How the Intellectual Dark Web Works

Nathan J Robinson has never made an argument based on a statistic or a fact yet he calls anyone he disagrees with a charlatan. I think Nathan is the real charlatan here.

Excellent video!

This guy just completely straw manned and misrepresented Sam Harris' views. Shows his ignorance and bias on the topic

2 morons....teenagers

The idw doesnt exist, where is it?? The people how should be part of it have few things in common, and they are radically diverse in many others!! It doesnt make any sense to keep on talking avout idw...the supposed menbers of the idw dont talk about it, they dont care!!

Jordan Peterson was a professor in good stead who taught at Ivy League schools until he fell afoul of the Left. Ben Shapiro graduated cum laude from Harvard Law. Now they are "charlatans"?

Nathan Robinson fumbles and bumbles around trying to figure out how the Left can compete with people who speak their minds freely and have something to say.

I'm here because I was trying to figure out who Krystal Ball was talking about when she referenced Nathan Robinson criticizing her for having a co-host who is not a Leftist.

Independent people speaking their mind, how dare the first amendment allow that.

The problem with the IDW is that they make a straw man of the Left. They conflate the regressive SJW Left with the progressive Left. They are cherry-picking. But the problem with people critical of the IDW is that they should be the ones that attack SJW culture the most because it is a gateway to the Right. I don't understand why its wrong to be stridently anti-Islam. Islam is an authoritarian ideology no different than fascism. It gets a pass because it's a religion. Many of the progressive critics of IDW are not aware of what's really going on on college campuses and in Europe. The backlash against political correctness is justified.

Pair of utter losers with nothing to do but bash on vastly superior intellects just for click-bait...pathetic

This dweeb totally forgot his notes in his bicycle basket...

I was raised Mormon, and got into Christopher Hitchens, because of his ability to abuse and humiliate, people whom were defending a world view, and a prescriptive morality on the basis of religiosity. Looking back, I didn't see the arguments as incredibly interesting: really anyone can argue against belief in god, or dogmatism, or blind faith. But really, what I was doing, was looking to push away, the humanity of people whom I felt we're: coming after me. Which in many ways, they had, and do: to all of us. I was responding from my own child-hood trauma, of having my own critical consciousness: ignored, or denied. The only thing that changed me, was during a long drive home with my parents. I was retelling an in-counter that Hitchens had, in which he made some great jab. And my parents, noticing how exalted I was from that, said, with so much sympathy, calm, and openness. "That's fine, but don't focus so much on people that want to be superior to others." We humanity! We desperately need an argument, "against," religiosity, which is based on a realized vision of a social world in which all people are free to live without the oppressive control of authorities, divine or otherwise. And one in which, people whom are still identified with organized religions, can be seen as they are: injuring themselves, often, in search of something fundamentally necessary to all of us.

This guy could find the door to the Intellectual Dark Web.

It would be great to have an intensity map of IQ, over regions of severe poverty, lack of women rights, previous colonial administration regions, etc. then think that maybe if a person did not grow up in extreme poverty with a diverse food supply, where women could be seen as leaders to their daughters, where colonialism benefited their outcome instead of hindering it. I wonder if we all had the same rights and quality of life, where would the IQ scores lie? A whole world the same colour I would hope and expect.

Ben Shapiro is a pundit. The two party system basically produces pundits. Even if you are giving a nuanced description about your various opinions, they eventually fall along two party lines. That line has blurred recently as both parties became populist. There are still distinctions. These distinctions don’t really get represented as people can have many beliefs but they are stuck to one party due to circumstance. Small business for Republicans and traditionally Workers for the Democrats. Big business really runs it all though. A neutral-left channel dealing in facts, not conspiracy, gets partially demonitized. My iPhone even thinks demonitized is a fake word. But boy, oh, boy... it’s coming for everybody. Maybe we ALL should have stood up for free speech......................

I sometimes wonder if you know who you are critiquing when you talk about IDW. Sam Harris is a meditator, promoting meditation and discusses things like the illusion of free will and the self. Also is an atheist so he judges religions (islam being a religion too). What about this is a problem? Do you believe you have free will? What about Sam Harris’s appeal mystifies you? Peoples interest in meditation?

Let me guess, the only thing you know of Sam Harris is his Podcast episode with Charles Murray. I would bet I am correct.

Moving on, Jordan Peterson is a charlatan, sure. But just because he is said to be in the IDW does not mean they are related in any way. Sam Harris and Jordan disagree on everything; watch the podcast of their discussion. IDW isnt a group they started, they dont have an office, and the title was GIVEN to them by Brett Weinstein.

Educate yourself?

The intellectual dark web - A group of people that other "self-professed" intellectuals feel the need to lump together in order to lend credence and a sense of uniqueness to their own contrasting opinions...and sell books conveying them.

