My affair with the intellectual dark web by Meghan Daum

[all caps]

Isn't the IDW just controlled opposition?

The mainstream essentially portrays the IDW as edgy and dangerous in an attempt to build it into the destination for those rebellious and fed up people who stray off the mainstream plantation.

As Chomsky said, you control the debate by narrowing the spectrum of acceptable dialogue, but you allow for vigorous debate within that spectrum so people don't realize the spectrum has been limited.

Ultimately, the IDW is generally within the mainstream spectrum so even if people abandon the mainstream right and left narrative for the IDW, they are still on the plantation but don't realize. And they have been pre-empted from discovering or embracing those dialogues the mainstream truly seeks to prohibit and supress.

It's funny to see people with normal, common sense opinions be labeled edgy, or controversial.

 

[Bald1]

Can we all agree that "intellectual dark web" is one of the cringiest terms in recent memory that needs to be forgotten as soon as possible?

Also here's the author

Looks like quite the battleslut doesn't she @waiguoren?

It's a clumsy label with members from the downright dull (Rubin) to intelectual athletes (Weinsteins), but lets me know the conversation will happen without artificial constraints. Also they tend to have long form talks which I enjoy as you get a better feel of their ideas and personalities. It's telling that we need a special term for what once was commonplace. No?

 

[jeffk]

As Chomsky said, you control the debate by narrowing the spectrum of acceptable dialogue, but you allow for vigorous debate within that spectrum so people don't realize the spectrum has been limited.

Ultimately, the IDW is generally within the mainstream spectrum so even if people abandon the mainstream right and left narrative for the IDW, they are still on the plantation but don't realize. And they have been pre-empted from discovering or embracing those dialogues the mainstream truly seeks to prohibit and supress.

They are mainstream. I don't think anyone thinks they are revolutionary. Maybe some Peterson followers might think he is. They are popular because there is a lot of polarization and a lot of people don't want to follow someone like Coates without questioning anything he says. The main point she is making she wants more nuance in political and moral thought and the far right and far left aren't doing that.

 

[luckyshot]

https://medium.com/s/greatescape/nuance-a-love-story-ae6a14991059

This a long but well written and easy to read article about Daum's journey into the Intellectual dark web.

Cliff notes

She was in a dead end relationship with her husband and started listening to people on youtube that she didn't see on the mainstream media. The Glenn Loury Show, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris podcast, Rubin Show and shows with the Weinstein brothers.

She got a divorce and her husband got into a new relationship and she dove deep into the IDW as she didn't relate to many on the left who went full SJW and she thought lacked nuance. Ultimately she realized she enjoyed listening to people who shared her same ideological perspective because she felt less ideologically lonely, but she is now worried that since the geeky kids have become popular they are now getting too chummy and acting like their own tribal group.

That divorcing hussy needs some enforced monogamy. Methinks she is not intellectual dark webbing correctly.

(This post paid for by the Koch Brothers and Prager U.)

 

[Trotsky]

I read the whole thing, would not recommend.

Wanna read my blog post about how I cheated on my wife with a retarded person?

How about how I gave up reading books for huffing turds in a tube sock?

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's a clumsy label with members from the downright dull (Rubin) to intelectual athletes (Weinsteins), but lets me know the conversation will happen without artificial constraints. Also they tend to have long form talks which I enjoy as you get a better feel of their ideas and personalities. It's telling that we need a special term for what once was commonplace. No?

These guys have their own fair share of circlejerks. Rubin in particular loves to just softball his guests for an hour or two.

 

[fallable]

They are mainstream. I don't think anyone thinks they are revolutionary. Maybe some Peterson followers might think he is. They are popular because there is a lot of polarization and they don't want to follow someone like Coates without questioning anything he says. The main point she is making she wants more nuance in political and moral thought and the far right and far left aren't doing that.

I don't mean to criticize the article or writer from the OP. I agree with her, I'd like to see people demonstrate more understanding of the nuance of the reasoning of others. I'm just genuinely of the opinion the IDW is being built up as a "movement" to co-opt the increasing amount of people who reject the mainstream narratives of right and left.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Wanna read my blog post about how I cheated on my wife with a retarded person?

How about how I gave up reading books for huffing turds in a tube sock?

Would probably be less of a waste of time than this article.

 

[Trotsky]

Would probably be less of a waste of time than this article.

You don't understand. Stan understands things with a level of nuance that liberals just don't understand. He's so nuancey. Also, he's a freakishly strong lover.

 

[all caps]

These guys have their own fair share of circlejerks. Rubin in particular loves to just softball his guests for an hour or two.

Rubin and sam Harris. A fruit booty and a cuck

And for some reason I still give these asshole a listen from time to time

 

[all caps]

I don't mean to criticize the article or writer from the OP. I agree with her, I'd like to see people demonstrate more understanding of the nuance of the reasoning of others. I'm just genuinely of the opinion the IDW is being built up as a "movement" to co-opt the increasing amount of people who reject the mainstream narratives of right and left.

