Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

On Online Bubbles (Patreon)

Published:
2022-11-24 07:15:46
Imported:
2026-06
Tags:

Content

Remember that interview with Konstantin? The one that so many people here found frustrating and how transparent his rhetoric was?

Well, I just noticed today that Konstantin reposted the episode to the Triggernometry channel on YouTube. This is perfectly fine as we told him he could reuse the audio as he saw fit and release on his channel if he wanted. But the interesting thing is to see his audience's reaction to the discussion.

As far as they are concerned he dismantled us with logic and reason and we were left speechless by his 'don't criticise me for what others say' argument.

Speaking as Chris, I found Konstantin to be relatively effective rhetorically but also felt that it was rather transparent and that when pushed he ended up defending some rather silly positions, such as Seb Gorka was likely radicalised by negative media coverage, the heavily branded advertisement for Nigel Farage's investment company on their show was not about Nigel Farage, The Epoch Times is not far right, etc.

I also did feel that at times Konstantin made concessions that he usually would not, such as noting that the WEF anti-globalist narratives are conspiracy theories and/or that the right wing promotes grievance narratives.

In any case, I find the comments illuminating not because of how much they dislike me / us but in the fact that they pick up on none of that and are completely compelled by Konstantin's rhetoric.

We did not do the episode to try and convince his audience but rather to have someone prominent in the heterodox sphere address what we perceive to be the clear biases there (and in their content).

In short, online bubbles are real and it's good to remember that there are many people out there with very different perceptions. If you want to see more of the comments look here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaRXRdSbZVE

Files

Comments

Nobody

I am using a simple android phone to try and view the screen capture that seems extremely relevant to this post. I cannot view that.

Jesta

I think that there is a legitimate debate to be had on whether content like this has value. It is, in my opinion, important that I listen to the "other side" of an issue, if only to be pushed to reconsider my own arguments. However, I can do that by going to listen to them. Much like in the atheist online sphere there is real value in considering whether debates with young Earth creationists are worth doing, or in the skeptic sphere whether debating Flat Earthers is worth it. It is very unlikely that the creationist or Flat Earther will change their mind, and all it seems to do is to give them what can be spun as a "win" to reinforce the belief of the believers in their bubble. I am open to the idea that these sorts of things are important, but I am yet to be convinced. Marsh does a reasonable job on "Be Reasonable" but I just find it incredibly frustrating. Defenders say that they can get the people to admit to flaws in their arguments or to show how their positions are extreme or indefensible, but... so what? I already knew most of that anyway and their audience won't admit it. Any thoughts on why this is really worth doing? I am genuinely torn.

Rasterisk

Wow. Konstantin was so irritating in that interview! There’s just no arguing with true believers because even the best evidence will never convince them to question their worldview. It’s not what they believe but why they believe it. Dogma is a hell of a drug.

Jason Trock

The “debate bro” vibe is strong with the comments.. which I guess is expected? I tried to listen to K episodes and.. no.. no.

Tasty3141

I know the popular opinion around here is that Bret lost to Robert wright in their discussion but when I watched the first half it was clear to me that rhetorically Bret was easily winning to the average viewer who comes in with no biases. Even me with a huge anti Bret bias coming in was kind of hypnotised a bit by his smoother talking. Bob's disagreebaleness was fun but unfortunately in terms of charisma he seems more agitated and therefore like he's losing. All this is just to say it's very easy to lose track of how a discussion comes across if you have personal feelings one way or another coming in. It also speaks to how these talks aren't always net positive in terms of exposing bad ideas.

Sophia de Fossard

The comments are pretty much the same in any space like that. When people get into personal attacks, deflection, straw man arguments etc it says way more about them than the subjects they speak of. It kinda suggests DTG did a good job in that interview cos that’s all they got to come back with.

Carolina Sunshine

I appreciate you distilling the comments and delivering them to us as I certainly wouldn’t have gone looking for them and I do think they are quite illustrative of the great divide. It’s difficult to intrinsically understand the reactions, or how to reach folks with the substance of the arguments, but I do still think there’s value in trying to have the conversation

privateer

I find myself suprised that you expected something else. Their audience is the type that rants about the mainstream media. And there is a negative correlation to the amount you complain about the MSM and how informed you are. You may not have been trying to change his audiences mind but I’m sure you planted some seeds of doubt. Which is how people make it out of these bubbles. I think it unlikely that those people would post in the YouTube comments.

