaluating arguments, but used as a sort of reductionist point-scoring exercise.

Well, whataboutisms are a fairly valid point if (and pretty much only if) the person bringing forth an argument would have been defending the same shit if it was conducted by the other side. Or at least would not be complaining.

Agema:
The more time goes on, the more I hate buzzwords like "whataboutery", "virtue signalling", etc.

In their own way, I feel like they kill discussion. Firstly, I think they can easily remove the need to explain anything, promoting instead a sort of cheap and easy dismissal. In this sense they often end up further problematic because they allow people to chuck them around to dismiss things falsely.

Yes. I find it especially irritating when it is used as a means to avoid self-reflection. The way that any constructive criticism of the Democrat platform devolves into "well, Trump's in power and he's worse". I'd try to think up a Republican example for balance, but Trump's not really the self-reflecting type with or without buzzword dismissals, and I genuinely barely know any other senior actual Republican figures. Although I imagine they probably are doing a lot of soul-searching at the minute.

Agema:
The more time goes on, the more I hate buzzwords like "whataboutery", "virtue signalling", etc.

In their own way, I feel like they kill discussion. Firstly, I think they can easily remove the need to explain anything, promoting instead a sort of cheap and easy dismissal. In this sense they often end up further problematic because they allow people to chuck them around to dismiss things falsely.

In a sense, they're a sort of modern variant of the tedious bores who feel the need to claim their opponents are making fallacies all the time (especially as they rarely identify a genuine fallacy). This similarly is rarely about having a discussion and deeply evaluating arguments, but used as a sort of reductionist point-scoring exercise.

I agree.

"Whataboutery" is too easily abused to dismiss any demand for intellectual consistency or, more specifically and problematically, to dismiss any broader discussion of how systemic issues promote/dictate the behavior of particular individuals.

For example, Donald Trump does something bad but not particularly out of the ordinary for the United States political class: bring up how it's not terribly abnormal, how there are systemic issues which cause behavior: "Whataboutery! The Problem Is Trump!"

The practical upshot is that nothing gets fixed because even putatively good replacements (someone like Barack Obama) will do the same sorts of things. What gets missed is any discussion of how to prevent the bad behavior or avoid the influence of the forces which cause it: elect someone who is cognizant of those forces, campaigns on bringing them to an end and, perhaps most importantly, avoids the support of those who benefit from the bad behavior. Systemic issues don't have to be insuperable, but they are if all bad behavior caused by them is considered solely as a function of individual choice and not the situation of the individual making those choices.

I've nothing insightful to say, as per the usual, but mayhaps a song do will

or two

It's just regular political move that isn't any new or unique to a political side (and likely been since the dawn of humanity). Creating a term for it feels like just repackaging it to weaponize the term rather than actually exposing something new. A good example is that nearly any thread here will devolve to talking about Trump regardless of its original point (if it wasn't already in the OP).

ObsidianJones:
It would be like if we elected Moderators for this forum and I ran against bastardofmelbourne. And even though I won a year ago, every time I overreached my power and banned people I didn't like and someone complained to the higher ups, Saelune would come through to yell "BUT BASTARDOFMELBOURNE, THOUGH! IMAGINE WHAT HE WOULD DO".

Obviously, I would ban you for your insolence.

Here's an ironic kicker: I agree with most of you about hating terms.

However, I do realize it's importance from time to time. Short hand is needed to sum up or draw parallels. That's why Jargon in all forms of professions are formed.

The fact of the matter is I can go through this very forum and pick out a few people who use whataboutisms as their primary defense. As annoying as terms are, That's simply more efficient to type than "The Fact of the matter is I can go through this very forum and pick out a few people who tend to deflect any fault or misdoings that they or people they identify with commit by focusing on someone at the other end of the spectrum and surmising any misdoings or faults they might commit if they were in the situation".

Also, terms aren't the problem. It's the current landscape that is the problem. It's the people who just say "You're a cuck" in efforts to disempower someone they are speaking to so they don't have to take them seriously. Masses who just yell "FASCIST" at Trump because it sounds bad... not realizing the fact that he's giving all the power in the world to the corporations is usually opposite of what a fascist desires.

