this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2025
262 points (96.1% liked)

World News

48840 readers
1911 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Parents advised to be vigilant over summer holidays to risk of offenders using in-game live chats to target their children

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It used to be pulp literature, cinema, comics, television, Rock'n'Roll and VHS that spoiled our young. Now it's video games.

[–] LoreSoong@startrek.website -3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Youre being cheeky right? Youre implying that the thing corrupting the youth is whatever that eras overly-righteous people dislike and is used to push some political adgenda. Because if so, solid bait 11/10 I was about to respond with "youre proving your own point" or something of that nature.

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Congrats. You have won the Irony Detector 2025 Award which a lot better than the "100% Humour-Free Certificate

[–] LoreSoong@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

WOW Finally! An award always wanted one of these!

See how I make it obvious that im being sarcastic? Coulda done that the first time.

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My deepest respect for your pointing out the funny within the irony until really wach and everyone can laugh about it. Nothing better than a well explained joke, However the explaining of a single joke when just performed exhaustingly and tediously enough by pedantic characters might become itself a new joke, a form of "metahumour".

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You know guys, the issue here really is that while you can imagine a tone while reading, unless there's actually an objective indicator as to what it's supposed to be, there's going to be mismatches.

I don't think we give enough credence to the magic of language. We're looking at essentially a binary table of black and white, the white forming letters, those letters then forming words and those words eliciting specific thoughts. The fact that the tone isn't conveyed properly is a very minor thing. But we can't really imagine completely toneless speech, so sometimes neutral seems aggressive and sometimes sarcastic seems obtuse.

Which I grant I honestly took your comment as well for the first 3 seconds. You never know online. You just. Can't know. No matter how seemingly obvious it seems to be from context. Poe's law and all that

[–] LoreSoong@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

Well said, however there are universally accepted indicators within litterature that are used to convey such tone. Not to mention they completely lacked any connotative words that would have helped the average person decipher that instantly. My original message "youre being cheeky right?" was litterally questioning "what side are you on?" because without tone or connotation they might actually hold these beliefs. I think we can agree that they could have easily wrote the original message using these litterary devices to convey the message and connotation perfectly

"It used to be pulp literature, cinema, comics, television, Rock'n'Roll and VHS that spoiled our young. Now it's definitely video games."

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Heck, I sure was as ambiguous as the whole discussion is and always was. Claims of cinema, even theater (even drama in ancient Greece), VHS etc, were a danger to to the general public and specifically to the youth were absolutely real. They even had some point. It's just the fact that the same blame game has been played again and again with every new medium that emerged that has some intrinsic irony. Obviously communication channels can be used by miscreants to spread ugly stuff. Who might have thought? And still people are acting as if thit was new or unexpected. I didn't even have to point thar out, just the sheer mentioning of these undoubted historic facts did the job. Make your own conclusions from that, everyone, but don't be surprised or upset when the next big thing will be used to spoil the youth just again. Because it will happen. It never stopped happening.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They even had some point.

I think history kinda shows us they did not in fact have any sort of a point besides being irate about new technology.

The point is text doesn't convey tone, or even necessarily have any, but texts is read as speech, and speech has a tone. A lot of the times our internal translators just pick the wrong one.

[–] b_tr3e@feddit.org 0 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

You don't realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one's side, because there's no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there's practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don't.

[–] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago

I realise your intention perfectly.

This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I'm taking.

Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn't.

You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won't be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I'm using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.

No need to take sides in the actual discussion

I haven't. Perhaps you've imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that's what we are discussing.

practically no disambiguity in the real world

Made me laugh, thank you.

[–] LoreSoong@startrek.website 2 points 1 day ago

Okay pops I can match this energy hold on. Ehem.

Doth thou cranium contain the capacity for sarcasm? If so, you certainly did not display such characteristics in your original message. For it seems you lack the basic litterary skills to portray such complexities in your work. I suggest doing away with your frail attempts at humor aswell, seeing as only you would find these morsels humorous. Finally on your ramblings of metahumor, you attempt to imply that I would become the posterier to your musings of comedy. However you fail to understand one thing, My original message too was a but a aggitator of sorts designed to invoke a reaction, quickly youve responded with an attempt to disparage me. My tactics were dastardly but you proved yourself the dastard In this exchange.