Navy Twitch Stream Spirals Out Of Control Due To Slur, War Crime Jokes

Navy Twitch Stream Spirals Out Of Control Due To Slur, War Crime Jokes
Image: Twitch / U.S. Navy

Up to this point, the U.S. Army and Navy’s recruitment efforts on Twitch have been fraught to say the least, but over the weekend, the latter courted outright disaster. During a Saturday evening stream of Twitch mega-hit Among Us, players named themselves after America’s atomic bombing of Japan in 1945 and the N-word.

During the first match of the stream, which lasted slightly over an hour, one player with a dark-coloured avatar named themselves “Gamer Word,” which is a meme that references the N-word. When Navy streamer Brandon Chandler caught wind of this, he chuckled while others laughed and joked about tiptoeing around saying the word. On multiple occasions near the beginning of the stream, Chandler said that all the people he was playing with were his “close friends.”

During that same match, another player ran around with the name “Japan 1945,” a reference to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are estimated to have claimed hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. When a second match began about 20 minutes into the stream, Gamer Word and Japan 1945 returned, and they were joined by a third player who went by the handle “Nagasaki.”

It did not take long for the Navy’s chat, which regularly draws activists opposed to the U.S. military’s recruitment efforts on a platform whose audience skews young, to notice. Viewers began asking questions in an attempt to get Chandler or the other Navy esports team member monitoring chat, Thessa L. Reed, to acknowledge their friends’ poor-taste (and possibly rule-breaking) jokes.

“Wow, what happened in Japan 1945?” asked one.

“What does gamer word mean?” asked another.

“Sick joke about killing 250,000 people, guys,” said a third.

Hundreds of similar questions and comments followed.

Despite this, Chandler, who claimed he could not see chat, and Reed, who was not on camera but was actively engaging with chat, kept matches with these players going for over 40 minutes. Reed even taunted chat when people started to flood in as a result of the player names.

“See chat, one thing you guys don’t understand is, this is a numbers game, and you guys are just helping us with the numbers,” he said.

A couple minutes later, Chandler paused the stream and returned with a batch of differently named players. Gamer Word, Japan 1945, and Nagasaki were not among them.

“The last two guys got deleted, guys — shush,” said Reed. “We deleted people.”

“They’ve been excused,” said Chandler.

Chandler then played one more game of Among Us before attempting to switch over to League of Legends. While Chandler was trying to get into a game, Reed abruptly informed him that “we’re gonna have to end the stream a little early,” something he attributed to “technical difficulties” and, extremely curiously, “relationship stuff.” The stream concluded after that.

Kotaku reached out to both Twitch and the Navy on Saturday night with questions about what, if any, consequences the streamers in question would face. Twitch still has not replied, and a Navy representative said only that they had forwarded the inquiries to a different office.

Sometime this afternoon, the Navy deleted the VOD of the stream in question. The Navy has not streamed since Saturday night.

Recommended Stories

The Twitch Viewers Who Dedicate Their Days To Trolling The U.S. Army And Navy

Sam is a 20 year-old college student who says he felt deceived by U.S. military recruitment efforts at his own high school. Recently, he found a way to push back. He and dozens of others, spread across a couple of Discords, spend chunks of their day trolling the military on...

Read more

The U.S. Army’s Return To Twitch Is Off To A Bizarre Start

Today, after recently unbanning viewers who had asked about war crimes (among other things), the U.S. Army is back on Twitch. Now a whole, whole lot of people are asking about war crimes.

Read more

The U.S. Army Is Returning To Twitch And Unbanning Users, For Now

The U.S. Army’s Twitch channel has not streamed in almost a month. After finding itself in the crosshairs of Twitch users and U.S. Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for banning viewers who asked about war crimes and hosting sketchy giveaways, the channel went radio silent. Soon, however, it will return, and...

Read more


  • ‘Kotaku reached out to both Twitch and the Navy on Saturday night with questions about what, if any, consequences the streamers in question would face.’

    lol. Yeah, I’m sure they’ll get right onto that.

