I'll try and keep this short, but stuff like this fascinates me for some reason. Anywho, here's a link to the video I'm going to be referencing in this thread^^
Awhile back on these forums I presented a similar argument that multiplayer shooters shouldn't use historical settings for similar reasons. My framing of said argument was awful though because I didn't really expect the responses back that I got. Anyway, in today's gaming culture, you have to be careful of how you frame your arguments because no matter how right you may be, if someone spots something they can counter by taking away the context, you have to make your context firm to begin with.
So what do I mean by this? I'm going to go through this video and see where they went wrong here and how when trying to create a discussion in gaming, you have to anticipate blow back.
So when you first play the video the first thing that is said (in summation) 'all of sudden playing your pvp WWII shooter game you become a Nazi'. Now obviously, they aren't saying you become a literal Nazi by playing a video game. What they are trying to say is that because of the cruelty the Nazis have inflicted, having to play as them nonchalantly while ignoring the aforementioned cruelty they have committed in real life can have unwanted consequences (such as normalizing what they've done in the past). This makes more sense and the video goes into more detail behind the argument, but because they started out with a metaphor like they did, people are going to think the argument is that people become Nazis when they play a WWII themed shooter game even though the context behind the metaphor suggests that's not really what they meant.
And context really matters. Framing your argument in anticipation of dissent is also important, especially in today's gaming landscape. People like Jack Thompson have been making the argument that shooters turn people into killers for decades now. Making that statement in the beginning of the video might be a minor thing in the eyes of some, especially when the video goes into detail about what they really meant. People latch on to little things, especially in the beginning of a video. Now do I agree with some of their solutions to the problem? Probably not, but their main message that having Nazis in a game requires context that goes beyond having them as a skin in a multiplayer match is something I find agreeable and the video should've presented that argument in a way that anticipates and deflects counter arguments against their stance.
Why am I writing this? I think games discourse matters and seeing that dislike bar on the video is something I find extreme, but that along with reading the comments goes to show how people latch on to such a little thing and blow it out of proportion. That's something you can try to avoid if you frame your argument properly, but the beginning of the video makes it seem like the people playing WWII pvp games become Nazis when in context people are taking on a role of a non fictional once super power that committed atrocities even if said people don't subscribe to such a super power.
TL;DR: Anticipate blow back and make your context as crystal clear as possible when making an argument. Try not to use flimsy introductions like Extra Credits did and use your video time explaining your argument while in the background anticipating blow back while coming up with solutions to the problem you're presenting.