The cornerstone for logic and reason, according to some young men, are almost always intellectuals on the right or ‘centrists’ that try to be as ‘fair as possible’ even though they predominantly platform those on the right. These people have garnered audiences that are overwhelmingly young males looking for voices that only provide ‘facts’ without the appeal to emotion in a landscape where that is all that seems to be employed. Things like personal responsibility and accountability? To them, the left does not seem to know what this is. Composure? Surely the countless SJW/Feminist owned compilations are enough to prove to anyone that this isn’t a virtue they possess. But with these mouthpieces that seem to embody the characteristics young men hold up on a pedestal, it is no doubt that these young men stand behind them as if they have their best interest at heart. ‘They think like me; surely they do what they do for my own interest.’

It is not hard to understand the attraction to these figureheads. When these young men look around, they see a lack of traditional masculinity and religion, the stories in their holy books about degeneracy start to seem as if they had some sort of foreknowledge. Where society is crumbling and losing its way, these people provide guidance based on those lost values, trying to keep it alive. Calling out what must be.

When we look at their approach and methods, however, it is evident that their reasons for partaking in culture war dialogue is to gain something, typically financially or socially. For this article, my argument is that these influential figures are not only ignorant of the harm caused by their arguably sophist-esque rhetoric; they are absolutely aware of the implications of their words and choose to overlook them in order to pursue the above, and are responsible for the harm and negative discourse caused by their audience. The type of culpability here is now one of a derivative nature. Their actions are not necessarily causing harm directly in the sense that they are telling people to go and harm others, but the way they put forward their points directly influences their followers, which results in their followers internalising this rhetoric and taking it out on the people being talked about. Here, the culpability of these influencers is not only in the way they present their ideas, but in the actions and beliefs of their followers. Now these actions can manifest tangibly, and harmfully.

What it means to be derivatively culpable

Holly Smiths framework for derivative culpability provides us with a clear structure for holding individuals accountable derivatively. There are three conditions that need to be met for derivative culpability to apply: the wrongness condition, the causal condition, and the culpability condition. When we examine the actions of people on the far right and apply this framework to their actions, it becomes clear that they bear culpability of a derivative nature for many of the harms caused by the people that consume their content. We will contextualise this by referring to the rhetoric used by these individuals.

The Wrongness Condition

The wrongness condition requires the initial action itself that leads to harm to be morally wrong. It doesn’t need to be the case that the action actually results in harm, just that it needs to be problematic or unjustifiable. Before we can determine whether they qualify for our two other conditions, they must have committed an act that is wrong or problematic. In our context, the action here is the rhetoric and ideas propagated by these influencers.

A core tenet of the rhetoric used by these influencers involves misrepresenting arguments, ideas, and putting forward ideas that, even though may have valid points within them, when phrased the way they do, could lead to certain kinds of interpretations by their audience that cause harm to others. We could look to the instance of Jordan Peterson’s opposition to Bill C-16 in Canada, which added gender expression and identity on the list of things that are protected under discrimination acts. In a CBC interview, Peterson he was opposed to legislation which ‘determines what words myself and others are required to utter … because I do not believe that other people have the right to determine what language I use … when the words being used are artificial constructions of people I regard as radical ideologues whose viewpoint I do not share’. On face value, what this makes it out to be is that if this is violated, he would be severely penalised (maybe even arrested), for even accidentally misgendering an individual. However, upon actual examination of the bill, the bill states very clearly that:

‘The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, within the purview of matters coming within the legislative authority of Parliament, to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record suspension has been ordered’

Upon a full reading of this bill, it seems reasonable. The bill aims to be as inclusive as possible by incorporating a relatively new development in how we view gender, so that they are also protected under the same rights as individuals of different races, religions, ages, sex, etc. In a situation where a professor does not acknowledge the identity of an individual, or the intelligence of a black person, or the ability for a woman to reason like a man, there would be (rightly) repercussions for this. The way Peterson makes it out is that this is infringing on freedom of expression or is compelling speech when this is not the case. For a more developed analysis of this exact matter, you can check out this article here.

Here, Peterson’s opposition to the bill was framed as a defence of free speech against some sort of authoritarian law, with his claims being swiftly debunked by legal experts. This narrative, however, resonated with plenty of his followers and other individuals hearing him for the first time. Whether he represented it wrongly on purpose or not (in which, he would still be culpable to some capacity for not doing his research well enough), the rhetoric incited anger about this supposed threat to free speech, which increased negative discourse around transgender individuals, on how this agenda was looking to control and force what people said. It was wrong to present the bill this way, because of the way it could have been (and was) taken by their crowd. This was then directed at transgender people and the LGBT community, as if they specifically are trying to compel people to do what they want.

In more contemporary discussions where the monetisation of platforms like Twitter, as well as the absolutist take on free speech has allowed anyone to say what they want (including figureheads with a lot of influence), misinformation, racism, sexism, and inflammatory rhetoric has increased 10 fold, as these inflammatory remarks provide a lot of engagement, which provides them with money. Experiences are often trivialised, oversimplified, and even mocked and made fun of in order to drive engagement. This (more explicitly) meets the wrongness condition. To spread misinformation or disinformation, mock, bully, trivialises, or oversimplify someone’s experience is inherently wrong because of the damage and harm it could cause to a people or community. The spread of the lie about Haitians eating cats and dogs by right-wing pundits and even the former president of the United States meets these conditions as well, is a clear example of this. This blatant misinformation causes negative discourse around these people, and creates an ‘us-vs-them’ mentality.

The Causal Condition

The casual condition requires a demonstration of how the rhetoric of these figures leads directly to harmful actions or beliefs that their followers commit or adopt/internalise. This does not mean that influencers need to directly incite violence; they must put forward the catalyst or platform people that which enables these ideas (or even actions).

The type of rhetoric above creates echo chambers. Their followers that now start internalising things, form communities around these types of influencers. They could be subreddits, or communities on Twitter or 4 Chan. By repeatedly framing themselves as the defenders of ‘truth’ against the so-called forces of political correctness, these influencers foster a dangerous us-vs-them mentality; Peterson’s critiques of ‘compelled speech’ regarding gender pronouns have been used by individuals engaging in anti-trans harassment, even though the claims by Peterson were misrepresented. The causal chain becomes even clearer when we examine how these ideas are adopted and amplified by extremist groups. The ‘Great Replacement’ theory – an anti-immigrant conspiracy theory popular amongst white nationalists – has found resonance amongst the followers of right-wing commentators. It also does not help that these individuals are constantly platformed even after being discredited many times. The constant promotion of their narratives by supposed centrists about the decline of Western civilisation or the threat posed by immigration contributes to the same ideological ecosystem that sustains such beliefs.

Moreover, the radicalisation of individuals often occurs incrementally, through repeated exposure to rhetoric that dehumanises or demonises certain groups. Sure, they’re not handing out manifestos or instructions for violence, but their ideas set the stage for extreme actions. It is not uncommon for perpetrators of hate crimes to cite the same talking points propagated by these influencers – albeit in a more radicalised form. I think this satisfies the causal condition of derivative culpability.

Culpability Condition

The final condition is the Culpability Condition: are these influencers aware of the risks their rhetoric poses? Well, given the size of their platforms, the public scrutiny they face, as well as (a lot of) them being educated in institutions where nuance and critical thinking are employed daily, it is impossible to argue that these people are not aware of the potential harm their words cause.

Yet, despite this awareness, they continue to engage in the same patterns of speech because it is profitable in some capacity to do so. Whether that is to cultivate an audience or maintain it, their careers are built around controversy and polarisation; the more divisive their rhetoric, the larger the audience and greater reward. As long as engagement is flowing through, there is money flowing with it.

Here, we run into ‘profitable ignorance’. They are not ignorant in terms of being innocent; they are wilfully ignorant. Blind to the consequences of their rhetoric because acknowledging them and changing would undermine their business model. They choose to remain ignorant because remaining ignorant allows them to remain profitable. Here, they meet the culpability condition, and fit all conditions for derivative culpability.

Imagine a doctor that had failed to read essential medical literature that would have made him aware of the best treatment practices. In this case, the failure to read this literature lead to harm of his patients. Maybe he was lazy, maybe he had something to gain. This is not important. What is important is that for the position he is in – one that has large influence on other people (in this case, their health) – he has the epistemic duty to inquire. And failure to do so derivatively causes harm to others.

Counter-Arguments

These (in my opinion grounded) accusations may receive some push back, so I think it is fair to address potential counter-arguments.

Free speech is typically appealed to when it comes to arguing against the culpability of these people. These influencers are simply exercising their right to free expression and should not be held responsible for how others interpret or act on behalf of their words. But free speech is not absolute. If someone were to shout, ‘He has a gun!’ repeatedly in a crowded supermarket in an overly exaggerated voice that mimics distress and fear, it will have consequences. Not to mention, these influencers typically do not express opinions only; they present misleading or simply false information as if it is factual. When someone with a large platform is repeatedly spreading not only misinformation but inflammatory remarks, they are responsible or the consequences.

People may also argue that influencers do not control how their followers interpret their rhetoric; any misunderstanding or extremism is the fault of the individual. But without considering how words could potentially be interpreted (within reason), you should refrain from making any remarks. If the rhetoric you seem to put forward is consistently misused or causes harm, yet you still decide to say it anyway, you are complicit in the radicalisation of those individuals and subsequent harm caused because of it. Remember: many of these people deliberately inflame their remarks for engagement.

One of the most common and maybe most annoying defences that are employed all the time is when these people frame conspiracies and harmful sentiments as questions where instead of making definitive statements, they’re merely exploring ideas. This allows the introduction of potentially harmful ideas while maintaining plausible deniability. But when the questions asked could be answered by genuine inquiry, and when the way questions are framed in a way to make it seem that there is something ‘fishy’ behind certain things like covid or climate change, again and again, it is insanely clear that they’re not genuine inquiries but questions in bad faith that always imply something sinister of those they’re talking about. It may then be further argued that these people ask the tough questions that must be asked in order to create balance amongst the mainstream narratives. The truth is on ‘X’ or ‘Rumble’ or ‘Kick’ where anything and everything goes, as if the teams of three or four ideologically driven individuals are the same as large media conglomerates with multiple teams of dozens of educated people consistently fact checking and doing research, providing good insights and actual news. Those on these alternative media platforms do not have the same value when it comes to their narratives, because not only is their framing sloppy, but so are their fact checking and quality of ‘news’.

Individuals receiving information should, of course, fact check and research into all clams before believing them. But the reality is that many people lack the time, resources, skill, or even cognitive faculties (younger individuals) to check every claim. There is a greater responsibility to be as accurate as possible so that not only are you a credible individual, but you do not continue to contribute to the radicalisation of young people.

Profitable Ignorance

Profitable Ignorance is central to understanding the motivations and actions of many right-wing influencers and pundits. This goes beyond simple misinformation or bias; it represents a deliberate strategy to maintain a lucrative status quo at the expense of truth and social responsibility. Profitable ignorance is the wilful disregard of facts, context, or consequences in favour of maintaining a narrative or position that is financially or socially beneficial to the individual or group promoting it. This includes the selective use of information, oversimplification of complex issues, prioritising emotional appeals over factual analysis (ironic), resistance to correction, and the creation of echo chambers.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of things that allow profitable ignorance to thrive. Social media algorithms promote content that generates high engagement, typically favouring controversial or emotionally charged posts over more nuanced discussions. People would much rather watch short-form content that confirms their biases than long-form content that encourages critical thinking and challenges to their own beliefs. Many platforms directly tie revenue to engagement metrics, which creates financial incentives for inflammatory content. Influencers often cultivate a sense of personal connection with their audience too, which makes followers more likely to trust and defend them. There’s also constant Gish Galloping, which involves overwhelming audiences with a rapid succession of arguments or claims, making it difficult to refute each point thoroughly. Additionally, the use of dog whistles allows influencers to convey controversial ideas while maintaining plausible deniability, and allows their followers to do the same.

As misinformation spreads, general trust in institutions and expertise declines, making it harder to address real issues – individuals start to look to these influencers for their takes and opinions on things they are not experts on. By promoting oversimplified, us-vs-them narratives, profitable ignorance contributes to increasing political and social division. When public discourse is dominated by misinformation, it becomes more difficult to implement evidence-based policies to address real problems. Constant exposure to extreme or inflammatory rhetoric can and will lead individuals to adopt more radical beliefs or even engage in violent actions. Moreover, the time and energy spent debunking false claims and addressing manufactured controversies could be better spent on solving real issues.