  • I hadn’t heard of the phrase Gamer Word before, but going by Urban Dictionary it appears to be a catch all for describing offensive words. Which could be chuckle worthy having a friend turn up when they know you’re streaming and having a tongue-in-cheek name which isn’t actually offensive. Sounds like the 21st century ‘Cuss Word’ or ‘$%*@!!#’

    Seems to cover a lot more than one racist word unlike what the author states.

    • Except that “cuss word” is a catch all for any non-specific bad language: f**k, s**t, god**** etc.

      “Gamer word” has evolved to be a catch all specifically for racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic etc language. It’s a wink and nudge at targeted harmful language, rather than non-specific swear words.

    • I don’t know what’s with the Urban Dictionary article, maybe that was the common usage of the term a while back, but everytime I’ve heard it referenced was after the pewdiepie “n_____” incedent and a tweet defending him While I’ve heard it used to describe other language it’s pretty much always the stuff that is generally unacceptable to say irl that some gamers say in heated moments.

      It’s pretty obvious what the ‘joke’ was and what they were laughing at.

      • What a shock that you of all people have heard it one way and declare it thats the way for all people. Im shocked. Utterly shocked.

        • Stay classy m2d2.
          Context matters, and you’re feigning ignorance. I didn’t claim this is ‘the way for all people’ to read it, I claimed it was the way I’ve usually seen it used and that in context it was pretty clear what the ‘joke’ was. But sure, ignore what I actually said, construct your own narrative and attack that narrative as you usually do.

          All I ever see from you is complaints about the content on this site. If you hate Kotaku’s articles so much why don’t you just leave?

          • And all i see from you is wanting Kotaku to share your echo chamber, wanting to bring back auto moderation and wanting to flag posts you disagree with, which i may remind you, is why i played shocked that youve only heard it one way and declare it be that way for everyone.
            As you have seen MULTIPLE times from articles, Kotaku ISNT your echo chamber and we all have different opinions, alot of us dont agree with the US Kotaku opinion pieces but are here for the stellar AU side as well as the investigative journalism this site USED to be known for, if you dont like that all sorts visit this website for different reasons, Why dont you just leave?

            Context IS important, Which is why heres the funny thing, You and akeashar are both right. *blows party horn*
            Kind of anyway.
            Gamer word ISNT just the N word as the article leads you to believe because guess what, you even hit the nail on the head with your quote
            “While I’ve heard it used to describe other language it’s pretty much always the stuff that is generally unacceptable to say irl that some gamers say in heated moments.”
            Even you admit it words you shouldnt say but SOME people say when they get their jimmies rustled playing video games.
            Ive actually heard more people get in trouble with their gamer words when it wasnt the N word, but the F word, and no, not the one that rhymes with Truck and i saw one person get in trouble for using the C word, but ive got less of a problem with that one as i am Australian after all.

            So in short.
            Article advocates Gamer word = N word.
            It doesnt.
            Urban Dic advocates Gamer word = General cuss word
            You advocate Gamer word = Word you shouldnt say on streams that indicates Racist, homophobic and general bad ideas.
            But you being correct, does not mean UD is no longer correct. Yours is just a more narrow viewpoint whilst still being correct.

        • Replying again because comment bedrock. I actually like the content on Kotaku – I don’t and won’t advocate for people that disagree with me or articles posted here. What I advocate for is harsher moderation on the sort of nasty stuff I’ve seen people post here that drags everyone into crappy arguments that usually have nothing to do with the content the comments appear under.

          I actually don’t like those arguments and would rather they didn’t happen in the first place – hence the call for harsher moderation, but when I see someone poisoning the well I want to say something. I’ve said stuff that should have been moderated and wasn’t, I’m no saint but I’m not a hypocrite either, the moderation I want to see would affect me too.

          I’m not advocating any hard bans or anything like that, but I’ve seen people for a long time – and yes, obviously I’m looking at you – that love to start and continue those arguments and that behaviour ruins Kotaku AU for the rest of us. I love a good, respectful disagreement, I love a conversation where people disagree but are acting in good faith – but when they aren’t, when YOU aren’t, they should be reigned in.

          Automoderation was a wonderful thing I didn’t realise I missed if that’s what was keeping people from poisoning the well.