People who just say and use terms as their sole defenses on both sides are what's killing debate and expression of thought, not the term themselves. Because really, other than annoyance of the word's existence, the only difference between "Whataboutism" and "deflection" is that "Whataboutism" is specific and "deflection" is broad. Dropping "You're just someone who uses whataboutism" and "You're just someone who uses deflection" as your entire argument are similarly egregious arguments as there's really no explanation of point... but still, Whataboutism is a specified term that further defines what type of deflection is occurring, instantly bringing even a sliver more meaning to the conversation.

As much hate as there are for new terms, I still stand by someone who would say this statement: "That is a whataboutism. You're deflecting using a tactic as tiresome as using that word. We're not talking about X. X isn't in power. The person who is in power is committing a crime/offending others/at fault. We'll talk about X when X does something wrong". Conversation happened there. Explanations and points were shared. Quicker understanding accomplished. Nothing wrong with that other than distaste for a buzz word.

And frankly, if the distaste for the buzz word is the only problem... you're going to have a hard time with life. Because Buzzwords pop in and pop out with the times. They always have. And they certainly always will.

bastardofmelbourne:

ObsidianJones:
It would be like if we elected Moderators for this forum and I ran against bastardofmelbourne. And even though I won a year ago, every time I overreached my power and banned people I didn't like and someone complained to the higher ups, Saelune would come through to yell "BUT BASTARDOFMELBOURNE, THOUGH! IMAGINE WHAT HE WOULD DO".

Obviously, I would ban you for your insolence.

It is YOU who would be banned!!!

ObsidianJones:
Here's an ironic kicker: I agree with most of you about hating terms.

However, I do realize it's importance from time to time. Short hand is needed to sum up or draw parallels. That's why Jargon in all forms of professions are formed.

The fact of the matter is I can go through this very forum and pick out a few people who use whataboutisms as their primary defense. As annoying as terms are, That's simply more efficient to type than "The Fact of the matter is I can go through this very forum and pick out a few people who tend to deflect any fault or misdoings that they or people they identify with commit by focusing on someone at the other end of the spectrum and surmising any misdoings or faults they might commit if they were in the situation".

Also, terms aren't the problem. It's the current landscape that is the problem. It's the people who just say "You're a cuck" in efforts to disempower someone they are speaking to so they don't have to take them seriously. Masses who just yell "FASCIST" at Trump because it sounds bad... not realizing the fact that he's giving all the power in the world to the corporations is usually opposite of what a fascist desires.

People who just say and use terms as their sole defenses on both sides are what's killing debate and expression of thought, not the term themselves. Because really, other than annoyance of the word's existence, the only difference between "Whataboutism" and "deflection" is that "Whataboutism" is specific and "deflection" is broad. Dropping "You're just someone who uses whataboutism" and "You're just someone who uses deflection" as your entire argument are similarly egregious arguments as there's really no explanation of point... but still, Whataboutism is a specified term that further defines what type of deflection is occurring, instantly bringing even a sliver more meaning to the conversation.

As much hate as there are for new terms, I still stand by someone who would say this statement: "That is a whataboutism. You're deflecting using a tactic as tiresome as using that word. We're not talking about X. X isn't in power. The person who is in power is committing a crime/offending others/at fault. We'll talk about X when X does something wrong". Conversation happened there. Explanations and points were shared. Quicker understanding accomplished. Nothing wrong with that other than distaste for a buzz word.

And frankly, if the distaste for the buzz word is the only problem... you're going to have a hard time with life. Because Buzzwords pop in and pop out with the times. They always have. And they certainly always will.

The thing is that this will not really help, if anything, using a pretty rare term (at least outside the UK) that is reserructed for a single event will just cause the other side to immediately dismiss the other side for going on a bandwagon or, just as likely, users to use Whataboutisms to commit Whataboutisms (for example, if I started a thread about X (that isn't Trump) doing Y people will immediately blame me for raising a point not connected to him as Whataboutisms and swerve the topic to how aweful Trump is).

