YouTuber Shaun debunks Jimmy Dore's anti-vaccination videos

[racecar bed indy 500]

Why are these UK "leftists" producing so much content that is primarily dedicated to US culture war shite like Jimmy Dore, and the War On Christmas? Considering the state of everything, are these the pressing issues? Of course they're not, but its the best way to grift because more Americans will click on those than would click on an actual journalist's report about foodbanks in the UK or the anti-protest bill. Boring stuff, huh? Let's talk about J K Rowling some more.

Twitter is bad and full of unqualified people making sweeping assumptions about everything under the sun, then those assumptions get collated into youtube videos. Which people watch and say, wow very informative stuff because the man wore two different hats in the video and did RLM jump cuts. Breadtube started with good intentions but its fucking awful now.

Could they do more local politics? Yeah, I personally think thats applicaple to the vast majority of people and not just youtubers. And just three words on how war on christmas is applicable to the UK: Paul Joseph Watson.

And "sweeping generalizations are bad now allow me to [sweeping generalizations]"

[Video Game Fan 2000]

And just three words on how war on christmas is applicable to the UK: Paul Joseph Watson.

A guy who was employed by Infowars at least in part to bait UK viewers into US culture war shit. He still operates under Alex Jones' old "prison planet" brand.

Twitter is irredeemable shit aside from animal sanctuary accounts where you see videos of the animals.

[Retinend]

On the one hand "grifter" is a good word for the kind of person who is determined to be a content creator, and make a living from it as soon and as quickly as possible, despite not having any insights of their own. Some just love the attention of having a platform named after themselves, moreso than the ability to say anything of substance on it. Dave Rubin comes to mind as an egregious example.

On the other hand, the word is most commonly used to insult anyone making political content on the internet for a living. If you don't like someone's politics, and they make their money independently, then they're a "grifter", apparently. As in, their politics are a grift/scam/ruse to ensnare a gullible audience and extract an income from their PayPal/Patreon/Superchat donations.

It's a bit like how, in the past, the word "pundit" was used as a put-down for people who made their money from being a strident voice on mainstream news shows: they were accused of not truly holding their beliefs, but only doing so for the money. It feels good to affirm that the repugnant viewpoint that you can hardly countenance, is in fact only a fake opinion that represents nothing but a calculated attempt to gain notoriety via infamy.

So I am suspicious of this sort of feel-good insult. It would be weird - perverse - nay, soul-crushing - to choose a full time job in which you profess one particular political opinion, though secretly holding the opposite political opinion in your heart. It would be more natural, less stressful, and more effective, to choose a very similar job, in which one professes those heartfelt political opinions. There would be no reason not to act on this natural desire to switch, since the skillset of being an online commentator and influencer (or indeed, old-school pundit) is virtually the same on both sides of the political aisle.

So, while "grifter" might be a good modern term regarding avarice and ego online, for me it is psychologically unrealistic for what it implies about the political-commentators-for-pay themselves.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

I think "grifter" has stuck for two reasons. I don't think its necessarily got to do with the political nature of the content, its more to do with the medium rather than the message.

The first reason is how hyper competitive video making and social media is. We have a situation where the very top of the ladder is millionaire making material, where people are earning hundreds of thousands. But if you're not propelled up there, you're likely to just scrape by. This makes a very dog-eat-dog environment, everyone is subtweeting everyone else and trying to pull down the people they don't like and raise their friends up. If you've ever had access to a discord or channel where a lot of these people post, you'll know how bad is it is and how deep the in-group/out-group stuff goes.

The second reason is how many people involved in this kind of content have neither knowledge nor expertise on the issues they talk about, and by and large just compile information available freely on social media or wikipedia. It's not really a matter of someone well informed giving a strongly felt opinion, its a matter of someone responding to the hot issue of the day in the most dramatic and attention demanding way possible. A lot of the information being relied isn't opinion or some new idea or research, its something the viewer might have easily found themselves on twitter or wikipedia.

The other thing is that a lot of the most successful videos are clearly group efforts, involving multiple writers and a researchers in order to make the content, which is then presented as if it was one person's heartfelt opinion. I don't think viewers respond well to this on the whole and the increasing presence of this sort of content seems to correlate with a steep drop in how influential lefty or liberal online video essays are in general. It was definitely the personal touch that people responded to initially, which stood out against the phoniness of the average US right-wing video commentator.

[racecar bed indy 500]

A guy who was employed by Infowars at least in part to bait UK viewers into US culture war shit. He still operates under Alex Jones' old "prison planet" brand.

Twitter is irredeemable shit aside from animal sanctuary accounts where you see videos of the animals.

