Jubilee debates: good-faith or fascist ragebait?

Maya Sunderraj, Assistant Opinions Editor

Imagine this: you are an expert on a controversial topic, and are participating in a debate with 20 non-experts, who are highly opposed to said topic, crowded around you as you sit at a table alone. 

After the emcee poses the first question, the guests race for the first chance to speak. The winner sits. You two shake hands — the dialogue begins. 

You realize this is not a proper debate, but a verbal battle royale with more arguing over your contrasting viewpoints than actual conversation. With each question, you are left defending your career.

By the end, everyone is frustrated. It feels like the guests have left even more skeptical. You sigh, hoping someone watching actually listened.

This is the exact premise of the “Surrounded” YouTube series by Jubilee, a channel which has garnered almost 2 billion views. The episodes are centered around very prevalent, controversial topics such as: “Debating Resistance: 20 Protesters vs 1 Palestinian,” “Doctor Mike vs Antivaxxers,” “Can 1 Cop Defend Himself Against 20 Criminals” and more. 

As you may have seen in the episode “1 Progressive vs 20 Far-Right Conservatives (ft. Mehdi Hasan),” one of the guests — Connor Estelle — received applause after proudly admitting to being a fascist and expressing a desire for an autocracy under President Donald Trump.

Estelle was fortunately fired from his job after sparking outrage online. Unfortunately, he managed to raise over $30,000 in funds with support from GiveSendGo, though the campaign has since been removed from the website. 

There is already a litany of dialogues that actually have an impact on politics. Social media is overflowing with those that bask in the limelight of controversy — many of whom hold considerable influence on today’s online political landscape. So, why “Surrounded”? What is the appeal? Is it the sadism of watching professionals be hounded by 20 fools? 

The Jubilee Media webpage states that they are dedicated to bringing controversial topics to the forefront of social media. They are “not afraid to go there” when it comes to covering taboos. 

In an interview, Jubilee Media CEO Jason Lee elaborates on this intent, calling their videos “an exercise in empathy.” 

Jubilee’s aimless goal of catalysing conversation and empathy leads to a second major issue: the framework of the “Surrounded” series fails when it comes to promoting good faith discourse. 

To end a discussion and continue on to the next question, it comes down to a vote. Each of the 19 guests can vote for any reason, and once a majority is reached everyone moves on.  

When Jubilee allows the guests to control the discourse, how does this allow for good faith communication? 

Since the only ones who vote are those with the same viewpoint, the system becomes a way of controlling a dialogue. It is a form of groupthink that does not allow for guests to listen outwards and promotes an echo chamber of irrational dismissal.

Jubilee’s goals seem very clear: entertainment is prioritized, not “empathy.”

“Surrounded” exists only as ragebait that will keep you glued to your device or want to throw it at a wall. 

I want to have discussions with those I do not see eye to eye with. I believe the best way of reinforcing values is through challenge. But when I watch these episodes, I am incensed that some people — such as a self-declared fascist — are given the chance to speak. 

When it comes to discourse, I think it should be made clear: fascists, all of them, are weird freaks. I do not believe you can expect to change or understand a fascist. 

Fascists are people who feel they are deserving of power for some inherent reason, be it race, nationality, religion or whatever. Fascists believe the only reason their superiority has not been acknowledged is due to an inferior group getting in their way. 

To me, this seems like a synonym for “loser.” It is a pretty apt description of one.

People who cause real harm to others because they feel owed and superior should not be given a moment of agency on camera. They should be criticized and shamed. 

We need to react to fascism the way teenagers react to things they dislike: with a cringe and disgusted step back, maybe a “freak” thrown in here or there. As Medhi Hasan said, “I don’t debate fascists.”