Not to mention that a lot of people (which might include me sometimes, though I try to avoid it) use fallacies as Yu Gi Oh cards rather than guidelines how to have a conversation. Thus the conversation only exists to get the other side to commit (or at least appear to commiting) a fallact and then screaming "YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP FALLCAY!"

inu-kun:
Not to mention that a lot of people (which might include me sometimes, though I try to avoid it) use fallacies as Yu Gi Oh cards rather than guidelines how to have a conversation. Thus the conversation only exists to get the other side to commit (or at least appear to commiting) a fallact and then screaming "YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP FALLCAY!"

Quite. Arguing by fallacy is mostly just tedious and annoying game playing. There are times when it's very useful and appropriate to mention a fallacy. But you get people who respond to points by going a massive list of fallacy accusations, and acting like an opponent can't stitch two coherent thoughts together is quite aggravating.

Plenty of these people don't really understand fallacies. Most debates are run through inductive reasoning: plenty of lines of arguments are reasonable and fair arguments to support a point being likely to be true; they are not fallacies because they are not being used to prove something to definitely be true. As a simple example, arguing something is true because most people believe it (argumentum ad populum) is a fallacy; but on the other hand it is in many cases reasonable to argue that a consensus view is more likely to be right.

inu-kun:
The thing is that this will not really help, if anything, using a pretty rare term (at least outside the UK) that is reserructed for a single event will just cause the other side to immediately dismiss the other side for going on a bandwagon or, just as likely, users to use Whataboutisms to commit Whataboutisms (for example, if I started a thread about X (that isn't Trump) doing Y people will immediately blame me for raising a point not connected to him as Whataboutisms and swerve the topic to how aweful Trump is).

Not to mention that a lot of people (which might include me sometimes, though I try to avoid it) use fallacies as Yu Gi Oh cards rather than guidelines how to have a conversation. Thus the conversation only exists to get the other side to commit (or at least appear to commiting) a fallact and then screaming "YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP FALLCAY!"

How has intelligent discourse helped? How has pointing out facts, truth, and linking to studies helped? I've had some of the best discussions of my life in this forum, and hey, I've still seen a fair share of the "What about" tactic. Especially this year.

To have this much ire over a term rather than the tactic to me is folly, even though as I've said multiple times, I dislike the term as is. But when you're dealing with a base use who uses terms and shuns multisyllabic base words as "Trying to sound smart", you do need a middle ground.

Code Switching is a part of societal life. We all do it. And such can be said of the colloquialisms, slang, and jargons for any zeitgeist. This is the zeitgeist of this time. Along with Fake News, Nothing Burger, Cuck, Alpha, Trumpards, SJWs, and the like. The language of the fracturing of this time. Just like Melting Pot, Diversity, Politically Correct (not as an insult), and etc might have made sense in the 90's, but are completely outdated thoughts now.

ObsidianJones:

inu-kun:
The thing is that this will not really help, if anything, using a pretty rare term (at least outside the UK) that is reserructed for a single event will just cause the other side to immediately dismiss the other side for going on a bandwagon or, just as likely, users to use Whataboutisms to commit Whataboutisms (for example, if I started a thread about X (that isn't Trump) doing Y people will immediately blame me for raising a point not connected to him as Whataboutisms and swerve the topic to how aweful Trump is).

Not to mention that a lot of people (which might include me sometimes, though I try to avoid it) use fallacies as Yu Gi Oh cards rather than guidelines how to have a conversation. Thus the conversation only exists to get the other side to commit (or at least appear to commiting) a fallact and then screaming "YOU ACTIVATED MY TRAP FALLCAY!"

How has intelligent discourse helped? How has pointing out facts, truth, and linking to studies helped? I've had some of the best discussions of my life in this forum, and hey, I've still seen a fair share of the "What about" tactic. Especially this year.

To have this much ire over a term rather than the tactic to me is folly, even though as I've said multiple times, I dislike the term as is. But when you're dealing with a base use who uses terms and shuns multisyllabic base words as "Trying to sound smart", you do need a middle ground.

