
Why the Intellectual Dark Web Exists - rhapsodic
https://www.dailywire.com/news/30380/watch-msnbc-guest-just-showed-why-intellectual-ben-shapiro
======
ropans808
I listen to discussions on the "Intellectual Dark Web" regularly and am
generally a big fan of the free flow of ideas - but this view of identity
politics, as much as I try, I cannot get my head around.

It seems primarily to be a chicken and egg problem: The IDW insists that
identity politics requires people to identify themselves as a group rather
than free-thinking individuals. I think the point this misses is that these
groups did not start by self-identifying as groups, they were identified as
these groups. The black community, LGBTQ, women, religious minorities - they
were first treated as a single group of lock-step individuals by those looking
to oppress them. Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?

This idea that they are beating down the discussion by applying ideals to an
entire group of disparate individuals I really think is backwards. It is a
response to being grouped by outside forces in the first place, where these
groups do have a single shared problem now - that they are not viewed as
individuals and treated as a single bloc.

~~~
atom-morgan
> Is it crazy that to respond, they respond as a group?

I don't believe that's the issue here. I believe the concern is their response
is more valid _because of_ the group they're in, not that they're responding
as a group or as a member of the group.

Just look at any minority who doesn't buy into identity politics. They're
labeled as traitors, haters of their own race, or trying to play cool with the
other side ("cool girl" within feminism).

This is the problem with identity politics. Because you look a certain way,
you must think a certain way.

~~~
untog
> Just look at any minority who doesn't buy into identity politics. They're
> labeled as traitors, haters of their own race

I really don't think they are. Look at Kanye West. People aren't objecting to
him because he "doesn't buy into identity politics", they object to him
because he says stupid, ignorant things like "sounds like slavery was a
choice".

~~~
atom-morgan
Yes, but that's one example. Now look at men like Thomas Sowell and Denzel
Washington and many other people who've been criticized from within minority
communities.

Black conservatives, even if they're barely conservative, are called Uncle
Toms. This really isn't that uncommon.

Edit: Oh look, this thread was flagged. What a surprise.

~~~
untog
And is Denzel Washington an outcast, shunned by Hollywood for his views? Er,
no. He's a solidly working, exceptionally well-paid actor.

This is the thing I don't get about this argument. You're implying that Denzel
Washington should be free to say whatever he wants, but that no one should be
free to criticise what he says. I don't understand how those two things are
supposed to go together.

~~~
atom-morgan
True, but I wouldn't really expect someone like him to be pushed out of his
industry for his views precisely because he's black. But if someone who is
considered to have privilege said the exact same things he did, they'd have
bigger problems.

> You're implying that Denzel Washington should be free to say whatever he
> wants, but that no one should be free to criticise what he says.

Not at all.

------
allemagne
>The entire purpose of the exercise is to have honest conversations with
people, and to not question their morality, or their wisdom just because they
don't view the world exactly the same way that you do.

Isn't the entire thesis of this article questioning the morality and wisdom of
the mainstream left? Accusing somebody of refusing to have honest
conversations and forcing their views on others is an accusation of
immorality.

Is this quote that "hits the nail on the head", at least according to the
article, not a way of deflecting from the actual question being asked
("Identity politics is just simply questions of justice, right?") and shutting
down discussion?

Sounds like instead of acknowledging any honest disagreement about what
"identity politics" means, the author just goes ahead and matter-of-factly
gives his definition and implies that anybody who disagrees is a racist who
can't consider a member of any ethnic group as a "free-thinking individual".

Calling your opponents closed-minded, refusing to take certain kinds of
disagreement as "honest disagreement", and then labeling yourself as "free
thinking" and "intellectually honest" smells like horseshit and doublethink.
Ben Shapiro and his "Intellectual Dark Web" (lol) seems exhausting.

~~~
otakucode
>Accusing somebody of refusing to have honest conversations and forcing their
views on others is an accusation of immorality.

No accusation need to be made. From how I understand it, the IDW was created
because when there are attempts made to have honest conversations in other
venues, they are actively destroyed. The point is to be able to have the
conversations, not to condemn those who shut the conversations down elsewhere.
If you see censorship and shutting down conversations instead of engaging
rationally as immoral, that's a bit separate (although obviously closely
related) issue from someone trying to create a place where such conversations
can exist.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> From how I understand it, the IDW was created because when there are
attempts made to have honest conversations in other venues, they are actively
destroyed._

Precisely so. And it's unfortunate that HN is one of those venues where many
honest conversations, such as this one, are destroyed through flagging. The
person(s) who flagged this article are actually illustrating one of its
points.

------
OmarIsmail
Here's a fantastic article that covers the absurdity of the "Intellectual Dark
Web". I highly recommend anybody that's interested in this topic to read it.

