The Erosion of Scepticism in Online Spaces

Scepticism, at its heart, is the practice of questioning narratives and assumptions, testing ideas and refining our understanding of the world.  It seeks to avoid blind acceptance by critically examining claims based on the evidence available, while maintaining awareness of gaps in knowledge.  It is not about rigid adherence to predefined ideas; it is about maintaining an open mind that is willing to revisit and revise its own ideas in the face of new information. 

However, in recent years, scepticism has become performative instead of genuinely inquisitive.  Nowhere is this more apparent than in the world of self-styled YouTube debunkers.  Debunkers have built out a lucrative niche by turning scepticism into entertainment, which prioritises humour, sarcasm and entertaining takedowns to please their audiences.  Platforms like YouTube reward sensationalism and engagement while discouraging creators from addressing more uncomfortable or complex ideas for fear of alienating their established viewership.

Across the paranormal community, discourse has become increasingly polarised, with tribalism taking priority over trying to gain a greater understanding of the truth.  These tribes are often formed either among rival paranormal groups and their followers or resulting from disagreements over specific beliefs or investigation methods.  In this climate, scepticism has become less about refining understanding and more about group identity and “winning” arguments.

In the third and final part of this series, we will explore how these dynamics have distorted the nature of scepticism, and why a return to genuine critical thought and self-reflection is urgently needed.

The Influence of Tribal Loyalty & Echo Chambers

In online communities, as in real life- it is not uncommon for cliques to form.  In the paranormal social media space, these groups often centre around specific content creators.  Within these groups, tribal loyalty can often take precedence over individuality.  Instead of fostering open discussions, many of these communities can be seen to fall into patterns of groupthink and echo chambers-  group members are rewarded for aligning with the dominant accepted narrative, while those that state opinions that challenge the “party line” are often punished through ridicule or ostracism.  There is an unspoken rule that loyalty to the tribe is valued more than intellectual honesty. 

Many followers of online content creators will develop one-sided, almost obsessive idolisation of prominent online personalities, and will treat those individual’s presence online as an unquestioned authority.  In the case of debunking communities, this parasocial bond can lead to followers adopting the debunker’s arguments as ready made talking points and will attempt to use them to dismiss opposing perspectives without fact checking or engaging in meaningful analysis of their content. They will dismiss outlying ideas or beliefs in the name of critical thinking and scepticism, even though it is the direct opposite of those principles.

A similar effect can be seen to play out in “believer” communities, but it should be noted that there does seem to be more of an acknowledgement of diverse views and an appetite for more openness with less rigid adherence to dogma, as demonstrated by the emerging “Paraunity” movement (although this isn’t without its own issues but this is a topic for another day).

While writing this article, I witnessed an online dispute that perfectly illustrated the dynamics described above.  An individual- a member of one of the “debunker” communities, used a Facebook conversation to launch an attack on a popular paranormal content creator.  This person claimed the content creator was a fraud and had been “debunked many times in the past”. 

When another forum user politely asked when this alleged debunking had occurred, the person presented a series of links to videos by well-known debunkers, all of which had either been roundly discredited either due to containing misinformation, or being little more than personal attacks on the content creator (i.e. not actual debunks).  When these sources were challenged by other forum users, the individual resorted to repeating verbatim the claims made within those sources.  When challenged further on these talking points; he merely repeated the same statements without elaborating on them. 

It was clear he had absorbed the flawed arguments uncritically without a real understanding of the background or context, rapidly finding himself out of his depth when trying to use them in an open debate with people that don’t share the views of the echo chamber where he had first heard them.

Now this exchange is broadly typical of most online arguments between people with embedded opinions and is by no means unique to the debunker-believer domain.  However, what made it interesting was the background of the person that voiced the allegations.  This person was (among other things) a self-proclaimed medium, “house cleanser” and ghost hunter, employing techniques such as spirit boxes and ITC methods.  In other words, this person was the exact kind of individual whose beliefs and practices would be the subject of ridicule by debunkers- yet he was passionately defending them.

