site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   36334 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Mr Beast’s Trans Debacle

Mr Beast is the Gen Z entertainment celebrity of note. Calling Mr Beast the PewDiePie of Gen Z would be underselling him. His 25-minute Squid Game YouTube video received 400 million views, which to put in perspective is 5x the total viewership of the Seinfeld Finale. His Tik Tok has 80 million followers, his most popular “YouTube short” has 650 million views, etc. He is more popular than what the average millennial or older would think (I fall into this cohort). When he visited a mall in my state to sell his burgers (one of his successful business offshoots), the line extended miles and made the news. Mr Beast has a childhood friend group with whom he makes videos. The rapport between the friends of the group, what might be called the “vibe”, is a crucial ingredient to Mr Beast’s success. They were, like many friend groups containing boys in America[*], all male; the pure boyishness was a major draw for his success.

This year, one of the “cast” members of the Mr Beast enterprise transitioned into a woman. (For brevity, I will just call the member she and a woman.) Chris, who had a child and went through a divorce, has transitioned in full. She is wearing dresses on video and taking HRT. If you were to plug Chris and Mr Beast into Google News, you would have no idea how the viewers have responded to this change. But plugging it into Tik Tok (the premiere Zoomer app) gives a different story.

The response among Gen Z has been overwhelmingly negative. When I checked last night, 8 of the 10 most watched videos for the search “Mr Beast” were a negative reaction to Chris’s transition, the total view count of which was more than 80 million. The comments overwhelmingly negative. A typical comment section looked like this, sometimes with more than 25k comments. The commenters chant “Mr Beast 6000 coming out”, referencing Mr Beast’s oldest YouTube channel known for political incorrect humor. The consensus among the fans is that the transition has ruined the group’s rapport and that Chris has got to go, but that hands are tied because she is transgender. On the latest (secondary channel) video for Mr Beast, the comment section is censored and moderated so that the issue can’t explicitly come up. The commenters instead spam “we want to see more Chandler and Nolan”, cleverly emphasizing their disinterest with Chris by omission. The fans on Tik Tok are trying to find any clip they can to get Chris cancelled, with one finding a video of him saying the N word and another digging up an anti-Islam tweet from 2017.

There are a few things to explore here.

  1. Tik Tok is the last remaining “Wild West” internet platform. Low censorship, low “authority-boosts”, and high anonymity allow for majority discourse like in the old days. It would be hard to gauge the fan reaction without looking at Tik Tok, which (conveniently) is the app that most of his fans use for socializing and discussion. This illuminates how manipulated platforms like YouTube and Twitter are, both because of censorship and because of cancellation fears.

  2. The younger generation appears to be immunized against the transgender movement. The boys do not buy it. Mr Beast is a litmus test because he has a large, diverse fan base in Gen Z, the majority of whom use Tik Tok and have Mr Beast content algorithmically fed to them. These Tik Toks are as close as we will get to a “youth vote” on the transgender issue. They not only don’t buy it, but they think it is immoral and noxious.

  3. Mr Beast is in a pickle. He became popular, partially, because of the authenticity and joy of his friend group. The discomfort involving the transition is palpable in the latest video. Body language, rapport, banter, and general “vibes” have ruined what led children to watch his content. He is the most data driven creator and knows this. He has previously mentioned that he edits out sneezes and coughs because it loses retention, and I believe once mentioned that adding a girl to reaction videos negatively reduces engagement. Alas, he can’t come out and fire the transitioned member without losing corporate sponsorship and reputation. He is stuck between losing popularity among his fans, or losing support among the progressive power structure. He is also losing support from parents who don’t want their 8-year-old watching a transgender. There’s also the moral issue of supporting a friend post-divorce.

They were, like many authentic friend groups in America, all male.

The implication being that women are less likely to be in authentic friend groups? I don't think you mean to say that, and I won't treat you as if you have. Or do you actually stand by that implication?

