Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Skeptic Community

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 4, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

12:13

The Skeptic Community

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The word community means the condition of sharing or having certain attitudes and interests in common.
	There's a lot of resistance in the sceptic community to this term, probably because of the homogenous nature of other communities on the internet, but it is an accurate description of what we are.
	There's no reason not to use the term, but I also think we should be mindful of the current state of affairs.
	The alternative media is under heavy and constant attack.
	I personally have had many articles on progressive sites written about me that are nothing more than character assassination.
	Often included in these articles are other major channels, such as Stefan Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson.
	Harmful Opinions had his YouTube channel, Twitch channel and Twitter accounts hacked and shut down.
	I was suspended on Twitter despite failing to give offence.
	Milo was permanently banned for actually giving offence, and his YouTube channel recently had his live streaming privileges revoked for calling the Democratic Party cucks.
	Many other prominent content creators are noticing a steady drop in traffic on various platforms as their accounts are throttled.
	YouTube demonetises Dave Cullen's videos on his channel Computing Forever on a regular basis.
	For just speaking his mind on politics on a stream with me, Jon Tron found himself in hot water with his sponsors.
	I can tell you from my own first-hand experience that being a full-time content creator is essentially the same as doing any other entrepreneurial job.
	Professionals become experts at what they do because they practice on a daily basis, and entrepreneurs are always on the clock because their livelihoods depend on it.
	Though you can't see it behind the scenes, it takes a lot of time and effort to make long-form informational videos.
	Editing videos takes hours in and of itself, but the real time-consuming job is research and reflection.
	It's often very difficult to separate fact from fiction, and sourcing original material can be a real chore, but most content creators are not adverse to hard work, and we are lucky that our engaged audiences will send us information.
	In addition to this, the nature of political discourse means that the content creator will come under heavy attack from their political opposition.
	This is hard to quantify, but it is a stressful aspect of the job.
	I believe that to remain intellectually honest, I must pay attention to audience feedback, and respond accordingly when legitimate criticism is made.
	Unfortunately, there are many people who see YouTubers as being as remote as mainstream celebrities, and think that if they leave a cathartic comment attacking my character, I won't read it.
	Well, I do.
	I'm not going to lie, it is tough to read comments by people who don't stress your arguments and simply hate you.
	It is stressful if you're operating from a position of good faith, and I take no pride in saying that I have begun to block the regular detractors on Twitter who seek only to one-up me, instead of engaging with me honestly.
	I don't take this personally, and I'm not looking for anyone to defend me, nor am I expecting sympathy.
	This is the game, and this is how it's played, and if I want the good, I have to accept the bad.
	It is a stressful job, and I signed up for this when I started putting out content.
	Among the content creators I find to be most reputable, there is always the ever-present spectre of self-doubt.
	This can be genuinely troubling, as a barrage of propaganda from political opponents, usually on Twitter, can have one concerned that they might be right.
	It's easy to retreat from this, and to return to the comment sections of one's own videos, which are usually overwhelmingly positive.
	I don't think it's any coincidence that popular celebrities receive near-constant praise from their fans, and also tend to be insufferably arrogant.
	There was a recent hubbub on Twitter over Armoured Skeptic and the apparent inflation of his ego over the issue of skeptic clones.
	Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and Armoured Skeptic is a popular YouTuber.
	It is no surprise that people copy his style, and his fairness and accuracy with the subjects he covers naturally brings with it adulation from his audience.
	My parents are very proud of what I do, but whenever I see my father, the first thing he does is to reprimand me for the positive comments I receive to ensure that my own ego does not grow out of control, and with good reason.
	It's very easy to allow yourself to read the positive comments and ignore the negative ones, and fall into the trap of self-aggrandisement, which is what happened to Armoured Skeptic.
	This is an ever-present danger when dealing with large enthusiastic audiences, and it's entirely to Skeptic's credit when he recognised this and publicly apologised on Twitter.
	I believe that we should unconditionally accept sincere apologies, which is what I recommended when Ian Miles Chung decided he did not want to be a part of the social justice community.
	He now produces good content, and you can tell from his Twitter feed that he is far more comfortable being the person he wants to be.
	And I think that permissiveness and forgiveness on our part certainly played a role in that.
	I think that when people make mistakes, we should not castigate and ostracize them, but deal fairly with them instead.
	A lot of people went hard at TJ, Armoured Skeptic and Shu, and others, for doing sponsored videos by Candid, but they made a good point in their own defence.
	If the alternative media is to survive, it needs to be funded and it needs to be profitable.
	Any advertisers who want to work with content creators should be welcomed even if you don't like the products that they are promoting, because the people against us will happily shut us down by any means necessary to prevent us from not only speaking, but reaching the largest audience possible to prevent us from interrupting their narratives.
	It is unreasonable to expect a content creator to know the full ins and outs of a sponsor when accepting the sponsorship, and while I personally wouldn't use Candid, and there may be ulterior motives behind it, I don't blame those who accepted the sponsorship because it made financial sense for them to do so.
	I realise that there will be many who complain about the imperfection of this system, and their points are valid.
	But politics isn't a game you get into and come out clean on the other side.
	If we want to get in the trenches and fight this culture war, we're going to have to define the acceptable amounts of mud sticking to our own, so the dialogue doesn't devolve into unhelpful backbiting.
	While I'm not a fan of sponsorship, it isn't necessarily an evil.
	Many sponsors do not have an ideological agenda and are purely interested in promoting their products to an audience who is willing to purchase them.
	One of the most dangerous social events to occur in any community is the devolution of the community into a witch hunt of ideological purity tests.
	This is what happened with Candid.
	Many people suspected Candid's creators of having ulterior motives, and they may well have done, but that isn't the fault of the people they sponsored, and it isn't their responsibility, it's the responsibility of Candid's team.
	The YouTubers do, of course, have a duty of care to discriminate between the sponsorships they accept, but the fiasco surrounding Candid became conspiratorial, and dragged out far longer than can be expected from a reasonable vetting process.
	Nobody likes a sellout, and the YouTubers who accepted sponsorships on Candid may well have been led up the garden path by them, but attacking them for not knowing in advance that which it took harmful opinions weeks to uncover is unfair.
	The entire thing had become an ideological purity test, the accusation being that these YouTubers accepted something that might, at some point in future, endanger free speech, therefore it was just to attack them for it.
	This is a common form of self-aggrandisement in ideologically driven communities, and I think it is something of which we should be aware and guard against with the utmost vigilance.
	I would recommend taking a look at Laurie Penny's Twitter right now, if you want to see the end result of this, in which she was chewed out by anti-far supporters for daring to even acknowledge the humanity of Breitbart writers and supporters.
	She argued her case fairly, and the goalposts were shifted, until even mentioning the subject of her hit piece was forbidden.
	This concluded with Laurie Penny being accused of being a liberal collaborator with the Nazis, and I'm sure I don't need to point out how such a statement is utterly unhinged.
	I suspect that this attitude may well have soured many content creators' attitudes towards sponsorship, but sponsorship is not a great evil in and of itself, and this is coming from someone who refuses sponsorships point blank.
	There are beneficial aspects to outside sponsorship beyond helping content creators to survive and profit from their labour.
	Sponsorships lend an air of legitimacy to a platform as a form of endorsement.
	Outsiders may not know how credible a YouTuber is, and in this regard, sponsorships function as a form of endorsement.
	If outside interests feel confident enough to promote their products on certain platforms, this legitimizes those platforms in the eyes of the casual observer.
	As already covered, there are dangers with this, but I think the good probably outweighs the bad and that this should be within the bounds of acceptable practice.
	The most preferred method, in my opinion, is Patreon funding.
	We cannot rely on the powers that be to treat us impartially, as we are often set squarely against their interests.
	It's unrealistic to think that we can challenge the status quo without repercussion, but we can take measures to ensure that these repercussions don't end up censoring us.
	Audience funding is the most preferable method, in my opinion, because it ensures that the content creators' interests align with that of their audience, which will prevent a Gamergate-style backlash from occurring.
	It's also the most likely way to keep them honest, in my opinion.
	The reason that social justice warrior communities survive is because of the willingness of the people involved to donate a dollar a month to their favourite creators, and we should adopt this attitude as well.
	We win no friends by being the gadflies of the world, but we provide a necessary and credible alternative to the incessant half-truths, omissions, and outright lies of the mainstream media.
	If we disappear, then the mainstream media returns to their hegemony over the narrative.
	I consider this an unacceptable prospect, but it is possible that it will happen if we do not support each other.
	If there is a particular content creator that you enjoy, and there is a way of directly financially supporting them, I encourage you to use it.
	I would recommend a small amount from many people, so the donation is sustainable for both the creator and their audience.
	Beyond that, sharing their work on social media is the most useful thing you can do.
	The more eyes that are on their content, the better.
	If you can help a content creator make the leap from amateur to professional, you will see a marked increase in the quality of their work, in addition to the amount of work they are able to produce.
	It also allows the content creator to try new and interesting things.
	My arts competition would not have been possible if it weren't for the continued support of my patrons, and I feel the quality of the entries vastly improved the aesthetics of my videos.
	It also became a fun community activity that allowed people to showcase their skills.
	I think this was a net positive for my channel and my audience, and I was able to give what I consider to be a generous prize money because of your support.
	I'm afraid for this video I haven't provided any sources.
	I know this is unusual, but this is essentially an op-ed.
	My apologies, and if anyone would like to post sources for what I said, please do leave them in the comments.

▲