Mark K

“You’re giving a take on a bunch of takes.” - Tim Snyder to Sam Harris after Sam tried to describe the IDW’s Russophilic ideas on the Ukraine war. Sam was in KK’s position of trying to describe half-baked ideas while also distancing himself from them. I think Sam did a better job of distancing, and he did not quibble when Snyder dismantled the IDW. KK seems more beholden to the IDW types for revenue/fame and thus must continue to play footsie. Who knows what he “really” thinks, but this kind of feedback from the IDW certainly doesn’t help.

Molly Jacobson

My husband used to produce talk radio and he always points out that the vast majority of listeners do not call in or comment. Those who do are folks who choose to be part of the entertainment ... They are minor characters in the story and not representative of the audience in any meaningful way. Commenting on a YouTube video or Twitter post or Facebook or Instagram is the equivalent act. I agree that these commenters are in a bubble, but I wouldn't assume everyone who watched the video agree with them. 😊

Diane Morrison

I noticed when DTG posted the KK interview on here, there were a load of comments which expressed exasperation with and denigration of KK as being low IQ and biased. So...the bubbles are everywhere. As Molly said above, Triggernometry has quite a big audience and those who comment are only the most vehement...in fact I used to watch and listen to their podcast a lot. I don't subscribe anymore but the main reason is not the guests or the topics, but more their vibe as hosts and the kind of naivety they have...which is revealed more in the questions asked of guests and in their livestreams. The questions are very leading, e.g. "how has it gotten so awful" and "why does no one like western values anymore?" The livestream environment is like a cult, and they use superchats and other donations a lot in order to choose comments to reply to. It's a mix of terrible edgelord comedy (extremely repetitive and not funny) and people agreeing with each other about the latest controversy. I don't think they think they are right-wing...but maybe a fair portion of the audience is. For a while their kind of take was refreshing to some extent, and indeed I do think there are a lot of very interesting interviews in their back catalogue. But they are definitely captured by the social dynamics of being IDW adjacent..one of the major factors in weaning myself off the podcast was their excitement about getting to go on Joe Rogan...and in general I am never able to fully take seriously someone who actually likes JB Peterson. Another factor was actually finding Decoding the Gurus, which I think I found about through Meghan Daum. Also KK seems to be getting a bit big for his boots what with having published a book...I think he is intelligent and does want to find 'truth' in some way but he was clearly very defensive of the friends he'd made in the heterodox sphere as well as positions he's platformed. It's fine to interview people who may have unusual ideas, but in all my listening I have rarely found them strongly challenging any guest. To then turn around and distance yourself from the content that provides you a living (they have staff now, and I think it's the two presenters' full time jobs) is kind of problematic.

Diane Morrison

I think a really interesting dynamic to explore would be how the internet flattens political positions and creates alliances that wouldn't otherwise exist.. I think for example that British right-wingers are pretty tame in general compared to their American apparent allies. So this means that those who 'question the woke takeover' in the UK get filtered into the same echo chamber as Americans who think the government paying for your right not to die (healthcare) and 'taking away' your 'right' to shoot someone are the height of communism. There has been some recent similar sliding going on where some British feminists (e.g. Julie Bindel) are warning of the risks of making allies with right wing women and their male hangers-on in the USA on the basis of an opposition to transgender surgeries and loosening of boundaries on women-only spaces.

Cesare

I'm late to the game having just listened to about ¾ of the episode. But OMG good inability to discuss the underlying logic of his stances was so annoying. It sucks having to engage with such people, because they're very good at deflecting the issue and quickly changing the topic. In my experience the only way to go through and dismantle their arguments is via a thorough essay. Where one has to break down all the fallacies, and how they abuse rhetoric and common language usage. Even then, you're rarely able to change their minds. They'll just respond that whatever point I made is a unique circumstance, and therefore their underlying "logic" remains sound. It's just not worth the effort to respond with an essay or give their "opinions" much thought.

Richard Husband

I took probably started thru Meghan but now I can't listen to her. She falls for the most obvious false tropes.. Bret for one.