Maybe the problem with our culture is that we (and by we I mean you) fetishize and narrativize “free-thinkers” (media loves media!) instead of teachers, builders, designers, and architects that are solving problems in communities. But you can’t make a buck on that narrative, I guess.
83
This is amusing in a not very funny way. These "IDWers" are the most privileged bunch to ever wrap themselves in the flag of Victimhood.
Smart people? Sure. Do their voices belong in the conversation? No doubt. The thing is, they've never NOT been in the conversation, until they decided that somehow MSM wasn't appreciative enough, or didn't protect them from being insulted in ways that are less genteel than the ways that they insult others. Then they took their collective ball and went home.
Well, some people with less historical privilege, and less genteel voices are now part of the conversation. And to IDW I say "Suck it up, Buttercup."
45
I am all for open minded conversations and truth-seeking outside of tight institutional, partisan, and intellectual filter bubbles, but we need to take the "dark" out of this movement and bring it to the light of day. There is a danger in these leaders opening the door to intellectually flawed rebels just to titillate an audience to make money and gain a big following. Be an independent thinker, but don't throw out all gate keeping principles. Every movement needs principles, values, and standards.
27
Calling Sam Harris “an outspoken Hillary voter” completely mis represents the position of someone who until recently was not even a politicsl commentator. Just made me wonder what else about the article was so off base. Mainstream media bias or just failure to pay attention and be responsible in articulating a point?
14
I think the I.D.W movement can be surmised as arising from one common goal. Opposition to equality of outcome.
Equality of outcome is based on the fundamental belief that everyone is born equal, and that social factors (discrimination, poverty, etc) account for the inequalities we observe in society and economy. Deviation from perfect representation is therefore evidence of a nefarious force that must be remedied from above.
Equality of outcome is also an incredibly ubiquitous ideology at the moment. PoC under-represented here, women underpaid there, etc. Pick up any Left, Centre-Left or Centre-Right newspaper, and you will see stories like this every day. Mainstream political parties also reproduce this narrative in their manifestos now as well.
So we have this widespread ideology, cloaked in the most noble of intentions, with voices in the highest corridors of power - but it's bunk. It outrages elementary science. People are not born equal. Nature rolls the dice in each and every one of us. But also, evolution develops biological strategies (gender/race) for survival. We are different by design.
That's not to say we live in a perfect meritocracy. But, in the West at least, intelligence is highly predictive of success.
To expect equality of outcome, and to structure a society around that goal, can only be done with violence. History plainly shows it. The I.D.W is therefore the logical reaction against this inadequate thinking, and the tyrannical ends to which it leads.
54
I do not get how people with millions of followers, who have been featured on CNN (Shapiro) and The Ezra Klein Show (Harris), and who have been written about in The New York Times are on the "intellectual dark web." It seems a bit hyperbolic.
37
"It seems to me that if you are willing to sit across from [x I must denounce] and take him seriously, there’s a high probability that you’re either cynical or stupid. If there’s a reason for shorting the I.D.W., it’s the inability of certain members to see this as a fatal error."
You have no faith in the truth.
"What’s more, this frog-kissing plays perfectly into the hands of those who want to discredit the individuals in this network"
It plays *rope* into their hands. You have no faith in the truth.
"I don’t, however, want to live in a culture where there are no gatekeepers at all. Given how influential this group is becoming, I can’t be alone in hoping the I.D.W. finds a way to eschew the cranks, grifters and bigots and sticks to the
truth-seeking."
You have no faith in the truth.
6
There is welcome synthesis that comes from robust debate and civil discussion among reasonable people. It releases impounded energy and promotes understanding among different people with differing points of view. Making this work, however, is a degree of self-control, good manners and a genuine respect for those who articulate ideas opposite from ours. When the intellect is fed via learning, listening and absorbing-one of the goals of the humanities-a degree of qualification is established. However, when the source of enrichment is only from sources that one finds agreeable, vital ingredients will invariably be absent.
Then, deterioration, disagreeable opinions, shrillness and intolerance manifest. Many find that scenario a waste of time.
I joined a loose group of diverse adults with vastly different points of view who share views on everything from politics to space exploration, good books and plays and alternative energy. Our model? The Algonquin Roundtable. It's a wet luncheon. Cell phones turned off. Cocktails and wine galore of if you prefer, coffee or tea. Good food, too. We have one rule: Civility. You can hear the good-natured debate and robust laughter on the city sidewalk. We meet each Friday and I can't wait to talk about this article the Times published today!
25
"Seek the truth, come whence it may, cost what it will." I thought the term 'outrage culture' was perfect. Free speech means you will hear things you find disagreeable. Shouting down those with whom you disagree is dangerous and masturbatory. Have better ideas, and present them.
There was a debate on MSNBC yesterday between Eddie Glaude and the author of this article. It is civil, thoughtful, and interesting. Check it out.
21
What happens to a society when anyone can have a public forum? There are clearly positives but also many dangerous negatives. These days, an audience is best attracted by making outrageous statements. Without a gatekeeper to keep out those with unsubstantiated claims, this group is destined to fail under the weight of money grabbing charlatans. This group already has such members that soil their image and will ultimately bring it down, imo.
32
Intellectually Dark Web. The mass of their flatfooted intellect denies them the ability to achieve escape velocity. Stuck in low orbit, if not the launch facility.
8
What this article brings up is the difficulty this nation is having in confronting the reality that the United States is becoming an ethnically diverse nation.
These so called 'intellectuals' frame their racist views in academic discourse, which they have the right to do. Yet, we also have the right to call them out on it. However when we do, we are accused of identity politics. People of color, women, the LGBTQ community, and other marginalized communities are not engaging in 'identity politics, but instead, are calling for justice.
Accusations of of identity politics by many in this so called dark web (nothing intellectual about this group) is nothing but their unwillingness to engage in redressing injustices.
So Bari Weiss, I also call you out on this. You are are not being fair-minded, but are in actuality providing a platform for this hate. Professor Glade on Scarborough this morning tried this to explain to you in his quote by Baldwin that we get tired of always trying to prove to you that our oppression is real.
27
There is an extraordinary lack of self-awareness in many comments. They go: "well, I personally, ahem, of course am committed to free speech and open and honest dialogue, but some ideas are just so dangerous and hurtful that we cannot even discuss them. And I, and like-minded people, will be the ones to decide". This would be laughable if not so pathetic.
Know ye not that this is the rationalization of censors everywhere? Save the invocations of the Third Reich for the actual extermination of millions. "The Bell Curve" deserves discussion, not frenzied, agonized suppression. Larry Summers did not deserve excommunication from Harvard for entertaining the thought that men and women are different.
Every time the left does this, a new Trump voter gets his wings. Or whatever.
32
If the defensive positions about this movement in the left-leaning ideologue comments of The NY Times is indicative of anything, it’s that they’re onto something. Keep it up, Intellectual Dark Web. You’re not about old ideas. You’re about new ones. You’re giving the world some much needed oxygen.
12
Inclusion of Ben Shapiro tells me everything I want to know about this group. He is a flamethrower, not a commentator. This group better stay in dark.
23
Spectacular accusation against a female biologist on an Obama-era bioethics commission. Maybe Sam Harris has an accurate memory of something that happened, but Bari Weiss gives no name and no confirmation or followup as far as I can tell. Seems like slander against President Obama at this point, or am I being unfair, Bari Weiss and NYT? Dark web indeed, nice marketing slogan it seems.
12
These days it's great articles from independent voices like Bari Weiss and also Bret Stephens that retain me as a subscriber of the NYT.
14
Joe Rogan is now the chief of critical thinking? That is hilarious. When did the NY TIMES turn into mad magazine? I'm busting a gut.
20
“But the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.”
Uh, yeah. Ever heard of MKUltra?
2
I decided to subscribe to the NYtimes after reading this article. I have read over thirty news articles per day on average the last ten years, from a huge variety of sources. Despite that, this is only the second time I have ever chosen to subscribe to a news website. The first being the Washington post.
This article is the reason. Good job.
12
That first paragraph is so obviously true
4
Since not one of the comments I posted here hours ago have appeared, I must assume it is against New York Times policy to point out that although Bari Weiss describes herself as a "classical liberal," she spends every column bashing liberals and finding strange charms in the extreme-to-seditious right wing. This is why I feel she is less an op-ed columnist than a classical fifth columnist, and your readers must be allowed to say so. By censoring my opinion of Ms. Wiess you're making the alt-right's obscene complaints about intellectual censorship sound just a little too reasonable.
24
"Renegades?", "Intellectual Dark Web?" I just see a bunch of stuffy cultural conservatives,albeit with pretensions of being radical. No I don't owe them my time or my ear.
43
Very considerate of you to use as many words as possible; your time must be very valuable - unlike that of your readers. Well, this should certainly seal the fate of those sorts of people. Definitions created by dinosaurs about the species replaceing them. Guess who is interested in that.
3
I could not get to the website Bri Weiss is spotlighting; I assume it has crashed under all this attention. But my response to her article is: yawn! There have always been outliers to the intelligent mainstream. There are people who believe blacks are genetically inferior, women have a biologically determined role, Muslims deserve inferior rights because Islam is inferior, this is destined to be a white Christian country, Jews run the show, etc etc. So, what's new? Each and every fringe position is arguable. The real question is, why give these side-show deplorables the attention they crave?
16
In other words, classical liberals.
7
This is marketing baloney. Stay turned for the "I.D.W. Radio Hour" on your local NPR station, produced by the same mysterious (i.e. marketing) people who brought you the I.D.W. website.
8
I believe these may be the people that actually save Western society. I’m with them arm in arm! We oppose the plague of Postmoderism.
11
“So many of our institutions have been overtaken by schools of thought, which are inherently a dead end...”
Yes, this is how we think — as a species. We’re always forming ideologies, aka religions. It makes us feel secure. Now that we’ve been saddled with a disrupter-in-chief, we’re seeing disruption everywhere, like this far-flung “group.”