Nathan is clearly a whiney beta male full of envy and lack of initiative to take the time to understand JBP, let alone those who influenced his work.

It's hard to take this guy with the fake accent seriously..

It'd be great to watch either or both of you to go on Rubin, and talk with Peterson, f2f. For 2 hours.

Their interactions with college kids is "unfair," and one or both of you might better engage.

And, until you two propose an alternative, you two need to go off and actually propose alternatives to what the IDW does. They discuss for long periods of time. You guys start from a pt of "how do we tear this down." You two ought to engage with them and see how it goes.

Last, instead of guessing, or promoting your opinions, why don't you survey followers?

IDW’s lineup reminds me of what Hannity and Colmes was designed to do.

The reason I have gravitated towards content involving Harris, the Weinstein brothers, and Jordan Peterson of this so called "intellectual dark web" is the long form discussions and debates where ideas are king and good faith argument is paramount. I have been seeking voices that are farther left of these people and what I've found is of little substance. If anyone could point me in the direction of someone left of Harris that engages in these long form discussions and does not resort to character attacks, gotchas, or intellectually dishonest arguments, I would greatly appreciate it.

eric weinstein is a heavy critic of capitcalism. neither of you discuss what particular things the idw speaks about - instead you talk about the political leaning of the people supposedly in the idw.

the idw isn't a group of people. it's a conversation.

also, bari weiss is an idiot.

These jokers have so much wrong I don’t know where to start .

I"m one of those far left liberals who is very supportive of the IDW, I haven't shifted right after listening to people like Shapiro and there are quite a few liberals who are a part of this, not 'so called liberals.' I measure most of my politics by economic and foreign policy issues. Our two political parties are so entrenched in identity politics, it could lead to some sort of civil war. I think the IDW, if it grows in popularity, could save the left from its own self destruction. We know how to point out the flaws on the other side of the aisle, that's easy. What we need is some serious self reflection imo. So does 'the right', and I hope that manifests in some way, perhaps through this IDW.

They're debating topics that have become unsafe to debate on the liberal side, truths that seem glaringly obvious to many of us but can't be spoken. That is the appeal. Call us racist incels, pseudo-intellectuals or whatever you like, that's the whole problem on the left! It's nothing but virtue signaling and name calling, shaming.

Social justice movements are nitpicking their way to irrelevance, and it's happening quickly imo. I think a large bulk of people on 'the left' are just keeping their mouths shut, hoping the noise passes eventually. I think this current state of social justice is a distraction that is keeping us from addressing real injustices through the political process. Name me one piece of legislation that's being pushed forward by any social justice movement at the moment. Even if there are some small legislative goals, I would bet that most SJW aren't even aware of what they are. They're just trolling to shame people when we should be debating an agenda to beat Trump with in 2020. Calling 62 million Trump voters white supremacists at every opportunity is not a good political strategy.

I believe that Bernie Sanders sees what's wrong, but it can't be spoken to directly. He's trying to move the Democratic Party away from identity politics, back to labor, back to challenging the establishment, not the 'white patriarchy.' Just to say that gets a person labeled a 'racist.' Pay attention to Sanders, every time he attempts an olive branch, he's shot down. He was called a white supremacist for daring to suggest that not all Trump voters are racist. His agenda could appeal to rural, white working people as much as urban working people but progressives don't want to broaden the voter base. They think calling red state voters stupid racists voting against their own interests for years on end will somehow attract votes! It's sickening.

Alternatives, who without drifting into nihilistic atheism, nor esoteric idealism, can redefine naturalism:

 Thomas Nagel: Atheist moral realist. "Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False." Argues that ethics have co-evolved from the very first molecules of life. Very simple at first, but with growing chemical complexity, also grew the ideas of bondage, communication and care itself.

 Markus Gabriel: Ontological Pluralist. Argues that social sciences are not softer than natural sciences. Argues that questions regarding selfawareness, the mind, existence, ethics and culture cannot be derived by natural sciences like neuro biology, AI or evolutionary theory alone.

Both remove the existential thorn of social darwinism, that has been an boiling undercurrent ever since Nietzsche.

The aura of scientific factuality is all built around claims that we really have to look at: It boils down to the hard problem of consciousness. Neuroscience is really not as developed as we are left to believe. Claims are built upon claims. And then come hobby philosophers as Sam Harris and build their claims on this hollow foundation.
And we are all buying it. Free Will is a much more complex process to begin with.

Natural sciences and social sciences are on equal footage. None is more fundamental than the other. Let's not buy in to that. Then we can pull their social darwinistic rug from under their feet.

