The Intellectual Dark Web - Jordan Peterson et al

[Chaffers]

With any actual political debate stifled in the moanstream media, particularly by critical theory trolls, it seems that there is a counter movement on alternative media such as youtube.

Jordan Peterson seems to be the leading light, breaking through with moanstream media interviews and the like, though it is primarily still something that you have to search for. Unless you attend one of his talks around the world.

Whilst there are pretty much equal contributors from both left and right the key features appear to be an antifeminist stance, along with criticism of post-modernism and cultural marxism.

Which given political development's from Trump, who won on an intrinsically antifeminist stance, the rise of populists in Europe ( actually parties which reject the key tenets of feminism) and attacks on free speech seems to be the political wave of the future.

Whilst there are several streams to this overall movement, such as MGTOW, Men's Rights Movement and their activists ( MRAs), antifeminism, Red Pill philosophy and the like it seems that the IDW is the only place where you can find unedited longform political discussion which doesn't conform to network prejudices or commercial interests.

For instance the International Conference on Men's Issues concluded recently in London with speakers from all over the world.

Is the tide against free speech, equality under the law and grace starting to turn?

[HannibalExMachina]

i agree the dork web (sorry, i cannot even use "intellectual" here ironically) is an attack on free speech. silencing unwanted opinions has been a thing in MRA, gamergate, and various "anti-" groups for years. using scare terms like marxism is a key tactic, as it disguises the inherent absence of cogent arguments.

i am not aware of much involvement from the left here, though. unless you count people who like to identify as left of liberal to muddy the sewage, i mean waters, its pretty much a playground of the far-right and their apologists.

irony over, its pretty hilarious that you think this doesnt conform to prejudice (thats all it does) or commercial interests, since everyone there, from lobster daddy down, uses their platform to make cash from the gulllible, if they dont openly use it as a sales platform, for phony supplements for example.

but i dont think this will impact egalitarian society the way these people hope. sure, the "underground" concept is just there to create a false sense of victimhood, and the mainstream is far more compromised than so-called moderates like to admit, but the pushback shows that this isnt going to fly, not under the radar and not in general.

i would advise you to invest a bit of time into critical theory, it makes quite a bit of difference if one can formulate more than just lukewarm conspiracy theories.

[mishkin]

Jesus.

Men Going Their Own Way (wiki)

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is a mostly pseudonymous online community[2][3] of men supported by websites and social media presences[4] cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage.[5][6] The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere.[7] MGTOW have "...vowed to stay away from women, stop dating and not have children".[8] MGTOW focuses on men's self-ownership rather than changing the status quo through activism and protest, making MGTOW distinct from the men's rights movement.[9]

Some time ago I thought about opening a discussion about the incel and how harmful the internet can be giving the opportunity to that type of individuals to reinforce their ridiculous (sometimes dangerous) ideas.

[Chaffers]

i agree the dork web (sorry, i cannot even use "intellectual" here ironically) is an attack on free speech. silencing unwanted opinions has been a thing in MRA, gamergate, and various "anti-" groups for years. using scare terms like marxism is a key tactic, as it disguises the inherent absence of cogent arguments.

i am not aware of much involvement from the left here, though. unless you count people who like to identify as left of liberal to muddy the sewage, i mean waters, its pretty much a playground of the far-right and their apologists.

irony over, its pretty hilarious that you think this doesnt conform to prejudice (thats all it does) or commercial interests, since everyone there, from lobster daddy down, uses their platform to make cash from the gulllible, if they dont openly use it as a sales platform, for phony supplements for example.

but i dont think this will impact egalitarian society the way these people hope. sure, the "underground" concept is just there to create a false sense of victimhood, and the mainstream is far more compromised than so-called moderates like to admit, but the pushback shows that this isnt going to fly, not under the radar and not in general.

Can we merely assume that the IDW offends you, and more importantly that it would offend you further if people had a look at what it is and the people who are involved discussing things rationally and without any hint of critical theory

i would advise you to invest a bit of time into critical theory, it makes quite a bit of difference if one can formulate more than just lukewarm conspiracy theories.

As you attack Jordan Peterson explicitly it's probably worth linking to his channel and a look at his two most recent videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanP...nVideos/videos

One a discussion with a left leaning democratic advisor and the other a discussion on the IDW with a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Which clearly threatens free speech! Lol

Can we merely assume that you would disapprove of anyone who followed such long form discussions which omit critical theory? For those uninitiated to critical theory it merely involves calling anyone you disagree with racist, sexist or homophobic...

