The weird thing about internet fame and validation is it can (when ignoring the noise related to botnets and such things) be a sign of how popular your particular messaging is. But that’s about it. It doesn’t inherently mean anything about the correctness of what you say.

However, whether it’s this guy or other “content creators”, no one is immune to letting the validation go to their head and taking agreement as scientific corroboration. But if we want to be scientific socialists, we have to learn to check ourselves and each other on such matters. I think it’s easy enough to avoid it most of the time when you’re the one in the room whose messaging is unpopular and you’re clawing uphill to be heard at all. But as soon as you start getting the “fans”, there’s a danger you start taking their liking of what you say as intrinsic validity of it. And this can contribute to more and more egoistical and poorly thought out “hot takes”. I think this is (one of) the causes of people like him becoming lost in a cycle of sus takes land instead of developing more politically. The mechanism of their sustenance becomes enmeshed with being attention-grabbing rather than being scientific.

I cling to being a pedantic nerd about these things not because I want to bore people, but because it’s a habit that needs to be sustained if we are to navigate the minefield of bougie thought land and come out the other side into building something better. But if your livelihood gets tied up in keeping the spotlight on you, being boring can get you into more trouble than being sloppy.