Playing Online with nazi Sympathizers and Conspiracy Theorists

[CrossLOPER]

(should have made an Only Fans for him).

I have a good comeback now.

In all seriousness, I am well aware of the high class talking points one finds in pub matches. I am not concerned about the 12 year old edgelords that use "Jew", "n*****" or "f**" as a retort to anything under the sun.

If I knew the "right" way to deal with people convinced of a vision of reality inconsistent to your own

That is an interesting way to frame schizophrenia in the scope of belief that 5G causes COVID, or that there needs to be a hidden highly complex mechanism for affecting income inequality instead of simple bills passed with the word "freedom" or "right" in the name and that nazism would solve all of this. It's finding simplicity in complexity and vice versa. Using a screwdriver when you need a hammer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am not concerned about the 12 year old edgelords that use "Jew", "n*****" or "f**" as a retort to anything under the sun.

You should be. It is because of targeted prop-memes that normalize disgust towards minority groups among young, frustrated men. Toxicity was around during the early days of xbox live, but back then the joke was that everyone apparently had relations with your mom. Now it's straight screaming racial slurs.

[Hooahguy]

You should be. It is because of targeted prop-memes that normalize disgust towards minority groups among young, frustrated men. Toxicity was around during the early days of xbox live, but back then the joke was that everyone apparently had relations with your mom. Now it's straight screaming racial slurs.

Agreed. While I'd wager that most of the 12 year old edgelords will grow out of that phase, a portion wont and will further radicalize. Letting such behavior go unchecked will only foster an environment which promotes such behavior which will lead to more vulnerable people headed down the far right pipeline.

A good video on the subject of radicalization:

[Beskar]

You posted this in another thread, it is a good series from the ones I watched. I think "I hate Mondays" video always summarised what always frustrated me but didn't know how to express it.
"Always a Bigger Fish" is good too.

[CrossLOPER]

young, frustrated men

I think this is a large part of the problem.

Now it's straight screaming racial slurs.

I am not defending it, but this has always been the case as far as I can remember. It is unacceptable, but not at all novel.

[edyzmedieval]

You should be. It is because of targeted prop-memes that normalize disgust towards minority groups among young, frustrated men. Toxicity was around during the early days of xbox live, but back then the joke was that everyone apparently had relations with your mom. Now it's straight screaming racial slurs.

This is something that has kind of made me rather uncomfortable because I agree with it. Why uncomfortable?

I used to play Call of Duty (particularly Modern Warfare and Black Ops) back in their heyday, the game lobbies were an absolute scream fest of your mom jokes and all sorts of weird comebacks that someone learned in the playground at school and now tried to play it cool. Yes, it was a scream fest and rather toxic, but there was rarely the racial slur. It was kind of... I don't know, fun? In the end most people realised that nobody is taking this seriously and we're all there to have fun so everyone piled in with cheap headsets over the mic.

And here's the weird part - people knew it was joking, it was a combative style of messing around. Nowadays when I play online those kind of jokes have disappeared completely and it has been replaced by extreme rudeness, racial slurs, attacks on someone's name and other confrontational, direct way of abuse. I don't understand what happened.

Yes, those CoD lobbies in 2010 / 2011 / 2012 were kind of toxic but they were 80% of the time made as "yo I'm better at CoD" jokes. 2020's multiplayer game lobby is an absolutely ghastly pool of racism and hatred.

[CrossLOPER]

And here's the weird part - people knew it was joking

I am not sure about that. Overall, it was one big joke, but there seemed to be a growing group that didn't really get the joke. It became reality for them.

I have also notice that in general people have become unfriendly and tense in the past decade or so.

[edyzmedieval]

That's exactly the thing - in the beginning, up until the peak of it, it was jokes and stupid comebacks.

Then something happened, slowly slowly more and more people didn't get the joke and the cesspool of racism became visible. I don't get it where it came from.

Sure, it always existed, but there was progress in both real world and online world to eradicate this.

[CrossLOPER]

The issue is that it was a dangerous game to play to begin with. I am sure some people took the throwaway remarks to heart or thought they were in the presence of those who "saw the truth". Ironic that it was making fun of the racists.

