Screencap, Right Wing Watch.
The Nazis have a new gig on youtube, “bloodsports”, their um, rebranding of debates.
Over the past month, prominent alt-right personalities on YouTube have carved out platforms for themselves on a handful of popular livestreamed political debate channels, where they’ve engaged in debates against “classical liberal,” libertarian and “anti-social justice warrior” YouTube talkers.
The series of debates, which have been affectionately dubbed “bloodsports” by their participants, have provided the white nationalist alt-right with its latest chance to thrust itself into the political consciousness of young people and to appeal to members of some of the subcultures that have splintered from the movement in recent months.
The “bloodsports” phenomenon grew out of a fight about “race realism,” which is how some white supremacists refer to their pseudoscientific claims about racial superiority.
[…]
When the feuding between various pundits reached critical mass, alt-right figures who promote “race realism” and white nationalist advocates for the creation of ethnostates offered themselves up for debates with YouTube personalities who have channels much larger than their own. Taking advantage of the attention that the feud was providing, alt-right figures were able to secure spots on YouTube channels that boast hundreds of thousands of followers and to go up against some of YouTube’s biggest political commentators, such as Carl Benjamin (“Sargon of Akkad”), who were eager to inject themselves into the public hype.
One of the most prominent channels hosting these debates belongs to Andy Warski, a YouTube personality who has grown increasingly sympathetic to the alt-right.
[…]
In the last few weeks, Warski has hosted debates featuring nearly every popular white nationalist YouTube figure, including J.F. Gariepy, Tara McCarthy, Richard Spencer, Colin Robertson (“Millennial Woes”), Greg Johnson, Peinovich, James Allsup, Nick Fuentes and Tim Gionet (“Baked Alaska”). More often than not, these white nationalist personalities have been paired against conservative opponents who offer incredibly weak pushback to their arguments. On only a few occasions have they faced true, strong counter-arguments. One of these debates—featuring Sargon of Akkad and Tarl Warwick (“Styxhexenhammer666”) debating Spencer and Gariepy—became the highest-trending live video on YouTube during its broadcast. Afterward, Spencer declared that he had “destroyed” in the debate.
Oh yes, Richard Punch My Face Spencer declared he destroyed skepticism. So, I guess no one can be skeptical about anything ever from now one. Right Wing Watch has the full rundown on the deepening youtube cesspit, it’s quite involved. You can read all about it here.
If only these hatemongers were the only ones hurt by their “bloodsport”.
You said it. Unfortunately, after reading the full article, it seems this crap is drawing in a lot of younger people, and there’s nothing good about that at all. Such bigotry lingers for generations to come.
Wait. So if assholes are fighting assholes to draw attention to themselves, and succeeding, why aren’t we having SJW vs. SJW battles to do likewise for our side?
This all has me wondering if the internet would be better off with a pay wall.
Really, free access only seems to polarize us more, and give crazy a megaphone it wouldn’t have otherwise had.
And leave yet more in the hands of those with money? I don’t think that’s a solution. As much as the ‘net enables megaphone crazy, access also gives a voice to the powerless, and it often provides people with a way to make a living without having to abandon their preferred way of life, which is usually rural. One thing most people don’t think about, because they are ignorant, is just how much access allows indigenous people around the world to be able to fight for themselves and their land, and their rights. There’s a hell of a lot more good than bad, and talking about making it inaccessible to the poor and powerless is the height of arrogant privilege from where I sit.
I already A) pay for internet B) have my access to legit news sources restricted due to paywalls and ad blocker detectors, but at least I can still read what other people’s takes on those articles are, and piece together the gist via free sites. If I had to pay to access any information at all, I’d only end up knowing what local news channels decided I should know.
The mistake a lot of people make is believing that ability to pay = good person, lack of ability to pay for things = ignoramus. There’s *plenty* of rich, ignorant assholes, plenty of conscientious, well informed poor and broke folks. The ignorant hick hypothesis of social downfall doesn’t hold water considering who holds almost all the power. Not that ignorant hicks don’t exist, or aren’t useful fools, but in limiting their foolability and thus their usefulness to those in power, access to real information is pretty damn critical.
Yeah, I pay too, and I pay a whole lot more than I should for not much, living rural. I don’t pay highway robbery for television, so that’s a source I don’t have. Internet is what I have, and as you say, more and more of it is blocked and restricted.
@Onamission5, that’s a good point. I get so tired of hearing “rural=conservative” because it does not do so where I live. Where I live, the grindingly poor farmers always vote for Democrats. In fact, our Republican governor hates us for this and consistently vetoes bills that would help our county: for example, money for an ambulance. We basically don’t have one, and the hospitals are either 45 minutes or an hour away, depending which way you drive on the road. Her term is almost up, and although we’ve all learned a powerful lesson about hiring rich TV assholes with no experience, I swear, Frodo the Hobbit would do a better job than her.
Yes, please do punch his face. Every day is Punch a Nazi Day as far as I’m concerned.