          • You constantly say “good faith” when you agreed with the person in the very first comment of an article called everyone who disagreed with him a racist and advocated as such.
            You argue poisoning the well, when you personally see anyone who disagrees with you as being on a slippery slop to nazism and nationalism.
            Which is very odd especially when todays topic, is about world war 2, and the monstrosities of it, that ONE SIDE of the argument, yes im looking at you and pokedad, seem to fail to truly grasp the horror of war, and in one point tried to put a moral outlook on it arguing that only AMERICAN lives would be lost in the invasion of mainland Japan compared to nukes.
            One of us knows their history and what nazism was, what hell war is, and the others seem to think if there was no nukes, no civilians would have died in an invasion of a country that refused to surrender, that used SUICIDE BOMBING, that even had plans in place for civilians to throw themselves at the invading force IN HOPE the opposing force would just give up and stop invading, and even had soldiers HIDE FOR YEARS because they refused to accept Japan had surrendered.

            When you have someone call others racist, homophobic, monsters or garbage people because they dont have the same viewpoint as you, You lose any ability for good faith, you lose any moral high ground and the ability to try and argue someone else is poisoning the well.
            I hope one day you might be able to see that.
            Im literally not holding my breath.

  • Talk about a revisionist take on WW2. Japan attacked the US, as well a number of other countries during WW2. Bombing cities was normal war activity. The only difference was the 2 nuclear bombs were more concentrated explosive in a bomb. There were plenty of horrendous acts during the war. The final solution, rape of Nanking, the blitz, firebombing of Dresden. The US played a major role in stopping Hitler and Japan. It would be a far different and worse world if the US didn’t prevail in WW2.

    • But, uh.. you do see how using the name of an event that killed ~200,000 people (the majority of whom were civilians) as a ‘comedy’ user name in a game is a bad thing, right? Please tell me you see that.

      And yes, if they used “The Final Solution” or “Nanking_Rape” as a username that would also be horrendous. I don’t quite see how that minimises what is being discussed here.

    • This is such a bizarrely cherry picked, revisionist idea of what the hell went down in WW2 that I’m kinda unsure if you’re even being serious.

      The allies had already won the war and America hadn’t had a chance to test their big new weapon. So they killed hundreds of thousands of civilians with a weapon they knew would make the area utterly uninhabitable. Twice. Just so they could wave their dicks around.

      Fucking hell.

      • Incorrect. Someone OBVIOUSLY hasnt studiest history at all, which isnt a surprise with some of your opinions.
        Only Europe had finished, Japan refused to surrender, because you know, Japan has a cultural honour system which didnt allow it especially with their outlook on the emperor at the time, America warned them, Japan didnt believe them.
        America had the choice of full invasion of the smaller island around Japan before taking Japan by force, which would cost alot of american and allied lives, or nukes.
        We know what they chose.
        Dont go accusing others of revisionist history when you come up with horseshit like this.

      • So much wrong here. Hell, even Japanese historians agree that the ONLY reason Japan finally surrendered, was because the Soviet Union declared war on Japan 2 days AFTER the second bomb dropped and not because of the bombs

        Sure. The bombs were a massive dick wag at the Soviets. But it was either many more years of war and the mass loss of life of your own people, or… Drop bombs.

        War is war and war sucks. But tell me what you would do in the same situation. I doubt you would throw thousands upon thousands of your own people to their deaths over many more years of prolonged war, because you want to save the literal enemy that refuse to surrender.

        • Civillians aren’t the enemy. War is horrible, both sides did terrible things, but the deliberate massacre of civillians is and always will be inexcusable regardless of context. There are no good or easy choices in war, you are weighing up the value of lives in some kind of macabre math problem, but opting not to bomb civillians is not ‘saving the literal enemy’, it’s choosing not to kill civillians, which should be as close as you’ll get to an easy choice in war for anyone of any moral standards.

          Morally speaking the only way people can justify America’s actions is if they assume American soldier’s lives are worth more than Japanese civillian’s lives.

