Intellectual Dark Web

  • Started
  • Last post
  • 98 Responses
  • Morning_star

    [I understand that this particular emerging crucible of opinion can polarise a debate in an instant BUT could I ask that you take a moment to consider the value of honest discussion and not revert to the dogma of received wisdom and think for yourselves before you contribute, Thanks]

    ________________________________...

    The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) intrigues me. I have followed certain characters for some years, amongst others: Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Eric & Brett Weinstein. And i've found their opinion insightful, challenging and thought provoking. I agree with them sometimes, and other times i don't.

    Their long form debate and discussion is what I really enjoy. However, i've been trying trying to cut through the plethora of YouTube content that tries to show in 5 mins how PETERSON DESTROYS SJW or HARRIS OWNS MUSLIM APOLOGIST and it falls far short of the nuanced positions many of the IDW characters take.

    What I don't see very much of is an intelligent retort to the positions taken in the IDW. For instance Vox, Channel 4, BBC and Vice have attempted to take these guys on with very little success.

    I understand that if you put the various characters in a room that they would very likely disagree (see the recent Harris/Peterson debates) but what they do offer is considered opinion with room for others to contribute, discuss and listen. Not something that i've seen too much of from their detractors.

    Is this a left vs right thing? a long form vs sound bite thing? an old vs young thing? a men vs women thing? or none of this.

    Welcome all, let your thoughts flow like water.

  • BonSeff1

    Flow like water or Peterson's tears? Stop listening to these clowns.

    • Really. Why?Morning_star
    • Because they'll both make ridiculous assertions that they then can't defend, hiding behind thin whataboutisms and deflection.see_thru
    • I find those who dismiss them tend to do it without substance. Which assertions in particular ?Morning_star
    • I can't think of a single assertion that harris has made that he hasn't defended meticulously.Gnash
    • Is best to have as many different perspectives as possible.mugwart
    • agree with mugwart and morning_star, you don't have to agree but if you block out perspectives you can't have a meaningful debatespot13
    • Where did I say I block anything out? You don't have access to what I read and watch, so you can't possibly guess at what influences my perspectives.see_thru
    • Harris is a promotor of toxicity; he’s historically uninformed and panders to racist right-wing pseudo intellectualism.see_thru
    • You talk about open debate? Look at the people he's hosted versus the people he's gone after or has categorically stated he won't debate. He needs to be exposedsee_thru
    • You can't rely on 'we just know' as an argument...he runs interference. He defends toxic reactionary ideas like the bell curve FFS.see_thru
    • I don't know much about Harris, but from what I do know, I wouldn't have deduced he panders to the right wing racists at all.monospaced
    • Different opinions are okay. You can disagree with people's opinions. Chill out, it's okay.spot13
    • Embracing Charles Murray...his position on Islam...echoing white nationalist discourse; my understanding of pandering must be off.see_thru
    • I'm not saying you're wrong, dude. Just saying I'm ignorant of his stance. I know little of him beyond his atheist views.monospaced
    • Harris didn't embrace murray, he discussed the efficacy of his data - regardless of how those findings are used by bad actors.Gnash
    • he may have views you disagree with but to say he doesn't - or can't - defend them is just plain wrong. He goes to great lengths to explain himselfGnash
    • Exactly, Gnash.monospaced
    • Yes he defends - using ideas and contexts based on inaccuracies. Duke, Jones, Bannon, Shapiro etc, all go to great lengths to explain themselves too.see_thru
    • the guys you mention aren't even on the same planet as harris. lumping him with those guys indicates to me you get your views prepackagedGnash
    • Did I say that they were? I'm merely pointing out that even the dumbest players can explain shit away....see_thru
    • ...and if listening to a wide variety of opinion over several hours daily qualifies as prepackaged, well...see_thru
    • @ see_thru. Share the wealth brother/sister. Who do you listen to? Who should we take notice of?Morning_star
    • Just chiming in: Harris is that smug dipshit at the party that never shuts up, but should because he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.garbage
    • ^ you must have him confused for Cenk UygurGnash
    • ^ implying that I have any affinity for the fucking Young Turks.garbage
  • pr2-18

    ANY half-decent book about Marxism or Postmodernism "destroys" (if you want to use the youtube click-bait terms) any of Peterson's position on those two topics. This in itself wouldn't belittle his other points if he didn't chose himself to stake everything on this one card. It seems in his universe Marxism and Postmodernism is source of all evil. Unlike Peterson who seems to have read one book about about each subject - i have read a lot, and let me tell you one truth of life: anyone who says the problem is THIS (inserts whatever singular topic) is a charlatan.