Human consciousness operates across many modes of consciousness — ego mind and hive mind, to name two important ones. Hive mind is happiest when it’s in general agreement. Hope we settle down soon, but I doubt it. This disruption has deep roots: pressures from the technologies we have invented. Our cleverness has overtaken us.
4
I read a Sam Harris piece about how liberal love fireplace fires even though fireplaces spew out all this toxic stuff. So I sent him a photo of my pollution monitor sitting on the hearth in front of the fire place about 18" from a burning fire. It was reading "4" which is the best reading possible. Crickets. He appeared not to have time for didn't data that disagreed with his misconceptions.
11
If the rest of these folks suffer the same cognitive deficits as Christina Hoff Sommers then they are simply arrogant prima donna's attracting attention to themselves. This has nothing to do with free speech, academic speech, or scholars getting maligned even though they are brilliant. Quite the contrary.
If someone with a PhD in X, suddenly believes themselves to be an expert on Y, and the real experts on Y ignore them or refuse to entertain their baseless babble, they feel hurt. Oh gee, I'm sorry.
The guy who thinks he is an expert on 'other cultures' and maintains that some 'cultures' are superior to others, demonstrates his lack of authoritative knowledge on the subject every time he opens his mouth. It's almost impossible to have a serious scholarly conversation with someone like that because his views are so unhinged from the professional debate that there is simply no logical entry point for engaging.
These folks come across as a bunch of losers who realized that if they could not get the attention and esteem that they crave and felt they deserved from other professionals, they would get it from an uninformed group of other whiners who feel marginalized and disenfranchised for believing in unsubstantiated racist, sexist and homophobic garbage.
32
I would love to meet with any or all of these people, but what I don't understand is why all of them are hiding among the trees and bushes.
1
Forget ideologies, what's really critical to conversation and debate is a shared basis in facts. I don't care how brilliant or quirky or articulate someone is, if they are not bringing well-sourced facts to the table, their conversation is at best irrelevant and at worst purposefully destructive.
93
There's a very, very interesting book waiting to be written about the long history of this subject (the ever-narrowing definition of what is acceptable in public conversation and its consequences), and how we got to this point. I hope Bari writes it.
14
Man, this Intellectual Dark Web sounds pretty spiffy!
I am an intellectual too, how do I join?
17
“So many of our institutions have been overtaken by schools of thought, which are inherently a dead end...”
Yes, it’s how we think — as a species. It’s time we see ourselves and how we function with our limitations. We’re always forming ideologies, aka religions. It makes us feel secure. Now that we’ve been saddled with a disrupter-in-chief, we’re seeing disruption everywhere, like this group. Hope we settle down soon, but I doubt it. This disruption has other deeper roots: pressures from the technologies we have invented. Our cleverness has overtaken us. They are the actual dead end.
9
It's quite funny how many of the commenters who are not particularly familiar with the people discussed in this article have quickly regressed to name-calling.
I mean, they just proved the entire point of the article.
The discourse is so atrophied, and these people are trying, and sometimes failing, to address that. Thats what this is. Thats all it really is.
68
Hey everyone! This person gets it! Glad there’s at least one in this very discouraging comment section.
10
This is really not a discovery of anything at all. This exact subject was fleshed out to an extensive degree back in March at a website called "Medium."
And, there are some among us who remember the early internet - before pretty pictures and 140-character burps. At some sites, discussions on issues of the day would go on for thousands of words. The internet allowed thoughts to be published and shared without censorship. Much of it was dull and rambling, but some of it was scintillating.
So now, those early days are rediscovered via the podcast, the YouTube video, etc. It's all good, ultimately.
10
That the NYT thinks that different thinking is heresy, even in jest, is a big motivating factor in seeking out new voices.
Whether one agrees or not, or whether or not one is present simply to argue or to confront, it is refreshing to hear different ideas. The legacy media is unfailingly predictable in content and in the echo chambers of commentary. Enough!
The beauty of the internet and all current media is that many may publish and be heard. And I have the sneaking suspicion that if a different President were using the media to control his message -- by using Twitter -- that individual would be praised to the rafters for being current and forward looking and present to the population.
20
Maybe I'm a misfit, but I don't feel even the slightest need to listen to any of these commentators. I am a trained journalist and prefer to learn the facts and make up my own mind. I like to hear different points of view and willingly discuss virtually all topics. I like to understand how others come to their beliefs. But I do not see this group as heretics, just more persons who found a way to monetize their speech. SIGH.
51
Many of the negative comments here about the individuals profiled in this article perfectly illustrate the attack-label-and-dismiss impulse of the anti-intellectual, illiberal left. The lack of self awareness is almost comical.
63
Is Milo alt-right? I don't care for him personally but I never considered him alt-right.
Also, I didn't see Jones on Rogan's show (I will now) but usually he is borderline mocking the crazies when he has them on. Which isn't really endorsing them or dangerous to me.
And I don't doubt the sincerity of the SJWs. I don't think they fear that the IDW will discover an inconvenient truth that undermines them. I think they beleive that any "truth" the IDW may "discover" will be erroneously legitimized under the guise of intellectual honesty and that lots of people will buy these "false, bad ideas" because they came from respectable, intelligent, smooth talking bigots and racists. Again, I do not doubt their sincerity. I think if one truly believes as many of them seem to then the IDW is legit dangerous to them but not because they fear that the IDW will actually discover an inconvenient truth.
12
"I get the appeal of the I.D.W. I share the belief that our institutional gatekeepers need to crack the gates open much more. I don’t, however, want to live in a culture where there are no gatekeepers at all. Given how influential this group is becoming, I can’t be alone in hoping the I.D.W. finds a way to eschew the cranks, grifters and bigots and sticks to the truth-seeking."
gatekeepers ARE the problem. people need to be able to think for themselves and read/watch/listen to things that are different than their beliefs, and make an informed opinion on what theyre consuming. gatekeepers spoonfeed and discourage critical thought - everything is digested down for you, and you can only see whats between the two posts of the so called gate, and nothing else.
the fact that we have become as a society incapable of critical thought is incredibly sad, and reflects on the injustice of our teach for tests school system... creating a generation of mindless drones incapable of thinking for themselves. but thats what corporate america wants! people who think for themselves are dangerous to the status quo.
just the other day i saw a video on instagram published by a far-left skate group about a cop. i made an innocuous comment on the post, and the group that posted it told me to stop following them, and commenters attacked my (assumed) race despite my private profile and profile pic that doesnt show my skin color... what kind of world have we become?!
15
That's not reality though. You can't claim you're just putting ideas out there for people to decide for themselves and pretend you're not a gatekeeper or a filter. All you're doing when you say get rid of gatekeepers is to substitute a shittier, less educated gatekeeper for the one you had before. You get comedians and pseudo-intellectuals doing the exact same thing Facebook and tv news have been doing, but not even as well. Being under-educated is just as bad as being uneducated. Look at Kanye West. What happened to you on Instagram is part of the outrage culture we have now because we're balkanized into fractured self-confirming groups. I prefer experts rather than opinions.
1
"i saw a video on instagram published by a far-left skate group"
This about sums up the entire story, which should be headlined "Breaking News: Morons Still Dominate Internet".
6
A world without gatekeepers.
1
The term IDW is a little silly, but having said that, Bret and Eric Weinstein are a breath of fresh air. Both amazing thinkers. I wish Nicholas Christakis had been included.
The author cautions against cozying up the racists. Considering that Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan is promoted not just by the most powerful leftist activists and individuals in this country but congressmen, senators, mayors and even Obama happily took his picture with him- given all this the hysteria of anyone who gets within 100 feet of Charles Murray seems uncalled for. It is the left that made it acceptable to cavort and promote racists long before Trump was elected.
22
"Nation of Islam/Louis Farrakhan is promoted not just by the most powerful leftist activists and individuals in this country"
Ask anyone who isn't Nation of Islam or a white supremacist who he is and you'll get a blank stare. You tried to scare us with him 30 years ago and nobody bought it. Where have you been, and are you alright?
10
“First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly…” That is absolutely false about some of those named. They are uncivil and hostile.
Ben Shapiro is the opposite of civil: He engages in trash talk and personal insults. He is not merely aggressive but arrogant and outright hostile. Jordan Peterson is not quite as bad, but he’s on that same spectrum. I haven’t seen Sam Harris in action in a couple of years (though audio or video online or reading any written work of his), but what I observed of him in the past was him often was also being arrogant, hostile, and uncivil.
Beyond their incivility to other people, I have observed the three I named being what I consider “intellectually uncivil” in their misrepresentation of views and information they don’t like or disagree with, and through their statements about the “stupidity” of ideas, theories, perspectives, etc.
33
Bari, thank you for clearly presenting the reasons why DJT won in 2016. Let's hope the so-called liberals will wake up, so that it doesn't happen again in 2020. If he runs, which I doubt.
13
Bari is not a liberal. She is, amusingly enough, a fifth columnist. Everything she writes bashes liberals and finds mysterious charms in the hobgoblins of the far right.
7
Yesterday, the Times published a fantastic piece by Stanley Fish which deftly critiques the kind of statements Rogan and others in this piece make, that they aren’t journalists, they aren’t there to filter; they just listen to people and record it and leave it to us to make our decisions. This is the opposite of free speech. This is an abdication of authority, or, more likely, and admission they have no actual intellectual authority and have simply tapped into a kind of general middle-brow malaise and are riding it to the bank. There’s less to these people than meets the eye.
26
Sam Harris, using an example of Burka wearing, "said something that he thought was obvious on its face: Not all cultures are equally conducive to human flourishing. Some are superior to others." Huh? This is not a very bright statement.
1) What is "human Flourishing"?
2) If we agree about that, what do we mean about a "culture"?
Wearing a Burka is not a culture, but an aspect of some religious beliefs.
Does the refusal to teach evolution represent American culture or an aspect of some American religions?
One could even maintain (not that i would want to) that enforcing creationist views helps people flourish in certain sectors of America.
6
'1) What is "human Flourishing"?'
The Times didn't provide adequate sourcing for the myriad claims in the OpEd. For Harris and "flourishing", see his book:
"The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values"
8
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/renegade
There is much that is troublesome about this article and most of it can be summed up by the fact the author actually considers these archly conservative and fabulously entitled men 'renegades.' What an absurd description.