Does such content offend you? Which raises questions as to why.

[HannibalExMachina]

its interesting how all these seemingly incompatible groups find common ground. peterson is a christian conservative, big on traditional relationships, but the "rational" atheists and various anti-women and incel groups are still on board. its oc not surprising once you realize misogyny and other reactionary sentinement is essential to petersons pseudo-intellectual effluent. he is smart enough to make it vaque, and dresses it up in technobabble, so his fans can read all their own preconceptions into it, without realizing the contradictions. he is essentially a more stable, more educated alex jones.

As you attack Jordan Peterson explicitly it's probably worth linking to his channel and a look at his two most recent videos.

https://www.youtube.com/user/JordanP...nVideos/videos

One a discussion with a left leaning democratic advisor and the other a discussion on the IDW with a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Which clearly threatens free speech! Lol

Can we merely assume that you would disapprove of anyone who followed such long form discussions which omit critical theory? For those uninitiated to critical theory it merely involves calling anyone you disagree with racist, sexist or homophobic...

Does such content offend you? Which raises questions as to why.

an actual disscusion would require a good faith approach from both parties, and the willingness of the audience to engage with its contents.

here is the thing: opponents of peterson have long showed him up as someone who has no honest argument to make, so no one who isnt part of his fanclub can find any value in there. and there isnt any, so engagement is a waste of time.

his followers will not accept any criticism of his arguments, no matter how non-sensical.

so, all these "discussions" are just a platform for peterson to disseminate his own brand of propaganda, whoever discusses him is just part of a pretense that an actual discussion is going on.

further, free speech, if it was honestly desired, would require followers of above movements not to harrass or threaten anyone who disagrees with them. free speech can only be possible if no one has to fear harm as a consequence.

hate speech is not part of free speech. it is, actually, one of the tools to undermine it.

pretense of civility has always been an act played by reactionaries, but since it is never honest, it has no value. racism dressed up nicely is still racism. the tone doesnt change the message. peterson having a "civil" discussion does not disguise his meaning, no matter how hard he tries.

and yes, i dissaprove of longterm discussion that brands its own tools with pseudo-scientific terms to scare the audience into submission. the audience's possible unfamiliarity (and for some reason, its always the peterson fanclub) with critical theory doesnt have to be an issue. that peterson, an academic and, arguably, intellectual, uses this unfamiliarity to push his own agenda, is very much the issue.

also, those "uninitiated to critical theory" are very quick to use terms like racism and homophobia as a "right back atcha" insult, because they have either no understanding of the concepts, no interest in aquiring it, or are deliberately using them in a way that makes them meaningless.

thats what offends me. stubborn ignorance, or worse, blatant malignance.

so, maybe you should familiarize yourself with some of petersons critics. as you said, how can you have a discussion if you know only one side of it?

[Knight of Heaven]

Honestly i have a strong feeling when i watch one of his videos, that the guy is a fraud, and an Hack. While interesting to hear him talk. Some of what he says its actually misrepresenting many of the theories and ideas of various intellectuals, philosophers, and scientists, as well statistics.

I think he is not a very good intellectual, at all, but no doubt a clever and confident talker.

The amount of following he gets isn't surprising as well. In fact his thing is more akin of a cult when you look at it.

Anyway im always weary of people selling oil snake, And Jordan Peterson doesn't seem to far off from something like that.

[Chaffers]

its interesting how all these seemingly incompatible groups find common ground. peterson is a christian conservative, big on traditional relationships, but the "rational" atheists and various anti-women and incel groups are still on board. its oc not surprising once you realize misogyny and other reactionary sentinement is essential to petersons pseudo-intellectual effluent. he is smart enough to make it vaque, and dresses it up in technobabble, so his fans can read all their own preconceptions into it, without realizing the contradictions. he is essentially a more stable, more educated alex jones.

Critical theory at work!

We should start a bingo game...

Anyone who points out the victims or excesses of feminist policies is racist, homophobic or sexist ( misogynist in your post).

And it is the absence of critical theory which makes political discussions on the IDW fascinating. People of a myriad political persuasions discussing things without resorting to personal attacks.

[dogukan]

2018, I finally see sexual frustration become an ideology. This is like the GTA games universe.

[HannibalExMachina]

Critical theory at work!

We should start a bingo game...

Anyone who points out the victims or excesses of feminist policies is racist, homophobic or sexist ( misogynist in your post).

And it is the absence of critical theory which makes political discussions on the IDW fascinating. People of a myriad political persuasions discussing things without resorting to personal attacks.