    • I think what he's saying is basically, don't look only at theory. Look at evidence. There's an emergent property in Marxism that frequently leads to mass murdermonNom
    • marxism is the source of all evil.hotroddy
    • it impoverishes society and rules with authoritarianismhotroddy
    • Evidence detached from theory is empty talk.pr2
    • how much more evidence do you need than last 70 years of failed marxists states?hotroddy
    • Forget about Marxism in terms of economics. Peterson's issue is that he is one of those people pushing the idea of "cultural Marxism" which is ridiculous.yuekit
    • Also he equates post-modernism with identity politics which is a huge dumbing down of a complex philosophical and artistic movement.yuekit
    • what yuekit said. hotroddy have you ever read a serious book about Marxism?pr2
    • That ideology destroyed my country. I have no interest in reading a book about Marxism.hotroddy
    • I've read milton freedman in college. It made a lot of sense to me at the timehotroddy
    • Identity politics is exactly how the next Socialist president of USA will be elected.hotroddy
    • have you ever met a black republican?hotroddy
    • today and more so in the future - political affiliation will be determined by ethnicity rather than economic class.hotroddy
    • marxissm was created before the first car factory line. That single event changes everything in human history. We do need to change but with fresh ideasmugwart
    • " I have no interest in reading a book about it" - that pretty much ends the discussion right there. I have no interest debating your feelings.pr2
    • one doesn't need to be well versed in the frankfort school in order to have an opinion on the subject that's valid.Gnash
    • and not all criticism of cultural marxism goes down the kooky rabbit hole of some conspiracy involving the jewsGnash
    • it's totally legitimate to apply marxist theory along cultural lines rather than just economic.Gnash
    • marxism is the way of the moron.severian
    • @pr2 why debate whats in a book instead of real world examples of last 70 yrs. NK, East Germany, Cuba, Venezuela, Soviet Union, Eastern Europehotroddy
    • but only this time in USA it will work... right?hotroddy
    • we just haven't read the book carefully enoughhotroddy
    • @gnash, how do you apply along cultural lines?hotroddy
    • I was referring to the suggestion above that the idea of "cultural marxism" is ridiculous one.Gnash
    • the term may not conform to it's academic origin, but I don't think it's application in the current discussion is inappropriateGnash
    • (barring the crazy conspiracy theories some tie to the term)Gnash
    • relocate to Venezuela and experience it for yourself!ernexbcn
    • Cultural Marxism makes it sound like social change and womens/gay rights is some sort of plot to destroy society...yuekit
    • engineered by secret communists or Jews (depending on who you ask), as opposed to simply the natural evolution of peoples' attitudes over time.yuekit
    • ^ those are the kooky theories I was referring to (the nefarious social plot nonsense).Gnash
    • But I don't think that the rest can be reduced to a simple consequence of natural evolution. That's where the discussion liesGnash
    • I get it now. Thanks for clarifying. Cultural Marxism will not destroy society. If anything, it will make society more empathetic.hotroddy
    • not sure I'd go that far, hotroddy :)Gnash
    • you talking without research about a topic (yes, reading) = we are dealing with your feelings or diarrhea coming out of your ass.pr2
    • i'm not interested in neither. this shouldn't (as it clearly isn't) stopping you from forming an opinion but a value of this opinion to others is close to zero.pr2
  • shapesalad1

    You missed the greatest of them all off your list - Robert Sapolsky.

    Not sure if he's considered dark web... however his 25 lectures here, are of great value and should be mandatory viewing for the masses, especially for religious nuts:

    • In one lecture he points out how forest dwelling people usually invented and believed in multiple gods.shapesalad
    • where as desert dwellers, followed only 1 god. and desert nomadic had 1 god + strict rules on gender roles/marriage/sex.shapesalad
    • You'll have to watch the lectures and think a little to understand why that is. It puts into perspective religion - it is all a manmade fiction.shapesalad
    • What Robert Sapolsky talks about, is the mechanics at atomic level that all Peterson and his ilk's dialogue sits upon.shapesalad
    • And everyone else dialogue for that matter...shapesalad
    • cooldrgs
  • Fax_Benson8

    "intellectual" dark web is quite a grandiose name for what seems actually to be a pretty safe space.

  • sted1

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  • inteliboy2

    What Harris, Peterson etc. say isn't gospel and half the shit I don't agree with. But it's often interesting, healthy public discourse - something we've sorely been missing for decades due to being glued (and controlled?) to the mass media TV idiot box.

    Agreed, it's a shame that so many dismiss these speakers because of the alt-right idiots hijiacking and twisting their narrative, and subsequently the far left screaming and shouting at them like little children with no attempt at an intelligent debate.