[edyzmedieval]

The issue is that it was a dangerous game to play to begin with. I am sure some people took the throwaway remarks to heart or thought they were in the presence of those who "saw the truth". Ironic that it was making fun of the racists.

Most of the banter / jokes were an extension of what kids did at school / university. Gaming is a rather new phenomenon and back then you would have mostly high schoolers and uni kids playing Call of Duty.

To be honest, in many ways, multiplayer in these days is such a toxic place - look at Twitch chat - that it takes out a lot of fun from it.

[Greyblades]

This double post was a very dumb mistake but seeing as noone has jumped on my last post in the last hour, might as well use it.

Unfortunately there really isnt a great way to combat it as the people you are arguing with arent usually arguing in good faith. I would definitely recommend watching the Alt-Right Playbook series on Youtube:

Agreed. While I'd wager that most of the 12 year old edgelords will grow out of that phase, a portion wont and will further radicalize. Letting such behavior go unchecked will only foster an environment which promotes such behavior which will lead to more vulnerable people headed down the far right pipeline.

A good video on the subject of radicalization:

I can speak from experience from both ends: this is not a great way to combat it.

The reason is simple: when you argue with a "bad faith arguer" (a term often misused to excuse a failure to convince someone as thie other's fault) you arent debating thier own ideas; you are debating thier imperfect recollection (often misinterpretation) of another's ideas. To actually "defeat" one such you must have an understanding of what the other person is pulling from, correct the other's misconceptions, point out weaknesses in the source, etc.

The point is to not have the "loser" interpreting an outcome that goes against them as a failing in thier recollection of another's words instead of a failing in thier understanding of the topic itself; get them to reevaluate instead of retreating to their source to reenforce thier understanding. You also dont want them to intepret it as some sort of intentional failing on your end: a "bad faith arguer", this just shuts everying down and drives them away.

Use a playbook and you are doing the exact same thing they are, merely in a different direction, relying on imperfect recollection to defeat another's imperfect recollection, you yourself prone to interpreting a bad outcome as a failing of your recollection or thier "faith". The biggest weakness in my experience of a man reliant on a single source is that they lack the same foundational knowledge the source had when they came to thier conclusions; they have nothing to fall back on when they encounter something not in the script, and being on a script youself you will often find yourself cornered.

You will have only second hand knowledge of where their ideas come from, nothing worse for convincing someone thier sources are wrong than showing your own ignorance of its contents and contexts in a way that exposes your own source cherrypicking what they showed you of the other, making you a "bad faith arguer" even by accident.

Two people trying to emulate two other people at eachother isnt a dialogue that can change the others mind; both sides are primed to write off the outcome, only minds you will change is the audience members not already sympathetic to one of the debators.

It wont be to "one guy is right and the other is wrong" it'll be to "I dont want to talk about this to either".

[Pannonian]

This double post was a very dumb mistake but seeing as noone has jumped on my last post in the last hour, might as well use it.

I can speak from experience from both ends: this is not a great way to combat it.

The reason is simple: when you argue with a "bad faith arguer" (a term often misused to excuse a failure to convince someone as thie other's fault) you arent debating thier own ideas; you are debating thier imperfect recollection (often misinterpretation) of another's ideas. To actually "defeat" one such you must have an understanding of what the other person is pulling from, correct the other's misconceptions, point out weaknesses in the source, etc.

The point is to not have the "loser" interpreting an outcome that goes against them as a failing in thier recollection of another's words instead of a failing in thier understanding of the topic itself; get them to reevaluate instead of retreating to their source to reenforce thier understanding. You also dont want them to intepret it as some sort of intentional failing on your end: a "bad faith arguer", this just shuts everying down and drives them away.

Use a playbook and you are doing the exact same thing they are, merely in a different direction, relying on imperfect recollection to defeat another's imperfect recollection, you yourself prone to interpreting a bad outcome as a failing of your recollection or thier "faith". The biggest weakness in my experience of a man reliant on a single source is that they lack the same foundational knowledge the source had when they came to thier conclusions; they have nothing to fall back on when they encounter something not in the script, and being on a script youself you will often find yourself cornered.

