Playing Online with nazi Sympathizers and Conspiracy Theorists

[CrossLOPER]

The other day I was playing multiplayer WWII themed game, and one of the players stated at the start "the wrong side won the war". I asked him why he thought that, and this person mentioned the "situation in Europe", "the situation in the Middle East", and income inequality. When I prodded him further, he came up with the name "Bilderbergs". I asked him what that has to do with supporting racism, and he accused me of derailing the conversation and fell silent.

Is there any "right" way to deal with these types of interactions online and in-person. I have not been out too much, but I imagine that the qanons and nazis are going to be all out of the woodwork at this point. It wasn't even that I disagreed with that certain things are an issue, it's that they "do the research" at me as soon as I questioned them. I realize it's an old tactic, and indeed asking them to elaborate seems to kill their enthusiasm. This one was particularly unfocused because they seemed to be throwing multiple topics out all at once.

[Hooahguy]

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:

[Greyblades]

If there is a "right way" I can say with the certainty of the last four years that treating them like gullible idiots to be brow beaten. driven away or outright attacked is not it.

[Pannonian]

If there is a "right way" I can say with the certainty of the last four years that treating them like gullible idiots to be brow beaten. driven away or outright attacked is not it.

So what right way do you suggest, when reality and concrete evidence is dismissed in favour of political slogans and rhetorical arguments?

[edyzmedieval]

This is not news - ever since multiplayer online was invented, especially in historical themed shooters, there is an abudance of those types.

I've been playing online FPS / multiplayer games for more than 15 years now, going on 20, and even from then you had many players who were talking sympathising points, all out advocating for Nazism or using suggestive codes such as the Fourteen Words.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words)

Frankly speaking, unless you play on a server that does not tolerate this, your best bet for your gaming experience is to ignore them and move on. Or just block them / mute them. I understand it can be very annoying and it diminishes your gaming experience, but schooling them on a public game server is not a solution.

This has been going on since MP games were invented - in fact, a lot of the sympathisers are from the gaming community.

[Greyblades]

So what right way do you suggest, when reality and concrete evidence is dismissed in favour of political slogans and rhetorical arguments?

All I know is what has failed over the last four years; there are few things better to stop people thinking than being condescended to and exclusion does nothing but build resentment and deepen conviction.

If I knew the "right" way to deal with people convinced of a vision of reality inconsistent to your own, as well as thier own immunity to being misled, I would have been using it with you and most the people who hadnt given up coming here a long time ago.

[Montmorency]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it seems pointless to hold debates in multiplayer chats. On the other, I want to applaud you for making someone feel a little uncomfortable for open Nazi sympathy.

If there is a "right way" I can say with the certainty of the last four years that treating them like gullible idiots to be brow beaten. driven away or outright attacked is not it.

If only they were gullible idiots.

All I know is what has failed over the last four years; there are few things better to stop people thinking than being condescended to and exclusion does nothing but build resentment and deepen conviction.

If a person can recognize the existence of this phenomenon, but refuses to allay it in themselves, that is a profound failing on their part (more so in a text-based medium). Cue Pannonian on rights and responsibilities. There's an unfortunate tension between personal accountability (confronting the possibility that one advocates something meritless or reprehensible) and the emotional techniques that are known to be most effective in persuasion at a micro level (unilaterally manufacturing consonance and comity).

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/8...trump-covid-19

There seems to be an imbalance in what kind of consideration and accommodation is assumed as due, which is something that needs to be reckoned with itself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was playing WoT yesterday.

At the outset of a match, all tier 4, I typed in "drats, bottome tier again"

One person lol'd back

One person said meh

one person says "all of us are tier 4"

To which I replied "that was the point of the joke"

to which he replied "jew"

I did not reply. I was flabbergasted.

I got caught up in shooting enemy tanks, though we lost the match, and never got back to commenting.

I regret that.

[Pannonian]

All I know is what has failed over the last four years; there are few things better to stop people thinking than being condescended to and exclusion does nothing but build resentment and deepen conviction.

If I knew the "right" way to deal with people convinced of a vision of reality inconsistent to your own, as well as thier own immunity to being misled, I would have been using it with you and most the people who hadnt given up coming here a long time ago.

I said the evidence points to no deal being the Brexit aim. I was rubbished for it. Every account from outsiders and insiders indicate this will come to pass. Should I have said otherwise?

I said that every outsider reckons Brexit is idiotic, including the Singaporeans whom the Brexiters want to model the economy on, and that they will take advantage of British weakness post-Brexit to screw the UK over. The Commonwealthers whom the Brexiteers were pinning their pan-Commonwealth hopes on have said that the UK will be weakened by this, and that they will be pushing for better deals on their side. Japan have explicitly said that the UK will be in a weaker position, and any post-Brexit deal will be limited by the principle that the UK will not have it as good as within a pan-EU deal. Would these outsiders be more inclined to be more generous to the UK if Remoaners had shut up about things?

