When Satanists become the new "Holier Than Thou."

There is an interesting question about modern online culture: how do some controversial satanic public figures come to be viewed by their supporters as principled truth-tellers, despite attracting significant criticism from others?

We see this in the public defence of controversial figures by commentators such as Babs McKay. In doing so, a broader trend becomes visible: individuals associated with provocative or transgressive identities are sometimes treated as unfairly maligned, and their explanations accepted at face value, even when concerns are serious.

In our crazy corner of YouTube, people have divided into opposing camps. Once someone is seen as being on "our side", (Good People) supporters may become more willing to overlook behaviour they would strongly criticise if it came from an opponent. (Wrongens) The result is that loyalty can sometimes matter more than consistency.

To me, this appears to have happened in some of the online disputes I have followed.

Take the example of people who openly identify with Satanism or use Satanic imagery as part of their public persona. Regardless of what Satanism means to any individual, it is often presented as deliberately challenging conventional ideas of morality and authority. Yet I find it striking when people who cultivate that image are subsequently portrayed by supporters as unquestionable moral authorities.

From my perspective, this raises an obvious question: are people judging actions consistently, or are they judging them according to which "team" (Good People vs Wrongens) someone belongs to?

I believe this is particularly noticeable in the case of James Hind. My criticism is not based simply on claims about beliefs or labels, but on concerns I have previously expressed about online conduct and accountability. The unknown handler(s) argue that the "James Hind" persona is fictional and that elements of its backstory were deliberately invented. They regard this as sufficient explanation for behaviour that critics, including myself, find troubling.

Another case frequently cited in discussions of this trend involves an individual known online as AJ Lashbrook, who uses the handle “Lucifer.” His past conviction for animal cruelty is well known, yet supporters have accepted his explanation that the incident was misunderstood—that he was disciplining his dog and that any harm was accidental. Whether or not that account is accurate, what stands out is the willingness of some audiences to accept such explanations with minimal scepticism, particularly when framed persuasively in direct, personal communication.

To me, that defence misses the wider point. Creating a fictional persona does not automatically remove ethical questions about how that persona is used online. Whether something is presented as performance, satire or role-play does not necessarily end the discussion about responsibility.

More broadly, I think this reflects a wider trend across social media. Once someone is accepted as part of a particular community, explanations that might be dismissed in other circumstances are readily accepted. Actions are interpreted in the most charitable light possible, while critics are portrayed as malicious or unreasonable.

That is why I think consistency matters. If we expect high standards from our opponents, we should expect exactly the same standards from our allies. Moral principles should not change depending on who is being discussed.

Healthy online communities are built not on personalities or factions, but on applying the same standards to everyone. When loyalty becomes more important than consistency, the line between accountability and partisanship begins to disappear.

Ultimately, the question is not whether any particular individual is guilty or innocent, but how and why public judgment is formed. When scepticism is applied unevenly—harshly toward some, but almost absent toward others—it becomes less about truth and more about narrative allegiance.

In a media landscape shaped by identity, controversy, and persuasion, the challenge is not simply to decide who is “good” or “bad,” but to remain consistent in how claims are evaluated. Without that consistency, even the most serious concerns risk being reframed, minimised, or dismissed entirely.