I don’t know about you, but the first thing I think of when playing Call of Duty multiplayer is, “Man, this is so realistic!”

People chucking tomahawks half a mile into opponents’ faces, soldiers dropping nuclear bombs on a team of a half-dozen enemies, twelve-year-olds calling my mom gay—I mean, could you ask for a more authentic war simulation?

There’s just one problem: The upcoming Call of Duty: Modern Warfare doesn’t depict the use of the incendiary weapon white phosphorus brutally enough, and that’s apparently a big no-no.

This is essentially the argument in a recent IGN article that’s been making the rounds: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and the Cruel Realities of White Phosphorous. In it, former marine John Phipps argues, “I don’t object to things like white phosphorus being examined in games, so long as we depict them as they truly are.” And how white phosphorus truly is is terrifying.

According to Phipps, when hit with white phosphorus, your skin melts and bubbles, your jaw rots away, and your organs shut down as you die in agony. Phipps has a problem with white phosphorus being used in Call of Duty’s multiplayer because players hit with the incendiary weapon won’t die in such a realistically horrific fashion.

This is a bizarre stance for several reasons.

For one, Call of Duty’s multiplayer is nothing close to realistic. Take 2017’s Call of Duty: WWII as an example. In that game’s multiplayer, the German forces don’t sport swastikas, and you can even play as black female Nazi avatars. It’s as far from an authentic portrayal of war as you could get, but games journalists had no problem with it.

In every Call of Duty game, multiplayer matches play out like a round of laser tag. You rack up dozens of kills while dying and respawning yourself, all in a hectic, frenzied, confined space that is nothing at all like a real battlefield. When you’re shot, your screen shakes and blurs a bit before your health magically restores. Theoretically, you could take hundreds of shots before dying in Call of Duty, so long as you wait a few seconds between injuries. Don’t even get me started on the ordinances and actual nuclear bombs you can drop on your opponents.

It’s obvious that Call of Duty’s multiplayer is just meant to be a fun, arcade-esque version of armed combat, not a realistic war simulation. So why is it “problematic” that players can use white phosphorus against their opponents and it is not depicted as horrifically as it is in real life? Why is it the unrealistic depiction of a weapon that’s getting games journalists riled up and not black female Nazis? Game journalists also didn’t care about the lack of realism when Battlefield V included prosthetic-clad female soldiers. People’s priorities seem a bit misguided, to say the least.

I find it ironic that games journalists are now yearning for video game realism when just a few months ago they were writing pieces saying Call of Duty’s realism goes too far. Modern Warfare’s campaign mode will depict some of the more horrible aspects of war, including the use of chemical weapons and child soldiers. This upset games journalist Dean Takahashi, who wrote a piece saying the game is going too far.

So which is it? Is Call of Duty too realistic, or is it not realistic enough? Should the campaign’s realism be turned down and the multiplayer’s be turned up, or vice versa? Does anyone even have a shred of an idea of what they’re talking about? I doubt it. With all these complaints about realism or lack thereof, it seems to me everyone just wants to gripe and that there’s simply no way Infinity Ward can create the game they want without upsetting someone who ultimately just wants to be offended.

There’s another delicious layer of irony behind Phipps’ argument, though. On one hand, he’s opposing a depiction of video game violence, but in real life, Phipps has no problem hurling milkshakes at the heads of people who disagree with him. I guess real-world assault is okay but video game characters need to be defended from digital violence.

Like I said: misguided priorities.