This case suggests a level of cognitive dissonance at work.  This individual seemed to be invested in aligning with the sceptical “debunker” group, possibly to avoid social ridicule, while at the same time harbouring beliefs that are incompatible with his chosen tribe.  Compartmentalisation in this way – believing one thing but defending the opposite – could point to how deeply people might value belonging to the “in group” over logical consistency.

The Erosion of Objectivity

In today’s discourse both online and in the real world, opinion has become deeply intertwined with identity. Instead of seeing different perspectives as an opportunity for learning or growth, people often treat challenges to their opinions as personal attacks.  This has significant consequences for scepticism, as the willingness to engage in honest debate has been overtaken by the impulse to defend one’s “tribe” at all costs.

This is particularly evident in the paranormal community.  Among sceptics, loyalty to debunkers often overshadows true objective analysis, adopting pre-packaged talking points from their favourite creators while using them to dismiss opposing views without having to do any serious thought of their own- an approach that can quickly unravel as seen in the example described in the previous section.  Likewise, in “believer” circles, loyalty to paranormal groups can discourage critique, creating an environment where anecdotal evidence is treated as fact.

The current “My Truth” culture seen in wider society can be seen as exacerbating this, in that it blurs the lines between objective reality and subjective experience.  While personal experience is a valuable source when investigating paranormal claims, the current climate where it is framed as unacceptable to challenge or even question someone else’s “truth” prevents meaningful exploration of claims. While believer groups might accept such accounts uncritically, sceptical groups will often dismiss such experiences outright as either delusion or simply lies.  Both approaches are just as counter productive.

When a person’s opinion is used to define their identity, the cost of admitting fault becomes unacceptably high to many people.  Instead of considering other perspectives, individuals tend to retreat into their echo chambers, using the group rhetoric to shield themselves from discomfort.

True scepticism requires courage and self-reflection.  It requires the willingness to confront cognitive dissonance and refine one’s beliefs when confronted with evidence that contradicts them. By prioritising evidence and logic over identity-based thinking, we can overcome entrenched divides and embrace the uncomfortable truths that might not gel with our respective tribes.

The Weaponisation of Humour & Toxic Discourse

In online discourse, humour can be powerful tool for maintaining engagement, while making complex topics more accessible.  Debunkers frequently rely on sarcasm, ridicule and humour to critique claims they disagree with. 

Sometimes the subject of the debunker’s criticism is inherently ridiculous and using humour to draw attention to this fact will be appropriate.  However, when it is overused it can become a strawman tactic – where the opponents’ views are misrepresented or oversimplified and the resulting caricature is attacked instead of the actual substance of the opposing viewpoint.  When this occurs, debunkers can dismiss an argument without engaging with its real merits or flaws, silencing a more nuanced discussion. 

Delivering harsh criticism or even insults under the guise of humour is also used as a shield to deflect any pushback. When ridicule is repeatedly encouraged, it can escalate beyond mockery into outright bullying—particularly when followers pick up the baton. What begins as criticism in a debunker’s video can turn into harassment as audiences mimic the dismissive tone and aggressively target individuals on other platforms. In these cases, the claim that ‘it’s just a joke’ serves as a convenient excuse to justify toxic behaviour while silencing legitimate concerns.  When groups or individuals raise an objection or try to counter the debunker arguments, they are often dismissed as not being able to take a joke, and fault remains squarely with the debunker’s target as being overly sensitive.  This kind of deflection ensures that debunkers and their followers rarely have to face serious scrutiny for their critiques.

Another rhetorical trick employed by online groups entrenched in groupthink is the use of in-jokes and short, snappy catchphrases. A recent example of this is the adoption of the phrase ‘It’s all Beardo’s fault’ (or variations thereof) among the Beardo Gets Scared fanbase. This phrase was originally intended as a light-hearted reaction to the narrative that Beardo was being blamed for much of the negative discourse and drama between debunkers and believers, regardless of his actual involvement. However, with overuse, it runs the risk of becoming a ‘thought-terminating cliché’—a rhetorical tool that uses a brief, memorable phrase to dismiss arguments without engaging with them.