Code Switching is a part of societal life. We all do it. And such can be said of the colloquialisms, slang, and jargons for any zeitgeist. This is the zeitgeist of this time. Along with Fake News, Nothing Burger, Cuck, Alpha, Trumpards, SJWs, and the like. The language of the fracturing of this time. Just like Melting Pot, Diversity, Politically Correct (not as an insult), and etc might have made sense in the 90's, but are completely outdated thoughts now.

Some people won't listen to facts (not to mention that a lot of things are misrepresented as fact, for example, "global warming is real and man made" isn't a fact but "there is a concensus around experts in the field that global warming is real and man made" is a fact), ditto for truth and studies are very problematic as we can't legally put a few hundreds of people in cages to see effects.

The problem is this is like saying "we should use cuck more often to point out things", it might be true, but it's stooping to pop words that won't register as much besides verifying your political camp.

Whataboutisms might appear more, but like I said, it won't be useful for actual arguments besides echo chambers.

Edit: thinking about the term, it has a giant problem which is "this doesn't apply when a finite choices are made which are around as bad or worse than the one chosen". I like to call it the "Telltale clause", for example:
You need to choose to save a man or a woman you met 5 minutes ago and barely talked to and choose the woman for looking better, you are then asked "You are a horrible person, why didn't you save the guy?" to which a legitimate answer is "what about the girl? Should I've let her die?". Since the reason you did what you did isn't too good but someone was going to die eitherway.

Trump just blamed Obama again for something that, for one, wasnt an actual problem, Trump is just a pissy little piece of shit baby, and also, wasnt actually Obama's doing.

But hey, good news for London eh?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain/trump-cancels-britain-trip-blames-obama-for-peanuts-london-embassy-deal-idUSKBN1F10H6

Whataboutism is the standard method of discourse on any BBC Have Your Say; any perceived criticism levelled at the leading conservative party is responded to with "At least Commie Corbyn isn't in power! Can you imagine what he'd have done?" Any real failing can be defeated by pointing to a hypothetical failing. I don't for a second believe that either side is more immune to this behaviour than the other however; it seems like human nature for you to claim the grass is shittier on the other side, when its your lawn we're presently standing on.

Saelune:
Trump just blamed Obama again for something that, for one, wasnt an actual problem, Trump is just a pissy little piece of shit baby, and also, wasnt actually Obama's doing.

But hey, good news for London eh?

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-britain/trump-cancels-britain-trip-blames-obama-for-peanuts-london-embassy-deal-idUSKBN1F10H6

Can't tell if you're using whataboutism here intentionally to make a point or not.

But I know a few people (myself included) who are disappointed he's not coming to the UK, we would love to see just how big the protests would be, we would love to show him just what the UK thinks of him in person. If I could afford to take the day off and head down to London I'd love to join in the protests down there myself. Its a shame he's too much of a coward to see people who disagree with him.

OT
Trump is the mind of a spoiled child in the body of a president, he can never admit that he was wrong, he can never admit that he doens't know something or that he's not the best at something. Unfortunately for him there is loads of evidence that he is wrong, that he doesn't know anything and the only thing he's actually good at is convincing certain people that he's not a moron so he can't actually counter people's arguments. When you have no way of countering obvious fact, the only other thing he can do is to try to point the finger elsewhere and the media seems to fall for it every time. He's been able to play the media since the start of his campaign and they still haven't learned to deal with it.

The media need to stop getting distracted by everything he says and does, focus on something. If he starts trying to deflect onto something else tough it out and keep your focus on this one thing. Trump does too much stupid stuff for you to focus on everything.

Xsjadoblayde:
I've nothing insightful to say, as per the usual, but mayhaps a song do will

I don't always agree with you, good Bear, but anyone posting some Straits gets a kudos- it does me fine to hear it. Kudos.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
You make a great point but I would suggest removing the John Oliver video. That just smacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Literally responding with a fucking whataboutism.

ObsidianJones:
Also, terms aren't the problem. It's the current landscape that is the problem. It's the people who just say "You're a cuck" in efforts to disempower someone they are speaking to so they don't have to take them seriously. Masses who just yell "FASCIST" at Trump because it sounds bad... not realizing the fact that he's giving all the power in the world to the corporations is usually opposite of what a fascist desires

The crux of fascism has, from the very beginning, been the protection corporate power. Hitler pursued a policy of privatization (albeit to loyal goons) and Mussolini brought businessmen into government.

