In early days of Youtube, criticism and "negativity" was the main thing. Seeing sacred cows get analyzed and broken apart and told why it's overrated and why you're an idiot for thinking it's as good as it is was par for the course.
This style of discourse is the norm here....because this forum isn't normies.
Now on Youtube any criticism of even a video game is delivered with 1000 caveats or an extreme level of irony like "can you imagine actually going against the grain like some sort of chud". There's a guy something Mayo who is hugely controversial for daring to make a video saying Arkham Knight sucks.
Videos like that were common place back in the day. Razorfist is well known for it, and while I never liked this other guy, Zero Punctuation was also known for it.
Even mainstream channels like Gametrailers, Screwattack, if they had an opinion that was against the grain, they'd just say it.
Try finding a video of "insert game sucks" and not be inundated with ironic videos where they just parrot the consensus.
The really unsettling thing is if they're unwilling to go against the grain on video games, how weak and prone to "agreeability" are they on actual taboo issues?
This is why I say feminine. Don't make waves, this opinion could hurt somebody....what if that's someone's favorite game, me critiquing it without 1000 caveats could leave them crying into their pillow, I can't have that.
I remember listening to podcasts back in the day, like PS3 era and people would talk about how in Japan they give everything a 9 out of 10 and games journalism is useless because of "politeness society". Well we're basically there on Youtube. People who's livlihoods aren't even at stake are afraid to say something sucks or why something sucks.
You get called edgy for saying something like "Half Life 2 is overrated or boring".
You could make dead baby jokes on early Youtube and you still wouldn't be called edgy.
If you're as soft as tissue paper, everything feels edgy to you.
I find that sort hedge-betting and disclaimer speech to be inherently slimy and off-putting, but it's not limited to the left or Gen Z.
How many times have you heard a pretty staunchly right leaning person, in the midst of giving a monologue about why women shouldn't be cops or soldiers or something say something along the lines of 'listen, I'm not saying women are bad. Women are capable of many things and I respect women who are strong and capable enough to do....'? How many times when hearing one say something about the black crime rate do they then say something about 'I know that it's not all black people, there are plenty of fine black patriots who aren't like this and...' And so on.
There is the seemingly very deep need to introduce the counterargument to one's own argument, while making the argument, inside a great deal of people on the right. A sort of preemptive attempt to stave off any criticism by bringing it up first, acknowledging the criticism has a point, but doesn't apply here to you, before being able to full make one's own argument. And it's really disgusting and pathetic.
We never see the Left use this technique. I've never seen a communist say 'listen, I know that capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than any other economic system, but...' or 'The vast majority of White men are actually pretty decent, civilized, law abiding, and hardworking people, however...'
It's only the right that always pays lip service to the enemy's points and gives them the stage for a bit before moving on to make their own points. Next time you're listening to anyone on the right, even someone 'ultra based', pay attention and listen for it. As soon as they start making a broad point that is largely correct, they'll stop, catch themselves, and bring up the 'Not all...' and 'I'm not saying that...' counterpoints before moving on. Once you notice it, it's impossible not to see.
I agree with that when it comes to race and sex, all generations are pozzed and qualify with many caveats, but the only difference is that effect is seen in all generations because race and sex are the sacredest of the sacred cows. There's a pavlovian reaction that people since the 1960s at least have had.
The difference is, a boomer, gen x, or older millenial doesn't carry that constant qualifying aspect into non-pavlovian territories. If they were to review Judas Priests discography, they'd say "and this album sucks, there's like 1 and a half good songs on it, I don't know what drugs they were on, but they either needed more of them or less of them....Terrible album"
Whereas a Gen Z reviewer would go into all these knots about how everyone has different tastes and maybe they had a different vision and "I don't know, it's not for me, but what do you guys think, maybe you gel with this album...."
The phenonemon you're talking about is universal for our most sacred cows in the west, but millenials and older didn't take such a pansified approach to everyday things that don't matter, like tearing down a TV show or something.
Gen Z approaches every critique like they work for the company and are one of the PR representatives.
Everything is becoming sanitized corpo speak due to the heavy censorship of internet. It gave rise to toxic positivity bubbles. Saying the truth when things are bad is now considered trangressive.
As a pessimist, the world is slowly turning into hell where I can't speak my mind or get punished for it.