This article investigates the multiple interpretations and uses of banter as an inclusive and exclusionary practice amongst competitive youth swimmers in the Southeast of England. As a metacommunicative act, banter is a form of linguistic play that focuses on the ways in which the words are delivered, and the social relationships involved between those engaged in banter. Through an immersive "apprenticeship" within a competitive swimming club from 2018 to 2022, I was party to particular forms of English "humorous" communication and invitations to join in banter with coaches and swimmers. As competitive swimming can be a monotonous activity, with long periods between competitions and nigh endless repetition of training drills, coaches encouraged swimmers' engagement in banter as an inclusive strategy for squad cohesiveness and to stave off boredom throughout the swimming season. Playful teasing was used to invite engagement in banter from one or more people, helping to foster social bonds, develop joking relationships, and create a relaxed atmosphere within training spaces. Mockery and teasing used to initiate banter were also mobilized as exclusionary social positioning strategies to test the limits of social interaction and define oneself against others. This article asserts that despite the nearly-totalitarian position of the coach within high-performance swimming humorous or joking banter does not simply function as a morale-booting activity or as a substitute for active resistance against monotonous training requirements. By paying attention to the intersubjective processes within joking relationships, here through banter, we can see how youth actively navigate sociality and assert their agency within institutional training environments.

The differential satire effects across domestic and foreign audiences are largely unknown; yet, this is of growing relevance as political satire increasingly reaches international audiences. A two-country experiment was conducted in which satirical stimuli from the Netherlands with either a one-sided (only targeting the United States) or two-sided humorous message (targeting both the U.S. and the Netherlands) was presented to a domestic (in-group) or foreign (out-group) audience. Specifically, this study examines political satire's differential emotional and attitudinal impact on audiences located in the country-of-production (Netherlands) or abroad (U.S.). Results show that satire sidedness influenced hedonic enjoyment: compared to two-sided satire, one-sided satire elicited negative emotions and decreased positive emotions for both the in-group (Dutch) and the out-group (U.S.) audience. Yet, satire affected patriotic attitudes. This effect was moderated by country and age: younger U.S. citizens became less patriotic after exposure to the one-sided satire that targeted their country and decreased their positive emotions; older U.S. citizens, in contrast, became more patriotic after exposure to this one-sided satire that particularly increased their negative emotions. The Dutch audience's level of patriotism remained stable irrespective of satire sidedness. Altogether, this study demonstrates how humor type, country-of-reception, and age matter for satire effects.