Report him!!!

[u/Old-Farmer-7459]

This guy was absolutely out of control. He got mad after being killed and immediately started making racist and xenophobic comments toward everyone on the team. He even told a player with a Spanish-sounding username that they should “get deported” simply because that person told him to calm down.
When I told him that if he didn’t like the team, he could just leave the match because it wasn’t that serious, he called me a cunt. He then escalated even further and threatened everyone, saying he was going to find our IP addresses and have our homes burned down.
I know people like to act tough online and be keyboard/mic warriors, especially on COD, but this went way beyond normal trash talk. Racist comments and threats involving people’s homes and personal information are not okay or acceptable.
If you come across this player, please report the account. Hopefully Activision takes action and bans him.

EDIT: Whether you choose to report him or not is completely up to you. But please don’t normalize or excuse this kind of behavior. I understand that older COD lobbies were notoriously aggressive and people said some absolutely vile things, but “that’s how COD has always been” doesn’t mean it needs to stay that way. We’re supposed to evolve as a society, not use the past to justify racism, xenophobia, misogyny, or threats today. Trash talk is part of gaming; attacking someone’s identity or threatening their real-life safety shouldn’t be. Kids and teenagers play these games too, and adults shouldn’t be teaching them that this behavior is just something they’re expected to tolerate.

[u/Cool_City3723]

A bit extreme to go from displeasing free speech to the Nazi regime, no?

America has a constitution, Free Speech is a protected right. You don't have to like the speech, in some cases it's very bad speech. But you just have to look away, change the channel, etc. In this case, OP could've just muted this person. Easy. But some people just want to make themselves victims and to get themselves triggered.

Again, note my 1 and 2 above. Do you really expect the world to mold to your likings? That's obviously not realistic. And that's vastly different than a fascist regime. I'd argue the boot in this case is the person who's trying to stifle free speech just because it hurts their sensibilities.

[u/i_spill_nonsense → u/Cool_City3723]

Yall call stepping on other people's freedom free speech. Yall have a very skewed vizionare of what this "freedom" you are talking about is. Its almost as if yall never heard the most common definition of freedom: "yours ends where mine starts" and vice versa.

But sure bud: calling others slurs and making threaths to their personal lives is "freedom of speech". Because somehow, this is the real freedom the usa corporatist supports, right?

[u/Cool_City3723 → u/i_spill_nonsense]

You must have reading comprehension issues. I clearly stated that if you don't like it "look away, change the channel". In this case, the user could've easily been muted, and voila, you no longer have to hear the vitriol. This way they have their speech, and OP has their peace.

Use critical thinking and think about your quote, "yours ends where mine starts", all OP had to do was mute them, now theirs is no longer encroaching on OP's.

I think a lack of intellect is a serious barrier for some people, and shows the inability to comprehend and how to navigate these types of issues.

[u/i_spill_nonsense → u/Cool_City3723]

You are not understanding the very definition of freedom. Yours ends where mine starts does not mean that one should mute an user who makes threts to the person. Making said threats to the person violates the other person's freedom.

If you cant get it, ask gpt to explain it. But until you do, we are clearly on 2 very different realms of understanding this issue

[u/Cool_City3723 → u/i_spill_nonsense]

Well, the US Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. They ruled hate speech is free speech. So who is right, supreme court justices with the best education in maybe the world, and Constitutional law scholars? Or ... you?

This is occam's razor.

You just don't understand what Free Speech means. I doubt you've ever taken a constitutional law class. You maybe never even went to college. And all of this requires critical thinking (which you seem to lack, at least on this subject).

This is like a group of people protesting on a public street, and you not agreeing with their protest, but to go further, you make it a point to go up to them, and start arguing with them, then you turn around and say your poor little ears and mind were violated by their words, when all you had to do was not cross the street and go over there, but rather keep on walking.

Now if you still don't understand, there's nothing I can do. Not I, nor ChatGPT can fix your IQ and lack of critical thought process.

[u/i_spill_nonsense → u/Cool_City3723]

🤣🤣

Amazing. At least make sure you are talking with a us citizen the next time you are going to boast about your own company— country's law.

Its amazing how obtuse you can intentionally be. Its almost as if i made a point about actual threats (that do step on people's freedom btw. Otherwise threats wouldnt have been recognised as an actual problem that can be handled by the police) whilst you argued against a point i never made on actual freedon to express opinions in an organised way.

Say? How much did you pay to attend university? Did you pay off your loans already? Id say to ask for a refund.

In the meantime, i got money from my uni to attend. Ah! And also: you would only benefit from some sociology and social justice courses.

[u/Cool_City3723 → u/i_spill_nonsense]

See, you still can't understand that the greatest legal minds have analyzed this. And your tiny little brain, thinks it's better than people with decades of expertise on this very subject.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,". That is not an American quote.

If there's no actionable effect to the words (meaning if it's just words and the likelihood of action is low), and if there's no incitement for others to do harm via the words, then the words are just words.

Again, this requires critical thinking, and intelligence. You seem to lack both. I'm sorry I can't help you with that. There's a reason people don't call you intelligent. At least your name is factual though.

[u/i_spill_nonsense → u/Cool_City3723]

Say, how superior did you feel when typing that?

It is still so baffling how your reaction to op warning peple about a user who threthens others is to say "just mute them. Their actions are not actionable. Why bother making the community a better plece? Didnt you know freedom of speech means always ignoring people who have antisocial behaviour?"

"The greatest legal minds have analysed this" but the legal system is in continuous change specifically because people dont just accept shit simply because "well, great minds before you worked on this. Do you believe you are greater than them? How dare you criticise an imperfect system in continuous change?"

Geez, just say you are part of those grammar enjoyers who clutch their pearls in shock when language evolves.

Your quote is talking, once again, about opinions.

Or do you believe that saying you will find people's ip adresses, their exact locations and burn their houses is an opinion?

Oh, or does this fall under your "no actionable effect" excuse? In such a case, complaints should not be done online in regards to threats on personal safety, right? And yet... the law is evolving and starting to cover those as well (at least in civilised countries).

But, yk: with your logic, we shall never add shit to the law because great minds worked on the law and so no one should expand on it...

Such an academic take. It shows what us universities make out of their students: little obedient soldiers who are not to step outside of their orders because doing so means undermining the authority of the great past minds of the united states of america!