Intellectual Dark Web

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You sound like a pre-school child. I have made hundreds of points in this thread. Feel free to address whichever you like. How about the publisher who recently was scared to print a book about free speech?

I'm glad this thread is here to show people like you up for the tactics that you use. You are whats wrong with civil debate and proper discourse. A product of Vladislav Surkov.

You haven’t made “hundreds of points”. You’ve hammered the same point repeatedly. A point which is wrong.

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

That’s the most false, false equivalency I’ve ever read. Well done.

The publisher is scared to publish a book on Free Speech for fear of being seen as racist even though they admit it's clear there is no intent to offend.

Junkyard Tom told him to go find another publisher. Does he realize other publishers are also scared to publish?

Akin to trying to enter a restaurant in the US under Jim Crowe. They could say just find another restaurant when in actual fact every restaurant makes this argument.

Just like no restaurant should stop black people from entering, no publisher should be afraid to publish a book about free speech.

Veritas Libertas

Who on the IDW Has Been Suppressed, and How Is That Done?

Even people who have never watched him have heard of Alex Jones. Many if not most of the people who did watch Jones found him to be more of an entertainer than a serious journalist. If you wanted to find out about man/pig hybrids being genetically engineered to harvest for human transplant organs, or gay frogs, or weather weapons, Alex Jones was your man.

For the first time in August 2018, the major online platforms coordinated their efforts. Within a few days, Alex Jones “Infowars” was expelled from Apple podcasts, Facebook, Spotify, and YouTube. On September 6th, Twitter followed suit. On September 8th, Apple banned Alex Jones InfoWars app from its App Store. Jones was virtually erased.

Who cares? Alex Jones was a conspiracy theorist who often knew perfectly well that some of the things he was saying were preposterous. In some cases, such as when he suggested the Sandy Hook mass shooting was a hoax, he was sued by parents of the victims. But Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine. To claim Alex Jones is a menace to a free society, because he mingles offensive opinions and fabrications with other material that might actually be genuinely interesting, is a contradiction in terms. A free society indulges crank content, allowing it to be organically discredited. Alex Jones didn’t incite violence.

Source

"The IDW doesn’t actually exist as a distinct something. It’s just a way to describe online content that explores politically incorrect topics, while remaining committed to an intellectual and civil tone."

The crazy bast*rd wasn't wrong about everything.

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

A point which is wrong.

Here is Trevor Phillips making that same 'wrong' point. I noticed it while watching this week's episode of "The Pledge".

Last year I wrote a pamphlet called the 'age of incivility', we went back over 20 year, this has been growing and growing, and the reason we think this is happening is because the politicians would rather spend time denigrating each others character then wrestling with the actual issues of substance. That's what the heart of this is about. Are you about telling your opponent he's a bad guy? Or are you trying to answer the question posed.

Here is Trevor Phillips making the above point. Skip to 10mins19seconds

• Trevor Phillips has spoken on the need for free speech to "allow people to offend each other."
• Phillips became head of the Commission for Racial Equality in 2003, and on its abolition in 2006 was appointed full-time chairman of its successor, the EHRC (initially called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights), which had a broader remit of combating discrimination and promoting equality across other grounds (age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment).

Phillips said the media’s awkwardness in covering race had led to a skewed presentation of knife crime and the demographic factors behind the rise in violence. He said: “No journalist has mentioned race as a factor. It means debate is focused on police numbers. This is about race. This is about people of colour.”

Source

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

A point which is wrong.

Here is Trevor Phillips making that same 'wrong' point. I noticed it while watching this week's episode of "The Pledge".

Last year I wrote a pamphlet called the 'age of incivility', we went back over 20 year, this has been growing and growing, and the reason we think this is happening is because the politicians would rather spend time denigrating each others character then wrestling with the actual issues of substance. That's what the heart of this is about. Are you about telling your opponent he's a bad guy? Or are you trying to answer the question posed.

Here is Trevor Phillips making the above point. Skip to 10mins19seconds

• Trevor Phillips has spoken on the need for free speech to "allow people to offend each other."
• Phillips became head of the Commission for Racial Equality in 2003, and on its abolition in 2006 was appointed full-time chairman of its successor, the EHRC (initially called the Commission for Equality and Human Rights), which had a broader remit of combating discrimination and promoting equality across other grounds (age, disability, gender, race, religion and belief, sexual orientation and gender reassignment).

Phillips said the media’s awkwardness in covering race had led to a skewed presentation of knife crime and the demographic factors behind the rise in violence. He said: “No journalist has mentioned race as a factor. It means debate is focused on police numbers. This is about race. This is about people of colour.”

Source

The fact that free speech is under some threat, real or perceived, is not proof that the particular people you mentioned in the OP are members of an intellectual dark web.

