Intellectual Dark Web

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.

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

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 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.:)

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.

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.