Is Everyone's Opinion Equal And Valuable? No. "Free Speech" And Reactionary News Cycles steemCreated with Sketch.

in informationwar •  20 days ago

Everyone loves to say those tired idioms about opinions and how they're all valid, should never be questioned, and equal in value. That's not, and it never has been, anything even remotely close to accurate. A racist who grows up in a small town with a 100% white homogeneous population and ends up moving and committing hate crimes against minorities because he hates them does not have an opinion on civil rights or social justice that is of equal worth and value to, say, a black man who marched with Dr. MLK and lost their mother and father to KKK murders.

It's absurd to claim that everything anyone says about anything has intrinsic worth. What has the most value and worth is what is closest to the truth. A six year old who thinks that she can't be seen if she closes her eyes and a career professional optometrist don't have equal opinions when it comes to eyesight. What's the core difference between my examples so far? Information. Knowledge. Education.

Why don't people educate themselves before posting their "opinions", though? Well, multiple reasons:

1) too much work lol

Let's be real, these YouTube Losers like Tim Pool, Stefan Molyneux, or Carl Benjamin don't give a flying fuck about actual journalism, or actual educational pursuits. They're ridiculous child-like reactionaries who have an agenda to push. Why actually bother looking into a topic when all scientific studies, published data, and social studies lead to the conclusion that you don't like? Might as well just make a video real quick, post it, and then jerk off for 29 hours and cash out your YouTube checks. Your audience has already proven that they will eat anything you say up no matter what, so why even bother?

2) FIRST!!!!!!!!

Remember when people kept commenting "1st!!!" in YouTube comments in, like, 2009, and people made fun of them? Well, what the fuck happened to that? Oh, wait, it's only laughable when it's some random dude making a no-content comment on my video. When I see something happen, make a video in 30 minutes after a news story breaks while doing no investigative journalism or waiting until all the facts are out, and be the first one to inform people about a HOT TOPIC to rake in the ad revenue? You can never know everything about something in the first 30 minutes, especially if it's a terrorist attack that happens in a country across the fucking planet, but you see people always want to rush to get the news out and mix their SOCIAL COMMENTARY along with it, and then move on to other subjects. You rarely see a lot of YouTubers follow up and keep posted on lots of stories, they tend to make videos the day of, and move on with the next BREAKING NEWS!!!!. But why? Well,

3) $$$$$$$$ MONEY, MONEY, MONEY!!!!!!! $$$$$$$$

The more clicks you get, the more money you get. The sooner you get a video or article released, the less there are in existence, and the higher the likelihood of people seeing Breaking News and being forced to watch your content due to limited options. People generally will see a news piece the day it happens, look it up if it seems interesting, read the first article or watch the first video that pops up, and move on. If you make a video and you force people who want to know about something to watch it, you get to control the narrative and try to be cool and interesting to get them to follow you and pay you in the future. The role of the Content Creator is to constantly pump sludge to the masses that is specifically designed to grab your attention, sap your time and resources, and leave you worse off for personal gain. Let's be real, if you follow 20 people on YouTube, and a breaking news story hits, are you really gonna watch the 13th video about it? Probably not.

There are unintended side effects of this. If you see your favorite YouTuber make a video about something first, it shapes your further views if you see more information on other sources. Generally, you are biased. Especially if you're a fan of someone like Sargon, because, let's be honest, you can't be too skeptical or a fan of facts if you are, let alone capable of identifying and combating your deep-rooted biases and faults ROFL.

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

You rarely see a lot of YouTubers follow up and keep posted on lots of stories, they tend to make videos the day of, and move on with the next BREAKING NEWS!!!!.

I hate this short attention span mentality!! It's like people only pay attention to what's being blown up with flashy lights and horns in front of their face; it seems to be a mentality similar to the old TV news days, where a news station feeds you a narrative and you just accept whatever comes out on a pre-scheduled basis, then you have no way to interact with TV so you can't just ask questions or demand knowledge.... Too bad the clickbait youtubers have an ego so they see you as floating money bags, so they also most likely will not interact with you anyways, oy!

EGO!! all of these big youtubers have it (including sargon), they don't see their fans as equals. How could one treat other people in life with fairness when you don't even treat the people who make you a success with the same level as a human?


Reactionary culture is very tribalistic and idolistic.

It's quite a complex issue. It has a lot to do with the way we consume news and media now. Unfortunately it has likely ruined news forever.

I'm getting frustrated with it too. Even watching the supposedly unbiased BBC news is an irritating experience when most opinions are weighed equally, even some pretty fringe ones. It's left to the viewers to decide who to believe but you can't trust them to do it since most of them care more about how an issue makes them feel rather than how it should actually be addressed.

When someone like Tommy Robinson for example is given time on a platform which occasionally hosts the prime minister and his views go poorly challenged, that's not unbiased journalism, it's timid journalism. Everybody is right, there are no wrong answers any more and nobody should ever need to suffer the indignity of having their point of view challenged, no matter how stupid.


Agreed. Faux-Neutrality is cancerous garbage and mainstream cable news in most places is just unwatchable.

I tried watching local news at my grandparent's house, wasn't even FOX or CNN, but still it was so cringe and all the issues they discussed that weren't local news and that I had already seen were wildly narrated and left open to interpretation too many times. It's bizarre.

Why is this still a discussion for you when cryptocurrency makes it impossible to ban hate speech anyway? You do realize steemit isn't the only platform and banning crypto is nearly impossible. Not all platforms even have a method to remove posts. Down voting cant stop donations and costs a lot of resources.

Like I see your argument but I raise you a... Aren't you aware of the actual topic? What point does it matter if you wont be able to do shit about anything anyone says??

MLK and lost their mother and father to KKK murders.

MLK was clearly not into intersectionalism. He was an individualist who believe everyone should be judged by the content of their character.


Like I said, it's not about force, it's about education. Try responding to the content, bud.

EDIT: Responding to edit:

lol please stop retconning history, dude. MLK was as intersectional as it gets.

When the content of your physical appearance isn't a factor, the only thing left is the content of your character, which is his point and my point. Learn words and learn history.


You have to be a monster lacking all morals to judge people based PURELY ON THEIR PERCEIVED GENETICS. Listen, I know you want to be right and that you can solve the worlds problems by murding and killing anyone who doesnt fit in your special catigories.

But its wrong.

Like I said, it's not about force, it's about education.

Ending freedom of speech is a forceful action. It literally means that you want genocide in the name of intersectionality. Why else would you want to prevent people from talking about the bad shit you want to do?

Its fucking evil!



So I want to kill everyone in order to save everyone..............

right.... right.... that makes perfect sense.


MLK was not intersectional

"Judge people not for the color of their skin but the content of their character." - MLK

Intersectional belief structure revolves around everyone being judged by the color of the skin and assuming it is part of the content of their character and then figuring out how to make it so everyone can "overlap" with no "Discrimination".


Its tragic you can read that shit and not immediately red flag. It means that in order for intersectional society to exist we have to basically put massive rules in place to make sure there is enough of X race or gender in every possible profession and activity.


Not enough women in the military! Lets start lowering standards!

That is fucking horrible!!

You are fucking wrong on this. There is ZERO WAY you are not wrong on this absolute train wreck of logic.