DotA Trash-Talking Results in Real-Life Beatdown

[Labcoat Samurai]

For the record, I don't condone violence, especially not over something as insignificant as winning or losing a videogame. That said, I think maybe it's time to review one of the easy-to-remember yet ever-so-useful rules for good living, both online and off: If you're about to say something to someone online that would get you punched in the mouth if you said it to their face, don't say it.

For the record, this statement explicitly condones and encourages violence. You are justifying face punching(violence) by claiming that some words are so powerful that their utterance it the same level of threat as physical force. And that people should cower in fear and censor themselves on the offchance some violent thug might be listening.

Wouldn't it be better to say "No matter what someone says it doesn't justify violence" Or the how about "The thugs that jumped the kid are chickenshits who couldn't handle losing a game, this act has proven that their penises are extremely tiny"?

I understand and largely agree with your point, but that doesn't mean we are completely oblivious to the consequences of what we say. The internet and the presumption of anonymity just removes the normal inhibition to say provocative things and risk experiencing consequences.

In other words, if I say some really horrible things to your face, you may not be *justified* in punching me in the face, but I'd have to be an idiot to claim I could never have seen it coming. That's all he's talking about.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I'm very much of two minds about this incident... the beating was definitely unacceptable even ignoring the serious injury inflicted, but some kids really do need to learn unequivocably that their "free speech" can have real-world consequences

The fact that you put free speech in quotes betrays you as having authoritarian sympathies.

If by "having authoritarian sympathies" you mean "thinking that there are bounds beyond which speech is not protected", then I proudly plead guilty as charged... with plenty of support from even the wild and woolly history of US jurisprudence. (Which, by the by, has no bearing on this case, as it took place in Canada.)

There is no room here for nuance or equivocation. One party used words, the other party used clubs and fists.

That only puts the second party further in the wrong than the first party... two wrongs don't make a right, as the cliche goes. Just because Scooter McMouthy got beaten doesn't mean that he's the "good guy".

Either you accept and tacitly encourage violence because, for whatever reason, some people "deserve" it. Or you condemn violence without qualification. The article author is obviously in the first camp.

I know some folks make entire political careers out of exploiting the fallacy of the false dichotomy but that doesn't make it any more acceptable to me.

The gang was wrong to beat the kid up. The kid was wrong to run his mouth. I condemn both sides.

-- Steve

 

[gibboss28]

As someone who used to play DoTA a lot...I can't condone this action, I really can't.

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

For the record, I don't condone violence, especially not over something as insignificant as winning or losing a videogame. That said, I think maybe it's time to review one of the easy-to-remember yet ever-so-useful rules for good living, both online and off: If you're about to say something to someone online that would get you punched in the mouth if you said it to their face, don't say it.

Seriously Andy? Trash talking on a video game justifies a violent assault? This wasn't a simple pop in the mouth that resulted in a bit lip, they broke his fingers . With batons. That could easily have evolved into an even bloodier assault if adrenaline had driven one of the attackers to further violence.

I think the better lesson to take from this is that if you get worked up enough over a game to break someone's fingers over it, maybe you need to seek both counseling and another hobby.

Not a very *useful* lesson, particularly since we didn't hear anything about what happened to the attackers...

I think it's a common problem that people overlook politeness and respect in online settings because they don't think there could ever be any consequences due to the anonymity. Personally, it bothers me a bit that fear of consequences is evidently the only thing that keeps people polite and respectful..... nevertheless, "don't be a douche" is great advice, and I hope people follow it... even if it's because now they think their anonymity isn't bulletproof....

 

[Labcoat Samurai]

The gang was wrong to beat the kid up. The kid was wrong to run his mouth. I condemn both sides.

-- Steve

This.

Though I'd emphasize that them both being wrong does not make them both *equally* wrong, and I think the rest of your post more or less makes it clear you agree on that.

 

[JaredXE]

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen"

-Samuel Adams

"If you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all."

-Thumper

 

[SageRuffin]

That is awesome. It's about time someone got their ass whooped for talking shit.

Looks like the GIFT [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GIFT] came back and bit dude in the ass (or hands, as the case may be).

EDIT: Okay, after reading some of the previous comments, maybe the gang did overdo it by breaking his fingers; a knock upside the head might've been just as good if not better (although this does beg the question of what exactly was said to warrant such rage). But still, hearing about how a guy got his ass kicked for talking out the side of his neck online totally made my day.

 

[somonels]

Well, he won't be playing in the near future, that's for sure.
A deserved beating, breaking his fingers was a bit much.

 

[MomoHime64]

No, he's totally justifying it. The statement implicitly condones violence against someone who hurt your feelings. Online . If your that thin skinned you shouldn't be playing online games.

I think you're missing the point. You can bully someone into real harm without ever having used anything but words. Andy Chalk is simply pointing out that most of us are unaware, or choose to ignore, the effect our words can have. If it manifests in a physical retaliation, it's not because "feelings got hurt" - it's a reaction to what can be classified as psychological abuse. I'm sure if whomever this kid verbally attacked committed suicide, you'd be morally outraged at the kid who, in this instance, had his fingers broken, for his bullying.

So no, he's not justifying violence - he's pointing out that physical and verbal violence can be equivocal in their harm, so we shouldn't be surprised at the reprisal beyond the fact that it took time and planning to execute. If you want to deny that words and intangible acts can affect a person just as much as physical harm, let me point you out to the rise of laws specifically targeting anti-bullying, both online and off, which often focus on verbal and emotional bullying more than physical. Frankly, if someone can be so vicious online, THEY shouldn't be playing games online. A little trash talk is tolerable and even welcome in some instances, but I've witnessed some abuse online that would get a person arrested if they talked that way in meat-space.

 

[Enkidu88]

Not a very *useful* lesson, particularly since we didn't hear anything about what happened to the attackers...

I think it's a common problem that people overlook politeness and respect in online settings because they don't think there could ever be any consequences due to the anonymity. Personally, it bothers me a bit that fear of consequences is evidently the only thing that keeps people polite and respectful..... nevertheless, "don't be a douche" is great advice, and I hope people follow it... even if it's because now they think their anonymity isn't bulletproof....

Well it happened only happened within a few days (or the article writer was really late on his deadline ). Though I don't think it's a stretch to assume that if a bunch of angry teenagers managed to backtrace this kid's IP address that the police department will be able to do the same to the attackers. Also they didn't bother to disguise their faces. Unless that precinct is completely incompetent I don't think they'll go without punishment.

Yeah, people should be more polite online (and in real life), but it also shouldn't be because of the threat of violence.

 

[HentMas]

I loved the statement of the vancouver police "It's something that is exceptionally rare, given the number of people who play videogames. Most people can separate reality from online fiction."

at least they are not like "DAMN VIDEOGAMES MAKIN OUR KIDS KILL THEMSELVES!!!!"

 

[bob1052]

If kids are willing to break someone's fingers over a game, they would have done it over something just as trivial such as lunch money or high school name calling. Nothing but angry teenagers and the fact that it was over DotA is completely irrelevant.

 

[UnravThreads]

On one hand I think he deserved it on the other hand I'm just laughing.

The 'kissing the feet' bit is a bit creepy though. I mean either make him kiss the feet and get away with his loss of dignity or beat him without saying anything. Doing both is just weak. I normally woudln't approve of this, especially since they went too far and ganged up on him, but I guess he sort of deserved it in this case.

I sort of have to agree.

Roughing him up a bit, OK, I can understand that. But what they did sounds premeditated and really quite brutal, and I think they really went too far. After all, all he did was trash talk, it's not like he assaulted their sisters or anything, is it?

 

[Charli]

"I guess some people take these things exceptionally seriously," said Constable Lindsey Houghton of the Vancouver Police. "It's something that is exceptionally rare, given the number of people who play videogames. Most people can separate reality from online fiction."

I have never sighed in relief that much whilst reading one of these articles. This lady deserves a pat on the back and a bar of chocolate. Someone find her and do that for me. Blame the perpetrator(s) not the medium of the dispute.

Good. Bloody. Law Enforcer.

 

[noble cookie]

I'm all for twats getting their just desserts,
but this is too far. I mean, making him kiss your feet? and then breaking his fingers. Too far and these, even bigger twats, deserve something bad. Not too bad, but bad enough.

 

[Enkidu88]

No, he's totally justifying it. The statement implicitly condones violence against someone who hurt your feelings. Online . If your that thin skinned you shouldn't be playing online games.

I think you're missing the point. You can bully someone into real harm without ever having used anything but words. Andy Chalk is simply pointing out that most of us are unaware, or choose to ignore, the effect our words can have. If it manifests in a physical retaliation, it's not because "feelings got hurt" - it's a reaction to what can be classified as psychological abuse. I'm sure if whomever this kid verbally attacked committed suicide, you'd be morally outraged at the kid who, in this instance, had his fingers broken, for his bullying.

That's a good point actually, and your right I may have misread the intent of the paragraph. Probably just the tone and timing of the writing, which came across to me as gloating, after someone was viciously attacked just left a bad taste in my mouth. I think there was a far better way of writing this article, highlighting the point you raise rather than saying he deserved to have his fingers broken.

Still it's also the nature of the attack that disturbs me. It didn't sound to me like a case of a someone who snapped after being psychologically abused for years. This wasn't a suicide, or even someone acting out in the heat of passion. First of all, they had to backtrace the IP and then either drive or fly to the area, implying that this was a meticulously planned and not something done on the spur of the moment. Second, the fact they forced him to kiss their shoes doesn't speak to someone who was suffering from low self-esteem, quite the opposite. Third, he wasn't alone, he had three or four friends assist him and they didn't use fists, they brought batons with them. Fists or using an item close at hand might indicate that they only came to confront him, and things got out of hand. The fact they brought weapons means they always intended to come to brutalize him.

 

[buhee]

I think I'm the only one who doesn't seem to think finger breaking is that brutal. I mean, it stops the kid from typing for a start - problem solved.

In all seriousness though, It was wrong of the guys that did it, you shouldn't track people down and attack them just because they said some bad things. But then the idiot kid shouldn't have said those things in the first place. Swings and roundabouts.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

The gang was wrong to beat the kid up. The kid was wrong to run his mouth.

I'm sure the next time you or someone you care about is seriously injured by a hooligan who thinks violence is an acceptable solution to problems of interpersonal relations you can take comfort in knowing you did your part to help create an atmosphere where aggressor felt justified because the victim did something "wrong".

 

[Dioxide20]

Wait... someone acknowledges the fact that not all gamers are psychotic freaks?

That could never happen here in America, because people feel that if there is a slim chance that something like this could happen, a ban is immediately called for.