This illuminates how manipulated platforms like YouTube and Twitter are, both because of censorship and because of cancellation fears.

Who is doing the manipulating? I suspect it's Mr. Beast and his staff, which is less objectionable than the platforms doing it themselves.

Body language, rapport, banter, and general “vibes” have ruined what led children to watch his content.

Can you give an example via timestamp?

I do wonder, however, if Jimmy will consider just riding it out. I'm not sure how many principled people there are amongst his audience and their parents, and he may very well get to have his cake and eat it too.

The implication being that women are less likely to be in authentic friend groups?

Anecdotal thought. I've noticed that parasocial relationship shows for young losers — usually podcasts — emerge and grow wildly popular with all-male casts. At some point, the viewership numbers make them something of an institution, rather than a garage-band operation. They feel compelled to include a female co-host. The show then reaches cultural eclipse.

Prototypical example: Giant Bomb

There's some level of tension and inhibition that comes with mixed-sex groups. It's not universal and it's hard to prove, because no will admit "I'm afraid of saying something creepy in the presence of a female", but I'm convinced the dynamic is real.

At some point, the viewership numbers make them something of an institution, rather than a garage-band operation. They feel compelled to include a female co-host. The show then reaches cultural eclipse.

Probably to expand the audience reach. Seems like a common-sense tactic - bring on people for different demographics to identify with easier.

Probably to expand the audience reach. Seems like a common-sense tactic - bring on people for different demographics to identify with easier

Maybe that's the idea. But when every organism that emerges to dominate a certain niche looks like a crab, it's probably unwise to genetically engineer yourself away from those traits, even if it makes sense on paper.

I don't think demographics are the concern, personalities are. I think most people can look past a person's outside to see if they fit in.

Who exactly was complaining (are they always the same people? Just a few people focusing on the same thing?

But does it work? I find it just as plausible that messing with the dynamic by adding a 'novel' member could also lose you some of the existing audience. And if that thought occurs to me, I'm sure it occurs to anybody whose livelihood depends on those analytics. And if a popular podcast or show were to still increase on popularity after the new member's addition, is that vindication or irrelevance?

Popularity is a fickle thing, and I have no idea how you would be able to tease an assessment from all the available data, given the number of factors blowing around in the wind. But I have always found the 'common sense' argument of "Duh, add a woman to grow the audience!" lacking in demonstration. It's so 'obvious' that you wonder why so many companies didn't snatch the free money earlier.

"Common sense" is perhaps the wrong choice, I think "intuitive" would be better. That is to say, we imagine that people might encounter some resistance to engaging with something if they don't feel an obvious relationship to it, but that's not always the case. Media like F.R.I.E.N.D.S, Dragon Ball, How I Met Your Mother, Naruto, etc. have tremendous cross-racial popularity, and there's media with relatable demographics that fail despite that.

So it doesn't surprise me that media tries to widen demographic appeal on the basis that it might attract new followers, but I agree that it's not necessarily the cause of a show's success.

"Common sense" is perhaps the wrong choice, I think "intuitive" would be better. That is to say, we imagine that people might encounter some resistance to engaging with something if they don't feel an obvious relationship to it, but that's not always the case. Media like F.R.I.E.N.D.S, Dragon Ball, How I Met Your Mother, Naruto, etc. have tremendous cross-racial popularity, and there's media with relatable demographics that fail despite that.

I wouldn't characterize this as "intuitive" either, and I wouldn't characterize media like FRIENDS with its all-white cast or Dragon Ball with its primarily Japanese/alien/male characters as having characters where the audience has no "obvious relationship" to them. This only makes sense under the framing that having certain demographic characteristics in common with characters constitutes an "obvious relationship," I don't think it's either common sense or intuitive. Certainly many people assert it or something like it, but that's not the same thing as it being intuitive. I also think that "despite" in that last sentence doesn't belong there, as it implies that having relatable demographics would have some sort of positive effect on popularity, which is certainly not intuitive at the very least.

