AI and the conservative shift: How ‘anti-intellectualism’ hurts online pop culture discussions
Something of a double-edged sword, the online sphere has always offered outlets for critical discussion. The false sense of anonymity that comes with forging an online presence is enough to embolden many to say what they typically wouldn’t IRL, but the cultural embrace of AI and the push for digestible media now have people calling out the growing problem of anti-intellectualism with a conservative shift.
A ’90s kid through and through, I grew up with the inception of the Internet. I was in middle school when MySpace was a thing and the very first iPhone was released. The great migration to Facebook took place in my freshman year of high school, my 10-year reunion now marked with AI-generated posts. Throw Instagram, Twitter, and Tumblr into the mix, and there was more than enough drama to go around, even back in social media’s youth.
This primal need for debate isn’t missing from today’s Internet. However, the way we discuss popular media online has changed a bit. In many ways, it seems we’re being asked to hold our noses and swallow when it comes to the media we’re consuming, spoon-fed remake after remake with little added substance and increasingly watered-down ideas, as if to condition a collective distaste for that which challenges the status quo. You might even get dogpiled for your interpretations of “risky” novels or films that tackle taboo subjects. This is concerning in itself, as it begs you to imagine a future devoid of free thought, but the roots of what people are calling “anti-intellectualism” go a lot deeper than the last decade or so.
Control of mass media and “disdain” for intellectuals and the arts that deviate from the narrative are textbook characteristics of fascism. We’ve seen these patterns repeated throughout history, and the concurrent rise of AI and a political shift toward conservatism are no coincidence in this recent conversation.
Conservatism encourages anti-intellectualism
Claims out of Netflix state execs ask screenwriters to have characters “announce what they’re doing” to avoid confusing distracted viewers. The platform even has an entire genre dedicated to “casual viewing” that gets better the less you pay attention. Allegedly. This comes at a time when someone on TikTok will suggest you use ChatGPT to write your grocery lists. Meanwhile, potential nationwide book bans loom ever closer.
This trend of anti-intellectualism places little faith in audiences to think critically and discourages the interpretation of media as it resonates with individual viewers and readers. Despite a general understanding that generative AI, book bans, and other forms of censorship hurt us culturally, the traditionalist narrative that birthed these phenomena has bled into online communities and affected pop culture discussions. It’s not uncommon to see comments calling out controversial films, TV series, or books and their creators. This is a totally valid form of discussion, but it grows troublesome when the conversation shifts from call-out to cancellation.
Saying a film or novel shouldn’t exist or should be altered because it’s “gross” or “wrong” is kind of like saying middle and high school kids shouldn’t be allowed to check out Twilight from their school library because it contains “explicit” material, or suggesting racy or passages be censored before it’s returned to shelves. (And don’t get me wrong; I’m guilty of this, too.) The same rhetoric that drives media censorship and all-out book bans is now being used to police recent films like Babygirl and Nosferatu (2024) online.
Interestingly, discussions about what’s morally right or wrong following the release of movies that deal with the nuance of women’s sexuality not only reflect some of the major themes of these films but they also shine an uncomfortable light on just how far right the status quo now leans. While backlash isn’t surprising when it comes to the portrayal of sex and other historically taboo topics in the eyes of conservatives, it goes doubly so when a work’s intention is to challenge its audience or leaves a question open to response.
It bears repeating: Critique is an important aspect of discussing media. Necessary, even. This is what pushes us to continue making art in every medium, and it often begins online. The problem is there’s no room for conversation or creation where neither is allowed. In this way, anti-intellectualism—i.e. book bans, media censorship, black-and-white interpretations, and “it’s not that deep” rhetoric—kills both art and creativity. Ironically, this is also a key criticism of AI, which “kills” the creative.
To that end, artists aren’t responsible to explicitly tell audiences, “This [character OR situation] is [right OR wrong],” as neither is so one-dimensional and it’s often up to you to decide. Art simply provides the context you need to interpret it as you will, even if it doesn’t align with the artist’s intent, and even if you don’t agree with it. This can be frustrating and, in some cases, can certainly do harm, but it’s openness to interpretation that gives art the power to act as a vehicle for change, for better or for worse, and today’s audiences should remain free to decide where to go from there as they continue the conversation online.
This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.