Free speech has always been under threat from authoritarianism. It's not exclusive to the left or right.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Brian? wrote: »

That’s the most false, false equivalency I’ve ever read. Well done.

The publisher is scared to publish a book on Free Speech for fear of being seen as racist even though they admit it's clear there is no intent to offend.

Junkyard Tom told him to go find another publisher. Does he realize other publishers are also scared to publish?

Akin to trying to enter a restaurant in the US under Jim Crowe. They could say just find another restaurant when in actual fact every restaurant makes this argument.

Just like no restaurant should stop black people from entering, no publisher should be afraid to publish a book about free speech.

Publishers publish books they believe will sell and books that don't break the law.

It's not a free speech issue in a country where there is no right to free speech. Instead of believing the publisher is part of some anti free speech cabal, you should be directing your ire towards a government that is actually impinging on free speech. A conservative government.

Tony EH

Brian? wrote: »

Publishers publish books they believe will sell and books that don't break the law.

It's not a free speech issue in a country where there is no right to free speech. Instead of believing the publisher is part of some anti free speech cabal, you should be directing your ire towards a government that is actually impinging on free speech. A conservative government.

This is what Tony Roche of Emerald Publishing wrote to James Flynn regarding his manuscript:

I am contacting you in regard to your manuscript In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor. Emerald believes that its publication, in particular in the United Kingdom, would raise serious concerns. By the nature of its subject matter, the work addresses sensitive topics of race, religion, and gender. The challenging manner in which you handle these topics as author, particularly at the beginning of the work, whilst no doubt editorially powerful, increase the sensitivity and the risk of reaction and legal challenge. As a result, we have taken external legal advice on the contents of the manuscript and summarize our concerns below.


There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant. For example, one test is merely whether it is “likely” that racial hatred could be stirred up as a result of the work. This is a particular difficulty given modern means of digital media expression. The potential for circulation of the more controversial passages of the manuscript online, without the wider intellectual context of the work as a whole and to a very broad audience—in a manner beyond our control—represents a material legal risk for Emerald.


Secondly, there are many instances in the manuscript where the actions, conversations and behavior of identifiable individuals at specific named colleges are discussed in detail and at length in relation to controversial events. Given the sensitivity of the issues involved, there is both the potential for serious harm to Emerald’s reputation and the significant possibility of legal action. Substantial changes to the content and nature of the manuscript would need to be made, or Emerald would need to accept a high level of risk both reputational and legal. The practical costs and difficulty of managing any reputational or legal problems that did arise are of further concern to Emerald.


For the reasons outlined above, it is with regret that Emerald has taken the decision not to publish your manuscript. We have not taken this decision lightly, but following senior level discussions within the organization, and with the additional benefit of specialist legal advice. I realize that this decision will come as a disappointment to you and hope that you will be able to find an alternative publisher with whom to take the work to publication.

What's clear here is that Emerald Publishing is fearful of litigation from the people that are mentioned in Flynn's book and under outside legal advice have chosen not to publish, because of possible infringement upon UK laws - a country which has never had freedom of speech in the first place, as you point out. We're talking about a country that used to ban Italian gory horror movies in the 80's, again due to a Conservative government.

In any case, this is purely a legal matter and not one of mere "free speech" infringement as Flynn is trying to make out.

However, Publishers refusing to publish authors work happens all the time for myriad reasons. This is nothing new and Flynn whining about it comes across as more of an attempt to drum up publicity more than anything else.

Additionally, I have nothing against Flynn personally. In interviews he comes across as a mildly interesting personality, if not a particularly engaging one. On the question of his book, it's impossible for anyone to make any kind of judgement on it, from a value perspective or otherwise, or whether it should be published or not by Emerald.

Lastly, and once again, there's nothing "Dark Web" about James Flynn.

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

The fact that free speech is under some threat, real or perceived, is not proof that the particular people you mentioned in the OP are members of an intellectual dark web.

Free speech has always been under threat from authoritarianism. It's not exclusive to the left or right.

Thank you for admitting it. Many others wouldn't.

It seems your problem is in these people being called the international dark web.
I propose you refer to them as anything you like.
I have absolutely no qualms about the name.

The name is just to represent an idea about talking about things that usually have an unfair stigma attached to them.

I think you're right though the more I learn, the more I agree with your last point. Everyone is happy to attack freedom of speech when it is support of 'their' cause.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

In any case, this is purely a legal matter and not one of mere "free speech" infringement as Flynn is trying to make out.

Lastly, and once again, there's nothing "Dark Web" about James Flynn.

I'd say you made a mistake there buddy; not reading the second paragraph of the letter from the publisher that you put up. Either that or seriously, I can not help you.