I've never considered this but I'm glad you did, because it makes sense.
The new mainstream

 

[trident]

Isn't the IDW just controlled opposition?

The mainstream essentially portrays the IDW as edgy and dangerous in an attempt to build it into the destination for those rebellious and fed up people who stray off the mainstream plantation.

As Chomsky said, you control the debate by narrowing the spectrum of acceptable dialogue, but you allow for vigorous debate within that spectrum so people don't realize the spectrum has been limited.

Ultimately, the IDW is generally within the mainstream spectrum so even if people abandon the mainstream right and left narrative for the IDW, they are still on the plantation but don't realize. And they have been pre-empted from discovering or embracing those dialogues the mainstream truly seeks to prohibit and supress.

Seems so. You dont see Nader and Hedges included in there.

Theres one rule, dont buck the economic status quo

 

[Bald1]

These guys have their own fair share of circlejerks. Rubin in particular loves to just softball his guests for an hour or two.

I agree about Rubin while still thinking there's a benefit to letting your guests flesh out their ideas at their own pace uninterrupted. There's a reason I put him on the low end of the scale. Nevermind that he came off as a fumbling boob looking for an ideological home on his last JRE appearance. It was like listening to some kid trying to figure out where he stands on issues for himself once free of parental influence. At the same time I think people don't give Rogan enough credit. He knows where he is on the intellectual ladder but is keen to learn and has an open mind. Self awareness is a good tool to have when stepping outside the dick and fart joke arena.

 

[jeffk]

Relevant.

He starts off saying there is no real political ideology of the IDW. which is true. I don't know who should be included. Then mostly focuses on Peterson. I haven't seen anyone but him say Glenn Beck is part of the IDW.

Glenn Loury was on this guy's podcast maybe two weeks ago. He really wanted to be on Harris podcast. But Harris rarely talks about any economic issues. He does bring up uniform basic income from time to time and had one episode on it. I think the only economist he ever had on the podcast was Loury and Loury doesn't really do economics. So I don't think this guy is going to be on the show.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Rubin and sam Harris. A fruit booty and a cuck

And for some reason I still give these asshole a listen from time to time

Used to listen to Harris' podcast religiously but at some point I just stopped adn never looked back.

Maybe someday I'll check out one of his podcasts again but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I agree about Rubin while still thinking there's a benefit to letting your guests flesh out their ideas at their own pace uninterrupted. There's a reason I put him on the low end of the scale. Nevermind that he came off as a fumbling boob looking for an ideological home on his last JRE appearance. It was like listening to some kid trying to figure out where he stands on issues for himself once free of parental influence. At the same time I think people don't give Rogan enough credit. He knows where he is on the intellectual ladder but is keen to learn and has an open mind. Self awareness is a good tool to have when stepping outside the dick and fart joke arena.

Rogan is far better at the long form podcast than Rubin. He's not there to find a gotcha moment but he will push back against his guests at times while still giving them time to flesh out their ideas. Rubin on the other hand seems allergic to any sort of friction with his guests from what I've seen.

Even though Rubin's set and look seems more formal he's considerably worse. He knows he has little to no following of his own, that he's riding the coattails of the likes of Harris, Shapiro, Peterson etc because he has nothing interesting to say on his own and that stepping on their toes would mean losing whatever audience he has.

 

[IDL]

She cheated on the main stream media?

 

[Islam Imamate]

You don't understand. Stan understands things with a level of nuance that liberals just don't understand. He's so nuancey. Also, he's a freakishly strong lover.

Honestly it was a pretty depressing thing to read, she should seek help. Not trying to be a dick, she seems like she has some issues with depression and the like.

 

[jeffk]

I don't mean to criticize the article or writer from the OP. I agree with her, I'd like to see people demonstrate more understanding of the nuance of the reasoning of others. I'm just genuinely of the opinion the IDW is being built up as a "movement" to co-opt the increasing amount of people who reject the mainstream narratives of right and left.

I think she would agree with you. At the end she is saying the IDW is becoming its own tribe and she doesn't like that.

She wrote, "Just as you can’t fight Trumpism with tribalism, you can’t fight tribalism with a tribe."

 

[fallable]

Seems so. You dont see Nader and Hedges included in there.

Theres one rule, dont buck the economic status quo

Yeah, they are essentially all neo-liberals. The distinction between the IDW and your normal pundits on the right or left is, the IDW isn't tied to a team so much, so they're rhetoric isn't defined by talking points so much. They are essentially neo-liberal free agents or neo-liberal independent contractors. So there is the chance they come into conflict with the more rigidly defined team player neo-liberals. But there is no tectonic shift in their world view from the team players.

 

[M3t4tr0n]

She cheated on the main stream media?

I hope she used protection. MSM has the herps.