          • It also saved hundred of thousands of Japanese soldiers as well.
            As well as all Allied forces that would have been involved in the invasion of Japan.
            It also would have saved alot of Japanese civilian lives who didnt live in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki who would have been caught in the more traditional bombings of the country.

          • You do realise that at the time Japan had killed as estimated 20 million civilians and soldiers from the surrounding countries in an attempt to conquer them? (between 31-45)

            How is that any different? I mean (and taking a very black and white view here) taking away the fact that one did it trying to expand their empire, and the other did it to end a war *shrug*

            I want YOU to tell me the best way YOU would have handled that EXACT situation by causing the least amount of casualties to EVERYONE involved.

        • To quote my earlier comment in reply to your later one “…the deliberate massacre of civillians is and always will be inexcusable regardless of context”
          Japan did some inexcusably evil things. That doesn’t ever justify doing the same. I don’t know what I would have done, but dropping the bombs where they dropped them was and always will be unforgivable.

          I don’t need to be a chef to know what war crimes taste like and it doesn’t matter which chef is serving them or why, they’re still war crimes.

          • Nagasaki was chosen as it was one of, if not the biggest shipbuilding centres of the Japanese Imperial Fleet. And Hiroshima because of it’s military significance. They weren’t just some rural towns of insignificance.

            You just said that you wouldn’t know what you would do. You have the choice of prolonging a war against an enemy that refused to surrender, thereby ensuring that people under your command would die, over possibly many more years of war. Or, press a button and end it now and save many more lives (possibly including many of the “enemy’s” lives). What would you choose then?

            War is abhorrent. Always was, always is. Unfortunately, the main thing in war is to beat the enemy while losing as little of your own people as possible. Hence the use of the A-Bomb. If Japan didn’t know before the first one, they had 3 days to surrender before the 2nd one.. and they chose not to. 1st one I’ll give it to you.. because I’m generous… 2nd one is purely on the arrogance and pride of the Japanese higher ups

            Sir Douglas Haig, for instance didn’t believe in that sort of thing, his philosophy in WW1 was “just keeping sending people over the trenches, the enemy will eventually run out of bullets” and he is so reviled to this day they were forced to move his statue into the grounds of Edinburgh Castle because of constant vandalism.

            Point is. No matter what you do, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Especially in war.

        • I dont think the man has studied much history at all, if he had, he wouldnt have such contextless black & white opinions on so many things, i doubt he would also be so quick to label anyone he disagrees with as nazis as hes done in the past.

          • You’re so stupidly wrong it’s comical. Read my goddamn post below. But here’s a little tldr for you:

            – lived in Japan for many years
            – have been close friends since 2007 with several people who were evacuated from warzones as children and even one or two who fought for Japan in the war
            – Have been to both places where the bombs were dropped several times
            – Spent two years in a relationship with a Japanese American who specifically studied exactly this topic
            – Am personally close with one of the few surviving WW2 RAAF bomber squadron crew who was in Hiroshima in the days after the war and considers it the most inhumane atrocity he has ever seen in his 90+ years

            I can categorically state that I know more about it than the average person and i feel very comfortable in saying that if you can find a way to justify the bombings of civilian centres with nuclear weapons, you’re a monster.

            Maybe you should go to Hiroshima sometime. Go stand in the spots where living children were vapourised in a fire so hot their shadows are still on the pavement. Maybe talk to some people who watched the other children as their skin turned to liquid and slid right off them. Then come back and justify that bombing to me.

      • I CLEARLY didn’t study WW2 history when I lived in Japan for six years, became close friends with surviving refugees from the war, spent time at both bomb sites and… studied the history of the war with knowledgeable people from both sides. Like my ex-girlfriend who was an American Japanese modern history scholar. She didn’t know shit. Obviously.

        You know what else was a goddamn waste of time? When I spent hours and hours over a period of months talking with one of the old RAAF Beaufort bomber crewman who was there in the days after the bombing. He considers the greatest shame in his entire life was the time he stood at Hiroshima in the aftermath and felt ok with it. Him taking that to his grave is such bullshit revisionism.

        The bombings were a premeditated nuclear holocaust visited on civilian populations in a country already so war weary and broken that they had nothing left to fight with. If you can justify that for any reason you’re garbage and you can get fucked.