Lastly, dark web is just a word to refer to the idea that there is an unfair stigma attached to some conversations today. People that engage in these discussions are referred to as IDW. The childish insistence on the name in this thread really is just a new low for tactics during debate.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

What's clear here is that Emerald Publishing is fearful of litigation from the people that are mentioned in Flynn's book

" To discuss a point made in Emerald’s letter, every reference to a person is documented by citations of published material or material in the public domain"-James Flynn

His book is not being published because he mentions the work of people like Charles Murray. Let's not pussyfoot around this.

Tony EH

It's not being published because Emerald Press decided not to after legal advice informed them that some of its content could contravine UK law.

This is very simple to understand.

seamus

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Lastly, dark web is just a word to refer to the idea that there is an unfair stigma attached to some conversations today.

Yeah, no. "Dark Web" refers to internet-based networks of individuals engaging in behaviours that are typically illegal, but are on the whole unsavoury.

The "Dark" part is not a reference to "evil" or "badness", but is an allusion to operating in the shadows, making a point of interacting with each other outside of public visibility and typically in ways that avoid accidental exposure. They intentionally remain hidden so as to avoid the consequences of their actions.

"Intellectual" dark web is just an extension to this to explain how the likes of the named individuals operate publically under the pretence of being simple philosophers and truth-seekers, when in fact they're little more than shills working for corporate and religiously funded networks to manipulate narratives and spread false information.

The childish insistence on the name in this thread really is just a new low for tactics during debate.

It's the title of the thread. The thread that you started. :rolleyes:

Ironicname

Tony EH wrote:

It's not being published because Emerald Press decided not to after legal advice informed them that some of its content could contravine UK law.

It's a beautiful thing when people agree that vocalising an opinion should be reason enough to be deplatformed or censored. There should only be regulated free speech.

Tony EH

Ironicname wrote: »

It's a beautiful thing when people agree that vocalising an opinion should be reason enough to be deplatformed or censored. There should only be regulated free speech.

If I'm picking up correctly and you have a problem with UK hate speech laws, then go exercise your right to protest against them outside the House of Commons.

James Flynn hasn't been "deplatformed" or "censored", or "banned" as he tried to say. A publisher has simply refused to publish his manuscript on the basis of legal advice.

Veritas Libertas

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, no. "Dark Web" refers to internet-based networks of individuals engaging in behaviours that are typically illegal, but are on the whole unsavoury.

The "Dark" part is not a reference to "evil" or "badness", but is an allusion to operating in the shadows, making a point of interacting with each other outside of public visibility and typically in ways that avoid accidental exposure. They intentionally remain hidden so as to avoid the consequences of their actions.

"Intellectual" dark web is just an extension to this to explain how the likes of the named individuals operate publically under the pretence of being simple philosophers and truth-seekers, when in fact they're little more than shills working for corporate and religiously funded networks to manipulate narratives and spread false information.
It's the title of the thread. The thread that you started. :rolleyes:

Hillarious stuff really enjoyed that.... wait you weren't being serious were you?

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not being published because Emerald Press decided not to after legal advice informed them that some of its content could contravine UK law.

This is very simple to understand.

It is simple. In fact it is an over-simplification.

Are you at all interested in what content the legal advice informed them would risk contravening UK law?
Subsequently, are you interested in what UK law this content would break?

This is the crux of the discussion.

Stephen Pinker was given an advance copy to read; here are his remarks;

That’s shocking [the rejection] even by the standards of contemporary restrictions on free speech, and especially ironic given the subject of your book.

This is a clear indication that society has already started self-censoring. This isn't for fear of contravening the law, its for fear of contravening the wokes.

Roger Scruton was sacked from his job in 5 hours, by a mob hit job done online. This is not as far from our borders as you believe.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

It is simple.

Agreed.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

A publisher has simply refused to publish his manuscript on the basis of legal advice.

Restaurant owners simply refused black people entry to their restaurants during Jim Crowe. What's the big deal? You are lacking integrity my dear man.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Restaurant owners simply refused black people entry to their restaurants during Jim Crowe. What's the big deal? You are lacking integrity my dear man.

Your non sequiturs aren't going to help you.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

Your non sequiturs aren't going to help you.

Your refusal to address the issues outside of your vast oversimplifications only serves to prove the point of this thread. Bravo to you and thank you.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Your refusal to address the issues outside of your vast oversimplifications only serves to prove the point of this thread. Bravo to you and thank you.

You don't have any points. This entire thread is junk.

To quote Black Adder, "...it started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle & the less said about the end the better! But apart from that, excellent!"

o7

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't have any points. This entire thread is junk.

To quote Black Adder, "...it started badly, it tailed off a little in the middle & the less said about the end the better! But apart from that, excellent!"

o7

Why don't you just answer these question, or unsubscribe from a junk thread?

