That title, I know, but I promise this is a video essay.
Chill Goblin looks at as much evidence as he can gather about JFK assassination conspiracies and tries to untangle any actual facts from the stories.
It starts with a short animation, then starts with the ‘main’ video after a few minutes.
People really couldn’t get over that title huh? I’ll post one with a more normal title later because people should give Chill Goblin a chance.
The title and description are most definitely a problem.
Anybody that plays on conspiracy theories to drive engagement is contributing to the enshittification of not just our service, but the whole planet.
One cannot simply pretend that all speech is equal. That is not the meaning of the first amendment, there is a difference between having the right to say dumb shit, and that dumb shit being the equal of smart shit.
If this sub allows conspiracy content, I may have to reconsider my support of this space. The objectivity of fact and rationality is too important, and undermining it benefits only those that want to watch the world burn. You cannot simply ask every viewer to make their own decision either, because not everyone possesses the skills to do so.
Unless there is some benefit to this video that I am not seeing? I will not give conspiracy theory content my views otherwise, it helps them and it fucks my recommendations up too. You’re not a conspiracy nutjob, are you? I think we at least deserve an honest explanation of this video’s value.
Well, I hear you. Here’s my take. Sorry it’s a bit long.
Chill Goblin tries to make his videos entertaining with comedy, and the satirically enshittified title is definitely part of that. He does make high-quality video essays, though. If you’re using the phrase “conspiracy theory content” to mean content that uses specious reasoning to persuade the viewer to believe in paranoid fantasies, then this video doesn’t qualify. It’s not about persuading anyone that any particular conspiracy theory is true. I’d describe this video as Chill Goblin using the subject of JFK conspiracy theories to do two things:
-flex some solid information literacy skills with a pop conspiracy as stress test
-bridge the discussion towards real examples of US imperialism
Ultimately, he rejects all of the conspiracy theories that he examines, but he shows his work at how he got there, which I think is especially useful for any potentially paranoiac viewer who isn’t familiar with what “doing your own research” actually means. He collected a range of sources from a variety of perspectives. He engaged with them critically and skeptically to judge whether they are authoritative. In the video description, he highlights which are primary sources and which aren’t. He’s transparent about his biases as the interpreter of these sources for the audience. He does make a lot of jokes, but it’s not unusual even for professional educators to use charisma and entertainment to ensure that their students stay engaged with the topic.
To be transparent myself, I’m not a nutjob (to my knowledge). I believe that if you trace most conspiracy content back far enough, you’re likely to discover a vast cesspit of fascism. However, I’m fascinated by the idea of conspiracy theories. In my job, I research researching (AKA information-seeking behavior for those in the biz), so I’m invested in thinking a lot about the thought-terminating nature of a paranoid conspiracy mindset and about how popular media engages with that. I’m also just generally interested in how CG uses comedy in his lecturing style.
On a more superficial level, as the person currently modding this lemmy community, I’ve been trying to make sure that there’s always a lot of variety in what people can find here. I posted this video in particular because it has a jokier presentation style than lots of the posts so far and because we’ve had relatively few videos that focus on US history compared to media or culture. BTW I really appreciate how you’ve helped with that, too. Your posts so far have covered a big range of topics and styles.
Alright, cool. You’ve put my fears to rest, thank you very much for taking the time to write. I got a little worried there for a second, but appearances can certainly be deceiving, and it would be inappropriate of me to dismiss the video simply based on its appearance. Judging books and covers and all that.
A cover which I’m still disinclined to peek within, google’s recommendation algorithms are tight and have a long memory, and I’ve put a lot of effort for years into manipulating mine. I suppose I could log into an alt account and look at it, maybe I’ll do that.
As far as I’m concerned, I do like this space a lot, and I admit I may have overreacted a bit. Simply reading you argue your position coherently and capably is good enough for me though.
Cheers. :)
I get it. A well-tailored algorithm is a precious thing.