"feminist excess": only in an enviroment where men afraid or entirely removed from the presence of non-submissive women dwell could this originate. was MLK a sign of "black excess"?

and explain to the class: how can the absence of a tool of analysis make a discussion more nuanced or rational? and how come attacks against the very personhood of women or minorities are less insulting than pointing out the racist, sexist or similar nature of an argument? because if you hold a racist view, racist isnt an insult. it is descriptive.

[Chaffers]

2018, I finally see sexual frustration become an ideology. This is like the GTA games universe.

You might unintentionally have made an interesting point.

Incel for instance certainly is a movement based upon sexual frustration. And for the 93% of men who women find below averagely attractive it could be argued that the more polygamous open market place for sex disadvantages them. As too hypergamy. So too the cucks who aren't allowed to DNA test their own children even should they wish to. And with false paternity rates rather shockingly high it does raise questions.

Even for feminists who are complaining about there being no good men left or ranting against body shaming... Which is a bit rich.

Are you claiming that Jordan Peterson is sexually frustrated though? Whilst I have no interest I haven't heard that. And don't know why you would think it.

Whilst I assume you were inarticulately attempting to post something which is merely insulting it has to be said that there are issues surrounding sex in the relations between the sexes. I'd beware of projection though old chap.

[Iskar]

I didn't know Critical Theory had become the new anti-intellectual buzzword of the far right and affiliated extremists.
And while I think these people rightfully fear Horkheimer's intention "to free humanity from its enslavement by ideology" as well as the Kantian tradition it was founded upon, I somehow get the feeling that just like they fail to differentiate Marxist ideology from Marxian analysis, they have little clue of Horkheimer or Adorno, let alone Kant.

Any exremist would be well advised to only use those cheap buzzwords they understand.

[Chaffers]

I didn't know Critical Theory had become the new anti-intellectual buzzword of the far right and affiliated extremists.
And while I think these people rightfully fear Horkheimer's intention "to free humanity from its enslavement by ideology" as well as the Kantian tradition it was founded upon, I somehow get the feeling that just like they fail to differentiate Marxist ideology from Marxian analysis, they have little clue of Horkheimer or Adorno, let alone Kant.

Any exremist would be well advised to only use those cheap buzzwords they understand.

You are Jurgen Habermas and I claim my $5.

Except I doubt even that esteemed dude could make a cogent argument that calling people racist, sexist or homophobic was the height of enlightened debate.

Which, as I say, is I think the reason the IDW is becoming increasingly relevant. It isn't so much the ideas or personalities currently associated, it is the format and respect shown towards people of opposing views. In fact JP even enshrines it in one of his rules for life... To listen to others as you might learn something.

Granted you haven't taught me anything but happy to discuss.

As an example you could compare the moanstream media's interviews with Jordan Peterson as merely an attempt to associate the words far right, alt right or extremist with his name. On the IDW though, this is something I have yet to see to any extent.

Which I find to be a breath of fresh air... Judging by your first line I suspect not so much for you.

[alhoon]

Personal references are always off topic outside the administrative forums. Please debate in good faith and avoid personal references. Address the argument not your assumptions about the poster. You can always put on your ignore list persons you don't want to engage with.

Moved to the academy as the thread doesn't deal with a particular current political event or person

[Prodromos]

I didn't know Critical Theory had become the new anti-intellectual buzzword of the far right and affiliated extremists.

The "Intellectual Dark Web" are religiously and politically diverse, but mostly liberal centrists, from what I've seen. They're generally highly disliked by the far right. (I'm assuming by far right you mean alt right, not libertarians)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/o...-dark-web.html

[HannibalExMachina]

I didn't know Critical Theory had become the new anti-intellectual buzzword of the far right and affiliated extremists.
And while I think these people rightfully fear Horkheimer's intention "to free humanity from its enslavement by ideology" as well as the Kantian tradition it was founded upon, I somehow get the feeling that just like they fail to differentiate Marxist ideology from Marxian analysis, they have little clue of Horkheimer or Adorno, let alone Kant.

Any exremist would be well advised to only use those cheap buzzwords they understand.

you gotta keep peoples interest, keep things fresh. once "cultural marxism" has become part of your everyday vocabulary, you need something new to have ignorant rants about.

at least thats one theory, it could also be that changing terminology is necessary to keep normal people from catching on to your real meaning. "cultural marxism" is suspiciously close to "cultural boleshwism", while critical theory isnt a term tainted by the nazies.

You are Jurgen Habermas and I claim my $5.

Except I doubt even that esteemed dude could make a cogent argument that calling people racist, sexist or homophobic was the height of enlightened debate.