21
They are renegades exactly like Kanye West is now hated forwords he said or tweeted. Yes, renegade is an appropriate term. The Founders of the country? Renegades all.
When progressive dolts paying tuition at Middlebury College attacked Dr. Charles Murray for being free with his speech, he became a renegade to them as well.
8
Many of the people described in the oped are the very definition of renegade that you reference. They have given up alliances and good careers, often at great financial, reputational, and even physical risk, to speak up for what they believe in.
9
I feel more confused now than I did before reading this article. I am a liberal. But, I lived abroad for 12 years, so my ideas don't necessarily jive with orthodoxy nor show up on the radar of either the left or right (don't get me started on citizenship). For these reasons, I keep my own counsel on certain issues. I rely on journalism with its checks and balances to help inform my views. I pretty much know what I'm getting when I read the Times. Commentators, especially ones overtly trying to sell their brands, make me uneasy. Consequently, I probably shy away from many worth intellectuals. Or maybe not. Case in point, my last boyfriend ONLY listened to commentators. He was hypercritical of the press. One day he told me that, "Putin is a statesman." I sarcastically asked if the commentator he got that from was on the Kremlin's payroll. It went downhill from there. In the end it's a question of epistemology: balancing head and heart to find your own opinion. We all need to decide which rabbit holes we are comfortable going down. I'm still trying to figure this out.
10
"... my last boyfriend ONLY listened to commentators."
There are a lot of "commentators". Give some specific examples.
2
"Ms. Owens is a passionate Trump supporter who has dismissed racism as a threat to black people while arguing, despite evidence to the contrary, that immigrants steal their jobs"
I would like to see the "evidence" that shows tens of millions of cheap unskilled laborers doesen't effect the job opportunities of the black community, or the american middle class in General.
18
Not all opinions or ideas are worth listening to or deserve to be given a podium. Still most of these self-described intellectuals manage to make a very descent living off of their followers, fans and readers.
They’re always complaining of being censored though and I could never understand what is it they want to say that they didn’t get to say. Now contrary to what the opinion author says, they do all have one thing in common: an idea or another that a large group of people, that happens to be different from them, a sex, a culture, a colour, a religion, is inherently inferior. Many of them have a rabid hate of anything Muslim, or immigrant, or black. They claim that ideas should all be given the same public exposure then they use their pseudoscience and unrelated credentials to pray on the frustrated and uninformed to pollute societies with ‘science-backed’ bigotry.
If all endeavours are to be measured by their outcomes or intentions, theirs are as useless to humanity’s advancement as a 4 mile wide meteorite would be to Manhattan.
Everywhere they go or speak, when all is said and done, there is just a little more hate in this world.
Bigots in scant disguise. Nothing else.
22
Your post couldn't have been a better example of what these intellectuals are up against.
18
Very likely.
Your comment is also what I am up against most days of the week.
PS: before you get too excited, I’m a devout atheist speaking four languages and having lived on four continents. My biggest delusion is that I know more about human nature than all of the Harris’s of this world. When I look at the bigger picture, these people are just as lost as anyone else. Extremists of a different breed.
10
I always get a chuckle out of seeing guys as sedate as Sam Harris described as “rabid” by people clearly unfamiliar with him outside of Vox or Glenn Greenwald. You’re tipping your hand, friend.
6
Taboo? Dark? Exiled?
No. Thin skinned. The Thin Skinned Web.
Guys like Sam Harris can’t take criticism. Not even a little. No matter how gentle. Harris can’t take criticism from his allies. Daniel Dennett, to cite one example.
These guys are on TV, they’re in major media like the Times, their books sell. Yet still they cry foul. The thin skinned web melts into a puddle in the face of the slightest disagreement.
The door to the mainstream is wide open: take criticism like a grown up, and your “exile” evaporates, like it was never there.
33
How silly to give these conservatives a level of cachet by titling them “intellectual dark web.” May sound sexy, but they’re still wrong, as are their followers. Flat earthers wash and wax job.
15
Perhaps you could elaborate? What specifically are they wrong about?
14
Jaco, why bother asking? Diana doesn't have any examples because it would be beneath her to listed to half an hour of anything she disagrees with.
Diana is a snobbish cultural Marxist, and she doesn't simply dismiss the ideas of her lessers, she aggressively hates them and those who would dare to express them.
1
This article is not nearly as interesting as the reader "Comments."
I read the article and found it interesting - not earth-shattering but interesting, especially the photos of the IDW people - then a few comments as I do for most articles (always the "Reader Picks"). This gives one an interesting look at the NYT followers, of which group I am member.
In the case of this article, after reading it and some comments, I had to reread the article because I must have missed something. No, I didn't miss anything, my perception of the article was just different than most readers.
Thank you Ms. Weiss, NYT and readers/commentators for an interesting look into this slice of Americana.
9
Absolutely, an open conversation on difficult topics should not be a basis for excluding the speaker because I disagree with their premise – only is so long as it is a disciplined premise based on actual facts, not solely on beliefs. As to allowing Ben Shapiro or Alex Jones the same level of credibility and validity as the Weinstein brothers or Ms. Heying, I have my doubts. As Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” There are , in fact, some ideas and premises that do not deserve a seat at the table.
9
This group would do well to review the difference between education and wisdom. I hear a lot of real smart people with the wisdom of 14 year old boys.
2
"Confronting your own tribe" may be good in the long run. In the short run, however, it seems to be leading to a more and more divisive and divided personal, political, and societal culture in the U.S. And all of the pundits mentioned in the article are making money (sounds like lots if it) for expressing their views. When, oh when, is everything going to stop being all about the money?! Money truly is the root of all evil.
3
Bigsnicken- There are a few who’ve made a business out of discussing ideas such as Dave Rubin. Many people find value in supporting intellectually diverse media so they may make a patreon donation to support Dave’s show. What’s wrong with that? The show has expenses.
Please consider choosing intellectual rigor over tribalism usually leads to losing connections and jobs. Look at James Defore the fired google engineer. Agree with him or not, his memo was well reasoned and respectful. He might be making some money as a public speaker now but how long will that last? He’s said himself he liked his job at google and he wished he could have stayed.
Its definitely not about the money.
5
IDW was coined as a sort of ironic joke. A way to poke fun at what is no fun at all: emotional screaming taking the place of reasoned discourse. Ms. Weiss summarizes the three distinct qualities well. And her listing of "phantom tollbooth" moments are inspired.
Here's the core, though: "That’s just your opinion" said by a politically connected biologist to Mr. Harris. The movement for no standards, no judgement, and discrimination packaged with racism is having its effect. From Citronella Nacht, as one wag termed the tiki torches to light up Charlottesville, to Antifa thugs rioting in Berkley, the choice is reason or force. Not which group is doing the forcing.
Ayn Rand put it succinctly: "When men abandon reason, physical force becomes their only means of dealing with one another and of settling disagreements."
Sadly this has been in the Dark. With heroic effort, the IDW phenomenon is beginning to shed light.
8
Good article. Exciting movement.
More and more smart people are moving in that direction.
The commentariat, however, is like a snake one has driven over.
All fangs and poison, but (intellectual) collapse is imminent.
8
Informative and cogent article, including when Bari Weiss highlights IDW's "promiscuity" and the danger of audience capture.
What is disheartening is that certain valid contrarian views have to go underground to the realm of dark web. I hope we get more opinion pieces like this, hopefully leading to the need for such said opinions becoming obsolete.
5
I wonder why all these brilliant, out-of-the-box thinkers always seem to say the same right-wing things, but then I wonder why I am expected to take the thought of Joe Rogin seriously.
9
That aren’t saying right-wing things. Being “anti-RADICAL left” and to the right of cultural Marxism and postmodernism IS NOT RIGHT-WING!!!! Good lord the comment section in here is so indoctrinated I fear that nothing of this world can break them free. Probably not even a civil war, which is coming if you guys want to continue silencing and censoring. What happens when humans can longer use their words? They will use their fists, and the left has the market cornered on censorship and trying to shut down open dialogue. Beware of Newton’s 3RD Law, it doesn’t just pertain to physics.
The ideology of many of the commenters here killed over 100 million people in the 20th century yet they still think they own the moral high ground and are SO DEEPLY COMMITTED. That’s scary as hell to me. What am I supposed to think and do when someone tells me they don’t know or care that their views will kill millions more?
7
There is no room for discussion about the primacy of the 2nd Amendment, and that unrestricted access to abortion at taxpayer expense is socially destructive. Let these self-appointed arbiters blather all they want.
1
I’m reminded of what my high school basketball coach once said about opinions. They’re like noses (and other body parts). Everybody has one and most of them smell.
Guess it just depends on how much stench you can stand.
1
Wow, how do you get to the “Intellectual Dark Web,” anyway? What secret password, possessed only by 15 million others, do you need to acquire so as to download Ben Shapiro’s podcast? What dark and seedy alleys do you need to lurk in to get tickets to the “packed arenas around the globe,” such as the O2 arena in London, where Jordan Peterson and Shapiro will talk to each other? What risky samizdat circles do you need to penetrate to buy Peterson’s #1 selling book?
This article is a nice piece of free advertising for a cheesy intellectual brand, whose real substance is…well, as the author of the piece admits, it’s really not much at all. “We say what most no longer dare to say, and we defy the consequences.” According to this article, the consequences look like fame and fortune and breathlessly admiring front-page articles in major newspapers.
A little bit of serious criticism of the ideas themselves would be worth a ton of this warmed over epater la bourgeoisie shtick.
20
Nothing says American heretic like pro-capitalist/christian values rich white ppl...
10
Even the headline of this piece suggests that holding the “correct” opinions has become a sort of secular religion for certain establishment types and committing the sin of dissent is liable to result in banishment or worse. I think there is a very real problem when those in power all hold the same political views. I don’t agree with everything these people say, by any means, but I am familiar with them and their views because I have always believed in getting my news from the original source. As a journalist, I believe in the free exchange of provocative views and a balance of viewpoints in academia. This belongs on the front page, by the way, and not in the opinion section.