    Suddenly a bunch of reasonable, pretty middle of the road, if not boring, uni lecturer/professor types are "nazis" and "mysoginists". Hmm ok.

  • BonSeff0

    • sam totally misunderstands (or purposely misrepresents) the idea of equality of outcome. I stopped listening after that became clearGnash
    • sorry you stopped.BonSeff
    • it was glaring disingenuous, and sets the tone for his intellectual honesty. he's clearly not after understanding but after a lazy consensusGnash
    • any valid point he has is obscured by that.Gnash
    • yeah, this totally misses the point. That said, Peterson's starting point re workplace / income equality overlooks as many fundamentalsFax_Benson
    • ^ that's true. he tends to ignore/discredit any data that doesn't agree with his perspective.Gnash
  • yuekit1

    Long form discussion is good but I don't find a lot of the ideas to be genuinely interesting or challenging. A lot of it amounts to knee-jerk anti-leftism.

    It is interesting to see how the new atheism movement (represented by Sam Harris) sort of evolved into an anti-feminist movement and now is essentially just embracing the tenants of social conservatism.

    If you follow all of Peterson's recommendations your outcome in life is basically to become a conservative dad who votes Republican and goes to church every week.

    • yuppr2
    • Agreed, except for Harris - I find he has a rational stance on certain topics, and am somewhat of a fan. And really get into his discussions on AI.inteliboy
    • I am interested if there are any counter arguments or other speakers/podcasts/ta... we should be listening to?inteliboy
    • Yeah Sam Harris is probably the best out of all of them but I don't get the affinity he has for people like Peterson, Ben Shapiro or Dave Rubin.yuekit
    • i read peterson's new book and i shit you not, there's a scripture passage every other pagescarabin_net
    • that said, he has a lot of really interesting and well-thought-out things to sayscarabin_net
  • BonSeff1

    Give a salary-challenged man a chance, ladies

    • haven't watched this yet - does he do Bird on the Wire?Fax_Benson
  • i_monk3

    Isn't this just the alt-right without the screaming?

    • no - its people expressing a different view. Right or wrong its their viewmugwart
    • kinda sick of the “just differing view” claim. You can find those anywhere.monospaced
    • everyone has a voice and a growth. No one can take their right to express their life as they want to. For me its only wrong when they act out badly to others.mugwart
    • You get that you can express something and still be fundamentally wrong, yes? And that your free expression can actually cause harm?i_monk
    • You being sick of differing views doesn't make them alt-right.cannonball1978
    • I'm not sick of differing views at all! I'm saying I'm sick of people using that as a catch all explanation for why believe someone doesn't like something.monospaced
    • For example, i've heard the claim that liberals don't like the alt right simply because of differing views. That is simply not the case.monospaced
    • It's not because the views are different, it's because they are despicable in most cases. There is a distinction. Different views aren't an issue by themselves.monospaced
    • yep mono.fadein11
    • Neither Harris or Peterson identify politically as ‘right’. Both claim to be liberal centrists. I think it’s symptomatic of the ‘left’ ideologoy to attempt to..Morning_star
    • ... label a group and then project an agenda driven and fictitious description on it. Truth is often brushed aside for the sake of convenience.Morning_star
    • are you fucking high?BonSeff
    • Has Peterson ever criticized the right to the same degree?i_monk
    • I think his main target is Marxist and post modernists but he does lay into fascists and the alt right as well_niko
    • I think he sees one as ridiculous and the other as dangerous_niko
  • MrAbominable0

    I think the question is "what's the point"? And from what I've heard it's a pretty loose affiliation of long-form people who often have differing povs. Rogan jokingly refers to it as the "dork web".

    Many of them make great points, often contradictory to each other and the format is taking hold because sound-bites aren't a very good arena for anything other than exhaustion.

  • _niko-4

    SJW's arguments fall apart when taken to task quite easily.

    So if someone self identifies as "insert whatever here" it's our job to refer to them with the pronoun of their choosing or else we're bigots.

    But, if I decide that i feel black, or native, and I demand that you refer to me as chief, how many of these SJW would respect my wishes?

  • shapesalad3

    In the discourse of the discussion I think everyone is loosing sight of what the overall task of a human on planet earth is all about. We are no different from the dinosaurs, apes and most other vertebrae species. We are tasked to mate, nurture our offspring, and since we have more intellectual capacity than other species, we should be aiming to nurture planet earth for the greater good of all living things.

    • that's exactly the kind of statement you hear on these podcasts/talks.inteliboy
  • yuekit3

    Social issues have historically been used very effectively to divide, conquer and distract people.