          • Educate me then, sensei. Show me how you justify bombing multiple civilian cities with an experimental superweapon that would leave behind scorched earth for a war that was already over.

            How many civilian deaths are required to make it ok? Please show me the formula.

          • Replying to point out to the mods that this kind of low effort baiting and antagonism in response to actual arguments is the kind of stuff that is ruining this site’s community – as soon as it gets personal, or people are consistently egging people on just to piss them off without providing any actual arguments they should be shut down.

            I don’t like to name names, but there are bad actors that have long done everything they can to turn this community into the cesspit I feel like it’s becoming. I understand that everyone has a lot on their plates right now, but when moderation becomes a priority for the team I hope this sort of behaviour isn’t allowed to continue.

        • And of course you feel comfortable claiming people are a monster or garbage for understanding complex history arguments when you spout black and white opinions, you call anyone who disagrees with you names like its going out of style.
          We know already.
          But once again i thank you for confirming that you havent studied history, but just bullet points and from a Japanese perspective too, one that is seen as a horrible take when Japanese history especially around WW2 isnt really taught at allm which makes alot of sense with how shit your take is.
          Perspective is an important thing. The assassin of franz ferdinand, Gavrilo Princip, the person who started WW1, a person responsible for millions of deaths is seen by his home region as ‘a hero, a symbol of liberation ideas, tyrant-murderer, idea-holder of liberation from slavery, which spanned through Europe’.

          But you wouldnt know any other perspective other than your own as you threw away your brain a long time ago.

          • P.S.
            The war wasnt over, you keep saying that, but if you had actually learned your history you would know that it wasnt over, Japan was still fighting. Japan had refused to surrender, Even when USA told them they would be using the bombs if they didnt, BEFORE DROPPING them, They still didnt surrender.
            EVEN AFTER THE FIRST BOMB, they still didnt surrender.

            The amount of people that died from those two bombs and the after effects STILL pale in comparison that would have been lost with the invasion of Japan. When so many Japanese and allied lives were lost in Okinawa and Iwo Jima. The lost of life that happened there was astonomical for a country who you claim the war was over. Cause shock horror, it wasnt.
            If you had studied history, properly, at a great level, you would know that there are alot of horrible decisions that have been made over the length of human history, especially in the two biggest events of last century.
            The dropping of the bombs is incredibly complicated and there is no easy solution, but considering you think the war was over when it wasnt. USA and the allies wanted to avoid the invasion of mainland Japan.
            You may think the answer was simple, but it wasnt.
            I STILL think the bombings were a great shame and one of the worst things our species has done, But when you put that against the hundreds of thousands of lives that would have been lost with an invasion, when you have seen what Japan did in their invasions of other countries (See Nanjing) and what some of the Allies would have done to civilians in said invasions in addition to all the lose of lives for soldiers who may i remind you, were probably drafted.
            If you cant see why those decisions were made, then you cant be helped.
            The answer in what to do

          • Usually you post low-effort retorts insults and I’m not really botheredto care replying in a constructive way. But you put effort in here so i feel like I should respond with some effort as well. So here we go:

            Your insistence that there is an objective, binary truth that I have simply failed to meet the requirements for rings false when it’s in the same post as you saying there’s a complex level of nuance. I agree that there is nuance, but that necessarily precludes it being a binary. It’s not “Did Pokedad study history? Y/N”. If you can ask that question, it can’t possibly be complex or nuanced.
            I got the same level of modern history education as any kid who studied it for HSC. But the thing about history books is they are written by the winners and there’s not a lot to stop the stories being skewed to make the winners the good guys. In order to find the level of nuance you’re asking for, you are going to need to study outside of that lens.
            I’m lucky enough that I’ve lived in both Australia and Japan and had constant access to someone who studied this specific thing. She has native ability in both languages and a personal emotional connection to both USA and Japan. Nobody can be completely unbiased, but having strong bias for both sides can get you pretty close.
            I’ve spoken to war veterans on both sides, visited the gross sites of war fetishism both countries maintain, read history from multiple perspectives and been told first hand accounts by people who were there.
            I used to be of the opinion that the first bomb was a mercy and the second was an unethical show of power. I have changed that view in light of the many years of exposure I’ve had to people and information from new perspectives. There’s nuance to be found and my opinion changed several times throughout the years. My ultimate position now is that the first bomb was not the mercy we in the western world like to present it as. There are people who disagree and there are reasons to be on either side of that argument, but that’s the conclusion I came to.
            But there’s no nuance in the decision to bomb the two sites they did. It was a planned attack on civilians with full knowledge that the consequences would be utterly dire. The country was so starved of resources they had already melted down all the statues statues for bullet casings. The people were on the brink of starvation in major urban centres. Many areas were already suffering starvation. The cities chosen held little strategic advantage and were chosen specifically because the geography would serve the purposes of the bombs themselves, not for military advantage. Knowing full well that those cities didn’t serve military advantage and they were filled with civilians and children, the bombings were given the green light. The only reason to bomb them was a display of power on people whose lives were deemed expendable.
            The Japanese citizenry may not have known, but the military and government certainly knew the war was lost. They were hoping to end hostilities through Russian diplomatic channels and actively working to convince Moscow to mediate between Japan and the Allies. Russia’s subsequent declaration of war was a major blow that cut off the diplomatic option and would likely have been the last straw, but we’ll never know.
            In the end though, it doesn’t matter what atrocities the Japanese inflicted on the rest of the world. If our only measure of what’s right is how inhumane the enemy has been, there’s no reason to have rules at all. Every atrocity is met with a worse one until one culture is entirely erased by genocide. We have rules in war for a reason and this was a fundamentally unethical act. The Japanese committed atrocities, it’s true. But that doesn’t give us a free pass to do the same.

          • No military significance to Nagasaki and hiroshima?
            You might wanna rethink that one.
            Japan REFUSED to surrender after the first bomb, there were still holdouts after the second bomb as well.
            You keep on claiming it was all about civilians when you know full well it wasnt with Japan, its honour code, especially to the emperor.
            Russia had NO intention in delivering Japan peace, the idea they were going to has been debunked and even been shown that Russia was simply delaying Japan.
            The idea that Japan was so down and not going to fight back is laughable, especially when Germany was FAR FAR worse off in the final days, and most of the war boys were long dead by then.
            Just because a country cannot win a war, doesnt mean their people wont fight it.
            No one is going to argue the bombs dropped on Japan being 100% morally the right thing to do.
            But if you cant see the very likelyhood of worse happening to the people of Japan in an invasion, and what the people of Japan would have done to protect their homeland. You were sure right on the bias remark.

    • The Europe wouldnt have been in a much better place if the US didnt delay so long getting into the war and helping. They literally sat on the damn fence for years while the rest of the world pleaded for help and they only eventually did when there was something in it for them.

      • Someone needs to go back to yr 9 History.

        So much wrong with what you just said, but I’m just going to focus on one part.

        “they only eventually did when there was something in it for them.” Did you think Pearl Harbour was just a Ben Affleck movie?

        • I know a lot more about history of it all than i was taught 30 years ago, through flawed gloried textbooks. Yes that is when they joined the war, or more correctly that was when war was declared on them, some two years after Europe had been going. Before that they refused to get involved beyond some basic support.

          Pearl Harbor forced their hand. They didnt choose to be part of it.

          • i just love the response. oh you killed a few military personnel? let me just kill hundreds of thousands of your civilians. cant disagree with the results. but jesus america, did you want to compete with nazi germany on killing innocents?

          • Then perhaps word it that way.

            The comment “they only eventually did when there was something in it for them.” is then VERY misleading. When you say something like that, it comes across as selfish and them only coming to the fight because they get something out of it.

            Like you said. Their hand was forced and they were brought into it, in a militaristic capacity… If not… well, who knows what the turn out would be

          • Oh @lawlorz.

            1) The people who were killed in Pearl Harbour were innocent people. Don’t forget that.
            2) I wonder how many “innocent people” Japan killed during WW2.. Estimates are all over the shop (between 3 and 10 million) between 37-45. (but up to 20 million if you start from 31). So please, leave your anti-American bullcrap at the door.