14
When reactionaries take over, moderates are purged. We saw this with the Eisenhower Republicans who helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It also happened to civil rights leaders of the 30's, 40's & 50's who didn't acquiesce to the Black Power reactionaries who tossed out non-violence & disciplined behavior, which are not at all the same thing as falling in line behind the leader. Disciplined behavior meant disciplining oneself, as effective athletic teams, policing forces, and combat units train themselves to be.
It's my impression that right-wing reactionaries usually beat left-wing reactionaries, because the fascists are better organized & better financed. It doesn't hurt that reactionary conservatives like to line up behind a macho leader, draped in a flag while bearing a cross, preferably behind a John Wayne, but if necessary a Ronald Reagan or a Donald Trump when John isn't available.
I've seen how this movie ends, and believe me when I tell you that it ain't pretty.
5
Excellent article.
While we may be in the midst of a culture war, and while truth may be the first casualty of war, the thinkers mentioned here are pointing the way to a truce.
I have listened to a number of these podcasts, and have found it truly - joyfully - refreshing to hear intelligent, well-informed people engage in a good faith debate or conversation, who can grapple with each other's arguments and think out loud without having to worry about spurious charges of bigotry or wrong-thinking. The discussions and debates are civil because the ones engaged in them exhibit old-fashioned self control and humility. (I don't know if Andrew Sullivan is a "member" of the IDW, but he should be.)
The way for the IDW to avoid becoming "captured" by its audience is to continue do what they've been doing: judging the quality of an idea being expressed on its own merits, rather than the identity of the person expressing it.
34
Yeah, nothin' says "self control and humility," like the name, "Joe Rogin."
6
A lot of people are hungry for real discussion and Sam Harris and others offer these 2, 3, 4 hour, often confrontational, discussions. In my view he is a cut above, like Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens, because they do not fall back into tribalism for tribalism's sake, which the far left and far right love, love, love.
28
There's something about this article that reminds me of how Paul Ryan and the Republican "Young Guns" were once touted as new, exciting thinkers, poised to remake conservatism and forge a new era of political bipartisanship at the same time. I expect this crowd of well-connected, well-marketed intellectual personalities to be about as genuinely iconoclastic as were Ryan et. al. They sure talk a good game, though.
14
The monetization of their discourse is what complicates the issue. $80,000 a month? Human nature follows opportunity and it is foolhardy to think that folks won’t slip towards playing to their paying audience.
I would. That’s a lot of money.
Truth is an endangered species in the new economy.
11
80k is not really a lot of money. He probably has staff to pay at this point as well as technology infrastructure and bandwidth to handle the traffic. It’s not like the cable news anchors like Hannity, Maddow, Cooper that get 10s of millions. Think about those incentives...
12
Heretics? The are espousing the exact same views considered mainstream by Democrats only 10-15 years ago, before the Dems suddenly "evolved" overnight. It's the left who have jumped the shark, not these "renegades".
22
I'm not sure any of these people are Conservative. Pretty sure none of them voted for DJT (not that he is Conservative either), FYI.
9
Too often the left offers platitudes about wanting free speech before characterizing its opponents as purveyors of hate speech unworthy of a voice. It's hypocritical to advocate for human rights while suppressing one of the most fundamental rights of all--the right to speak freely.
If bad ideas are gaining sway, the solution is not to push those ideas underground where they are free to fester without being challenged. To push those ideas underground and away from debate is to cede the topic entirely to those with the worst ideas.
19
Oh good grief. Is this what Bari Weiss is retailing now? The “Intellectual Dark Web”? Sound exciting and mysterious, almost umm..clandestine. Or something. I’ve wasted hours listening to Sam Harris, reading about Maaajid Nawaz and Ayaan Ali because someone told me they were worth a listen. Good for you, NYT. You can say that right wing ideas are covered in your opinion section. And I just wasted sixty seconds reading to the fourth or fifth paragraph of this nonsense and another sixty writing this comment.
6
It’s addictive isn’t it?
1
As a dyed-in-rhe-wool contrarian, I applaud the so-called Intellectual Dark Web. Unfortunately, these intellectuals and intellectasters only talk, but do not act. Of course, words have led many a time to historical upheavals: e.g., the French and Russian Revolutions, Hitlerism in Germany, and lately Trumpism in the 21th century. Well let them talk, some of their ideas are amusing ...
1
I want to say straight away that I oppose the "PC Police" and that we should agree that almost every discussion should be be "within bounds". Almost. I don't have time for people who want to talk about "White Power" or about how white males are the ones truly being discriminated against, etc... I do believe people have a Constitutional right to those views. However, that does not mean we are obligated to provide them with a forum. The people cited in this article have found a forum for themselves and they are using it. And that's fine.
But, I must say that the ideas that most (certainly not all) of these folks are "fringe" ideas for a reason. A lot are just "shock jocks", only a little more sophisticated (I DO NOT include people like Ms. Owens in that category as she lacks any scintilla of sophistication and is just, frankly, gross).
I have been listening to Michael Shermer for 20+ yrs and the sad fact is, he has become more reactionary and agenda driven every year until he finally lost all credibility with me. It's clear that his predisposition to preach the Gospel of Libertarianism (he used to be the guy that explained science to us mere mortals) has allowed him to misrepresent or intentionally elide facts. The last time I listened to him he just flat out lied about the rise of housing prices over that last generation (and I know he knows better). That, from a "science guy", is simply unacceptable for me. Discussion over.
9
Absolutely agree; it's terrible to see Schermer sinking so low.
2
‘Here are some things that you will hear when you sit down to dinner with the vanguard of the Intellectual Dark Web: There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart.’
The vanguard of the ‘intellectual ‘ dark web?!?!? Seriously? These ideas are soooo old and sooooo boring. Nothing even slightly intelectual or cutting-edge about them.
8
Sound like a bunch of rich dweebs who have dumb followers. Yawn times 2 to equals a yawn-o-rama.
5
A whole lot of intellectuals need to shut up and meditate.
5
I've read most of these people's books and surprise! I remain as liberal as the day is long. Iconoclastic thinking is provocative, engaging and interesting and worth our time, for sure.
I never miss Sam Harris's always fascinating podcast. I simply do not understand how anyone can fault Mr. Harris for pointing out that Islamic fundamentalism is a theocratic wasteland where no human rights survive. If a country treated any other minority in the way Islamic fundamentalist treat women, we'd probably go to war.
I did witness Sam Harris's maddening (and electrifying) conversation with Ezra Klein and it was the only time I heard Sam Harris being obtuse. He just didn't get it. Yes, Mr. Harris had a point, and a good one, but it was a minuscule concern when set alongside the hidden monster of Charles Murray's racism. Ezra Klein explained (over and over) how Mr. Murray sneaks his racism under the cloak of 'science,' which is an insidious and distressing recurrent theme in America. I think the point was that if Sam Harris had to give Murray a platform, he sure as heck should have researched Mr. Murray's more forays into his more blatant and obnoxious kind of racial prejudice, so no one in Sam Harris's sizable audience would be confused about what Charles Murray stands for.
9
"He has also estimated that some 20 percent of Muslims worldwide are Islamists or jihadis. But he has never said that this should make people fear all Muslims. He has defended the work of the social scientist Charles Murray, who argues that genetic differences may explain differences in average IQ across racial groups — while insisting that this does not make one group inferior to another."
As a centrist with MSc studies I think that the main problem with taking these people seriously, at least with Peterson, Murray and Harris, is that even though they never spout vitriol, or hatred, they seem to always leave breadcrumbs that may lead to them, in the hope of attracting a bigger flock.
In the passage above, one hints that 20% of Muslims may be extremists (without pointing to studies on sites with https), and the other talks about how some races may inherently have a higher IQ (without properly controlling for other variables). Add to that Peterson who keeps claiming that there's no way to ensure equality among women and men at the workplace, and that it's better not to try (see his AU 60 minutes appearance).
Of course none of them actually says something wrong, but the way they phrase it, the inherrent vagueness, despite claiming to be men of Science, leaves a door open for toxic interpretations.
I urge you to read a page of their books. Read once with your most optimistic look,and read it the second time, assuming what is worst...
The space between the two is huge.
7
These commonsense observations are considered "dark" because if you voice them out loud, you will be attacked and pilloried relentlessly.
This is why conservatives, libertarians, Trump voters, etc stay quiet for the most part.
It's also why you are surprised that Hillary lost. The left tries to silence dissent at every opportunity and will even attempt to have people imprisoned if, say, they declare that global warming is a farce.
The left is everything it once hated in the 60s.
12
“But the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.”
Yeah, like the eugenics "intellectuals", beginning with Francis Galton et al, from whom a line can be drawn to the Final Solution. I'm scared of what they might unleash not discover (that self-aggrandizing word every phony likes to ascribe to their actions), it's all already there and just looking for a moralizing pseudo-intellectual framework to give it legs.
The most disgusting thing about this movement is it's fetishization of "free thinking". It is sickeningly un-moored from rigor and study. "Oh boy, I had a thought, let me tell EVERYBODY!" Of course, ultimately it is all about identity politics and the bigot that brings out in each of us.
"There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart."
Don't be thrown by the free speech inclusion, it's thrown in as the lever to discuss the other two issues which are both about the ascendancy of traditionally marginalized populations finally making some headway.
Among the liberals: Two of the "intellectuals" in the article had their come-to-Jesus awakening challenging gender transitioning or identification issues. One challenged Islam and Muslim culture. One pair challenged a school for making a day in support of it's non-white students. Seriously.
6
Steve- Have you actually read or listened to any of these folks or just read or listened the supposed distillation of their premises from their critics.
There is no commonly held opinion within the IDW except the primacy of free speech. Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson have infamously disagreed publicly and Eric Weinstein took to task Mr Harris's criticisms of Islamic culture.
Just because this group maintains some level of civility with each other and their outside detractors (mostly) doesn't mean they suffer from group think.
9
This is some pretty lukewarm dark enlightenment... classical liberalism...
2
The central flaw with this movement, as I see it, is their failure to live up to their own stringent standards of discourse. They demand civil discussion on the one hand, then call people names and issue empty threats when their ideas are challenged on Twitter. They think all ideas should be considered, but choose only to talk about ideas that are unpopular among city-dwelling liberals. They wouldn't be so vulnerable to my use of logical fallacy (appeal to hypocrisy) except that they tend to demonstrate socials ills, recursively: the self-serving side of outrage by being outraged and self-serving, dismissive elitism by claiming purity of thought and intentions, etc, etc... It's just lazy framing of their ideas and overshadows important points of view they might otherwise be able to contribute.
5
"There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart." I've read a lot about these assertions in the MSM. I tend to agree with each of them. Nothing "dark" about that. I've been in the light the entire time. It's those who don't see any obvious truths in those statements who exist in the dark.
8
Everyone creates their own echo-chamber and fills it with like-minded voices.
I'd like to take these "intellectuals" and drop them on the tundra with a box of matches and a swiss army knife. Their "intelligence" wouldn't do them much good, any more than that of any other fish out of water situation.
We would be so much better off if we stopped this eternal seeking for the "One Way"
3
Count me as a middle-of-the-road renegade. I use the term radical pragmatist. I want to scream every time "knowledgeable" people say that the concept of "race" doesn't exist. As a simple "black-white" (sorry) concept of course it is absurd, and especially in a country as diverse as the United States it is pretty close to meaningless, but statistically the background of your ancestors has meaning. The risk of the concept being misused by racists isn't reduced by playing this semantic game.
Interestingly, some people believe in reparations, yet deny the concept of race. How are you supposed to pay reparations to a group you deny exists? Self-reporting you say? Free money? Wow! I just remembered I'm African American. My ancestors came from Africa 15,000 years ago. Where's my cut? I get that there is an argument to make to help the descendants of slaves, but that's what free access to college would do.
Poverty is hard to define, but we don't deny it exists. Its boundaries are ill-defined, and not 1-dimensional, yet simplistic categories are defined, and cutoffs are made.
Some areas of science have been affected by political correctness (NOT climate change research) and one of the effects of this is to give Republican anti-science loonies ammunition that weakens those who don't want to see trust in science undermined.
I can feel the attacks coming. I'm ignorant, a racist, etc. This is the kind of attack that turns people into Trump supporters!
6
"... some people believe in reparations, yet deny the concept of race."
Name those people and cite reliable sources quoting them.
"My ancestors came from Africa 15,000 years ago."
How do you know that?
"I can feel the attacks coming. I'm ignorant, a racist, etc."
Ranting is not a substitute for debate.
4
The common sense ideas expressed by many of these people should be part of normal mainstream discourse. The only reason it is relegated to a category called the "Dark Web" is because mainstream discussion these days allows for almost no diversity of opinion. Anyone who doesn't tow a very narrowly tailored line is cast out.
Anyone who does not believe me, think back over the past couple of years. You have been in social situations in which an issue came up that you were hearing for the first time, or almost the first time, and you refrained from offering an opinion on it, didn't you? Because you didn't know what the "accepted" opinion was. You were afraid. That is a huge problem, as is the fact that the people in this article are considered to be in some special category of renegades.
14
Or, if you are hearing about it for the first time you could learn more about it before offering an uneducated opinion. A lot of people seem to think that room should be made for even the most ignorant non-fact based or irrational opinion.
If someone says “bees are useless and one once stung me so I think they should all be killed” they should not be given the time of day as it is not true. For some reason this test is no longer used in order to give “balance”.
4
Foliage in darkened photos has unfortunate connotations for me after Harvey Weinstien.
1
Knee-jerk liberalism and conservatism (so-called) have worked hand in hand for 50 years to dismantle education, leaving in its place job training, cultural illiteracy and dogma, rich breeding ground for the Trumps of the world. No amount of "conversation" can undo that.
1
Because some ideas are censored by both individuals and institutions it's clear there is a need for the I.D.W..
But, there is an difference between a controversial idea and an idea that is just plain wrong. Those in the I.D.W. who believe they must give a hearing to everybody because there's no way to decide that an opinion is "wrong" are doing no good--although they may increase their own visability.
For example, the earth isn't flat. To give an audience to someone who claims it is--destroys the concept of an intelligent debate. Some people and some ideas are just plain "nuts." Once you say "how can we decide" you've tossed-out the concept of truth. Or, using today's concepts--there is no difference between "fake" and "real" news. Were this true, there would be no need for "news."
Unfortunately, many students have been taught this "it's all fake" as part of a well meaning effort to get them to see how a culture creates "reality" for it's members. Everything is a "social construct." Thus, science cannot ever do more than confirm what it's meta-theories, i.e., the social constructs of the culture in which it operates.
For freshman this is a liberating concept. (It seems to be necessary for in certain college classes.)
Ultimately, it dawns on most that if nothing is real (i.e., true) -- then there is no possible way to defend it's "all a social construct" conception of the world."
An I.D.W. debate is pointless if all views must be given a hearing to prevent "censorship."
5
Hi Bari - I cannot speak for the IDW because I am regrettably not a member, but I think they would say to you--- "Come on in, the water's fine." You seem to think before you speak. That is I think the first prerequisite. You might want to improve on your listening skills though, "I can’t be alone in hoping the I.D.W. finds a way to eschew the cranks, grifters and bigots and sticks to the truth-seeking." is exactly the kind of statement that says you are not willing to listen to some ideas.
It is only in listening with an open mind and actually discovering the truth that intellectual progress seems to be made. I don't know why, but I think that is true.
3
Only in NYT land would biological differences, the importance of free speech, and the harmfulness of identify politics be considered remotely offensive.
It's hilarious this article has to coin a special term (Intellectual Dark Web) to typify positions that a majority of people outside the coasts believe.
Articles like this just confirm for me how out of touch the newspaper of record is.
9
In other words, these "Free Speech" advocates are united in decrying that horrifying possibility that people have the ability to disagree with them.
We are not obligated to listen to them. When they say stupid or offensive or non-sensical things, it isn't oppression when those who have heard it before tune them out.
It's sad when whining becomes a rallying cry.
5
Well written, right up until the 'click in the other direction' problem.
Leads right back to the different perceptions of what is beyond the pale.
The writer, and those who may hold similar views, self identifying as the arbiter of what is or isn't the hilariously gas-lit term 'alt-right'
1
This is actually one of the most important topics that is not being talked about in America today Political correctness is the root core of much of the polarization of our society. If we can't discuss things civilly we cannot identify, let alone, correct the injustices.
24
Our current mainstream intellectual state demands a commitment to a specific orthodoxy on both sides of the political spectrum. There's no room in the conservative side for free market fans who favor single payer healthcare. Conversely, there's no room in the progressive tent for social democrats that oppose abortion. Checking the philosophical boxes is more important than skepticism and one misstep can get you run out of town on a rail. However, there are plenty of people that can discern the good and bad of provocateurs like Alex Jones or Amy Goodman. These are the people that are attracted to the IDW.
6
The IWD didn’t form out of thin air.
The boom of hip, venture capital-backed, conceptually indistinguishable hyper-progressive outlets like Vice, Vox, the entire Gizmodo Media Group, Mic, Group Nine Media and Buzzfeed created a vacuum filled the conservative equivalents including Breitbart, The Blaze and The Daily Caller.
That polarization created another vacuum: the IWD. That’s how we got here.
Weiss and I share the same concern that IWD figures haven’t done enough to separate themselves from virulent figures. At the same time, I’m afraid that wouldn’t quell progressive criticism. Nevertheless this phenomenon has done more harm than good in attracting people from across the racial, gender and political spectrums.
If universal inclusion, moderation and open-mindedness, decency, civility, good faith and uncut conversation is alt-right, far-right or conservative, then count me and millions of other Americans in.
12
Don't be scared of going to the "wrong" thinkers. And forget the gatekeepers, because they also have agendas.
Remember that you can figure things out for yourself. If you are afraid of your roommates' opinions, then watch incognito. But check things out.
And remember, you can also learn from people you don't agree with, because you sharpen your own views and maybe look at things from a different perspective.
Also, even people who occasionally miss, or whose opinions you don't always agree with, may make a good point or two.
12
I'll grant that the Southern Poverty Law Center may have mischaracterized Harris's commentary on (and conversation with) Charles Murray, but - and this is a big but - you're doing a disservice to your readers to pretend that his defense of Murray's hypothesis (environment plays only a minor role in the development of IQ) is a neutral one. It's not. As Ezra Klein points out on Vox (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-ch..., it's problematic to think that there is enough of a consensus to say definitively that there is a genetic correlation between IQ and race. To act as though this is "decided" and as though the body of social science research is irrefutable is, as Klein puts it, ahistorical. Murray posits in his interview with Harris that any "catching up" black Americans needed to make to achieve equity in IQ should have been achieved by the 1970s, as though that's when systematic racial oppression "ended." I don't necessarily subscribe to the idea that Murray is a quack, but I don't think that he's seriously interested in engaging on this issue, and I think giving Harris a pass (and saying he was taking a position in good faith and not out of provocativeness) is misleading.
8
I'm all for free speech and the reaction to these "heretics" is overboard, for the most part. But let's also remember, aside from academia, these "heretics" mostly echo mainstream thought. There's more courage in the "left" to resist some of the bigoted thoughts of the majority than these "heretics" tweaking a bunch of academics.
5
I don't agree with anybody about anything.
But if someone else out there voices the same sentence, does that mean I do agree with someone about something?
Too many words. Time for a little silence.
2
It's easy to take the test and see if you are a member of the IDW: Do you think that core assertions such as those in the first paragraphs or so of this article are common sense, and that it is their denials that are radical if not outlandish assertions? Then you're a member.
5
OK, so you are a neuroscientist or an evolutionary biologist or what ever other highly specialized discipline you excel in.
How and why does that give you any heft or cachet, other than the right to your own opinion, on the great matters that face our nation and the world today?
In other words, why should we, or the readers of the NY Times or the students at Berkeley have to listen to YOU just because you feel like showing up and talking?
5
Exactly. A neuroscientist expounding on comparative human culture and history? What next, a historian of ancient Greek culture opining about marine biology?
These 'thinkers' are only slightly above celebrities who think they're experts on, say, vaccination because they read something on the internet.
Stay in your lane.
5
Someone is trying to force you to listen to people you don't want to listen to?
5
...and yet you and Mikeweb both responded here. Interesting....
2
So, how many angels was that again?
3
As one who often finds himself opposed to the "accepted" thinking, especially from the left, while also considering himself to be a liberal free-thinker, I found this article refreshing, and will look forward to investigating the IDW.
But I also agree that unbounded thinking and speech can result in unintended consequences. Not all people are intellectually astute and not always able to separate the "wheat from the chaff", and might be deluded into believing in things that are not only false, but dangerous. For one famous example: Hitler's convincing of enough people to rise to power. And of course one need look no closer to here and now to see so many deluded into believing Trump is a good President.
Still, I do believe it's important for free discussion - with respect for all sides - to have a forum. After all, most of the major discoveries by mankind came despite ferocious opposition by the status quo. I guess I would liken venturing into the IDW to swimming: not everyone is a strong enough swimmer to swim in all places; some need to stay in the shallow end.
6
A well-written yarn about a coffee klatch for people who lead soft lives, arguing by anecdote, setting up their straw men.
5
"These are civil intellectuals who just want an honest debate"
Later:
"Also Jordan Peterson pathetically threatened to physically attack a writer for the NY Review of Books. "
Omitted:
"Harris leaks private email threads that boomerang back in his face to make him look like a fool and Shapiro argues with children on Twitter"
"I could only find one of their fans who wasn't completely offputting"
"These people book campus venues because they know they will be cancelled"
"I tried to have muslim professors at my university fired for having opinions that conflict with mine"
4
This is only the beginning. Humpty Dumpty cannot be reassembled and everyone knows it, if only intuitively at first. The old order is collapsing on every front.
So that means that right now nobody has all the correct answers, let alone a valid all-encompassing ideological roadmap, but even the craziest among us may be able to occasionally offer up a useful piece of the puzzle. This argues for an encompassing tolerance for all honestly held opinions. A person who is attempting to truthfully describe her perceptions of reality is awarded a ticket to play, so long as she is willing to accord the same acceptance to the views of others. No other requirements should be imposed. It also helps to be willing to change our minds when better information or analysis becomes available. And we each must learn to accept uncertainty and try to overcome the paralysis of fear and its principle offspring, denial.
As some have earlier noted Trump's value, as messy and unpleasant as it may often seem, is as a disruptor. That is, his erratic unprincipled behavior hastens the destruction of the old order. This includes the good as well as bad parts of the edifice. Part of the task is to rescue what is valuable from the rubble pile before it gets permanently buried. At this point the two most urgent necessities may be preserving civil liberties (so the conversation may continue unimpeded) and avoiding a level of environmental disaster that rocks the foundations of civilized human existence.
10
I think this sort of thing often starts based on true, well-founded and sincere conviction. For example, the Evergreen St. College incident. While I do not agree with the protest, I can certainly see their point. So that represents the positive end of the spectrum.
But it is clear that this sort of attention and celebrity succumbs quickly to the power of money. As one interviewee said, "I have learned how to monetize social warriors." Truth? No. Money.
Ultimately it is the Anne Coulter model. Say outrageous, baseless, insulting things. Attract media attention. Cash-in. Rinse and repeat.
The second thing is that a lot of these people are not following any sort of intellectual truth. A guy like Alex Jones is just an uneducated idiot - he just happens to hold a microphone up to his unfiltered stupid thoughts. Does the fact that a lot of other stupid people relate to what he is saying because stupid people have these thoughts mean anything? Hardly.
Finally, the thing that stands out most is that nobody is trying to build anything (other than their won bank accounts). They are just trying to tear things down. Easy to destroy. Very hard to build something better. Trump of course is the poster child for this. Self-seeking histrionics designed to destroy leave us all sifting through the wreckage
10
Self-infatuation, money. Next?
5
Intellectual Dark Web? That is a seriously overwrought description of people without enough to do with their lives. Social media has given a massive wad of aimless, unintelligent people a platform that allows them to simultaneously reinforce their stupidity and puff up their egos. The most positive spin you can put on this ridiculous idea is that both under and over-educated people are apparently equally represented in their useless noise making. This does nothing other than demonstrate that stupidity is a resource we will never deplete.
4
Quick newsflash: being met with “outrage and derision” when you say something stupid or outrageous isn’t an act of oppression against you. There’s no right, legal, moral or otherwise, to avoid criticism for you speech.
5
Sam Harris continues with his hallmark blend of weak-mindedness and craven opportunism. Ignored by real philosophers and intellectuals, he makes millions of dollars by exploiting a public that doesn't have the expertise to see how weak his arguments typically are. The sophmoric exercise in 'New Atheism' ten years ago was the beginning, now it continues with "I.D.W." Depressing that the NYT (or anyone else) continues to give guys like this so much attention.
1
The central premise of the article is that these individuals are avoiding the "mainstream conversation" and are "locked out of legacy outlets," and yet they are in fact inescapable in places like the NYT: the NYT has published 8 articles this year alone mentioning Jordan Peterson (including this one), 3 of which where he is important enough to be named in the headline. How "locked out" are they really?
4
Bari Weiss having ‘intelligent civil disagreements’ mansplained to her by a sexist Princeton Professor on Morning Joe?
Priceless.
6
The term mansplaining is a sloppy attempt to avoid debate by retreating into a label.
PS: same for sexist.
7
I think this is the most infuriating article I have ever read. But then it is really just an eloquently stated version of what we have heard ad nauseam over the past several years. And what hollow praise it is to commend Weiss' command of the English language when she appears to have command of little else.
What is so disturbing about this article (and the recent, undeserved respect for the aggressive opinions of the illiterati) is how entirely off-base it is. How it conflates the popular rejection of inferior ideas with the suppression of free thought in general. The I.D.W. is not the cutting edge of educated discourse. It is a bastion of ignorance where faux intellectuals and unabashed racists dress up primitive, hateful ideologies as something more.
I have the misfortune of being related to a person who has fallen into this trash movement. I have heard the arguments they are hearing and parroting. "Maybe black people are stupid because black people are stupid" is not enlightened discourse. It is the ignorant and harmful assertion of someone who lacks any understanding of sociology, psychology, or even history. This bigotry had its day, and further discussion is neither owed nor needed.
Likewise, "Some Muslims are terrorists" is less profound (and no truer) than "Some WASPs are, too". This article's author--and its subjects--are oblivious to the real-world harm they do by legitimizing bigotry and sowing division.
Stop lending the NYT name and megaphone to idiots.
6
Very convoluted thinking , and yes we need more openness of thought but tend to agree there is danger in too much of an open mind without , as the author suggested gatekeepers where anything goes . What is important here is an agree to disagree and a willingness to listen to opposing ideas . After all , even an uneducated person can have wisdom to impart . The labeling definitely needs to go , but humans are still humans with a tendency towards tribalism .
Solzhenitsyn wrote about the wonderful educational opportunities available to him as an incarcerated zek in the Gulag. The Communists imprisoned every sort of deviant from the official line: Jehovah's Witnesses and Trotskyites; theologians of every stripe and biologists who dissented from Lysenko's crackpot theories; theosophists and Quakers; politically unreliable physicists and poets; philosophers and generals. For Solzhenitsyn the camp served as a great university with a wonderfully rich diversity of views and experiences. By contrast, life on the outside was drab, humorless and devoid of any true intellectual vigor or spark. There was no discussion, no argument, no passion. But there in the biting cold and starvation, he found a truly human world of differences and energy, where human beings could argue without fear.
Because the Powers did not care what these miserable prisoners thought or said, they were free to be human. Maybe when all the colleges and institutions have cleansed themselves of any dissent from the ruling orthodoxies, the only free souls remaining will be those those exiled from such places of privilege. Wow.
29
Thank you Michael for the insightful comment. I just read "One day in the life of Ivan Denisovich" and find Solzhenitsyn compelling but hadn't made the connection you make.
I've often wondered if there's something about physical hardship that leads to intellectual rigor. Perhaps the outsourcing of America's "dirty" jobs overseas is leading to intellectual sloppiness?
I've worked cold finger jobs in arctic conditions and think I understand what John Muir meant when he said "winter blows the fog out of our heads".
1
It never ceases to amaze me how largely white male 'free thinkers' continue to make white-Euro supremacist arguments like "Not all cultures are equally conducive to human flourishing. Some are superior to others." This could more accurately be stated as 'Not all cultures are equally conducive to human oppression. Some are more abusive than others.'
Furthermore, they are overly enamored with the idea that Western (i.e. white European) culture is the pinnacle of human existence. What they forget is that not exactly brief 1,000 year period after the fall of the Roman empire when European 'culture' consisted of: 1) forgetting all the philosophical and scientific advancements of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans. 2) living in filth so bad that the Black plague wiped out almost half of the population. 3) being governed by often cruel autocratic leaders largely indifferent to plight of their citizens, who also intermarried and interbred within their own royal bloodlines to the point of inherited disease and insanity. 4) fighting long, wasteful and largely pointless wars among themselves.
While this was all happening, the Chinese and the Islamic world were the ones making advancements in engineering, mathematics, agriculture, astronomy, etc. as well as preserving past human knowledge and advancements in vast libraries.
But of course, why would we care what Sam Harris, who is a neuroscientist, has to say about comparative human culture and history anyway?
6
"But with a figure like Mr. Cernovich, who can occasionally sound reasonable, how is a viewer supposed to know better?"
I find this sentence's implications terrifying. It implies that the viewer can't be trusted to make the right decision for him- or herself. It implies that someone else must stand as a gatekeeper to protect the masses from hearing the wrong information or coming to the wrong conclusion. This is totalitarian.