You will have only second hand knowledge of where their ideas come from, nothing worse for convincing someone thier sources are wrong than showing your own ignorance of its contents and contexts in a way that exposes your own source cherrypicking what they showed you of the other, making you a "bad faith arguer" even by accident.

Two people quoting two other people at eachother isnt a dialogue that can change the others mind; both sides are primed to write off the outcome, only minds you will change is the audience members not already sympathetic to one of the debators.

It wont be to "one guy is right and the other is wrong" it'll be to "I dont want to talk about this to either".

So, on the subject of bad faith arguments, try addressing these two related questions. Directly answering them with concrete answers, or at least answers that accept concrete foundations, as opposed to arguments of principle that can't be nailed down, as in my experience self-aware self-critics like Seamus are all too rare, and it is far more common for arguers of principle to just pretend that their arguments of principle do not stretch in the way that their critics say it does.

1. What do we gain from Brexit?
2. Given our current situation, should we proceed with Brexit?

How will you answer these two questions? Will they involve concrete answers whose truth can be objectively assessed, or will they rest on arguments of principle that can be shifted to mean whatever one wants it to mean?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Agreed. While I'd wager that most of the 12 year old edgelords will grow out of that phase, a portion wont and will further radicalize. Letting such behavior go unchecked will only foster an environment which promotes such behavior which will lead to more vulnerable people headed down the far right pipeline.

You nailed it right here. How many men in their early 20s use "simp" to describe the act of treating a woman with kindness.

I think this is a large part of the problem.

I am not defending it, but this has always been the case as far as I can remember. It is unacceptable, but not at all novel.

It's more the ratios of what kind of insults are in vogue, which have definitely shifted over the past 15 years.
And yes, young, frustrated men are usually the key demographic for authoritarian sects to persuade to act as soldiers (online and off) with an ideological purpose.

This is something that has kind of made me rather uncomfortable because I agree with it. Why uncomfortable?

I used to play Call of Duty (particularly Modern Warfare and Black Ops) back in their heyday, the game lobbies were an absolute scream fest of your mom jokes and all sorts of weird comebacks that someone learned in the playground at school and now tried to play it cool. Yes, it was a scream fest and rather toxic, but there was rarely the racial slur. It was kind of... I don't know, fun? In the end most people realised that nobody is taking this seriously and we're all there to have fun so everyone piled in with cheap headsets over the mic.

And here's the weird part - people knew it was joking, it was a combative style of messing around. Nowadays when I play online those kind of jokes have disappeared completely and it has been replaced by extreme rudeness, racial slurs, attacks on someone's name and other confrontational, direct way of abuse. I don't understand what happened.

Yes, those CoD lobbies in 2010 / 2011 / 2012 were kind of toxic but they were 80% of the time made as "yo I'm better at CoD" jokes. 2020's multiplayer game lobby is an absolutely ghastly pool of racism and hatred.

It's the same that happened to all the edgy internet forums. The in-joke died when they could no longer tell between edgy and the real deal. When it's not clear what the underlying understanding is (this is all in jest), new people will take things for face value.

[Montmorency]

You nailed it right here. How many men in their early 20s use "simp" to describe the act of treating a woman with kindness.

I'd never even heard that one before last year; sounds like a new coinage.

Facts:
1. ESL students speak English better than native speakers.
2. Rap has by far the most sophisticated verbiage of any music genre. Pugilistic linguistics.

I get what you're trying to do here, but these are questionable as standalone propositions. There is a huge variation in lyrical content within all genres, and there are any number of popular hiphop songs with even fewer unique words and simpler sentence structure than a Sabaton song.

But the first point, in throwing around notions like "better" English (what does that mean?), is where you really have to be careful. That is, the idea of a group speaking a language "better" than another is something that needs to be interrogated and carefully defined. It's easy to devolve into simply praising someone for following certain conventions of style or register, such as not saying "ain't."

