Ying and Yang are real. For every stupid Video, there is at least one clever video.
But today is again about netnography on Youtube… There are people who watched stupid shit and decided that it is indeed even more stupid as they thought. They saw that these Videos get watched in high numbers and decided to make a reaction video. Something like that. The grounding myth of the Youtube Skeptics Community, a Community which can’t be categorized in one political domain. But I found Archetypes, that have a certain self-perception and one or more enemies. Before we dive in, let me answer one Question: Why Reactions? You can argue that the Skeptics have a rather male habitus, which is blended with logical discourse from the university. If they see something that is not true from their perspective, they want to argue with that person. In this setting, it is even socially acceptable to insult a person to bring that person back to Truth. At best both parties benefit from such discourse, at the worst the global discourse (read as on youtube) on that topic gets a little bit sourer.
Archetypes of Sceptics
Announcement: This content is based on my experience as a 27 y/o male german. The values are estimations.
- The gentle Academic
- The Conspiracy Theorist
- The Savage
- The Cash-Maker
- The Copy-Cat
|Frequency in %||Est. Mean Economic Status||Est. Mean Educational Status||Curse-Words Freq.|
|The gentle Academic||15||6||8||1|
|The Conspiracy Theorist||15||4||4||5|
1 = Most Extreme Negative imageable(never seen), 5 = Average, 10 = Most Extreme Negative imageable(never seen)
The gentle Academic
Pro: He has some Degrees, but that is not that important. He is polite and tries to talk to everyone to make ‘the world better’.
Con: Sometimes to enwrapped in theories that it is hard to understand him.
Blends sometimes with: The Cashmaker
Enemies: Pseudoscientist (Flat-Earther, Creationists, Feminist Constructivists)
The Conspiracy Theorist
Pro: He is entertaining.
Con: Too many people follow the lead.
Blends sometimes with: The Savage
Enemy: Scientists, ‘The Mainstream’
Pro: He is entertaining because he talks about stuff no one would dare to talk about
Con: Too enwrapped in Strawmans and Projections – and self-destructive
Blends sometimes with: The Conspiracy Theorist
enemy The Mainstream, the Cash-Maker
Pro: Content with good quality on solid topics
Con: nothing out of the proven formula (whatever it is)
Blends sometimes with: The Copy-Cat (degression)
Emenemy: The Savage (Because they fuck his game up)
Pro: Developement Stage for some Skeptics
Con: Reacts to what everyone reacts one )for example Trumps mid-terms
Blends sometimes with: Everyone
Emenemy: Everyone who seems to be a lowhangingfruit
Next time: A Skeptics fight
To be continued….