The left needs to trust people to make up their own mind. I happened to see Dave Rubin's interview of Stefan Molyneux. While I'd heard that he was a white supremacist, that doesn't mean anything because the left has called just about everyone a white supremacist. During the interview, he talked about race differences in IQ (this was following the Sam Harris, Charles Murray interview). Unlike Harris and Murray, however, Molyneux seemed gleeful when laying out the statistics. To me, his motivations were clear, and I was fooled.
People do not need to be protected from speakers; their bad ideas will reveal themselves. Sam Harris interviewed the pro-Trump Scott Adams, and Adams came off like a fool. Joe Rogan interviewed Alex Jones, and despite their friendly rapport, Jones came off like a loon. Just because these people occasionally talk to the fringe (out of hundreds of other interviews), doesn't mean the viewer is going to be hypnotized by an extremest.
It is the rise of intellectually gatekeepers that should worry you, not this.
20
The best disinfectant will always be sunlight. That's the essence of absolute free speech, that which is repressed grows, that which is subjected to free thought survives or fails on it's merits.
13
I mean't to say, "wasn't fooled."
Is this another attempt to 'legitimize' outliers and their 'ideas', as has been the case since 2016, with the 'alt-right'?
4
We spend so much time worrying about the extremist provocateurs on the left and the right that we forget that there is a "juste millieu" where most of us can come together having dismissed the illogical and the outrageous in the screeds coming at us from both sides of the debates. I'm all for intellectual endeavour, thoughtful inquiry and reasoned conclusions, none of which appear to be the qualities on offer here or in the IDW. Most of it is shameless self-promotion...hucksters in another age. Enough already!
3
I recommend to all who consider themselves intellectual to read "God and Man at Yale" by William F. Buckley. It was written in 1951 and it is as factual today as it was back then. The players today are different but the game is the same.
1
I believe the application by honest people of a few simple tools could do much to promote reasonable discourse and nurture our ability to accommodate other points of view. I would present these:
1. Our feelings about a matter have more influence on our thinking than our thinking has on our feelings.
2. Intellectual honesty requires listening to what a person says rather than what we want them to have said. It also requires us to admit that there are things we don't understand that others do, as well as things that can't be known at all.
3. A protected right to speak freely only guards against official proscription of certain statements, while communities of people have an ongoing responsibility to define the boundaries of polite and reasonable discourse in their own societies.
4. There is an objective reality that is outside and independent of anyone's ability to understand the whole of it. Stated more narrowly, facts are things that are true without regard to anyone's belief in or even awareness of them.
5
There's another angle to what some of these people are doing that this article doesn't touch on. The content of the discussions they're having is interesting but the format is possibly more important. In these cases the format is LONG...in a good way. In podcasts, on Youtube and in person, these people are having 1, 2 and 3 hour conversations. This just doesn't happen anywhere else. Certainly not on Twitter but also not on cable news, public TV/radio, or even college lectures. These are opportunities to here people really discussing ideas. And you know what? When you have these long format conversations, it's amazing how often people find ways to be civil and productive. You can only have a bad-faith argument for so long. Eventually, you have to acknowledge other ideas and perspectives. It's wonderful. And it's surprising given that the assumption has been that we just didn't have the patience for this anymore. It turns out that we do.
And the format actually allows insight to come from unknown areas. I would not consider Joe Rogan an intellectual. But his conversations are intellectual. Why? Because he's bright enough and inquisitive enough and he takes his time. The long format allows his conversations to be smarter. This is the opposite of cable news and Twitter which regularly make smart people sound like fools.
489
I believe the long form format is an obstacle when it comes to podcasts. The optimal time and segments of this medium are best utilized by Mike Pesca on his Slate show, the Gist. The entire podcast runs 25 minutes +/- . He opens with commentary on a news item du jour follows with an interview of an expert, academic or pundit. and ends with the spiel--a topic that gets his goat or he believes deserves more probing. Mike is especially literate and funny which makes it all the better.
7
Agree strongly with SJG. This is a defining feature of the seriousness and openness of what is happening with some of these people and with their interviews and conversations and lectures. There is a real effort to think things through and not just come to a conclusion. To turn ideas over and examine them and their connections with other ideas. The truth is in the whole of these kinds of conversations. It's like reading great long form journalism and feeling like you just woke up to something truly worthwhile and wondering why you read so much relatively worthless stuff. Feeling like the truth is the in the development and in the qualifications and in the back and forth. Thanks for this post. I had recognized this but I hadn't thought about it.
18
I don't get all of the knee jerk reaction to the success of this group of people. The article clearly states that network is loosely defined - there's no real binding set of ideas aside from an affinity for conversation. I don't see this as becoming any sort of potent political movement - the ideas are far too disparate.
That being said, I think Americans are much better off for these people's success. Trump's disregard for truth and reason is abhorrent; yet group think and self-righteousness on the left present a unique danger of their own.
Do yourself a favor - check out Rubin's, Harris's, or Rogan's podcast. There's an incredible variety of opinions on their shows. You're pretty much guaranteed to find something that is of interest and perspective broadening.
"The test of a first rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function. "
- F Scott Fitzgerald
307
"I don't see this as becoming any sort of potent political movement - the ideas are far too disparate."
I agree with you, and I think that may be its saving grace.
16
Questions about open debate are important. But the question of who is intolerant and illiberal and who is truly open to all ideas has come to be almost meaningless.
Students at Middlebury college think Charles Murray should not be given a platform, in the name of anti-racism. The Anti Defamation League folks think the no one should give advocates of BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions against Israel) should not be given a platform, in the name of fighting anti-Semitism. Who is a heretic? Who is tolerant of dissent?
It is always about the substance of the ideas; there is no one who thinks one should respectfully circulate or engage any point of view. So I'm increasingly dismayed that ideological conflicts in this politically charged moment are framed around the idea of conventional groupthink versus "brave heretics" who are not afraid to challenge orthodoxies. That tells you close to nothing about how to understand the charged debates of our time.
1
Joe Rogan has a great podcast with a simple format.
He invites one or two guests to meet with him in his You Tube studio for a three hour unscripted conversation.
Rogan is a likable and very smart high school graduate who is comfortable discussing complex issues with many of the “intellectuals” listed in this article.
It is refreshing to hear people discuss important issues with some degree of humor and without the forced restraint of political correctness.
10
Your subjects’ experiences reminded me of my first week in law school. We discussed an old English case that held there was no “consideration” to support a promise to pay extra wages to a ship’s crew. They were in peril and wanted to jettison cargo for safety, but took on extra risk to save the cargo when the captain promised extra pay. The court held there was no consideration for the promise, so no valid contract. The crew was already obliged to take on the extra risk.
I grew up around blue collar men. The idea that the level of accepted risk was maximum risk, so there was no discrete extra risk that could count as consideration for extra pay, seemed odd. I looked around to see if anyone else’s nonsense detector was going off, but if so they kept a poker face.
It takes a lot of effort for many years to redefine acceptable levels of health, safety, and pay in the workplace.
Nowadays the risks and obligations taken on by blue collar men are again forgotten or disparaged, as when people argue for elective abortion on the grounds that if men could get pregnant then abortion would be a sacrament. I don’t know how to respond other than by patiently pointing out that freedom, authority, responsibility, and obligation should be harmoniously and fairly balanced for us all and we all have value and should have dignity both as economic actors and with friends and family.
6
Thanks for the article, although "Intellectual Dark Web" is a poor name for what I've found by exploring some of the outlets you describe. Perhaps political non-binaries is better?
My own journey "down the rabbit hole", if you will, began with a hard look at energy policy, around summer 2016 when the dakota access pipeline protest became big news. The protest began around native rights, but soon the narrative included a strong anti domestic oil production element. The protest camp swelled as "progressives" from the coast hopped in their gasoline fueled machines to go chant "leave it in the ground" in North Dakota. It seemed all of the obvious questions where taboo in the mainstream media, questions such as "what causes less greenhouse gas emissions, pipelines of the rail transport alternative?" (the answer is pipelines) and "which results in less environmental damage and potential loss of life?" (once again pipelines are the answer).
The "water-protectors" left more than 800 dumpters full of garbage in the flood plain of the cannonball river, which was removed at great expense by the army corps of engineers.
It takes REAL intellectial bravery and ethical rigor to ask the tough questions, especially when it puts you outside of the established tribes. Just look at what environmentalist Michael Shellenberger went though when he came out as pro nuclear. He lost a lot of friends. You can find an excellent inverview with Mr. Shellenberger- on the Rubin Report.
11
Protesters wouldn't have left stuff in the area if they didn't have to stay there blocking pipelines that shouldn't be built in the first place.
1
We are living in the age of the ethically challenged New York Times narrative sellers — journalists not revealing their self interest in the stories they are constructing more than reporting.
It’s a very ethically challenged place for the NYT to be in nowadays, where journalists are required (financially?) to have a stake in the narratives they construct. Bari Weiss, having already announced herself to be a part of the IDW (she creates?) is somehow allowed to report on a subject that she has a stake in perpetuating. It’s a weak link of a story—people who decide to leave political correctness because of a single issue: feminism or race or Islam. Of course these views aren’t challenged—Bari would never point out the contributions of moderate Muslims because that isn’t her predetermined narrative.
But this isn’t just limited to Weiss—its an ethical problem through the the NYT of today. It’s becoming far-right before our eyes, but we think of it as left. Look at the culture critics—like an “architecture critic” who reports a pro-development, anti-architect McUrbanist narrative from the vantage point of bureaucrats while turning a blind eye to the mindless hyper development within the city he was supposed to cover. Students will find this history familiar—it’s bureaucrats thinking they were smarter than architects that led to the widespread failure of public housing. Perhaps it is the NYT close proximity to Wall St and NY Real Estate that makes it hard right in sheeps clothing
3
I'm not impressed. I found Sam Harris intriguing for a while, but I felt that the same ideas kept playing on an endless loop. His ideas all seem profound, until you put pressure on them and then they compress like Wonder Bread into nearly nothing. Some of his main themes were as follows. The existence of God is not knowable, Sometimes political correctness gets taken too far, Much of modern American life is orchestrated, Islam is often not great for women.