[CrossLOPER]

I'd never even heard that one before last year; sounds like a new coinage.

"Simp" has been cropping up a lot lately. It's an extension of pseudo-macho incel culture where you have to take "the high ground" when it comes to dealing with women. Every interaction you have with a woman is a failure in the eyes of these people, if it does not end with sex. Again, the irony is that their beliefs are likely what keep them from having any sort of sexual or romantic relationship.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'd never even heard that one before last year; sounds like a new coinage.

It is a new term, but the point is that many men never grew out of the toxic phase and now genuinely espouse this dumb incel mentality. I should have said mid to late 20s to make the point even more clear.

I get what you're trying to do here, but these are questionable as standalone propositions. There is a huge variation in lyrical content within all genres, and there are any number of popular hiphop songs with even fewer unique words and simpler sentence structure than a Sabaton song.

Sure, I love listening to six9ine as much as the next guy as well. But I believe the mechanics of rap definitely impart a culture (in some circles) that is willing to take on additional vocabulary to a degree other genres don't. As a rule of thumb, rap can (not always) place more emphasis on the spoken word than the underlying music.

Also it's no fun when it's no longer a blanket generality. :(

But the first point, in throwing around notions like "better" English (what does that mean?), is where you really have to be careful. That is, the idea of a group speaking a language "better" than another is something that needs to be interrogated and carefully defined. It's easy to devolve into simply praising someone for following certain conventions of style or register, such as not saying "ain't."

By better I mean the articulation of meaning is more precise in 'formal speech' and more available to audiences from varying backgrounds in the language, the vocabulary is typically more professional and again more reachable to a wider audience in that sense.

I don't consider anything inherently better in the context of 'informal speech'. Whatever works, works whether you are shakespeare or like me telling people "shit's fucked, man".

You tell me if I am wrong in this sense:

Informal speech does not need to adhere to any rules or conventions. The goal is merely to convey meaning, so in-jokes, regional slang, pronunciation, and all types of grammatical structure is fair game as long as both parties can understand.

Formal speech does require certain rules to the game as it is usually conveyed in either a textual format or in verbal situations where neither party has full knowledge of the other's background. Without an understanding of whether or not the other person can understand the in-jokes, slang, etc. we default to a common set of rules and structure to ensure a common understanding among all parties. Now even those rules evolve over time, I am not ignorant to that either but typically it evolves at a much slower pace than informal speech, which is why books from hundreds of years ago can be read somewhat easily but a transcript of informal speech 30 years ago could feel horribly dated and require further insight into the context behind word usage.

[Montmorency]

Also it's no fun when it's no longer a blanket generality. :(

I don't have much engagement with music: in theory, in practice, or even as a common listener. The furthest I would venture is that rap might have the highest potential for structural complexity, because at some point maybe it all starts to sound like rap. I could easily be convinced otherwise.


I know those 6ix9ine songs must be hits to have a billion+ views on Youtube, but for me they're just painful to listen to (and the music videos are Boschian hellscapes.)

By better I mean the articulation of meaning is more precise in 'formal speech' and more available to audiences from varying backgrounds in the language, the vocabulary is typically more professional and again more reachable to a wider audience in that sense.

If you mean 'ESL students as a cohort have better formal Standard English attainment - written or spoken - than native English speakers as a cohort,' that would need scholary corroboration. Relatively few English speakers, whether native or learners, achieve an elite command of these conventions - as is plain to see. But there are many more ESL learners than native speakers of English, and most of the former are not quite fluent (they can watch television shows or hold very basic conversations) whereas the native speakers are definitionally fluent barring some disability. If your claim would produce a corollary like a higher proportion of ESL vs. native speakers being able to write a college-standard essay in English, that sounds like malarkey; absolute numbers I could believe without a cite.

[Greyblades]

WoT? Get War thunder scrub. Less twitch speed needed on realistic tank mode, save for gokart BTs, Stuarts and M22s, Heavy tank play can get downright methodical early-mid war.

Plus no Premium ammo bs. Less arty too but you will come to hate the effectiveness of Close Air Support in Tank warfare.