Fucking hell. You reminded me about Giant Bomb. I drifted away from them around 2019-2020, checked back just now, and recognized absolutely no one on the podcast but Jan. Half of that fucking was the staff's vast knowledge/experience in the industry, and they're just... gone?

Man, given that there wasn't a Jan when I last listened, I guess I shouldn't bother checking then. I guess nothing lasts forever, but the old Giant Bomb crew was special and you can't just replace them. In hindsight it seems kind of like Ryan's death was the writing on the wall for that site.

In hindsight it seems kind of like Ryan's death was the writing on the wall for that site.

Friendly PSA for overweight mottizens. See a doctor if you're over 35 BMI. Normal for Americans does not mean normal.

It happened within a week of his wedding...

Possible counter example could be Chapo Trap House. They have men and one woman. On an unrelated note I listened to part of two episodes and found it completely unlistenable. Terrible audio content. But it is inexplicably popular as far as podcasts for socialist zoomers go.

Possible counter example could be Chapo Trap House. They have men and one woman. On an unrelated note I listened to part of two episodes and found it completely unlistenable. Terrible audio content. But it is inexplicably popular as far as podcasts for socialist zoomers go.

The one thing I know about Chapo is that they were the only left-leaning community extreme enough to be banned from Reddit during the 2020 banwave. Quite a feat.

That might be Cumtown leaking. Reddit banned them also.

Chapo were quarantined way before cumtown.

Most of the people clipping it are posting it on Tik Tok, but some examples I can find on YouTube: 1, 2. If you watch the video you notice a weird distance between the members and a stressful look on MB’s face, which viewers picked up on and discuss on Tik Tok.

No, but that many teenage boys are in all-male friend groups. Adding in a girl or an MTF to an all-male friend group changes the dynamic.

MB is YouTube’s prized real estate, I would not be surprised if YouTube corporate is deleting comments, and they also delete and reduce the popularity of YouTubers who are critical of LGBT issues.

No, but that many teenage boys are in all-male friend groups. Adding in a girl or an MTF to an all-male friend group changes the dynamic.

I figured as much, just wanted that to be clear. Thanks for your edit as well.

The implication being that women are less likely to be in authentic friend groups.

You're telling on yourself. The implication is that authentic friend groups are more likely to be same sex.

Who is doing the manipulating?

YouTube is doing heavy manipulation of comments, search results, recommended feeds, trending feeds, and even user subscriptions.

You're telling on yourself. The implication is that authentic friend groups are more likely to be same sex.

Nope. I treat people here as being careful with their words. So if you say "male" instead of "same sex", then I assume you mean that. If the OP means what you do (and I suspect they do), then I'm pointing out where they should either clarify or stand by their words.

YouTube is doing heavy manipulation of comments, search results, recommended feeds, trending feeds, and even user subscriptions.

I'm fairly certain that Youtube comment sections also allow the video poster to engage in banning certain words or whatever. So it's not clear to me that this is the platform at work (and Mr. Beast is not naive about this, he undoubtedly engages with the feature).

If the OP means what you do (and I suspect they do), then I'm pointing out where they should either clarify or stand by their words.

Asking for a clarification is fine. Implying implications is a bit accusatory.

I'm fairly certain that Youtube comment sections also allow the video poster to engage in banning certain words or whatever. So it's not clear to me that this is the platform at work (and Mr. Beast is not naive about this, he undoubtedly engages with the feature.

When it comes to comments there's probably more of the posters involvement, but you hear creators complaining about legitimate comments landing in the spam bin.

But stuff like reaction videos appearing in the TikTok recommended feed, but not in YouTube, us almost certainly YouTube's "deradicalization" algorithm at work.

Asking for a clarification is fine. Implying implications is a bit accusatory.

I was making clear what I thought the implication was and explicitly said I didn't think that it was what they meant.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats