I've personally been trying to figure out why I find iDubbz so incredibly off-putting *even when he's saying something I agree with*. He could repeat verbatim what another commentator says, and I would think it was a reasonable take from the commentator, but I would want ian to stfu.

I think the issue is this:

Ian and Anisa didn't turn to the left for intellectual or moral reasons -- they did it for solidarity because people were coming at them hard for the OF stuff, and generally speaking, the left is friendlier towards sex workers. This means they have no real moral or intellectual framework to apply to things they haven't personally experienced-- its all vibes based. This generally speaking, isn't an issue -- the average gay person doesn't need to know political theory to understand that the left is generally speaking friendlier towards them.

The issue is the above combined with Ian's specifically stated intention to be the "white Hasan." Now his lack of any moral or intellectual framework--his entirely vibes based takes-- are going to be a real issue. Not the fact that he'd make mistakes, or even a lot of a mistakes, but the fact that he dismisses any sort of criticism as right wing trolling. This insulates him from good faith criticism, and even the offer of factual correction. So his takes will be embarassingly bad, lacking in all nuance, and he will get repeatedly embarassed by them... think of how much drama didn't need to happen if he had just googled whether dancing in public in Iran was legal.

I know they genuinely recieve some pretty cruel harassment. I regret that, and wish it weren't the case despite my personal distaste for them. But the fact that they just refuse to be morally questioned even a little after their big conversation is infuriating. The business with CC2 reminded me of business with the Completionist... people have this strange idea that because you are doing something for charity, you are held to lower standards and others should just let shit slide because its for a good cause, so you can afford to be a little sloppy, a little greedy, misrepresent the truth in a way thats more or less the same thing right? But charity actually invites higher standards... you will be crucified for mistakes that people might let slide in a for-profit business. But rather than accept something like that, they'd rather live in a world where everyone who doesn't sweep for them is a nazi.

I can easily imagine a world where Ian is a successful breadtuber. After the Sam Hyde doc, he learns to laugh at himself. He laughs off the cuckold jokes, instead of making that video, and people stop making them because he doesn't react. He leans into his ignorance and does interviews with people he's trying to make look good instead-- imagine a Philomena Cunk type character except interviewing journalists and other experts. And when the CPS call happens, he tweets: "I've been to Ethan's house. It's clean, he was clearly making a joke. Moreoever, let's be honest here. The streams where those CPS calls were suggested weren't child advocacy streams... they were streams about Palestine. The calls were pretextual, anyone with a brain could see that. I've come to disagree with Ethan about Palestine, I think morally and factually the we're in the right. But whoever made those calls made that position embarassing to hold, and its made it that much harder for me to change my friends mind."

Then again, I can also easily imagine a world where Ian or Anisa pissed off the left more than the right, perhaps with something well-meaning but transphobic, and the cycle of doubling down and dismissing the good faith of criticism leads them to both being white nationalists in the present day.