Sorry but there's genuinely no superiority for the UK on the "culture war", there's anti-LGBT, racist, etc etc types who push for it and people against that who fight or mock it in every country, been that way since before I was born.

[MrsWarboysLover]

On the one hand "grifter" is a good word for the kind of person who is determined to be a content creator, and make a living from it as soon and as quickly as possible, despite not having any insights of their own. Some just love the attention of having a platform named after themselves, moreso than the ability to say anything of substance on it. Dave Rubin comes to mind as an egregious example.

On the other hand, the word is most commonly used to insult anyone making political content on the internet for a living. If you don't like someone's politics, and they make their money independently, then they're a "grifter", apparently. As in, their politics are a grift/scam/ruse to ensnare a gullible audience and extract an income from their PayPal/Patreon/Superchat donations.

It's a bit like how, in the past, the word "pundit" was used as a put-down for people who made their money from being a strident voice on mainstream news shows: they were accused of not truly holding their beliefs, but only doing so for the money. It feels good to affirm that the repugnant viewpoint that you can hardly countenance, is in fact only a fake opinion that represents nothing but a calculated attempt to gain notoriety via infamy.

So I am suspicious of this sort of feel-good insult. It would be weird - perverse - nay, soul-crushing - to choose a full time job in which you profess one particular political opinion, though secretly holding the opposite political opinion in your heart. It would be more natural, less stressful, and more effective, to choose a very similar job, in which one professes those heartfelt political opinions. There would be no reason not to act on this natural desire to switch, since the skillset of being an online commentator and influencer (or indeed, old-school pundit) is virtually the same on both sides of the political aisle.

So, while "grifter" might be a good modern term regarding avarice and ego online, for me it is psychologically unrealistic for what it implies about the political-commentators-for-pay themselves.

You've put that all brilliantly. Spot on, especially about Rubin, who is one of the very few commentators where I think the term is actually justified.

[Retinend]

Thanks!

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Sorry but there's genuinely no superiority for the UK on the "culture war", there's anti-LGBT, racist, etc etc types who push for it and people against that who fight or mock it in every country, been that way since before I was born.

No superiority implied, I don't know where you get that from. The UK has its own issues, particularly related to the aftermath of colonialism and the neverending backlash against the "permissive society"

The distinction here is that the US "culture war" is something that is trying to globalise itself and its concerns, as well as the language that it uses. This is partly because it was concocted mostly in the 1980s by conservative talk radio and the like which is always trying to extend its reach. For example, Infowars and Brietbart related people regularly met and talked with their EU and UK equivalents to promote US culture war issues globally, but the inverse isn't true - no one from the Mail is flying to Texas to whine about Lady Chatterley's Lover and the skintones of people in costume dramas. The implication that its all the same battle between progressivism v resistance to progress wherever you are in the world is very ahistorical and doesn't do justice to the people whose lives are directed affected.

Part of the issue here is that the more non-US countries are drawn into "le wokeism" as a paradigm, the more there is a culture amnesia about our own issues, particularly about colonialism and censorship. It's a win/win for the hard right because it keeps people frothing about the excesses of the PC left, but at the same time it misdirects attention away from real issues towards stuff that is the entirely the domain of American demagoguery.

[Catalogue Trousers]

Can't wait to finally get to drop a "Lacan is good" post.

chilled out Lacan and a wank

[bgmnts]

The UK is superior to the US just by default. But that's such a low bar it's not a compliment.

[racecar bed indy 500]

No superiority implied, I don't know where you get that from. The UK has its own issues, particularly related to the aftermath of colonialism and the neverending backlash against the "permissive society"

Part of the issue here is that the more non-US countries are drawn into "le wokeism" as a paradigm, the more there is a culture amnesia about our own issues, particularly about colonialism and censorship. It's a win/win for the hard right because it keeps people frothing about the excesses of the PC left, but at the same time it misdirects attention away from real issues towards stuff that is the entirely the domain of American demagoguery.

Is there? I'm pretty sure its "wokeism" to even acknowledge colonialism was bad in the first place. I know there's a level of capitalism appropriating issues or centrists only being pulled over on social issues and doing nothing about the econ side of oppression but its barking a bit up the wrong tree to fault a bunch of loosely connected youtubers as the cause.

The implication that its all the same battle between progressivism v resistance to progress wherever you are in the world is very ahistorical and doesn't do justice to the people whose lives are directed affected.

A little simplified, yes. Ahistorical, no. I certainly know what you mean, it'll take different forms in each country, very obviously. I'm not saying otherwise. There's just going to be a through line of things that are the same though. Just because of how propaganda is spread online. I'm still not sure what is to "American culture war" specifically about vaccine stuff either. That quack Andrew Wakefield's british after all, and without him the antivaxx hysteria wouldn't have taken form the way it has the past couple decades. This effects people all over, so big voices will talk about it. Since he amplified 'concerned parents' to line his wallet.