Tony EH wrote: »

It's not being published because Emerald Press decided not to after legal advice informed them that some of its content could contravine UK law.

This is very simple to understand.

It is simple. In fact it is an over-simplification.

Are you at all interested in what content the legal advice informed them would risk contravening UK law?
Subsequently, are you interested in what UK law this content would break?

This is the crux of the discussion.

Enough of the whataboutisms. Grow the **** up.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't have any points.

The inflammatory nature of your posting style is evident. You do it when you disagree with someone but can not form a coherent argument.

Its plain for all to see; right click, find more posts by. Easily done.

Junkyard Tom

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Restaurant owners simply refused black people entry to their restaurants during Jim Crowe. What's the big deal? You are lacking integrity my dear man.

That's just dumb false equivalence. Learn your logical fallacies.

I agreed to do a survey for a car insurance company once. It operated under the guise of seeking information from me but in reality it was simply using the survey as a method of giving me information.

Are you aware that Wooden Wheels Insurance supports community initiatives?

Eh, I am now!

I suspect that you think you're very clever in trying to engage people in discussion when your real motivation is signal boosting your heroes. This is exactly the MO of the so-called 'dark web intellectuals'

Feigning virtuous motives to propagate certain ideas.

Veritas Libertas

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

The inflammatory nature of your posting style is evident. You do it when you disagree with someone but can not form a coherent argument.

Its plain for all to see; right click, find more posts by. Easily done.

People can see your post history too, and the odds on you having rereg after leaving in a huff or just having the same script are high enough.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I suspect that you think you're very clever in trying to engage people in discussion when your real motivation is signal boosting your heroes. This is exactly the MO of the so-called 'dark web intellectuals'

Feigning virtuous motives to propagate certain ideas.

You keep alluding to some sinister deep motive for me(and the idw?) yet when questioned on it repeatedly you fall back into the shadows.

Hilarious that people would 'thank' such a sentiment. Just goes to show the tactic at play to shut people down coming from your ilk.
All in vain though; as akin to the Streisand effect any attempt to stop the spread of information has the unintended consequence of spreading it more rapidly.

You know how you beat me? By engaging in my ideas.

It is not a false equivalency to equate the human right of freedom of expression with the human right not to be discriminated against. Balls in your court buddy, I expect you to take the ball and go home, as usual.

Veritas Libertas

DubInMeath wrote: »

People can see your post history too, and the odds on you having rereg after leaving in a huff or just having the same script are high enough.

Care to address any of the arguments that there is a culture of people shutting others down that they don't agree with by denigrating their character rather than engaging in the ideas?

Or maybe you'd prefer to infer my motives and then disappear when questioned.

You guys are showing yourselves up by calling in reinforcement from the woke brigade, none of whom have engaged in any of the ideas of this thread.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

That's just dumb false equivalence. Learn your logical fallacies.

Freedom of expression is a human right.
Freedom not to be discriminated against is a human right.

The poster said the publisher has the freedom to do as they like. How is this any different from saying restaurant owners have the right to ban black people?

Perhaps you can explain how this is a false equivalence.

Veritas Libertas

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Care to address any of the arguments that there is a culture of people shutting others down that they don't agree with by denigrating their character rather than engaging in the ideas?

Or maybe you'd prefer to infer my motives and then disappear when questioned.

You guys are showing yourselves up by calling in reinforcement from the woke brigade, none of whom have engaged in any of the ideas of this thread.

Woke yeah right, more Americanism bs.

I believe that your talking utter ****e.

Freedom of speech or expression isn't a business role or model and no business has to provide it for anyone.

There are platforms for people who are demonetized from YouTube etc, and not all on the actual dark web, that anyone can use if they were actually not just out too make money.

Veritas Libertas

DubInMeath wrote: »

Woke yeah right, more Americanism bs.

I believe that your talking utter ****e.

Freedom of speech or expression isn't a business role or model and no business has to provide it for anyone.

There are platforms for people who are demonetized from YouTube etc, and not all on the actual dark web, that anyone can use if they were actually not just out too make money.

Explain why? of course it does. Its a human right just like the right not to be discriminated. Or do you choose your human rights like at a buffet? His book was initially accepted; and then denied based on seeking legal advise. Isn't the crux of the issue what legal advice was offered? And what law this was understood to break? Nobody wants to address these points though.

The argument that the people 'of the dark web' aren't the dark web because they have platforms is ridiculous to the point of being formulated by an infant.

In reality the topics they discuss are increasingly becoming polarized to the point of wild labels and accusations being thrown around; people are acting on emotion in these debates rather than on reason:

• Islam
• Feminism
• Immigration
• Abortion
• Free speech
• etc..

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."- Thomas Jefferson