            Let’s put it this way. I’m glad it was the US (or any one of the Allied nations) that got there first, and not Germany, or Japan. Cos you damn well know that if they had those capabilities, they would have used it.

            It’s war. War sucks. No one truly wins. But I can almost guarantee you that if it wasn’t for the threat of Nuclear war, WW3 and WW4 and WW5 would have already happened.

            So in the end, we all win.

          • Not actually true, USA(those in charge) wanted to get involved, the majority of the people however did not, USA also formed blockades around Japan to stop them getting supplies to their fronts before Pearl Harbour, which is actually seen as a declaration of war, Which is ‘why’ Pearl Harbour happened.
            *plays the more you know*

  • Hey, Kotaku staff? Hi. Quick question.

    How close are commenters allowed to flirt with nationalism and borderline Qanon weirdness before it becomes too unpalatable to have in the comments?

    I mean, I had my comments deleted for calling a fascist sympathiser a fuckwit one time, so I’m just wondering where the line is.


    • Upvote / reply – I realise I’m quite literally making a slippery slope argument, but if certain people and behaviours aren’t stopped soon I think we will see outright nazism and nationalism on this site.

      I don’t think we’re quite there yet, but things are getting worse, and if this site goes down that slope I know I’ll have to leave, as I’m sure a lot of others will too.

      Kotaku posts a lot of left leaning content and yet the community only seems to be heading further right, and not in the reasonable arguments and disagreements way either. I’m sure I’ve said plenty of dumb stuff deserving of moderation in the past, but some people seem to only ever post that stuff. The open hostility shown towards the writers from Kotaku US and UK would be a good place to start if you’re looking to find the bad actors in these comment sections.

      • I personally love this so much.
        You are comparing this argument, where people are rightfullypointing out that SOME PEOPLE dont know their history, but another counties poor education on a complex event in human history because of the tragedy of said event, the suffering and deaths of thousands of lives, rather than the events that lead to such an event taking place and why its so not black and white as he likes to believe, TO NAZISM.
        You literally want people to stop having opinions or ideals other than the ones you have.
        And you think OTHERS are the ones that are on the slipperly slope to an ideology?

        • You keep using that word “literally”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

          Your reading comprehension is terribly distorted by your desperate need to argue with me. I won’t rehash what I said, because you’ll just find another way to miss the point. Feel free to deliberately misinterpret everything I say, but don’t expect any response going forwards.

          • *points to your previous statements*
            You LITERALLY want people to either share your opinions on things or leave.
            You LITERALLY messaged the mods to ask to bring back flagging posts you dont agree with because you cant handle it due to ‘Anxiety’. Lady i have PTSD, If i can handle the internet with its wealth of horror on display, you can handle a forum that doesnt believe everything you do.
            You LITERALLY compared people who disagree with you to being nationalistic and nazism.
            You LITERALLY chalk this up to ‘bad actors’ constantly because god forbid some one has a different perspective than you.
            Literally. Literally. Literally.
            There is no wiggle room.

        • I’m only going to adress the anxiety comment, because the rest is your total lack of ability to comprehend statements you disagree with.

          If you do have PTSD you have my sympathy, I don’t wish it on anyone.
          This was not at all what I asked the mods to do though and you know it. I asked them to moderate poor behaviour from people that deliberately provoke arguments and ruin this site and what I like about it. Your ‘toughen up princess’ attitude is pretty shitty coming from someone who should know how debilitating mental health issues can be. It’s also pretty pathetic that you would use your PTSD to try and score points against my anxiety.

          Most of the time there are more people I disagree with under any given article than ones I agree with, yet most of the time I enjoy talking with them. Most of them are making good faith arguments and most of them are being decent to eachother. I actually enjoy talking with people I disagree with when they aren’t just being arseholes – for example your points on where Japan was in the war at the time and the reasoning behind dropping the bombs could be an interesting point – one I fundamentally disagree with sure, but one that might be interesting to discuss, but you wrapped everything you’ve posted under this article in the hateful personal attacks that derail any possibility of a civil discussion. There are people I agree with that do the same, and I would want them to be moderated as harshly as those I disagree with. My comments on left wing articles and right wing commenters is more about the disconnect between the site and its audience, though obviously with my biases I do think the right wing comments are much worse than the left wing ones. At least I can admit my bias though.

