conversations – The Concordian

Steven Crowder’s YouTube series falls flat in debating serious issues and sparking real discussions

Set up a table, two chairs and a mic. Finish off the video with a strong statement, and you’ve got yourself the key ingredients Steven Crowder needs to engage in conversations with strangers. In his YouTube series “Real Conversations,” the comedian, actor and political commentator sits in public spaces and invites people to change his mind on “hot-button issues” as he calls them. But, does he really want his mind changed?

Obviously not. Crowder’s “change my mind” statement is just a way to capture an audience’s attention. The goal is clearly to defend his own point of view by confronting people and winning the argument. It seems like a clever way of presenting his ideas. The concept of the videos would be quite impressive if his intent was sincere and fair, but it’s not.

First of all, it’s his own show. Crowder is comfortable in front of the camera and microphone. He is much more relaxed than the people he confronts; he often makes jokes to get the upper hand and mocks the person he is arguing with. As for the content, Crowder obviously knows the topics in advance, since it would be difficult to argue as he does otherwise. He often brings up points that were clearly researched beforehand. He also memorizes statistics and figures. If each person Crowder faced benefitted from the same preparation, it would be fair. But when he is the only one with the chance to prepare, he is simply showing off. Furthermore, Crowder could easily reveal his sources in the description below the video, but they are nowhere to be seen.

In the “Male privilege is a myth” episode, a woman in the crowd claims his numbers are wrong, but she isn’t invited to talk to Crowder. Herein lies another problem. Although the conversations are unedited and uncut, we can presume Crowder chooses which arguments make it online. It’s likely only winning arguments will be posted, not conversations that show him in a bad light. Given Crowder’s obvious intent with these videos, why would he upload one of him losing an argument? As he states in one of his videos: “Sometimes people will not change their mind, and there is nothing you can do.” Crowder seems to be one of these people.

Watching someone who has an opposite point of view to yours win an argument with such obvious advantages is incredibly frustrating. So it must be really satisfying to those who share Crowder’s views. However, I don’t think his videos bring us anything more than this frustration or satisfaction. If you take a look at the comment sections of his videos, many people point out Crowder’s unfair rehearsal and some even take the time to debunk several of his arguments. To me, these videos are not “productive” debates as Crowder describes them. He’s playing a game and merely trying to look smart.

Talking with people who hold different views can be interesting and is necessary to bridge gaps and broaden our understanding of the world. However, to actually be productive, both sides have to be honest about their intentions. Being right should not be the goal of the conversation, because it forces people to adamantly defend their ideas instead of learning and understanding another person’s perspective.

The subjects Crowder tries to cover are complex and involve a broad spectrum of ideas, elements and facts. I don’t think a single one-on-one conversation without sincere intentions and verifiable facts would help in any way. I don’t see Crowder’s series of videos as productive in any way—I see them as useless.

Graphic by Zeze Le Lin

One student’s observations about the “French” and “Canadian” ways of discussing

Have you ever heard the phrase “the British are too polite to be honest and the Germans are too honest to be polite?” I really get a kick out of cultural stereotypes. Not the nasty ones that pigeon-hole people into a category to exclude or ostracise them. Quite the opposite. I enjoy cultural stereotypes that bring us together by showing us there are patterns in human behaviour and many of us are creatures of habit. These cultural habits provide some humour to the process of being human and give us something to relate to each other with. Unless those generalities don’t work well together—then there can be trouble.

All that just to ask, which culture doesn’t like to chat? I know that, growing up in rural Manitoba, the kitchen table is the centre of discussion in the home, and as a Française, my partner will agree. But that’s where our similarities on the topic end. I often get the impression that I don’t “discuss” the way she expects me to, and my partner’s method of discussion is one that invariably leads to a fight. So, I am wondering about the whole process of discussion because I’m sure most of us enjoy sitting with friends and gossiping about work or even the banal observations from the day. This is what makes us people; this is what we do, and this is how we exchange our thoughts and ideas. But I’ve noticed I may be going about it wrong. So, what does this have to do with how people exchange ideas? I think it depends who you ask.

As someone from the countryside, this is how I discuss: I make a statement of observation within a group of friends, and it’s either accepted without much pause or it is received in silence. Obviously, the former is the most desired outcome, and this essentially means your observation was met with no real opposition and requires no further discussion. The latter means it was not agreed with, but the other participants feel no need to take it any further nor create a big stink over it. Nice and neat. It doesn’t require the barrage of questioning and scrutinizing that my partner expects from her listeners. Perhaps this is why I get corralled into being called passive or even naïve.

From my observations, this is the “French way” of discussing: Propose an idea and let it be subjected to a hammering of questions and critiques by all within earshot, whether they’re at the table, standing nearby, or even just walking past the café where the “discussion” is taking place.

The end goal being that, even if your observational statement is not true, it has survived countless rounds of interrogation, and you can rest easily knowing you have convinced everyone involved that this is just one perspective of many available to the situation.

Despite my way of discussing and hers, I cannot help but be attracted to those with strong opinions who challenge every goddamn thing I say. As much as it pisses me off, I respect that. I respect people who balk at a theory and take things to task to see just who’s who and what’s what. I love her very much but, even after nearly seven years of “discussing” with her, my Canadian-ness still struggles to adapt.

At the same time, I know that Canadians are not innocent, and we have our assumptions. We are just as guilty of possessing our own silly stereotypes about others. And for that, I’d like to apologize.

Graphic by Alexa Hawksworth