Intellectual Dark Web

[RoyalShock]

An interesting piece from the *gasp* New York Times.

Meet the Renegades of the Intellectual Dark Web

[wufan]

I’ve been watching Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, and Dave Rubin for about 18 months now. One not mentioned in the article is British free speech advocate Carl Benjamin (Sargon of Akkad). I would recommend these four to anyone that wants an honest right of center take (with Shapiro being the furthest right). While Shapiro was a wunderkind conservative that holds strong to that the belief, the other three grew up as progressives but were “red-pilled”.

I’ve run across most (all?) of the others in multiple long form interviews. Rarely are they disappointing in their takes, though they often disagree with one another.

Two things that all of these personalities have in common: The belief in the sovereignty of the individual, and the belief that the progressive movement (explicitly identity politics) are counter to this ideal.

[FadedCrown]

Ben Shapiro is my idol

[ShockCrazy]

I struggle to grasp their point. IDW basically represents people who wish to be free thinkers and express those thoughts and feel free speech is under assault? I fundamentally think they are intellectually dishonest if that's the case. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences or action from the public citizens or private companies. It is to protect you explicitly from actions of the government. I'm all for free thought and exploring all ideas, especially among those who you are comfortable and can have discourse, but when you speak publicly, there are and should be consequences. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean it should be expressed. The design of free speech is to explicitly allow the public at large and private institutions to decide what is acceptable or supported. Private company censorship, boycotts, etc against those people disagree with is them expressing their own free speech. Let culture and society make the decision rather than the government. Will culture and society sometimes get it wrong? Absolutely, but when you step out on that platform with something controversial you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad, that's the point.

wufan Also do not conflate progressivism with identity politics, one has nothing to do with the other.

[SHOCKvalue]

This article is getting eviscerated, via ad hominem attacks on its subjects, by progressives. Shocking.

The theme of this movement is simple: intellectual authoritarianism is real bad. Source: the history of the World.

[SHOCKvalue]

I struggle to grasp their point. IDW basically represents people who wish to be free thinkers and express those thoughts and feel free speech is under assault? I fundamentally think they are intellectually dishonest if that's the case. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences or action from the public citizens or private companies. It is to protect you explicitly from actions of the government. I'm all for free thought and exploring all ideas, especially among those who you are comfortable and can have discourse, but when you speak publicly, there are and should be consequences. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean it should be expressed. The design of free speech is to explicitly allow the public at large and private institutions to decide what is acceptable or supported. Private company censorship, boycotts, etc against those people disagree with is them expressing their own free speech. Let culture and society make the decision rather than the government. Will culture and society sometimes get it wrong? Absolutely, but when you step out on that platform with something controversial you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad, that's the point.

wufan Also do not conflate progressivism with identity politics, one has nothing to do with the other.

Did you even read the article?

[ShockCrazy]

Did you even read the article?

I did, I read in it's entirety. Read my first two sentences. Care to add anything of use?

[SHOCKvalue]

I did, I read in it's entirety. Read my first two sentences. Care to add anything of use?

I already did. Second paragraph of my first post. Needed far less room for my contribution. Also used paragraph breaks, like someone with an education.

[ShockCrazy]

I already did. Second paragraph of my first post. Needed far less room for my contribution. Also used paragraph breaks, like someone with an education.

Oh is it? It's about intellectual authoritarianism is it? What authority are they railing against? The population at large? That's not authoritarianism. Care to find any sources of them talking about authoritarianism. It mostly sounds like a bunch of people who said unpopular things, found consequences about it and now are railing about how that's not genuine discourse.

LOLOLOLOL It is one paragraph you nitwit. It is a full expression of one specific idea. Just because you can only comprehend short paragraphs doesn't make it improper writing.

[SHOCKvalue]

LOLOLOLOL

LOL

[wufan]

I struggle to grasp their point. IDW basically represents people who wish to be free thinkers and express those thoughts and feel free speech is under assault? I fundamentally think they are intellectually dishonest if that's the case. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences or action from the public citizens or private companies. It is to protect you explicitly from actions of the government. I'm all for free thought and exploring all ideas, especially among those who you are comfortable and can have discourse, but when you speak publicly, there are and should be consequences. Just because you have a thought doesn't mean it should be expressed. The design of free speech is to explicitly allow the public at large and private institutions to decide what is acceptable or supported. Private company censorship, boycotts, etc against those people disagree with is them expressing their own free speech. Let culture and society make the decision rather than the government. Will culture and society sometimes get it wrong? Absolutely, but when you step out on that platform with something controversial you have to be willing to accept the good with the bad, that's the point.

wufan Also do not conflate progressivism with identity politics, one has nothing to do with the other.

I was expressing the opinion of many/all of the IDW viewpoints. Identity politics is one item that is within the progressive movement (also central to the Alt right movement) that leads to authoritarianism. This particular viewpoint is what the IDW is fighting against. There are other ideals within the progressive movement that several of these personalities agree with. Many IDW folks are pro-choice and want universal healthcare. Some want UBI. Many of them refer to progressives as the “regressive left.” Its a mixed bag of anti-authoritarian free speechers. While it’s easy to disagree with some of the ideas exspoused, It’s kinda hard to be against this group as a whole if you are a capitalist and believe in the autonomy of the individual.

[wufan]

Oh is it? It's about intellectual authoritarianism is it? What authority are they railing against? The population at large? That's not authoritarianism. Care to find any sources of them talking about authoritarianism. It mostly sounds like a bunch of people who said unpopular things, found consequences about it and now are railing about how that's not genuine discourse.

LOLOLOLOL It is one paragraph you nitwit. It is a full expression of one specific idea. Just because you can only comprehend short paragraphs doesn't make it improper writing.

If you would like to genuinely discuss this I’m happy to explain some of the points and provide sources as requested.

These guys are genuinely concerned about the culture of the authoritarian left because they genuinely believe that freedom is under assault by governments. Non-US countries don’t have protected speech. They have speech prohibition laws and compelled speech laws (see the U.K. and Canada respectively). Jordan Peterson began his crusade by willfully breaking the law and went from obscure Harvard professor to self-help superstar in the process.

[wufan]

Ben Shapiro’s take on the article:

https://youtu.be/rdfHefFWFdE

[ShockerPhi]

LOLOLOLOL

LOL

Did you seriously just ban the guy because he disagreed with you?

[FadedCrown]

wufan can't ban people. I don't think he is a leftist.

[ShockerPhi]

I replied to SHOCKvalue, who can ban people.

[SHOCKvalue]

Did you seriously just ban the guy because he disagreed with you?

He earned himself a week’s vacation with the second paragraph in the post you reference, yes.

Needless to say, he’s not the first person I’ve ever disagreed with on SN. So no, on the thrust of your post.

[ShockerPhi]

Simply because he called you a nitwit and could only comprehend short paragraphs? People get away with that stuff everyday. Seemed a bit soft in my opinion, that's all.

[wufan]

Did you seriously just ban the guy because he disagreed with you?

Not sure on the ban, but am happy to discuss the ideas of the IDW if you don’t see the need for it.