          Maybe you have a genuine belief in your argument, but it doesn’t come across that way when you only ever make points to demonstrate how ‘wrong’ or ‘stupid’ the person you reply to is being. Everything is personal for you, and you read my comments and points in the same way. They were not intended to be personal, but I know you can’t, and won’t, believe that.

          But, at a certain point you and others acting in similar ways will drag me into the shit-slinging you so desperately seem to want, and that’s what gives me anxiety issues. I don’t want to be that person, and it freaks me out when I get pulled into it. I like to think I’m quite genuine on the internet, and when I’m pulled into the sort of anger that seems to drive your comments I feel terrified that’s the ‘real’ me. I can be vulnerable and open about a whole bunch of things on the internet without anxiety ever giving me an issue, but when what I intend to be reasonable comments are deliberately wildly misinterpreted and I get flustered trying to explain myself to people like yourself – yep, that gives me issues. I’m sure that sort of thing doesn’t give you issues, and that’s great, but I can only talk from my own experience.

          All the rest – whatever. I don’t care. You don’t understand my arguments, nor make genuine attempts to engage with them.

          But the anxiety comment is garbage, low and pathetic.
          You don’t get to decide what’s easy for other people to deal with, and using your flawed assumptions to make a strawman by which to say I should toughen up is below what I’d expect from you. My anxiety is not the same as your PTSD, I wouldn’t pretend to know or understand exactly what gives you trouble or why, do the same basic courtesy in return to me.

  • For those advocating the war was over, please educate yourself on what the imperial orders wanted the civilians to do in a Japanese invasion, even when they KNEW they could no longer win the war.
    Please look up at what happened in Germanys final days and what happened to a lot of their civilians who were forced to fight to hold Berlin in a complete and utter lost cause and how they refused to surrender until they had literally nothing left and there was no one in charge of anything from the old guard.
    Please look up what happened to a lot of German civilians when the Russians or allies got a hold of them EVEN AFTER Germany had surrendered.
    Please look up that Japan even had a coup to try and stop Japan from surrendering even after the nukes. Kyūjō incident for those who want the help.
    Look up some the quotes from Korechika Anami and what he wanted to do.
    They wanted to fight to the very last man woman and child. Japanese honour is no joke.
    And so many of them would have. Educate yourselves on their near fanatical support of the emperor.
    Look at how many commuted seppuku after Japan surrendered.
    Look up at how Russia was purposely avoiding peace talks JUST so they could buy more time so they could invade Japan.

    For those advocating that nukes are so horrible that it should have never happened and there is no excuse for it.
    Please look up the fire bombing of Tokyo in March that had 100k die over the space of 2 days with a more traditional form of bombing.
    Please look up what Dresden, Berlin & Guernica(which was done on its own people i may add) looked like after their ‘traditional’ bombings and their death count.

    War is hell. Utter hell.
    The easy and simple solutions very rarely exist in war, to advocate otherwise is either naive or short sighted.
    I could only imagine, the death count, the unnecessary loss of all life from civilian to soldier alike, to what the americans would have done to civilians if they had invaded Japan without the nukes.

    • Yo. It’s me. We usually butt heads but I just wanted to let you know that this was a post I enjoyed; I even learned a couple of things. It’s obvious that you’re both well-informed and passionate about the topic and as such, you’re genuinely trying to communicate what you know, as opposed to trying to win an argument. I know that you probably don’t give a damn about my approval, which is fine, but I sincerely hope to see more posts like this from you, even if it’s about things I will disagree with.

      If you truly believe that I or whomever else you usually find yourself at odds are wrong in any given topic, try to explain yourself rather than using sarcasm or insults. We’re all just human and we tend to not be able to help to respond in kind to hostility.

      I know I myself need to be better at this, but I am trying. I hope you can try, too.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!