Intellectual Dark Web

Veritas Libertas

I have been following these people for quite sometime, so it really just clicked with me when Bari Weiss released the article in the NYT mentioning them as 'the Intellectual Dark Web'.

• Eric Weinstein
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Sam Harris
• Claire Lehmann
• Douglas Murray
• Maajid Nawaz
• Jordan Peterson
• Steven Pinker
• Joe Rogan
• Dave Rubin
• Ben Shapiro
• Lindsay Shepherd
• Michael Shermer
• Brett Weinstein

They are mostly a collection of disillusioned liberals looking for a place to have honest conversation about things that others aren't willing to have. They do not form alliances based on their identities or tribal affiliation.

As soon as the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) appeared (Bari Weiss NYT), so did accusations that its members are all closed-minded and politically partisan.


What do liberals have against this eclectic bunch of individuals?
They are not getting any hate from the right.

In particular Dave Rubin a fully fledged gay leftie, bordering on socialist, nicest guy in the world, willing to have a conversation with anybody, yet the vitriol he receives(from the left) is quite disgusting.

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What do liberals have against this eclectic bunch of individuals?

1. Are you American?
2. Why do you refer to 'liberals' like you're American?
3. Why do you describe 'liberals' as if they're some sort of 'hive mind' collective but then feel the need to stress that the people you've listed are an 'eclectic bunch of individuals'?
4. What has gun control got to do with Ireland?

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

1. Are you American?
2. Why do you refer to 'liberals' like you're American?
3. Why do you describe 'liberals' as if they're some sort of 'hive mind' collective but then feel the need to stress that the people you've listed are an 'eclectic bunch of individuals'?
4. What has gun control got to do with Ireland?

1. no
2. I see the far-left gaining a lot of power because moderates won't speak out against them. So I collectively call them liberals.
3. I apologize for incorrectly stating all ,I mean why is it only liberals(the extremes)?
4. Its just to give an example of their politics, because they have been attacked as closed minded.

I think this is quite important as within the culture wars that are happening Ireland hasn't remained neutral.

There is a culture of silencing and suppressing opinions and smearing of people that others don't like, and its disgusting and it's all coming from one political faction; would you disagree?

To give you a flavour of the attacks coming from this faction.

‘Intellectual Dark Web’ Is a Gateway to the Far Right -Rolling Stone

The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ – the supposed thinking wing of the alt-right - The Guardian

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

1. no

Then why have you cited exclusively American (I think) YouTubers? Do you think YouTube's algorithm might have an affect on how we form our opinions?

. I see the far-left are gaining power

Who are these far leftists and where does their power come from?

So I collectively call them liberals.

Like an American engaged in the culture war. Cool.

To give you a flavour of the attacks coming from this faction.

‘Intellectual Dark Web’ Is a Gateway to the Far Right -Rolling Stone

The ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ – the supposed thinking wing of the alt-right - The Guardian

After a quick google I see that Rolling Stone is owned by a guy worth $700m and the Guardian is owned by a trust; are they part of a 'leftist' faction?

Edit: I read the Guardian piece. How the hell is it an 'attack'? It's drawing attention to something that has people concerned - is that not exactly what the YouTubers you're citing do? What do you want the media to do? Be silenced?

Veritas Libertas

Where else can you watch long form video discussions between people other than Youtube; podcasts in both audio and video?

Who are these far leftists and where does their power come from?
These far leftists are the ones with the loudest voices that don't get challenged for fear of the mob turning on them. It's detailed here by Brett Weinstein when he testified to congress based on what happened at Evergreen college.

It's about power and control. Speech is impeded as a last resort used when people or groups fail to self censor in response to a threat of crippling stigma and the destruction of their capacity to earn

Really there isn't one left. There is an ascendant orthodoxy on the left that is very troubling. It is quite broad but I think not very deep and there is a mirror image of that on the far right, and both of these things are to be feared. The problem is when you speak out from a perspective on the left that doesn't fit this orthodoxy you are immediately classified as on the right, which makes it look as though the left is monolithic and shares this opinion; but this is not the case

Like an American engaged in the culture war. Cool.
Its really just a way of referring to a sequenced of linked events and is admitted from all 'sides'.

After a quick google I see that Rolling Stone is owned by a guy worth $700m and the Guardian is owned by a trust; are they part of a 'leftist' faction?Yes indeed they print far-left gibberish. I'm sure you would know if you read it.

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

...

Sorry I find it difficult to give a shite about internal US College politics six thousand miles away and I find it odd that you do as a non-American.

Also, you seem to be citing very tenuously linked events like newspaper articles about the IDW and a college professor and then inferring a grand conspiracy by a 'leftist faction' - you're joining random dots to try to make out a word that isn't there i.e. 'conspiracy'.

rocksolidfat

Seems about as fitting a place as ever to recommend people watch this...

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Sorry I find it difficult to give a shite about internal US College politics six thousand miles away and I find it odd that you do as a non-American.

Also, you seem to be citing very tenuously linked events like newspaper articles about the IDW and a college professor and then inferring a grand conspiracy by a 'leftist faction' - you're joining random dots to try to make out a word that isn't there i.e. 'conspiracy'.

I've already explained my interest in this, if you fail to grasp that quite frankly its your problem.

I didn't realize these boards were only for Ireland. If you had no interest I'm not sure why you have asked so many questions.

Let's start simply and work our way up; for fear of you calling me a conspiracy theorist again.
Do you agree there is a mob culture where people are attacked and forced to toe the party line?
Have you heard of Sam Harris before, and have you seen his interview on Bill Maher with Ben Affleck? That was literally the moment he was turned on by the left mob.(that 10 minute clip perfectly sums up what I'm talking about)

Of course if you're not interested in the 'culture war' I'll not expect a reply

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

If you had no interest I'm not sure why you have asked so many questions. Of course if you're not interested in the 'culture war' I'll not expect a reply

I walk a higher path son. I'm interested in why people get sucked into the US culture war, people like you who seem to know more about some random college professor than, I suspect, your local City/County Councillor.

Also the culture war itself is tedious and does little but cloud people's thinking by appealing to their emotions rather than their intellect. Don't let it suck you in too much.

These two posts would summarise my views.

I'll leave you to it, enjoy.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Also the culture war itself is tedious and does little but cloud people's thinking by appealing to their emotions rather than their intellect. Don't let it suck you in too much.

The expression "culture war" was published occasionally in American newspapers during the 20th century, but only joined the vocabulary of United States politics with the publication of Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America by James Davison Hunter in 1991. Hunter perceived a dramatic realignment and polarization that had transformed United States politics and culture, including the issues of abortion, federal and state gun laws, global warming, immigration, separation of church and state, privacy, recreational drug use, LGBT rights, and censorship.

Would you agree there has also been a dramatic realignment and polarization that has transformed in Ireland with these topics mentioned since the 90's?

I would. That is what I describe as the 'culture' war.

To advocate against abortion rights- Misogynist!
Against global warming- Denier!
For less immigration - Racist!
For Freedom of speech- Nazi!
Against censorship- Nazi/Racist
To argue against Islam-Racist! (Christianity is ok though)
To argue against feminism- Misogynist!

These are not all positions that I hold, but I despise the discourse surrounding these discussions coming only from the left. Would you disagree this is happening?

I'll avoid using the word culture wars if that helps from now on.

rocksolidfat

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I walk a higher path son. I'm interested in why people get sucked into the US culture war, people like you who seem to know more about some random college professor than, I suspect, your local City/County Councillor.

That's why I linked to The Great Hack above, it's basically the people from Cambridge Analytica who programmed this "new right" group who have popped up online over the last 5-6 years to act and think as they do, explaining exactly how they did it (and how anyone could be susceptible). I really cannot recommend it enough.

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

After a quick google I see that Rolling Stone is owned by a guy worth $700m and the Guardian is owned by a trust; are they part of a 'leftist' faction?Yes indeed they print far-left gibberish. I'm sure you would know if you read it.

These publications aren't far left, they are just left or centre left

Veritas Libertas

Wanderer78 wrote: »

These publications aren't far left, they are just left or centre left

They certainly are when they write about any of these issues:

• abortion
• federal and state gun laws
• global warming
• immigration
• privacy
• #LGBT rights

They are basically activists...

Wanderer78

Veritas Libertas wrote:

They certainly are when they write about any of these issues: abortionfederal and state gun lawsglobal warmingimmigrationseparation of church and stateprivacyrecreational drug use#LGBT rightscensorship

No they're not, they're just left leaning, no far terminology is required

sk8erboii

MUH LIBERALS
MUH LEFT
MUH SOCIAL JUSTICE

has to be mental illness at this point. As if the Liberal boogieman actually exists when every policy maker in the planet from the US to Saudi to China are all conservative old men.

In fact its probably in their best interest for you to be distracted by a made up enemy than to criticize any actual draconian policy they enact.

Woodsie1

sk8erboii wrote: »

MUH LIBERALS
MUH LEFT
MUH SOCIAL JUSTICE

has to be mental illness at this point. As if the Liberal boogieman actually exists when every policy maker in the planet from the US to Saudi to China are all conservative old men.

In fact its probably in their best interest for you to be distracted by a made up enemy than to criticize any actual draconian policy they enact.

who is mentally ill?

Veritas Libertas

sk8erboii wrote: »

has to be mental illness at this point. As if the Liberal boogieman actually exists when every policy maker in the planet from the US to Saudi to China are all conservative old men.

In fact its probably in their best interest for you to be distracted by a made up enemy than to criticize any actual draconian policy they enact.

Says the modern day McCarthyist looking for fascists and Nazis in another thread...

cdgalwegian

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I walk a higher path son. I'm interested in why people get sucked into the US culture war, people like you who seem to know more about some random college professor than, I suspect, your local City/County Councillor.

Also the culture war itself is tedious and does little but cloud people's thinking by appealing to their emotions rather than their intellect. Don't let it suck you in too much.

These two posts would summarise my views.

Well, unfortunately, like night follows day, Britain follows American mindsets, followed then by us. A problem is then, how these culture wars are being deliberately stoked, and used by various vested interests. I agree completely with your posts on the appeal to emotion rather than intellect used by the far right, as a 'nudging' strategy. Also in the mix, are strategies that Adam Curtis, an excellent BBC documentarian postulates as occurring:

"Some outside Russia, such as Ned Reskinoff of ThinkProgress,[90] and Adam Curtis in the BBC documentary HyperNormalisation,[10] have claimed that Surkov's unique blend of politics and reality have begun to affect countries outside of Russia,[91] most notably the United States with the selection of Donald Trump for the 2016 US Republican nomination and Trump's subsequent campaign and election victory."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladislav_Surkov
Create confusion, and when confusion reigns, people latch on to emotional language, rather than intellectual analysis. This seems to be why Johnson has got where he has- copying Trumps playbook of emotional language and soundbites.
The OP is pointing out something that is worth investigating, even if it is based on American culture wars, as the mix of globalisation, social media and international vested interests are affecting our mindsets also.

Veritas Libertas

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Adam Curtis in the BBC documentary HyperNormalisation,

:eek: Curtis is my favourite documentary maker.

Will I Am Not

Sorry Junkyard Tom but the nonsense that was once the reserve of the US is unfortunately now the nonsense of the so called western world through social media and globalisation. It’s becoming more evident by the year.

Melanchthon

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Veritas Libertas wrote:

They certainly are when they write about any of these issues: abortionfederal and state gun lawsglobal warmingimmigrationseparation of church and stateprivacyrecreational drug use#LGBT rightscensorship

No they're not, they're just left leaning, no far terminology is required

Definitely an argument that the guardian is more than just vaguely left wing about some issues.

Its only few days ago that they wrote an editorial that Cameron had only ever encountered privilege including when his seven (?) year old son died.

That wasn't a randomer writing in their opinion section which is the excuse normally used as it was an editorial.

sk8erboii

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Says the modern day McCarthyist looking for fascists and Nazis in another thread...

? No idea what ur talking about mate.

In any case, if youre unhappy with current society why dont you look at the legislator behind your ire?

Guaranteed some conservative old lad is profiting from it somehow, especially if its a progressive policy

Art Fonzarelli

Melanchthon wrote: »

Definitely an argument that the guardian is more than just vaguely left wing about some issues.

Its only few days ago that they wrote an editorial that Cameron had only ever encountered privilege including when his seven (?) year old son died.

That wasn't a randomer writing in their opinion section which is the excuse normally used as it was an editorial.

Generally speaking, The Guardian, as with all other corporate media outlets, sets up it’s stall in order to claim a piece of the market. The Guardian’s piece is usally centre-left on domestic and cultural issues and - as with all corporate media - is neoliberal/imperialist on foreign policy. It pretends to be owned by a trust but in reality the Scott Trust became Scott Trust PLC some years ago and it is now run by business interests. As with all corporate media, at least 50% of the Guardian’s revenue (may be as high as 75% at this stage) is derived from advertising. So we have a corporation whose survival relies heavily on advertising revenue from other corporations. This is why, regardless of their perceived politics, The Guardian’s product will always be corporate-friendly, which equals neoliberal/imperialist friendly. This is exacerbated by the publications poor financial situation which led them to chase the US market and ‘partner’ with various fellow corporate entities.

To make matters worse, following the Wikileaks/Snowden revelations, which The Guardian was involved in and published. The UK security services visited Guardian hq and under their watchful eye, Guardian staff destroyed the servers/drives which stored the Wikileaks/Snowden. Ever since that moment The Guardian has increasingly become a UK security services mouthpiece.

The Guardian, although it pretends to be, is not left wing at all.

Junkyard Tom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

1. Are you American?
2. Why do you refer to 'liberals' like you're American?
3. Why do you describe 'liberals' as if they're some sort of 'hive mind' collective but then feel the need to stress that the people you've listed are an 'eclectic bunch of individuals'?
4. What has gun control got to do with Ireland?

So, in a thread about the intellectual dark web you are complaining that there's no Irish interest? Do you want him to paste John Connors into the list to keep you happy?

Art Fonzarelli

Interestingly (and to my amusement at least), Weiss went on Rogan’s show not too long ago and spectacularly outed herself as the vacuous, corporate non-entity she is:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jS-sxJFn6O0

I can’t speak for the majority of the people on Weiss’s list but surely the difference between them and the likes of Weiss is how they earn a living?

Morgans

"HELLO IRELAND. Wait til I tell you what is happening on the internet"

Do tell us more of this Intellectual Dark Web that you so helplessly discovered and pieced together when reading Weiss, in the NYT no less. What could anyone possibly object to their intellectual rigour and sheer good common sense of the group of professional arseholes you have listed?

Do tell us more. It's good to watch the grift in action.

cdgalwegian

Morgans wrote: »

"HELLO IRELAND. Wait til I tell you what is happening on the internet"

Do tell us more of this Intellectual Dark Web that you so helplessly discovered and pieced together when reading Weiss, in the NYT no less. What could anyone possibly object to their intellectual rigour and sheer good common sense of the group of professional arseholes you have listed?

Do tell us more. It's good to watch the grift in action.

Ah, an expert on the matter at last. Oh, wait a minute- not contributing, just deigning to throw in a dismissal.
Granted, the term "Intellectual Dark Web" is a stupid one; I roll my eyes when I hear it. But what the OP is drawing attention to is a group of (as far as I can see) fairly influential people. I only heard of Jordan Peterson recently (in the Peterson thread), and through him Weinstein, Shapiro, Rogan, and Shapiro. For differing reasons I know varying amounts about Harris, Shermer, and Pinker. The others I hadn't heard about.
Notably, from what I've seen, a big issue is gender equality, which is getting bigger and bigger as an issue, but which I admit I'm only generally aware of- but through looking at some of the first 5 names I mentioned, they- and arguments against them- have given me more knowledge information, which needs to be questioned.
The point the OP makes relates to the bigger global occurrence of the undermining of liberal democracy, which is happening on national scales. But some people with influence that try to run counter to this are being suppressed. I admit my ignorance of much of the personalities involved, but would like to learn more, even if it may be to dismiss much of it. Do tell us more.

Morgans

cdgalwegian wrote: »

I admit my ignorance of much of the personalities involved, but would like to learn more, even if it may be to dismiss much of it. Do tell us more.

Good. You admit your ignorance.

Its a grift that these people are on. Most of their opinions are hired, paid for by libertarian interests.

The OPs list of arseholes are only popular because a) funds from right wing propogandists, b) they amplify their own reach by backslapping each other on their shows c) internet boards like this. Contributing to threads like this, even critical, increases their popularity.

Its a money making enterprise that reels in new blood with a soft soapy "I'm only interested in a frank exchange of ideas" "Can't we all agree to disagree" etc etc. "The left called me a nazi". Now, let me speak to Katie Hopkins, or Tommy Robinson, Stefan Molyneaux about their well thought out ideas. Isn't it weird how you are classed as racist?

Its a tired routine, and boards is now a target for some of the hucksters supporters. All of the above people listed have been exposed to one degree or another as being shysters, who amplify each others profile by appearing on the same programmes repeatedly.

You mention how transgenderism issues are on the rise. Only if you listen to the same people repeating the same nonsense over and over again. How much of a social issue is it really causing. I'll post this here again of the dynamic of how it gets air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjHn6QEgh4

Also, that youtuber does a good loooooong breakdown of Dave Rubin's nonsense, if you are interested. I don't like Jimmy Dore but the above clip in this thread is also instructive at how Bari Weiss talks about stuff she has NO clue about but it feels right to lots of the arsehole fans.

It doesnt take long to find evidence of grift that is being played, if you want to search for it. It also doesnt take long to find out how while they claim they love free speech, how sensitive they are to any criticism. However, they chime in with what a lot of disaffected young men (nearly always men) feel and they are happy with the reassurance.

The Majority Report would be a good starting point. (If you are actually interested).

MadYaker

What a bullish!t thread. It’s not even about the dark web. Take this nonsense to reddit op.

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I have been following these people for quite sometime, so it really just clicked with me when Bari Weiss released the article in the NYT mentioning them as 'the Intellectual Dark Web'.

• Eric Weinstein
• Ayaan Hirsi Ali
• Sam Harris
• Claire Lehmann
• Douglas Murray
• Maajid Nawaz
• Jordan Peterson
• Steven Pinker
• Joe Rogan
• Dave Rubin
• Ben Shapiro
• Lindsay Shepherd
• Michael Shermer
• Brett Weinstein

They are mostly a collection of disillusioned liberals looking for a place to have honest conversation about things that others aren't willing to have. They do not form alliances based on their identities or tribal affiliation.

....

What do liberals have against this eclectic bunch of individuals?
They are not getting any hate from the right.

In particular Dave Rubin a fully fledged gay leftie, bordering on socialist, nicest guy in the world, willing to have a conversation with anybody, yet the vitriol he receives(from the left) is quite disgusting.

Reads like propaganda rather than reasoned research by an unbiased party.

Also, this:

Weiss has expressed support for Israel and Zionism in her columns. When writer Andrew Sullivan described her as an "unhinged Zionist", she responded saying she "happily plead guilty as charged."[23] In 2018, she said she believed the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh, but that they should not disqualify him from serving on the Supreme Court, because he was 17 when he allegedly committed the assault.

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Says the modern day McCarthyist looking for fascists and Nazis in another thread...

Funny. Using an actual person who actively ruined lives because of a right wing political agenda bordering on fascism, to attack an imagined leftist bogeyman

Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others.

ELM327

No one is pro abortion, referring to it as such shows your inherent anti choice bias.

Chris_Heilong

What happens in America trickles down to us, we absorb so much of their media that reading/watching anything they produce influences peoples thinking and if they want to spread a skewed ideology and present it as truth, good and moral, you will find lots of useful idiots here in Ireland ready to jump on board.

ELM327

OT: Chris, mate long time no see! Do you still have the chaser? (We spoke at a few boards meets and I loved that car!)

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

What happens in America trickles down to us, we absorb so much of their media that reading/watching anything they produce influences peoples thinking and if they want to spread a skewed ideology and present it as truth, good and moral, you will find lots of useful idiots here in Ireland ready to jump on board.

Agree. There are certainly plenty of idiots here, Gemma O Doherty springs to mind

Chris_Heilong

ELM327 wrote: »

OT: Chris, mate long time no see! Do you still have the chaser? (We spoke at a few boards meets and I loved that car!)

Agree. There are certainly plenty of idiots here, Gemma O Doherty springs to mind

Sold the Chaser,I then got a Supra then sold that and got an MR2.:)

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

No one is pro abortion, referring to it as such shows your inherent anti choice bias.

You give out about people using the phrase "pro-abortion" and then claim THEY are showing their bias all the while using the phrase "anti-choice".

Impressive.

Veritas Libertas

Deleted User wrote: »

You give out about people using the phrase "pro-abortion" and then claim THEY are showing their bias all the while using the phrase "anti-choice".

Impressive.

Exactly, it is just this kind of stuff I'm alluding to. Just by presenting abortion as a debate shows my bias...

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

It was disgusting.

Somedaythefire

Deleted User wrote: »

You give out about people using the phrase "pro-abortion" and then claim THEY are showing their bias all the while using the phrase "anti-choice".

Impressive.

What's wrong with "anti choice"? Abortion being legal gives women the choice to have an abortion. Abortion being illegal removes that choice.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Exactly, it is just this kind of stuff I'm alluding to. Just by presenting abortion as a debate shows my bias...

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

It was disgusting.

Think that's all in your head, mate.

Somedaythefire

Somedaythefire wrote: »

What's wrong with "anti choice"? Abortion being legal gives women the choice to have an abortion. Abortion being illegal removes that choice.

The opposite of being "anti-abortion" would be being "pro-abortion".

It's all semantics really. I just found it amusing that you would think that "pro-abortion" shows bias whereas "anti-choice" doesn't.

James Brown

Chris_Heilong wrote: »

What happens in America trickles down to us, we absorb so much of their media that reading/watching anything they produce influences peoples thinking and if they want to spread a skewed ideology and present it as truth, good and moral, you will find lots of useful idiots here in Ireland ready to jump on board.

I think we're more savvy. Casey and Gallagher were the closest we've come to that. Leo tried it on but was too much of a gilly to make it work.

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Exactly, it is just this kind of stuff I'm alluding to. Just by presenting abortion as a debate shows my bias...

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

It was disgusting.

I thought your OP was all about left conspiracy written by a pro Israeli zionist who thought Kavanaugh was guilty of rape but it shouldn't count because he was 17 when he did it?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

The opposite of being "anti-abortion" would be being "pro-abortion".

It's all semantics really. I just found it amusing that you would think that "pro-abortion" shows bias whereas "anti-choice" doesn't.

Except the anti-abortion people are also, and more importantly, anti-choice. You’ll struggle to find a pro-choice person who advocates for abortion when a woman has a choice in the matter. They’re hardly pro-abortion. Pro-choice advocates tend to keep their oar out of the whole business once there’s a choice, and provision, available, whereas anti-choice advocates seem to believe they can hassle women making their own choice.

It’s not a like-for-like equation.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Except the anti-abortion people are also, and more importantly, anti-choice. You’ll struggle to find a pro-choice person who advocates for abortion when a woman has a choice in the matter. They’re hardly pro-abortion. Pro-choice advocates tend to keep their oar out of the whole business once there’s a choice, and provision, available, whereas anti-choice advocates seem to believe they can hassle women making their own choice.

It’s not a like-for-like equation.

I dunno man. Its a very difficult situation. I don't think it's fair to demonise people who are anti-abortion/pro-life/anti-choice.

I think your framing of them as anti-choice rather than the other two is a little disingenuous if you are riled by people who are in favour of allowing abortion being referred to as "pro-abortion".

alastair

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Do you remember the discourse that surrounded that entire referendum(repeal the 8th)? The way google and facebook influenced that referendum by targeting one side politically?

No. I remember the anti-choice campaign initially running a pretty disingenuous Facebook ad campaign out if the US initially, until Facebook stopped foreign referendum ads from all sides. I remember the whole fake UK nurse campaign that certainly undermined the credibility of anti-repeal PR effort, but mostly I recall the regard that most Irish people had for women making up their own minds what they did with their own bodies, and the lack of influence, either direction, that any social media had in that regard.

20Wheel

rogan, intellectual?

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno man. Its a very difficult situation. I don't think it's fair to demonise people who are anti-abortion/pro-life/anti-choice.

I think your framing of them as anti-choice rather than the other two is a little disingenuous if you are riled by people who are in favour of allowing abortion being referred to as "pro-abortion".

I’m not demonizing anyone. If you are opposed to abortion, the best of luck to you - I respect your personal position. But the anti-choice advocates still harass women at clinics. I’ve never encountered ‘pro-abortion’ activism in a scenario where choice and provision is available.

Too Tough To Die

20Wheel wrote: »

rogan, intellectual?

Intellectually curious.

James Brown

It's a great example of the bull**** goes on. Anti choice/anti abortion would be seen as right wing, especially in the context of this thread, but I'm damn sure many a Republican congressman has been involved in many the intern having one.

cdgalwegian

Morgans wrote: »

Good. You admit your ignorance.

Its a grift that these people are on. Most of their opinions are hired, paid for by libertarian interests.

The OPs list of arseholes are only popular because a) funds from right wing propogandists, b) they amplify their own reach by backslapping each other on their shows c) internet boards like this. Contributing to threads like this, even critical, increases their popularity.

Its a money making enterprise that reels in new blood with a soft soapy "I'm only interested in a frank exchange of ideas" "Can't we all agree to disagree" etc etc. "The left called me a nazi". Now, let me speak to Katie Hopkins, or Tommy Robinson, Stefan Molyneaux about their well thought out ideas. Isn't it weird how you are classed as racist?

Its a tired routine, and boards is now a target for some of the hucksters supporters. All of the above people listed have been exposed to one degree or another as being shysters, who amplify each others profile by appearing on the same programmes repeatedly.

You mention how transgenderism issues are on the rise. Only if you listen to the same people repeating the same nonsense over and over again. How much of a social issue is it really causing. I'll post this here again of the dynamic of how it gets air.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvjHn6QEgh4

Also, that youtuber does a good loooooong breakdown of Dave Rubin's nonsense, if you are interested. I don't like Jimmy Dore but the above clip in this thread is also instructive at how Bari Weiss talks about stuff she has NO clue about but it feels right to lots of the arsehole fans.

It doesnt take long to find evidence of grift that is being played, if you want to search for it. It also doesnt take long to find out how while they claim they love free speech, how sensitive they are to any criticism. However, they chime in with what a lot of disaffected young men (nearly always men) feel and they are happy with the reassurance.

The Majority Report would be a good starting point. (If you are actually interested).

Thanks; it's actually the general feeling I've got about the IDW. I had known it's original term was Eric Weinstein's, but not that it was popularized by Weiss, who I had never heard of; Art Fonzarelli's youtube post of her was both hilarious and cringy.
However, even though they seem to be a tiny disparate group of anti-progressives (rather than simply disaffected liberals, in the main), they are obviously tapping into something - some undercurrent of disaffection- that has resonance with a lot of people, and is part of the hollowing out of political centres, pushing many nation states into more polarised politics and cultural stances. Rather than ignoring them, are they not a symptom of something that should be looked at a bit more closely? Obviously, you feel this is falling into their trap; this isn't controversy for controversy's sake- it's for money's sake, as controversy sells. I'll have a look at the Majority Report some time to see his/their take on what it's about. Here's a quick article supporting your view:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Escaped-the/243399
In my ignorance though, there's something needling me about what this supposed IDW is trying to say (while making lots of cash in doing so)- I think it's something along the lines of: people need an anchor, and in this complex postmodern world of ours, this is where conservativism has it's appeal, but progressivism is a powerful force- quite rightly- unsettling conservative ways. But there needs to be a balance; a paradoxical 'conservative progressivism'. It seems though, that there is a lot vitriol against those that want to call a halt to excessive progressivism whereby it can be, paradoxically again, illiberal.

Veritas Libertas

Somedaythefire wrote: »

What's wrong with "anti choice"? Abortion being legal gives women the choice to have an abortion. Abortion being illegal removes that choice.


Think that's all in your head, mate.

I remember watching a lot of the 8th amendment committee in the Dail, some witnesses against tried to give their testimony in writing because of the stigma attached with the debate. They were refused.

Catherine Noone invites members to propose other witnesses after anti-abortion speaker withdraws


All in my head, hilarious. You must be willfully ignorant.


This is exactly what this thread is about. People being afraid to speak their minds for fear of stigma/repercussions

Morgans

cdgalwegian wrote: »

Thanks; it's actually the general feeling I've got about the IDW. I had known it's original term was Eric Weinstein's, but not that it was popularized by Weiss, who I had never heard of; Art Fonzarelli's youtube post of her was both hilarious and cringy.
However, even though they seem to be a tiny disparate group of anti-progressives (rather than simply disaffected liberals, in the main), they are obviously tapping into something - some undercurrent of disaffection- that has resonance with a lot of people, and is part of the hollowing out of political centres, pushing many nation states into more polarised politics and cultural stances. Rather than ignoring them, are they not a symptom of something that should be looked at a bit more closely? Obviously, you feel this is falling into their trap; this isn't controversy for controversy's sake- it's for money's sake, as controversy sells. I'll have a look at the Majority Report some time to see his/their take on what it's about. Here's a quick article supporting your view:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-I-Escaped-the/243399
In my ignorance though, there's something needling me about what this supposed IDW is trying to say (while making lots of cash in doing so)- I think it's something along the lines of: people need an anchor, and in this complex postmodern world of ours, this is where conservativism has it's appeal, but progressivism is a powerful force- quite rightly- unsettling conservative ways. But there needs to be a balance; a paradoxical 'conservative progressivism'. It seems though, that there is a lot vitriol against those that want to call a halt to excessive progressivism whereby it can be, paradoxically again, illiberal.

Yeah. If it was that, it would be harmless however it's a soft soap attempt to ally yourself with the right wing 'anti progressive' stance.

Weiss's table initially was to show not how progressive the 'idw' is but to show how rabid the liberals are for hating in these good guys. OP calls Rubin the nicest guy - check his history from left wing - The young Turks - to now hosting a show with Glenn Beck, check the idw support for Tommy Robinson, and Katie Hopkins, Check Sam Harris's defence of torture and saying that all Muslims should be viewed as terrorists.

They look good fighting unprepared college students, suitably edited but cherry pick who they debate. Check Dave Rubin running away from Sam Seder or Jordan Petersen running away from Richard Wolff. These fools went on stadium tours, claiming that their free speech is under threat. Snowflakes.

Joe Rogan shouldn't be on the list and was insulted to be used as part of their gang. He has whitewashed them, giving them the platform (as he did for Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes) it's one of the reasons he kicked back Vs Bari Weiss - who assumed she was going to get an easy ride from one of her friends. He has lately interviewed some progressives in an attempt to put distance between himself and the toxic idw. What you won't find from any of them is coming out as supporters of gun control, Palestinian rights, abortion, climate change, fair immigration, health care or anything that strays too far from the topics dear to their paymasters hearts. It's not good business. It's a grift.

On all the universally accepted biggest issues, the most you will hear is some wishy washy position to possibly provide cover, but they will try to convince you that individuals asking to be referred to by their preferred pronouns is the real threat to society. Ben Shapiro yesterday said that it was impossible to believe any of republican supreme court judge kavanagh accusers of his secual assault as he hasnt heard them describe his genitals. It's what his paymasters would want him to say. Intellectually rigorous. NYT calls him the 'cool kids philosopher'. If you think he is in any way worth following you are a gullible fool. There is absolutely no point pointing these things out to the fanboys. You may be one wasting my time but it would appear you are open to exploring their scam. So benefit of the doubt is given.

The OP knows this but is eager to amplify on people who don't know the grift. Either that or he is one of those idiots.