And not specific to Brexit, but about the new right in general. I noted some time ago that they had a habit of picking minority "experts" who defied the overwhelming majority expert opinion. Dom actually explicitly advertised for people to shake things up based on rejecting established opinion. This collided with Covid-19 when Italy had their crisis and Britain should have been learning from their failure. Instead, Britain, under the new right, rejected the majority scientific opinions, and put their faith in a government that values these minority opinions. Unfortunately, the virus does not care about opinion polls, and whatever the will of the people may be, Britain has the worst death toll in Europe, despite being an island nation.

I looked at what other countries who were praised for doing things right were doing, and I followed their example before the British government ever said anything. And practically at every step, the British government put in these restrictions long after other countries did, long after even people like me did. If I can see these things, why does it take the UK government so long to see them too? And I don't get paid handsomely for it, unlike the UK government. If an amateur looking at internet news sources can get these things right at zero cost, is it fair to call the government idiots for getting things wrong despite all the resources they have?

Whatever. Democracy will have its way. The government has already buggered up on Covid-19. And we have no deal Brexit to come next year. How is our infrastructure building and recruitment going? Oh I almost forgot. We're officially nowhere near ready, but don't worry. The will of the people will be done. Just have someone to blame politically, and reality doesn't matter.

[Pannonian]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it seems pointless to hold debates in multiplayer chats. On the other, I want to applaud you for making someone feel a little uncomfortable for open Nazi sympathy.



If only they were gullible idiots.



If a person can recognize the existence of this phenomenon, but refuses to allay it in themselves, that is a profound failing on their part (more so in a text-based medium). Cue Pannonian on rights and responsibilities. There's an unfortunate tension between personal accountability (confronting the possibility that one advocates something meritless or reprehensible) and the emotional techniques that are known to be most effective in persuasion at a micro level (unilaterally manufacturing consonance and comity).

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2020/8...trump-covid-19

There seems to be an imbalance in what kind of consideration and accommodation is assumed as due, which is something that needs to be reckoned with itself.

Democracy is the rule of the majority. That's what the new right have figured out. It doesn't matter if they lie. It doesn't matter if they're incompetent. It doesn't matter if what they do in no way resembles what they said they'll do. As long as they continue to get enough votes, they get to rule in a democracy. So a nebulous appeal to "they just don't get it", with enough of a bloc of those who do get it, gets them their democratic mandate.

Me, I have simple needs. I'll allow government the space to do what they want to do, but they should be held responsible for what they do do. It used to be a basic requirement of government. But it seems to be an outrageous belief of those "who don't get it" nowadays.

[Beskar]

Democracy is the rule of the majority. That's what the new right have figured out.

It is worse than this. It is the rule of a large minority, with others pandering to the ideology to shore up their own interests and other's held in check by it. This gives a substantially greater exertion of influence on all walks of life.

What is insidious is that it preys on the inherent good nature of people. It uses feel good stories. Stories of an underdog fighting for what is right against an indifferent foe. Varied movements tend to suck people in, then take them down the rabbit hole surrounded by an echo-chamber overwhelming ignorance.

I see facebook posts where people share stories how hard working front-line staff are allegedly suffering with collapsed lungs because of their facial masks. Why is no one doing anything about these people, masks are clearly bad! The government is oppressing and killing us, the media is shunning this issue. Thanks to the free fundamentalist church of texas, this issue is now out! You see what they shared about vaccines too?...

What is the answer in a world of misinformation? One where ignorance is bliss and rewarded.

Good luck.

[edyzmedieval]

Was playing WoT yesterday.

At the outset of a match, all tier 4, I typed in "drats, bottome tier again"

One person lol'd back

One person said meh

one person says "all of us are tier 4"

To which I replied "that was the point of the joke"

to which he replied "jew"

I did not reply. I was flabbergasted.

I got caught up in shooting enemy tanks, though we lost the match, and never got back to commenting.

I regret that.

Played World of Warships yesterday.

Used a specific ship which a lot of people dislike (game is horribly unbalanced).

Some dude decided to check up my stats and then text me a message saying I'm a bad player and an idiot.

I told him I appreciate him taking the time to be so invested in me (should have made an Only Fans for him).

Welcome to multiplayer games in 2020.

[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:

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I keep parental controls on when I play WoT. I get scads of asterisks to read. I can fill in the "blanks" as I choose.

As a communication scholar, I am saddened that so many people are unable to find any adjectives/intensifiers in the English language aside from the old Anglo-Saxon derived terms for excrement and fornication. English really has a deep and varied lexicon -- so many choices -- but they remain unused. Yet each generation revels in the same old "shocking" words which then fail to shock after a few months -- but remain in common speech more or less permanently and long past any "shock" or "edgy" value they may once have laid claim upon.

Nekulturny rectal sphincters, the lot of them.

But better tankers than I, mostly. I simply do not have the time to devote to a game nor the twitch speed needed.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As a communication scholar, I am saddened that so many people are unable to find any adjectives/intensifiers in the English language aside from the old Anglo-Saxon derived terms for excrement and fornication. English really has a deep and varied lexicon -- so many choices -- but they remain unused. Yet each generation revels in the same old "shocking" words which then fail to shock after a few months -- but remain in common speech more or less permanently and long past any "shock" or "edgy" value they may once have laid claim upon.

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.

[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.