[https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/pretty-loud-for-
being...](https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/05/pretty-loud-for-being-so-
silenced)

~~~
mpweiher
What an incredibly disingenuous/malicious hit piece, and proof of exactly what
they are saying, because just about every MSM piece on any one of them is a
hit piece.

Let's see:

Jordan Peterson _was_ threatened by his university, and there have been
petitions to get the university to fire him. What he predicted would happen
happened pretty much exactly as he predicted it to Lindsay Shepard at Laurier
University.

Bret Weinstein and his wife were accosted by students wielding baseball bats,
with the University refusing to protect them (the campus police was told to
stand down against their will).

Groups regularly try (and frequently succeed) to shut them down.

For most of them, associating them with the alt-right or worse is _ludicrous_
, but that is exactly the tactic used. Every. Single. Time. Never engagement
with the ideas, always the personal hit piece and guilt by alleged
association. The Wilfried Laurier faculty unironically said that playing a
clip from the Canadian public broadcaster featuring JBP was the same as
approvingly playing a Hitler clip.

And yes, the tactic is backfiring, because we now have alternative media and
alternative funding sources. That doesn't mean that it's not being attempted.

------
njharman
Boo, I assumed the IDW was going to be about people fighting for access to
academic papers. I guess that would be ADW.

------
micimize
A bit of a sidebar, but it really bothers me that the term "Intellectual Dark
Web" has stuck. It makes them sound like a group that includes Cody Wilson,
Amir Taaki, and a league of pseudonymous thinkers, instead of podcast hosts
and professors.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> A bit of a sidebar, but it really bothers me that the term "Intellectual
Dark Web" has stuck. It makes them sound like a group that includes Cody
Wilson, Amir Taaki, and a league of pseudonymous thinkers, instead of podcast
hosts and professors._

I think it's a nod to the fact that institutions that were once viewed as
bastions of free debate and free inquiry, such as universities, are now
largely hostile to it. In many places expressing the "wrong" opinion entails
enormous risks to one's career. So this movement has to be in a sense,
underground. But you're right, the people associated with it are mainstream
people.

------
timdavila
I read the article, but still confused as to what/where the IDW is.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> I read the article, but still confused as to what/where the IDW is._

It's not a literal darknet like Tor. It's more of name given to an
intellectual movement, probably because it has to fly under the radar of the
censors and the name callers and the doxxers and the rage-mobbers. Watch the
video of MSNBC's Morning Joe show embedded with the article to get a better
idea.

------
krapp
An "an agglomeration of thinkers from all sides of the political aisle" who
eschew "identity politics" but somehow all agree that "many on the Left refuse
to acknowledge good-natured disagreement; instead, all disagreement must be
due to nefarious evil on the part of those who disagree."

You can have your Model-T in any color you like, as long as it's black, and I
suppose you can have your anti-establishment intellectualism in any flavor you
like, as long as it's anti-leftist, I guess. And _that_ isn't itself a form of
identity politics because... reasons?

Color me... unimpressed?

~~~
cosmiccartel
In other words, several diverse groups of people, engaging in respectful
disagreement, are complaining about another group for being disrespectful in
its disagreement.

It sounds like your Model-T reference is being applied in the wrong direction.

~~~
krapp
>It sounds like your Model-T reference is being applied in the wrong
direction.

Implying that there is a "right" and "wrong" direction to which it should
apply? Does the article misrepresent this movement by describing it as defined
by anti-leftist dogma? Because if not, then it isn't intellectually diverse,
nor does it embrace free thought.

Identity politics flying the flag of "free thought, only so long as you reject
the mainstream and the left" still seems to me to be identity politics.

~~~
cosmiccartel
> Identity politics flying the flag of "free thought, only so long as you
> reject the mainstream and the left" still seems to me to be identity
> politics.

The rebuke here is aimed at the left's hostility to dissenting political
opinions, not against the left's political opinions as such. That's the
distinction.

~~~
krapp
>The rebuke here is aimed at the left's hostility to dissenting political
opinions, not against the left's political opinions as such.

And yet that rebuke being aimed _only_ at "the left" seems to imply that
hostility _is_ endemic to leftist political opinion, intended or not.
Otherwise why mention the left at all? There is plenty of hostility and
intransigence among the right as well... and among "anti-establishment"
thinkers.

Rejection of the mainstream as an ideology just leads to the acceptance of an
alternative mainstream and alternative orthodoxy. There is no true "free"
thought, everyone is bound to some framework of prejudice and bias.

~~~
cosmiccartel
It _is_ presently endemic among the left rather than the right. That doesn't
mean it's intrinsically related to the other ideas associated with the left.

