Recently, I watched the “debate” between Steven Crowder and Ethan Klein + Sam Seder and I came away with a few thoughts.
At the most foundational level, this debate shows that popular debates that are had online are not actually about the quest for the truth, but rather just about winning — that is, debates are about who is the most powerful. The winner of the online debate is given an excuse to say “I, and everyone that agrees with me, is superior to you”, rather than “My side has a better theory about the world given the available data”.
Steven Crowder debates people in the “I am superior to you” way. He goes to college campuses and tries to find the most naive person with the strongest convictions, and then tries to tear them down and show how ignorant and stupid they are. All this is so he can both portray himself as the alpha, but also so the audience can feel like the alpha as well. Once we take a step back, the vulgarity and ugliness becomes much more apparent. It is contempt all the way, contempt in order to rise oneself up. This behavior blatantly shows Steven Crowder’s real goals.
Imagine for a moment the ideal truth seeker. This person would start from a place of socratic humility: “I know that I know nothing”. As a result, the truth seeker will look for the best arguments told by the leading experts that disagree with the truth seeker’s opinions, and they will only pay attention to the most qualified voices. The truth seeker starts from a place of no power, of ignorance, of calm, of expecting to be mistaken. Obviously, we do not see commentators like Steven Crowder approach debate and politics in this way.
The key is that the truth seeker believes that the benefits of seeing reality accurately and as it is are greater than the costs. For the commentator like Steven Crowder, the costs of pursuing the truth are greater, because the cost is losing power. Crowder therefore has absolutely no benefit or gain from interacting with experts or people who truly are educated in the subjects he’s interested in. His ignorance would very very quickly be exposed, and if you have an audience that equally only cares about power, once they see how weak Crowder is, they will leave him and look for someone else that can provide what he gave.
The modern day intellectual usually has overconfidence, specifically in their opinions of what people should do with their lives and what’s wrong with people who disagree. What’s curious also is how Crowder is a self-described comedian, and his comedy is basically the same as his political commentary. Insulting, obnoxious, all trying to give off that feeling of “I am smarter than these people, and those who agree with me can feel superior”. Moreover, being a comedian is telling of Crowder’s motivation’s for his political commentary. Again, truth is not the goal, but rather it’s to hear the uproarious laughter of the audience, along with comments of “you’re so good” and “that’s hilarious”.
Crowder and people like him being popular show a weakness that people have in how they construct their world view in the age of the internet. Make no mistake, plenty of conservatives regard Crowder’s opinions highly, and they buy into his overconfidence of being able to debate anyone. However, those outside of Crowder’s sphere of influence obviously see that he has absolutely no credibility in the subjects he talks the most about, and people listen to him on.
And it was exactly this that the “debate” with Seder showed. Crowder was aware of his lack of credibility, that is why he never debated Seder, and that was why he ran away a few minutes after he caught on to what was really happening in the planned debate with Ethan Klein. He was aware, and that is why he resorted to insulting Seder’s lack of humor in his programming, and Seder’s lower amount of subscribers. Never did Crowder call Seder stupid or dumb or an idiot. Never did he attack Seder for not being credible in his political opinions.
Of course, damage control was called for. Crowder quickly tried to show how Crowder and his team were on the moral high-ground compared to Ethan and Sam for how the debate transpired. With the analysis of power that I’ve given, this can easily be revealed as just a convenient way for Crowder to save face in front of his audience, forgetting that Crowder’s behavior in the past has often been as bad or more often worse than this particular occurence.
It is better for someone who is popular for their opinion to debate children and the ignorant rather than the most qualified. The most qualified will make you feel less powerful, and if you have any goal other than finding out the truth, talking to the most qualified is just not worth it.
In the end, the debate between Ethan Klein + Sam Seder and Steven Crowder only shows the actual low confidence that supposed thought leaders have in what they believe and publicly talk about, as well as the unenlightened desperation that motivates their search for power in these ways.
07/26/21:
Upon reflection of this small essay, I empathize more with Steven Crowder. I still hold that arguing with the ignorant is cheap and for power, though I have noticed how ubiquitous this is, both in the world and in my own life. In fact, I’d wager that most that are intellectually curious at one point used their expertise in order to dominate another who knew less.
Often these actions are done automatically and unbeknownst to the actor, and it can be confusing and threatening when our automatic desires and actions are then criticized, especially when our character is judged for partaking in them, especially especially when those that admire us do so because of those automatic actions.
Power, being “higher”, and domination are naturally gratifying for us after all.