Which, as I say, is I think the reason the IDW is becoming increasingly relevant. It isn't so much the ideas or personalities currently associated, it is the format and respect shown towards people of opposing views. In fact JP even enshrines it in one of his rules for life... To listen to others as you might learn something.

Granted you haven't taught me anything but happy to discuss.

As an example you could compare the moanstream media's interviews with Jordan Peterson as merely an attempt to associate the words far right, alt right or extremist with his name. On the IDW though, this is something I have yet to see to any extent.

Which I find to be a breath of fresh air... Judging by your first line I suspect not so much for you.

you see, thats exactly the point. meaningful discussion is not obfuscated by false civilty to benefit one party. you cannot debate traffic while never talking about vehicles. so, habermas would absolutely talk about this.

and unlike peterson, it is possible to do this with substance and context. as someone who uses the word cuck without a hint of irony, you should question your ability to at least pretend civility. because the mask is about as effective as clark kents glasses.

[Chaffers]

Crikey... a Godwin bingo on the first page.

Did not expect that.

[Aexodus]

i am not aware of much involvement from the left here, though. unless you count people who like to identify as left of liberal to muddy the sewage, i mean waters, its pretty much a playground of the far-right and their apologists.

What makes individuals such as Jordan Peterson far right?

Crikey... a Godwin bingo on the first page.

It happens, also welcome to TWC new guy

Did not expect that.

You’ll get used to it...

pFor those uninitiated to critical theory it merely involves calling anyone you disagree with racist, sexist or homophobic...

Oh jeez, just looked that up and stopped reading soon as I saw ‘frankfurt school’ and ‘Karl Marx’

[Copperknickers II]

The intellectual dark web is a much needed antidote to the extremes of the alt-right and what is increasingly being called the alt-left. Ordinary centrists are too afraid to call on radicals but the intellectual dark web is not. Like most centrists the IDW incorporate some elements of the Left and of the Right, and they are not a monolithic group. I've not looked into Jordan Peterson very much but it's clear he annoys the right sort of people so I guess I should do so more. My favourite member of the IDW is Maajid Nawaz, the British Muslim activist. He's very abrasive and sometimes he goes a little too far, but most of what he says makes perfect sense. He recently had a massive PR coup when he won a lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law centre, who formerly categorised him as a Far Right extremist because he criticised elements of his own religion. If that isn't a clear demonstration of the ridiculous knee-jerkism of the Left then I don't know what is - just to reiterate, they have now actually come out and admitted how stupid they were to categorise him as an extremist for advocating for moderate reform in Islam.

[Iskar]

The "Intellectual Dark Web" are religiously and politically diverse, but mostly liberal centrists, from what I've seen. They're generally highly disliked by the far right. (I'm assuming by far right you mean alt right, not libertarians)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/o...-dark-web.html

Ah, I'm sorry, it must have been the usual "cultural marxism" talk and the simplistic association of critical theory with "calling people racist, sexist or homophobic" that made me associate this with extreme right wing positions. Also, when I say far right, I mean far right, not alt right or libertarians.

Two observations: Firstly, The NY Times article seems to focus more on the civil side of this fuzzy phenomenon, while this thread seems geared at whitewashing the dubious participants in this play most of which seem to veer way more right than the people presented in the article.
And secondly, this seems to be a very (US-)American phenomenon and seeing this IDW as anything special is laughable from a European perspective, where a liberal-conservative (in the European sense) centrist like me does not need to go into some dark web to express their opinions but can easily read such in the country's main newspapers.

You are Jurgen Habermas and I claim my $5.

Except I doubt even that esteemed dude could make a cogent argument that calling people racist, sexist or homophobic was the height of enlightened debate.

Habermas is a quack and what makes you associate critical theory with calling people racist, sexist or homophobic?

Oh jeez, just looked that up and stopped reading soon as I saw ‘frankfurt school’ and ‘Karl Marx’

How's that in line with the alleged open-minded, no-taboos vibe that is seemingly to be promoted here? Especially since the frankfurt school are more in the tradition of Marxian Analysis than Marxist Ideology.

[Chaffers]

Oh jeez, just looked that up and stopped reading soon as I saw ‘frankfurt school’ and ‘Karl Marx’

Yup, whilst many might find most references to the Frankfurt school rather far fetched their contribution to the ethics of political debate are..... difficult to praise.

Hence the rise of the IDW. You can either follow politics and philosophy through the moanstream media which appears to merely school people in abusing their guests and adversaries, or find something more civilised.