Let's start connecting the political left with the scientific/cultural left: Erik Brynjolfsson, Rutger Bregman, Anand Giridharadas, Oliver Thorn (PhilosophyTube), Natalie Wynn (ContraPoints), Markus Gabriel, Thomas Nagel, Noam Chomksy, Michael Moore, The Wachowsky Sisters, Lewis Gordon

Weinstein is very critical of capitalism in his tedtalk and Harris does not promote islamophobia. They actually are very reasonable people. I hope Pakman could interview them sometime.

Hahahaha he wants to debate JP or Shapiro? Good luck.

Who is this little dick

Have you interviewed or debated any of the people you are speaking about? If so, appreciate a link. If not, easy to punch from outside the ring, so to speak. Until then, stay classy!

Eric and Brett Weinstein's last name is pronounced /wine-stine/ not /wine-steen/. David, you consistently mispronounce their names. Thank you in advance for taking the time to get their names right.

Sam is against the Muslim ban, was against Iraq, hates Trump, thinks he is a dangerous bigoted loon, is pro choice, secular, doesn't advocate Murry but discussed whether he should be removed from a debate and made a pariah, is pro social safety nets, just promoted Khan, a feminist journalist, attacks white supremacists-- he sounds far right. He doesn't consider debate strawmanning and ad hominem and just being grouped with people he doesn't even agree with on a lot. And what the hell does libertarianism have to do with him? Ruben is a joke.

talking sense

Personally, I like the IDW. I'm a progressive person, and I still enjoy them. The deal is, you can listen to somebody and enjoy a conversation without agreeing with everything they say. Hearing ideas from across the spectrum and debating them makes your ideas stronger. There are things I agree with, usually common sense stuff, but they also say a bunch of that I think is stupid. I just listen anyways. I'm not worried about somebody else's ideas changing me for no reason. I still believe in equality and single-payer. I still abhor racism and the far right. I wish they'd come out more and criticize the right's ridiculousness also, which concerns me.

You cannot absolutely not compare Harris to Peterson, Shapiro or Rubin

David Pakman doesn't realize that he is the progressive wing of the IDW? His questions make no sense. "How do we defeat this?" You don't, because people sorting out what they believe non-violently is what a free society looks like (facepalm). Bret Weinstein posted a 6 minute video on why capitalism will lead to the destruction of the planet, so yes he is skeptical of markets. David Pakman, get it together please. Also, Harris says Islam is better on some issues than Christianity is (stem-cell research is allowable). This is just a simple consequence of what is obvious: you can't make value-judgements about religions without looking at their details.

If you think “they” represent the intellectual dark web you need to get out more.

How tf could you lump Harris in with the others?

Ridiculously low resolution reasoning here. Particularly interesting is the focus on Harris
Blindingly obvious no one has bothered reading much at all of any of the participants in the IDW, surface commentaries at best and hideous inaccuracy at worst and the omission of Eric and Bret Weinstein is abhorrent 😜 poor poor journalism folks
Maybe some serious in-depth investigations and research is needed before attempting to put your opinions into the world
But hey that never stopped any other idiot from making a video before.
Possibly the best part about the IDW is people with opposing political and moral views having difficult conversations with no taboos aloud no matter the outcome. So much vitriol in the comments oh Harris is this or Peterson is that or he’s far right he’s a lefty .. WHO FUCKIN CARES we need opinions of all sides to function as a society. Even the most heinous of views gives an opportunity to learn and develop.
Blankety dismissing someone’s opinion purely on the grounds of a predetermined narrative originated by someone else is no way to hold discourse with a means to progress civilisation. Wake up folks the people with different opinions are not your enemy simply a friend you do not understand yet. The game is to at least try to get to the same page at some point

The IDW is simply a group of people who do not lie about what their opposition believes, thinks and says. It’s quite edgy in these times.

Just to get things straight, are you also including Shermer, Pinker and Dawkins in this IDW? Or if I may go so far as to include Neil DG Tyson for saying some nice things about Trump?

The only reason Pakman isn’t part of the idw is because he is too much of a douche for anyone to take him seriously.
We are currently seeing Kyle from secular talk enter this circle because this is what real thinkers in alternative media are drawn to

Two incels slandering serious intellectuals

This guy's a dink, sorry. Especially his offhanded mischaracterization of Harris.

Pathetic click bait drivel

The "intellectual" dark web is manufactured. If you look at Peterson for example he was on talk shows or speaking engagements before he had a marginal point of view but not too controversial. He then "stands up" to the trans law and creates his own controversy. Same with Bret Weinstein who is "progressive" and yet I look at a lecture on the anthropological rarity of promiscuous societies.

For Peterson he has is real points of view and then it is wrapped around all the "conservative" neoliberal talking points.

All of this is a rebranding of the right wing. It pulls the radical right more to the center, it displays "classical liberal" poise but the message is Mises and Kayek.

It is also attempting to corner a demographic in the same way Reagan cornered a demographic.

David, please join the IDW. The best way to beat them is to join them and destroy their dim ideas.