Playing Online with nazi Sympathizers and Conspiracy Theorists

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?