Radicalized by Youtube?
So the New York Times has published a piece today that I can't get my head around. It's an article that talks about how a otherwise perfectly "sane" person, became radicalized by watching influencers and thought leaders on youtube.
NY Times
I won't lie and say that I don't get it because I do understand what Caleb Cain means when he talks about his path down the rabbit hole, and as a matter of fact, I remembered the video where he came clean about his alt-right background.
Truth is that the only pause I take is precisely where the blame itself resides. Which is to say, is it really the fault of a Youtube personality that someone does something awful? I mean, I realize the question is complicated and thus the answer very nuanced. There is a distinction between someone who is literally calling for action, for followers to commit crimes, etc, but if someone is voicing their opinion as twisted as distorted as it can be, Who is to blame if you believe it? This is where I'm a bit confused.
NY Times error
It's not so much that they are reporting on a falsehood, because this obviously does happen, but more so the fact that they are creating unnecessary outrage and hyperbole as to hint that we have a problem with "too much information being out there".
To me this is a jab on new media, and not so much concern for the mental health of those who consume media. Let's be honest here, can we literally say that NYTimes is not guilty for instigating division? It may be more obvious today, with Trump as our president, but the NY Times is known for being incendiary, it's kind of how the bills are paid.
Some of the people on the list they presented left me even more confused. Yes, I can see why someone like Richard Spencer could be added to a list of this nature, but people like Crowder? That, seems like a very long stretch to me.
The Red Flag
The othering, as I like to call it, is nothing new. We've been fighting for as long as we've been conscious humans, but there's a different tinge overtaking today's battle and it is worrying to me.
It seems like nuance escapes most people, and I don't pretend to hold all the answers, but it's obvious we are not doing such a good job as a society educating the younger minds. We live in a world that relishes outrage, and that in the name of equality and anti-fascism has began to create its own biggest enemy.
This particular video spoke volumes to me, and I think it's worth every second of your time. You see, we've always had reasons to collaborate with one another, but there are reasons that are stronger than others, and the alienation and demonization game we seem to be playing is beginning to sprout it's toxic results.
Don't stand idle my friend, get involved.
MenO
The video presents a narrative predicated on the idea that people are more or less automatons, guided by mechanical or outside forces, as though they lack the capacity for critical thought or independent will. It's the algorithm, the YouTube personality, it's the depression or bad ideas that's the cause of this man's descent, rather than a self guided and initiated journey of thought and self exploration. Caleb CHOSE those videos. Just because YouTube recommends a video to me does not mean I'm gong to click on it, let alone agree with the content.
Furthermore, what if YouTube had suggested left wing videos and he rejected them? I know that YouTube has done the same for me on both sides of the spectrum and I outright reject many of the choices provided, or if I watch them, reject the content. I see correlation in their data but not causation. Where does one begin and end? The article determines not.
The article also does a disservice to extremism by focusing on the right - a cliche at this point in institutional media - while peppering in other YouTubers who talk about Marxist economics as some form of counterpoint to the other while not giving those ideologies their due. Marxism and it's "economics" is responsible for more death and destruction of human life and wealth than any before or since. Destiny, the YouTube in the article that "won the debate" in the story has been recorded wishing for harm against Republicans. How is this person held up as a reasonable alternative to anyone on the fringe right?
Both the far, nationalistic / ethnocentric right and far left identitarians are collectivist ideologies that require the rejection of individualism and critical thought. Both are very dangerous, so why focus so hard on the right? It's bizarre.
Finally, Phillip DeFranco and others like Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin in the montage for the NYT article are not alt right at all and actively reject collectivism and continuously reach out to others to say that healthy dialogue is important. Mixing them up into the other, more extreme individuals gives the impression that they're like gateway drugs, a fallacy at that, and muddies the waters as to who is trustworthy and who is not.
I could not have said it better...
In Spain there are some bratty teenagers having millions of plays by literally being ass... My country has a special ability to reward crap as if shock factor were all that mattered, so when i hear a guy quoting x youtuber funny asshole quote i think there it goes another brainwashed. Dunno if fault is in the "influencer" but a society that is happy to be "influenced" such an ugly word right? Sorry for typos, wrote from phone
It seems like those “influencers” are as “influenced” as their fanbases. I wonder what drives that feedback loop of stupidity.
MenO:
Thank you for your article. It's important to point out those behaviors displayed by organizations like NYT. I understand their right to report and publish. I do not understand, however, why the need to only discuss "YouTube Radicals" from the right. Radicals, to my understanding, are on more than just one side of the spectrum.
Thanks again.
Perhaps the problem is letting stupid people near facts, uncontrolled information that can be used to do damage. Maybe there should be an IQ test before one is allowed out of the corral.
No, forget that. Evolution is all the test we need. The NYT can stay in their safe space with their helment strapped on, and I'll venture into the wilderness of rampant facts and unrestrained opinions, where I am most at home; where I feel safe from their dumbed down padded cells of unconfusing lies that make dolts feel smart.
I'm not afraid of shills, psyops, or censorship. I'll get the facts anyway. Them as can't handle the truth can stick to Youtube, Facebook, and Twatter, where they belong.
Thanks!
To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.
Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.