On social media, there’s this ongoing trend- a trend that has been so pervasive I almost can’t remember a time the internet was not inundated with these posts- primarily on YouTube and TikTok, that consists of debating about marginalized people and the validity of their oppression.
On YouTube, there are two sides to this debate trend. One is a conservative or right-wing YouTuber who will try to delegitimize the maltreatment of marginalized groups with inflammatory statements under the guise of “curiosity” and “objectivity.” Yet will subject the person sincerely engaging with them to demonization and vitriol.
An example is Steven Crowder’s infamous Change My Mind segments, where the political commentator goes to college campuses or public spaces under the false premise that he’s open to having conversations. And a more recent example being the Red Pill and “Men’s Rights Activists” boom, which often entails men yelling expletives at women, women that they’ve either gathered in their vicinity or watch online- debating their right to simply exist to their audiences- again concealing their outward prejudices as impartiality.
These creators often bombard younger people with microphones, logical fallacies, and misrepresented stats that they study beforehand, in an attempt to catch individuals off guard in order to represent the defenders of “wokeness” (which is now just a euphemism for racial justice, feminism, and LGBTQ+ rights) as nonsensical. Bonus points if that person happens to be marginalized because if they become overwhelmed by the unmasked bigotry being directed at them while tasked to defend their existence right then and there, they are dehumanized, characterized as a spokesperson, and painted as illogical, combative, hysterical, and sensitive.
It’s wildly apparent that these “debates” are never objective and fostered to push a conservative agenda and thinly veiled propaganda. Even when these personalities are backed into a corner or caught in one of their many lies by someone they didn’t expect to be knowledgeable, they diminish centuries of historical accounts, authors, scholars, and theory, as merely nothing more than “woke” and, ironically, divisive ideology. You’ll rarely see these commentators enter a “debate” with an expert. I’m sure if Crowder were to ever “change his mind” his audience and finances would change with it.
The opposite side of this debate trend are left-leaning YouTube channels that are either trying to foster common ground between marginalized people and their privileged counterparts or take on a more reactionary role- serving as the left-leaning version to the Crowder’s, Ben Shapiro’s (co-founder of far-right “news” site, The Daily Wire) and Sneako’s (someone who triggers my acid reflux). This content also misses the mark. Despite its seemingly good intentions, it allows for discriminatory views to either be platformed as reputable information or exploits the labor and analysis done by marginalized people in order to rage bait and content farm under the guise of “fighting inequity.” Examples of this are the YouTube channel Jubilee, The Daily Show’s: Jordan Klepper Vs. series, and the plethora of accounts premised on “conservatives getting owned.”
I find left-wing debate channels, although less harmful, a bit more insidious than the right because of how often social justice is cosplayed for views and engagement. Left-wing debaters, the most prominent being white men, use the oppressed groups the right harms and proceed to harm them again by essentially reducing the very real people affected by discrimination as simply pawns and talking points to win an “intellectual off.” It almost never feels like genuine care for these communities but moreso like a bunch of white privileged people playing a game- unlocking a new marginalized person they can add to their ensemble with each and every debate- so they can win Intellectual Ally of the Year and thus granted the award of never being criticized and being socially solidified as “good person.”
I think the fact that most of the notable left-wing “debate bros” are white men with intersecting privileged identities exemplifies how omnipresent racism and discrimination are, even within the spaces meant for its dismantling. It reaffirms the prejudiced belief that marginalized people aren’t capable of fully understanding the scope of our own marginalization unless co-signed and affirmed by our privileged counterparts. This isn’t solely the fault of the creators of this content, but also their audience who would rather sit in their comfort and not have to, quite literally, look marginalization in its face, so they rather opt for a co-optation of lessons on “why racism is bad,” from a white face.
Being perceived as “civilized” and emotionally vacant amidst adversity is often associated with objectivity- so no wonder, no matter what side of the political spectrum you observe, whiteness often leads these “debates.”
TikTok also fosters the same debate content either through short street interview segments, live streams, or YouTubers who upload shortened versions of their videos to gain even more traction.
The commonality of all sides of this debate trend is content creators taking advantage of our contentious political climate, along with the engagement social media rewards for reactionary content, to profit off oppressed people.
Online debate culture does nothing more than other the marginalized- as we are used as chess pieces devoid of any humanity- to either prove why we don’t deserve equity, or our existence is seen as nothing more than a figurative photo op with no care for our actual input or expertise.
Apologies for this very long overdue essay *kissing everyone on the forehead as I type this* Thank you so much for being here <3 <3 <3
Fun little note: This is was like 3,000 words and I couldn’t use most of it cause it read like a stream of consciousness and I kept getting sidetracked with rants that were not at all cohesive- now sending the unedited version to my psychiatrist to help with a *diagnosis* :)