> Rejection of the mainstream as an ideology just leads to the acceptance of
> an alternative mainstream and alternative orthodoxy. There is no true "free"
> thought, everyone is bound to some framework of prejudice and bias.

I agree, but that's not relevant.

------
mpweiher
How did that go?

"Every comment section on the Intellectual Dark Web is ample evidence for the
necessity of the Intellectual Dark Web"

Except it isn't really the comment sections, it's the commentariat.

Sigh.

------
rhapsodic
This story resonated with me. I've been very dismayed by the direction
political discourse has taken in the past few years. There is relatively
little persuasion attempted. Instead, it's mostly personal attacks, shaming,
namecalling, internet rage-mobbing and censorship.

~~~
wilsonnb
It's not like these members of the inaccurately titled "Intellectual Dark Web"
are actually interested in changing anyone's mind. The people on the left that
they argue "refuse to acknowledge good-natured disagreement" also have no
interest in this. They are both the evolution of the talking heads on cable
news 24/7 and have a vested interest in controversy and uncompromising views
so they can sell more books and podcasts. Each side feeds the other,
victimizing themselves and vilifying the others to their base.

Like you, I also wish that more persuasion and compromise was attempted but
these provocateurs have no interest in that and benefit from fanning the
flames.

~~~
cosmiccartel
> It's not like these members of the inaccurately titled "Intellectual Dark
> Web" are actually interested in changing anyone's mind.

This is incredibly disingenous. That is exactly what they're trying to do, and
quite successfully. Peterson's book sales are skyrocketing, and not among
convinced rightists. Browse any conservative forum and you'll find that the
_vast_ majority of the new wave of conservatives are former liberals who were
convinced _by these people_.

~~~
wilsonnb
I browse conservative forums regularly and the only former liberals I see are
rather obviously so young that they only reason they were liberals before is
because they hadn't given it much thought. The number of actual liberal to
actual conservative conversions, and vice versa, is incredibly small.

In my opinion, the best way to describe what you call conversion of liberals
is radicalization of the youth. This is happening both on the right and the
left, to varyi g degrees, probably because the two sides are more divided at
the moment than they have been in the past.

Anyways, Peterson's popular book doesn't really have anything to do with his
political stances. It's a typical self help book.

~~~
cosmiccartel
To your first point, all I can say is that I doubt it. I see a _lot_ of
moderate liberals becoming more conservative. It's anecdotal, of course, but
it's everywhere.

> the best way to describe what you call conversion of liberals is
> radicalization of the youth

That might be accurate if Shapiro or Peterson were radical conservatives. Both
fall squarely into the "social liberal" category.

~~~
wilsonnb
You're right, radicalization isn't the right word.

Indoctrination is a better word choice for how I feel about it.

------
rhapsodic

      > [flagged] Why the Intellectual Dark Web Exists
    

This is an example of censoring ideas and opinions, rather than refuting them
with logic and reason. It basically illustrates the point of the article.

If anyone wants this thread to continue much longer, they'd better click the
vouch link.

~~~
ropeadopepope
Not every political discussion belongs on HN. There are other, more
appropriate venues on the internet for that.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> Not every political discussion belongs on HN. There are other, more
appropriate venues on the internet for that._

Could you give me a rule of thumb to follow for determining whether or not a
political discussion is appropriate for HN?

~~~
ropeadopepope
The community decides by flagging stories they think don't belong.

~~~
rhapsodic
_> The community decides by flagging stories they think don't belong._

Yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. But I think I know the answer.
Politics-oriented posts that get flagged into oblivion tend to be the ones
where the facts favor the political right, and/or expose the moral or logical
flaws of leftist arguments or tactics. I'm sure there have been exceptions,
but this applies to virtually all of the cases I've witnessed, including this
particular one.

~~~
18pfsmt
I hope you revisit the comments here.

>But I think I know the answer.

Isn't this called confirmation bias?

Anyway, as a classical liberal who probably shares your beliefs, the topic is
pure flame war territory, which is toxic for HN. I don't think there is any
intentional persecution of ideas, and the use of political labels makes some
of us older people's 'eyes bleed.'

~~~
ropeadopepope
> Isn't this called confirmation bias?

Pattern recognition is confirmation bias now? He clearly refers to cases he's
witnessed where he's observed that particular pattern.

> Anyway, as a classical liberal who probably shares your beliefs

What are his beliefs? He hasn't stated any yet. This sort of thing makes
people less likely to trust what you're saying, not more.

> I don't think there is any intentional persecution of ideas

There is absolutely a subset of people both here and on the wider internet who
are involved in the intentional persecution of ideas. Pretending it doesn't
exist doesn't help make the situation better.

