Youtube Allows The Alt-right Community To Spread Hate

YouTube is a huge part of the media we consume and there are a huge variety of YouTube personalities on the video site. You have your beauty gurus, your comedians, your activists and musicians to entertain and inspire you. However, beyond the trending music videos by our favorite artists and new challenges uploaded by huge internet personalities, there is a darker corner of the internet lurking there, which are the people who have the intention of “debunking” ideas that progressives put forward.

The political climate recently has undoubtedly been changing very fast since Trump became president – or indeed began running for president. We have gone from a successful Obama presidency to suddenly having to hear an old white privileged man tell us about how “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists.” The Alt-right community which prefers the label “Skeptic Community” are using alternative facts to justify Trump’s controversial comments and acts.

Notable YouTubers in this community include Blaire White, a transgender woman who has uploaded a video called “Black Lives Matter is Trash”, Hunter Avallone, who has continually spread islamophobia with his platform and Sargon of Akkad, an English man who claims to be a “Classical Liberal” but clearly does not understand the nuance of the social justice movement today. They use outrageous clickbait titles to attract curious teens, then proceed to their poorly informed propaganda. The shocking reality is that these individuals each have over 200,000 subscribers and all together have over 1,000,000 viewers.

These YouTubers all believe that the media is untrustworthy and political correctness has gone too far, and see advocacy for equality for all as a threat to freedom of speech. However, seeing the number of people influenced by these personalities is truly astonishing, as people claim in the comment sections or on Twitter that these people have changed their minds on topics like feminism, black lives matter and the validity of non-binary people. Many of these videos have been reported for not meeting YouTube’s new community guidelines and many of their channels and social media accounts have been taken down but they always come back with a new rant about censorship and some conspiracy theory that media nowadays is forcing “radical social justice” down our throats.

In this community, the use of buzzwords such as “cuck”, “r*tard” and “SJW (short for Social Justice Warrior)” are frequent to dismiss feminist and anti-racism activists such as MTV’s Laci Green, Franchesca Ramsey and even some celebrities like Emma Watson and Beyoncé. They have waged war on male feminists by portraying them as spineless and weak, reenforcing traditional gender roles that men have to be strong and sexist. They use humour to make their questionable rhetoric more digestible and claim that this is all in the name of freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is something that all decent people believe in, excluding threats, incitations of violence and hate speech. Despite the fact that there has been no instance of threats coming out of this community, they still are avid that hate speech is still included in free speech and it is okay to misgender transgender people because it is protected by the first amendment. However, when they make response videos to activist YouTubers, the so-called pro-free speech
community show hypocrisy by attempting to silence their often queer or black voices.

The truly most shocking part is that people are buying it. Not only people are now literally buying shirts that claim that the gender wage gap “has nothing to do with discrimination”, these channels are growing and getting paid more and more by the day. Blaire White in particular has been publicly endorsed by mainstream comedic YouTuber Shane Dawson and was allowed to come onto his podcast “Shane and Friends” where she claimed that Caitlyn Jenner was “a cross-dresser who had the money to buy t*ts” and also said that transgenderism is now a trend, “the emos are gone, the tr*nnies are here.” White seems to be completely ignorant to how much of a disservice this is to her fellow transgender siblings, and is being brought into the public eye. What the world needs now is more activists speaking out against this agenda which is promoting suicides in the transgender communities, distrust for a movement in favour of not killing black people and equal rights for women.



  1. In your attempt to criticize the skeptic community, you’ve only further ingrained their fame and popularity by stating how popular they are and trying to paint a skewed picture of them through your own agenda. Try to do better next time.

  2. 16.. it figures. I was naive, with a simplistic world view, when I was 16 too. You’ll grow out of it, probably – hopefully!

  3. I realize you’re only 16 and your opinion has no validity but you need to spend more time studying subjects like history instead of writing virtue-signalling nonsense like this to impress your future gender studies professors.

  4. Dear Malia,
    It is great to see someone your age be passionate about writing. I did notice a great deal of rhetorical fallacies in your article, as well as out of context quotes and titles. Regarding rhetoric, there is a book named ‘Aristotle and an Aardvark go to Washington’ by Cathcart & Klein, which explains many of the common fallacies used in every day, and in particular in politics. It makes light and fun of many Republicans, so you might enjoy it from that perspective.
    On a last note, as an advocate for nuance and balance, please refrain from polarizing an entire group of individuals, of which some indeed may have objectionable views. Likewise there are, for example feminists with objectionable views, but we should not claim all feminists share such an objectionable perspective. I hope that makes sense.

  5. People/ commenters. Using her age as a prime argument to invalidate her writing is fairly childish in and of itself. There are a plethora of ways to criticize this article on its own, without attacking her directly. I think it is possible to critique in a more substantive way.

    1. When a person doesn’t have enough life experience to speak onot certain topics, age is a thing of importance. Would you listen to a 5 year old discuss parenting techniques?

  6. Its easy to attack free speech when its something you dislike and advocate for censoring that speech, those ideas, etc. However if you only like free speech when its speech you agree with then its not really free speech. I have no problems with Youtube allowing things I dont agree with as long as theyre legal. Differing political opinions no matter how abhorrent you may find them should be allowed. Hearing other sides to arguments is how we grow as a person and develop a better understanding of other people and cultures.

    Personally I am a free speech absolutist. I think there should be NO restrictions whatsoever on freedom of speech. Yes that means hate speech such as derogatory name calling, the n-word, the t-word, etc. Yes that means inciting violence as well. Why should the speaker be held accountable for someone elses actions? Punishing the speaker in any way serves to only remove partial or full responsibility from those that act. I can tell someone to kill someone all day long but if they do it then its on them not me.

    Plus everything Martin said too. Using a persons age to talk down to them is just immature and shows you have a weak argument.

    1. I largely agree with you John.
      On the matter of Free Speech, I agree in thus far that people should be able to offer different viewpoints. I’m not on board regarding inciting violence or hatred. This because certain voices, often popular ones within a community can have a profound influence, and affect people in such a fashion that common sense is completely neglected. It can even be seen with those that do not necessarily incite violence or hatred. Milo Yiannapoulos is, I think such an example. I support his message to freedom of speech, but some of his followers have been known to target those that Milo has reported on. Although Milo is not directly responsible, he does have a sphere of influence as a public figure. Likewise does Anita Sarkeessian, or Big Red for example.

      Overall I think the right to freedom of speech, including that to offend is important, but that does not mean people have to exercise the right to offend.
      Would you agree?

      1. If we dont have the “right to offend” then we dont have freedom. Besides that, whats offensive is completely subjective. What offends one wont necessarily offend another. That includes a white guy using the “n-word”. One black person might find it offensive whereas another might not. You cant write laws based on that. It has to be either everything is allowed or nothing is. I would err on the side of everything is otherwise we become something I dont want to be a part of. I will agree that just cause one can doesnt mean one should however. There is a time n a place.

        As for Milo, I think it was garbage that he was banned off Twitter. If people dont like what he has to say they had the option of blocking or muting him. Its that simple. Twitter didnt have to jump in to the rescue of Leslie Jones or anyone else. Regardless of his influence Milo should not have been held responsible for anything his followers did. Besides that, Milo didnt even really say anything offensive or racial to Leslie himself. He merely wrote a movie review.

  7. My brother recommended I may like this web site. He was entirely right. This publish actually made my day. You cann’t believe just how so much time I had spent for this info! Thank you!

Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published.

Click on the background to close