That is an interesting way to frame schizophrenia in the scope of belief that 5G causes COVID, or that there needs to be a hidden highly complex mechanism for affecting income inequality instead of simple bills passed with the word "freedom" or "right" in the name and that nazism would solve all of this. It's finding simplicity in complexity and vice versa. Using a screwdriver when you need a hammer.

Hah, you are convinced of your perception of reality and are convinced you are not being misled, so you call this semi-hypothetical him a schizo for his behavior. He is likewise and would probably call you a normie race traitor or some other epiteth for your behavior.

I am convinced in a third perception of reality and convinced of my lack of bamboozeledness. Thus I view your verbal flailing as a semi amusing bout of pot-kettle-black-calling from a highly conceited individual woefully blinkered to the weaknesses of his own world view and purposely insulated from reprisal from the kettle.

Problem is saying it here is nothing but an exercise in self indulgent catharsis seeking. One that will convince noone and is only capabale of baiting agreement and praise from those allready like minded.

Hm, might apply to both your post and mine, now that I think of it.

That's exactly the thing - in the beginning, up until the peak of it, it was jokes and stupid comebacks.

Then something happened, slowly slowly more and more people didn't get the joke and the cesspool of racism became visible. I don't get it where it came from.

Sure, it always existed, but there was progress in both real world and online world to eradicate this.

Have you considered that you are the one not getting the joke?

Progress is the key word here; we have progressed, you worked to eradicate the bad, the "grit". you made it taboo and after a time it became mostly divorced from the harsh reality of the past. Problem for you is what is taboo always becomes popular among the kids who look for things capable of pissing off an overbearing mom and dad, and because the grit is largely absent the pushback is seen as overreaction.

I am sorry Edzy, I think you are getting old. The joke hasnt changed merely it's trappings have shifted to what you consider taboo instead of the taboo of your parents.

Welcome to what the hippies, the punks and every other generation felt when thier own kids started rebelling against their sensibilities.

[Montmorency]

Hah, you are convinced of your perception of reality and are convinced you are not being misled, so you call this hypothetical him a schizo for his behavior. He is likewise and would probably call you a race traitor or some other epiteth for your behavior.

I am convinced in a third perception of reality and convinced of my lack of bamboozeledness. I view your verbal flailing as a semi amusing bout of pot-kettle-black-calling from a highly conceited individual woefully blinkered to the weaknesses of his own world view and purposely insulated from reprisal from the kettle.

Problem is saying it here is nothing but an exercise in self indulgent catharsis seeking. One that will convince noone and is only capabale of baiting agreement and praise from those allready like minded.

In a non-solipsistic epistemology, evidence is thought to be accessible. Everyone thinks they've won the Belief Lottery, but it helps to have some numbers to show rather than navel-gazing dissatisfaction at others' tickets.

[edyzmedieval]

WoT? Get War thunder scrub.

I wanted to - the grind was too much for me. Stayed with WoWS. (War Thunder is more realistic in terms of ships than WoWS)

Have you considered that you are the one not getting the joke?

Progress is the key word here; we have progressed, you worked to eradicate the bad, the "grit". you made it taboo and after a time it became mostly divorced from the harsh reality of the past. Problem for you is what is taboo always becomes popular among the kids who look for things capable of pissing off an overbearing mom and dad, and because the grit is largely absent the pushback is seen as overreaction.

I am sorry Edzy, I think you are getting old. The joke hasnt changed merely it's trappings have shifted to what you consider taboo instead of the taboo of your parents.

Welcome to what the hippies, the punks and every other generation felt when thier own kids started rebelling against their sensibilities.

There is some truth to it, and also yeah, I'm no longer 16 - but the issue is that people rarely joke. And I still play a ton of MP games even today.

In the end this is what kind of puts me off to it, that we transitioned from trash talking and banter you would often see on a football pitch or basketball court to straight up hurling racist insults and just plain swearing. Back then even stereotypical jokes existed and were used, wrong as they are. Even those are gone, which is odd.

And also - not sure if any of you go on Twitch often but that place is a sight to behold. And not in a positive way.