And not to be rude but I noticed a bit of a contradiction in your complaint. Youtube and twitter beef is bad, but dissecting Prager U, most famous for being a youtube channel, is on track? If we fit the pieces together isn't it clear Shaun usually talks about videos, articles, or incidents that have a wide audience? People with 100's of thousands+ subs, popular video game stuff (Doom, Cuphead), large news organizations, or government atrocities.

[GoblinAhFuckScary]

Hello everyone.

[Video Game Fan 2000]

Is there? I'm pretty sure its "wokeism" to even acknowledge colonialism was bad in the first place. I know there's a level of capitalism appropriating issues or centrists only being pulled over on social issues and doing nothing about the econ side of oppression but its barking a bit up the wrong tree to fault a bunch of loosely connected youtubers as the cause.

Well, as an American and English-language movement, the "woke" moment has very predictable blindspots about colonialism and imperialism.

Sorry, I should've been clearer about my point: "le wokeism" is how French (and other) far right people refer to American culture war issues. It's a deliberate tactic they use because it allows them to court media outrage and social media impact in a way beneficial to them. Whereas rightist takes on "local" cultural issues tend to be a much harder sell, and even harder to sell when their put in the language and terms through which people already understand the situation.

My skepticism of the usefulness of engaging the "culture war" in the UK and EU comes from here - I don't see how it benefits to draw more attention to it. Who in the UK should give a fuck about Jimmy Dore? Really? Who does winning that particular Twitter argument benefit?

A little simplified, yes. Ahistorical, no. I certainly know what you mean, it'll take different forms in each country, very obviously. I'm not saying otherwise. There's just going to be a through line of things that are the same though. Just because of how propaganda is spread online. I'm still not sure what is to "American culture war" specifically about vaccine stuff either. That quack Andrew Wakefield's british after all, and without him the antivaxx hysteria wouldn't have taken form the way it has the past couple decades. This effects people all over, so big voices will talk about it. Since he amplified 'concerned parents' to line his wallet.

They're not just different forms of the same thing, they're totally different issues. Very often the throughline doesn't exist at all, its a need to see order in chaos that makes us want there to be one.

I think its very mistaken to trace all vaccine hesitancy to Wakefield or the American anti-Vax movement as it was in the 2000s. A lot of the anti-vaccine stuff in the UK and EU is more about resistance to mandates (kind of understandable), and then unrelated conspiracies about fertility and what have you. For example, in France the initial wave of anti-vax and anti-lockdown sentiment seemed to spread not via right-wing channels or stuff related to pre-existing anti-vax sentiment but through groups that broke off from the nominally leftist Gilet Jaunes.

The big conspiracy theory about the covid vax doesn't have much to do with Wakefield and theories about thimerosal fucking with peoples guts, but an unrelated paranoia about RNA. Because of the novel and ungraspable nature of RNA vaccines, I think we'd have seen paranoia about them independently of whether or not the Wakefield paper was published. Also: official science communication about the vaccine was absolutely terrible at first, with some governments initially telling people that vaccines would "slow the spread" and now saying they exist to make symptoms much milder. Governments are asking people to take 3+ injections over eighteen months, in what reality does this not result in 5-10% of people resisting?

Centering on the American vaxxer v antivaxxer, masker v antimasker generalises a bunch of American liberal biases at the cost of us being critical about how the movements formed and spread globally.  I think it also lets social media companies off the hook by focusing on bad actors and bad ideas, rather the the companies that profit from letting these run rampant.

And not to be rude but I noticed a bit of a contradiction in your complaint. Youtube and twitter beef is bad, but dissecting Prager U, most famous for being a youtube channel, is on track? If we fit the pieces together isn't it clear Shaun usually talks about videos, articles, or incidents that have a wide audience? People with 100's of thousands+ subs, popular video game stuff (Doom, Cuphead), large news organizations, or government atrocities.

Prager U is a well-funded nonprofit org. I don't think you can compare it to a few Twitter threads that interpretted Cuphead as racist or took issue with a joke in DOOM.

The benefit of doing this is question because better organised right-wing groups like Prager U are honeypots: Prager U invites being debunked, it deliberately tries to court outrage and correction because that's its chief way of promoting itself online. A lot of these channels and conservative "educational" resources just want attention, and a lot of the time I don't see the point in giving it to them. Do you think many of Shaun's viewers go into the video thinking that Prager U might be right or is it just about the entertainment value of the debunking? Was there any video where this was the case for you?