2012 Wont Happen:

ObsidianJones:
Also, terms aren't the problem. It's the current landscape that is the problem. It's the people who just say "You're a cuck" in efforts to disempower someone they are speaking to so they don't have to take them seriously. Masses who just yell "FASCIST" at Trump because it sounds bad... not realizing the fact that he's giving all the power in the world to the corporations is usually opposite of what a fascist desires

The crux of fascism has, from the very beginning, been the protection corporate power. Hitler pursued a policy of privatization (albeit to loyal goons) and Mussolini brought businessmen into government.

Which I find very different than what Trump is doing.

The advent of Italian fascism provided an opportunity to implement the theories of the corporate state. In 1919 Mussolini and his associates in Milan needed the support of the syndicalist wing of the Nationalist Party in order to gain power. Their aim in adopting corporatism-which they viewed as a useful form of social organization that could provide the vehicle for a broad-based and socially harmonious class participation in economic production-was to strengthen Mussolini's claim to nationalism at the expense of the left wing of the centrist parties and the right wing of the syndicalists.

... At the head of each corporation was a council, on which employers and employees had equal representation.

(Source)

He is essentially giving governing powers to Corporations. FCC which is supposed to oversee now shrugs their shoulders and tells the companies to run rampant. In short, Trump is casting no reigns to bring corporations into the sway of Government. He's doing the opposite, allowing corporations to operate with less restrictions than we've seen in a while.

Trump isn't trying to bring Corporations under the control of the United States Government. Trump is trying to make Corporations untouchable by the United States Government. Different Animal.

McMarbles:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
You make a great point but I would suggest removing the John Oliver video. That just smacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Literally responding with a fucking whataboutism.

How?

inu-kun:

McMarbles:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
You make a great point but I would suggest removing the John Oliver video. That just smacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Literally responding with a fucking whataboutism.

How?

"Well, whatabout John Oliver, though? He's a hypocrite!"

the December King:
I don't always agree with you, good Bear, but anyone posting some Straits gets a kudos- it does me fine to hear it. Kudos.

ah howdy fellow Straits appreciator! Always a pleasure to meet another with such finely tuned tastes ;) I don't always agree with me either

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

McMarbles:

Literally responding with a fucking whataboutism.

How?

"Well, whatabout John Oliver, though? He's a hypocrite!"

But RiseOfTheWhiteWolf didn't call ObsidianJones a hypocrite or even argue his point, just that John Oliver uses the tactic.

McMarbles:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
You make a great point but I would suggest removing the John Oliver video. That just smacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Literally responding with a fucking whataboutism.

John Oliver often uses whataboutism to brush over the flaws of his favored peeps, closely following the method the OP laid out only targeting other people. And he's been doing it for quite a while now, long before the election, its one of his go-to things. I agree with the OPs post but feel a John Oliver video right in the middle of it undermines the point he's trying to make.

Like, literally.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

McMarbles:

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:
You make a great point but I would suggest removing the John Oliver video. That just smacks of blatant hypocrisy.

Literally responding with a fucking whataboutism.

John Oliver often uses whataboutism to brush over the flaws of his favored peeps, closely following the method the OP laid out only targeting other people. And he's been doing it for quite a while now, long before the election, its one of his go-to things. I agree with the OPs post but feel a John Oliver video right in the middle of it undermines the point he's trying to make.

Like, literally.

I'm actually aware. But the issue is that he's described it better than I ever seen anywhere else.

This is out of left field, but I had a post in the gaming section of the forums toxic players. I posted a video of MaximusBlack, a former pro Starcraft 2 player talking about how it feels to work your way through games to rank up and have clueless people or players not at your level hamper your chances. A poster came to me and said that he was a bad person to reference as he was one of the biggest whiners when he was a pro.

To which I had that made him a perfect person to listen to if he could express his thoughts. If we have just a bunch of people with similar minds continuously expressing our shared views, it's nothing but an echo chamber. If we have someone who's from "the other side" who can be self aware enough to express what's wrong, maybe some insight will come our way.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here