Another claim frequently made in the same vein is that “the debunking community isn’t toxic”.  Instead of addressing specific issues or incidents of bad behaviour, the phrase is used to maintain a narrative of moral superiority by shifting the blame for all disputes onto others.  The reality is that despite their claims of being above the drama or sometimes victims of it, debunkers and their followers are often in the thick of it (and sometimes relishing in it), by the very nature of the content they produce.

A particularly telling trait in debunker videos is the common sign-off at the end of their videos- “don’t go to other channels to attack them/spread hate”.  On the face of it, this kind of statement is intended to prevent harassment, but it can also function as a get-out-clause for the debunker, absolving themselves of responsibility for any bad behaviour their fans sometimes exhibit.  By cautioning against aggression toward other content creators, they implicitly acknowledge that such toxic elements exist within their audiences while simultaneously denying that it has anything to do with them. 

Breaking the Cycle: A Call for Intellectual Flexibility

The current state of online scepticism has created a cycle of tribalism, echo chambers and sensationalised content. To break away from this, sceptics and believers must embrace a fundamental shift in how they approach the debate.  This shift will require a commitment to intellectual flexibility and self-awareness, where we don’t just limit our critiques to the beliefs of others, but we must also include an honest examination of our own convictions.

At its core, true scepticism is a tool for refining our understanding of the world around us- it is not a fixed dogma or identity.  Yet in many of these spaces online, the debate is nothing to do with belief or scepticism so much as it is about tribal loyalties and defending favourite content creators.  Sceptics need to apply the same standards to the rhetoric of debunkers as the they do for claims about paranormal phenomena.

Perhaps an even bigger challenge is finding the courage within us to embrace cognitive dissonance.  It can be uncomfortable and unsettling for the individual, and the impulse will be strong to quickly reconcile this by either rationalising or dismissing the contrary information or retreating to the safety of the tribe.  But this discomfort is not an inherently bad thing – it should be taken as an opportunity for growth – to refine one’s convictions and broaden understanding.

We need to emphasise the importance of objectivity over subjectivity.  Prioritising the latter over the former as per the current “my truth” culture has blurred the lines between opinion and fact leaving little room for rational debate.  Every disagreement becomes an ideological battleground.  We should set aside these tribal differences and commit ourselves to discussions about evidence and logic.

Finally, breaking out of this cycle would necessitate a move away from the current trend of sensationalised, entertainment-driven takedowns in favour of more nuanced examination of paranormal claims.  While it is understandable that debunkers might be hesitant to take this step at the risk of losing audience share- instead of relying on cheap shots, ridicule and hostility, sceptics could attempt to engage with viewpoints that are at odds with their own, as irrational as they might appear to them. 

By adopting these practices, sceptical communities can reclaim their foundational purpose: refining knowledge through curiosity and inquiry.

Conclusion: Moving Beyond Sensationalised Debunkers

The current state of scepticism in the online sphere has moved far from its original purpose of curiosity and open mindedness.  It has become a matter of spectacle, tribal loyalties and scoring points over the opposition.  The rise of YouTube debunkers has resulted in a form of “lite-scepticism”- performance driven but lacking depth or nuance.

We should be striving towards a paranormal community where discussions aren’t derailed by tribalism, defensiveness or dogma.  Sceptics and believers should be able to engage with each other, treating disagreement as an opportunity for growth as opposed to an existential threat to one’s identity.  It should never be about scoring points or “winning” an argument, it should be about fostering logical and respectful debate.

Both sides of the debate are likely to be resistant to the change necessary to bring this about.  Debunkers have carved out a niche for themselves that thrives on the conflict and drama of the current status quo, and this has provided them with social and financial rewards, while paranormal groups have also found that sensationalised content sells.  But as time goes on audiences are beginning to grow tired of the conflict, becoming increasingly aware of the cracks and flaws in the polarising arguments.  With luck, a move towards genuine critical thinking will leave the egotistical spectacle of debunkers and dogmatic believers behind in favour of more thoughtful engagement.

As the landscape of online scepticism continues to evolve, meaningful discourse depends on our willingness to challenge both our own biases and the rhetoric around us. Where do you see the biggest barriers to open discussion in these communities, and how do you think we can push past them?  Leave a comment below to let me know your thoughts.