    Imagine if people could direct one tenth of the anger they feel over "social justice warriors" towards real issues like the ultra wealthy and the governments screwing us over, or the destruction of the planet.

    • who are the governments, the ultra wealthy and the ones destroying the planet? answer:
      us.
      _niko
    • when we start blaming 'them' for the problems of the world then we have a real problem that can never be solved._niko
    • Yup. I stopped listening to Dave Rubin because all he did was complain and whine about SJW's and the left. Tiring, dull and part of the problem imo.inteliboy
    • I agree for the most part niko. What I find fascinating and a little depressing is what motivates people. Make a video explaining how the earth is being ruinedyuekit
    • and their eyes glaze over. Post a video about how some crazy feminist or immigrant did something somewhere and you'll get 100 million views.yuekit
    • yupfadein11
  • severian-1

    What if social justice warriors could direct one tenth of the anger they feel towards REAL issues instead of artificially inseminated cows and zim zurs.

    They can all get fucked.

    • most of those are real issues.mugwart
    • ^ you're a moron.severian
    • Yeah they are idiots too but how many actual extremist third wave feminists are there anyway?yuekit
    • The anti-SJW and alt-right movements seem to be many times bigger than the extreme feminists they spend so much time fear mongering over.yuekit
    • Both sides are pushing too far. Both extremes need to be throat punched.severian
    • Bit hostile, your being a cuntmugwart
    • If you think pronouns are a real issue. you need to be culled.severian
    • No I dont think there are important. My importance is how we communicate to each other. Research the effect the animal Industry is having on environmentmugwart
    • Cut out shot meat and diary, eat decently farmed food and stop buying slave trade items and the world would be 3 fold bettermugwart
    • All nice and fuzzy, but yet impossible. Too many people on this planet to feed. It will never happen.severian
    • Said with respect, your very wrong. Good farming and modernization and we all will be laughing.mugwart
  • BonSeff0

    • scrub to 11:30BonSeff
    • god, these jackhammers are awful. What is this show? They just babble nonsense.severian
    • It's written right there...TMBS - Mike Brooks shits more intellectual firepower than others mentioned in this thread.see_thru
  • mg330

    Semi-related, but I read this article "Alt-Right Troll To Father Killer: The Unraveling of Lane Davis" on the train this morning and was pretty riveted by it. Some of you are mentioning SJW and I never knew what that stood for until I read this article.

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/art…

    • Also, if someone can explain to me how the right embraced Milo Y, I'd love to hear it.mg33
    • Because Bannon gave him a job at Breitbart to write the kind of stuff they like for cash.Fax_Benson
    • because he trolls feminists and anyone with a liberal stance.inteliboy
    • Because he's an Uncle Tom selling out the gays for a pat on the head from people who'd put him in a camp if they could.i_monk
    • So true monk_niko
  • Jeremyhead2
    • careful on thereFax_Benson
    • he's great!mugwart
    • gateway drugFax_Benson
    • ^ what makes you righteous (not meant to come across as aggressive)mugwart
    • don't have a clue, really. I know that if you buy into it it's difficult to come back.Fax_Benson
    • not specifically that article but alt news in general.Fax_Benson
    • I hear you but what is "alt" when we have been lied to for so long (BBC child rings spring to mind). This guy is good, he posts his sources. He not in fear pornmugwart
  • boobs0

    How does one get to The Dark Web?

    • tor + vpn. Not 100% sure after that. Every time I went on it I came across some nasty shit that was a bit off an offputmugwart
    • Yeah, Wikipedia says the dark web is mainly child porn. And I don't want anywhere near that.boobs
    • wikipedia wont set u free boobsJeremyhead
    • The Silk Road was an example of the real dark web, back in the early days of Bitcoin.youngdesigner
    • You could buy drugs and other illegal stuff anonymously. I think there are still marketplaces like that but not sure which ones.youngdesigner
    • And it isn't any more complicated than downloading TOR and typing in a URL (which doesn't work in a regular browser).youngdesigner
    • https://darkwebnews.…youngdesigner
    • there is a difference between deep web and dark webmugwart
    • dark web is criminal.
      deep web is stuff not index but goolge/yahoo
      mugwart
    • I was just going through some basic "main stream" sources and I had an image load and she looked too close to underage. Switched off and felt sick for a week.mugwart
    • Yeah people get them confused a lot... you'll often hear "the dark web is much bigger than the regular web" which is not true.yuekit
    • They mean the deep web...and the only reason it's bigger is because it's a bunch of boring stuff that isn't worth indexing :)yuekit
    • call the support line of your ISPfuturefood
  • Salarrue2