All of which ultimately pretty much amounted you "Yeah... So?" for me after a while. He's also strikingly belligerent. If the existence of God is not knowable, then it's not really justifiable to make nasty cracks about people who do believe in God, but he seems to do that an awful lot.
And all the people profiled, arty portraits involving plants aside, seem more or less like that, a mix of simple ideas presented as revolutionary and belligerent bluster.
I don't think there is a "Dark Web". I think there's the web, with these people on it, and they're only "dark" in the sense that they get less traffic, because ultimately people see through them.
6
Amazing article. Bari with an amazing job as always... I am a huge fan of hers, and a huge fan of some of those she mentions in the article. Bravo to the NY Times for publishing this piece.
14
This is all funny stuff. The sad right wing commentators who are being"censored"(yet are covered by all MSM as well as having full uncensored access to their adoring public) and then there are all the left wing comments pulling out their favorite disparaging epithets. Both are a pitiful lot. This is America.
IDW looks like conservative intellectuals finding a new home now that many on the right have lost their integrity to Trumpism. That's great -- always good to have differing opinions and institutions to nurture thinkers.
Just don't pretend that IDW is all about free-thinking. You have an anti-left bias. Your group doesn't include free-thinkers on the left or communists giving their unconventional views or radical feminists wanting to disenfranchise men. IDW members would rather give air time to Charles Murray than Pankaj Mishra -- both get plenty of love and hate so let's not pretend it's about just reaching out to the shunned either. IDW clearly has a bias against the left; it's not a home for just any daring intellectual. Which, again, is fine because intellectual movements often have a bias or a lens or a viewpoint. Just own up to it! Stop pretending it's about free speech and free thinking and nothing else.
9
“People are starved for controversial opinions,” said Joe Rogan...
Absolutely not. People are starved for reason, logic, compassion, decency, and ethical stances. Provocateurs and "renegades" are a dime a dozen in this country, even if they're tagged as intellectuals.
This article is hyperbolic, giving attention to those who have made careers of "look at me, look at what a rebel I am". Intellectual Dark Web? People are just throwing together any old string of words to make it sound like a "thing".
There are so many more creative and diverse thinkers in this country - absent the chronic self-promotion.
12
I think these people flatter themselves, and so does the article by calling them "heretics," the "intellectual dark web," "iconoclasts." What they seem to be saying is the kind of talk you can hear anywhere. Their bugaboo seems to be a narrow slice of academia which the mainstream more or less ignores anyway. Not that those academics aren't irritating and sometimes troubling. But not agreeing with them doesn't make you an iconoclast or a heretic except in their world.
9
Thank you very much Mr. Weiss for this article.
So timely because I am so very, very tired of this society: The heavy carcan of political correctness; the constant, all azimuths repression of the vox populis; the latent, pervasive incitement to apologize for my pale skin and its privileges (never mind that my ancestors from another continent were hard working peasants on small farms)...
Thank you. I dare to hope for a return to some sanity somedays.
12
Do you even know what the dark web is? It is Not podcasts, youtube, twitter, in "sold out auditoriums". It is the part of the web that is only accessed by special web browsers--allowing user and authors to be untraceable.
7
Renegades? Of the Intellectual Dark Web? No one knows who put their web site up? Please....
These folks are mostly entrepreneurial pop-culture jugglers of the sensationalistic thought raining down on all of us (through articles like this) like cheeto colored confetti at a Trump rally.
Theres nothing there folks. Keep moving. Update your library cards and use them. And DO, per the Wizard of Oz, "pay attention to the Mnuchin and the Mattis behind the curtain".
14
They paint others with broad strokes and create their own online echo chambers, because the other echo chambers don't like them.
They're making bank on this stuff, though, and that's actually what it's all about.
Finding an untapped market, and monetizing it. In this case, it's a market for people with fringe political and social ideas.
It's not a movement. It's a market.
8
I'm interested in these ideas, in all ideas, really. What I have 0 interest in is the fetishizing of claimed censorship. I can read these ideas, all ideas really, all day and night on the web or the library or the neighborhood bookstore. They are not being censored. These publicity-hounds are mis-labelling strong disagreement--maybe even disgust--as censorship. And like porno theaters in the 70s who amplified the "X" rating to a fictional "XXX", they are making this claim of taboo their main feature.
And the NYT is playing right along, with these ridiculous dark pictures of celebrities leaning on mossy trees. Just give us the g-d- ideas, and leave out the spurious trimmings. Measure the amount of energy a person puts into their ideas and divide by the amount they put into the spin surrounding the ideas. As that ratio approaches 0, so does my interest, and so should the interest of anyone claiming to have intellectual curiosity. It's bad enough the arts should be polluted with breathless celebrity-worship and manufactured scandal. Let's try and keep the realm of ideas mainly about ideas, shall we?
10
The XXX rating analogy is an interesting one and may not be that far off. But there is no denying that many of the ideas/topics these people tend to cover are considered untouchable in many circles.
5
Ah yes! Brave intellectuals shamelessly having their photographs taken like rising Rock stars. Supposed vanguards of free thought shamelessly courting Kanye and his wife (who is famous for what exactly) and other talking heads. Is this somehow the proof of their bona fides? Come on.
4
More disingenuous--at best--commentary about the persecution of conservative commentators who, despite said persecution, comment regularly from such little known, barely read or viewed, and powerless organs such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and top rated cable news channels. If you've read any of their hundreds of columns, blog posts, books, and Twitter barrages (and that's only in the last month or two), you've read this one.
2
We want to be free people with free speech, yet we feel the necessity for gate keepers. Why? Is it because we recognize weaker minds can be unduly influenced by stronger minds with destructive ideas, such as Hitler mobilizing the Germans to commit genocide against Jews?
When we feel entitled to our own opinions as free people, we forget that we do share certain universal truths -- we all want happiness, we all do not want to be hurt, we all need to live, we all need love.
I should think we don't disagree on these truths, but only the obstacles to achieving them and the solutions for them.
We also do not necessarily recognize that our speaking and thinking freely is not always done with wisdom or even discernment on facts. So somebody like Trump ended using free speech to destroy speech and making its freedom irrelevant. Or what is the usefulness of thought such as, "I do not want socialized healthcare (ACA), but don't touch my Medicare"?
In our emphasis on freedom, we forget that not all our actions, speech and thoughts are beneficial to ourselves or others therefore they are not all equal and desirable. We insist on choosing for ourselves, yet most of the time, we lack the actual ability to choose.
I think we all get hung up on things and such hung up become our blinders, like the Evangelical who focus on hating the sins and forget to love the sinners.
In liberty, I think we are responsible for not letting our blinders hurt others.
2
Conformity of thought, currently enthusiastically embraced by so many armchair activists, is the antithesis of justice, freedom and the American Way. Viva les contrarians, regardless of stripe or motivation. Your loud, unapologetic voices are needed now more than ever, IMHO!
6
I encourage everyone reading and commenting on this... to take a big breath, a step back... read the comments...
The MAJORITY of folks commenting are coming from a perspective that REQUIRES that folks somehow be characterized, ideologically aligned, or in some way pigeon-holed in a "proper manner" in order to _________ (fill in the blank).
THAT is how powerful the indoctrination of America has become... and how intellectually lazy we now are... that we can't be bothered to listen to just an individual's voice, perspective, and opinion about something... i.e., think in a Socratic friendly way about what others are saying in our society.
It MUST be packaged "properly" before we will consider it.
What Kanye West said isn't actually the story. How people reacted to it is the story... and it just proves that having a 1st Amendment alone, under assault as it is... sure as heck isn't enough to keep us from destroying ourselves with division and intellectual stupor.
Stupid people will always abound. They are never the problem with a civilized society.
Smart, well educated people who live inside a box with rose colored windows, and who are "sold" to others as bright and clear thinkers... they are the folks over the Millenia who end civilizations, societies and cultures.
8
The strange pictures belie these folks' underlying need for fame and glory. Just like everyone else.
4
Dark web? I thought these ideas are constantly on Fox News and probably 70% of talk radio.
13
What a mess. I'm not an expert but am familiar with Shapiro and Peterson, and it's hard to see any link between them except that they are championed -- deliberately in the case of Shapiro and seemingly inadvertently in the case of Peterson -- by groups interested in feeding controversy on social media platforms. This article offers the social media warriors on both sides more chum to fight over, and little of substance for the rest of us. The photos are good for a laugh though.
5
I read this with interest. I really appreciate strong, critical, and intellectual conversation and respectful debate. Obviously it enriches us when we stretch our thinking to understand more of the intricacies of human experience. However, I can hardly call it intellectual, or even "thinking" to brandish about ideas that aren't grounded in any collective experience of reality. I can certainly agree that we on the progressive spectrum can be quick to criticize those who express ideas that at first glance sound like they fit an oppressive ideology. However, the assertion that this conversation of broad "free thinking" conversation among those in the IDW is simply intellectual inquiry and therefore harmless is really disingenuous. We know from history that the ideas we humans hold in our heads inform our values, which in turn inform our behaviors and actions. I believe that just amounts to a lack of willingness to be responsible for the implications of one's ideas in the real world. (Of course according to the conspiracy theorists, there is no collectively agreed upon real world, so there you have it.)
5
Not every thought that comes into one's head is valid, and not every valid thought should be shared.
7
I guess we need the "IDW" in the same way we need the Flat Earth Society. One difficulty is that the "IDW" seems to get a lot more attention. Another difficulty is that when a group like the "IDW" talks utter nonsense, it's a lot harder to demonstrate that what they are saying is nonsense.
9
Joe Rogan has the second most popular podcast in the entire world. Literally no one is silencing him.
8
Joe Rogan says people are hungry for controversial ideas as though there are none being presented. Trump's whole campaign was a controversial idea. Repeal Roe v Wade, build a goddamned wall, bring back coal jobs, defund the entire federal gov't, repeal every restriction on business and industry. Two rich white college professors lost their gigs and think free speech is being crushed? No, you used your free speech, which I agree with and applaud, and you pissed off your boss and got fired. If free speech were really that important, you'd happily sacrifice your soft profitable jobs. This article sounds like the whining of intellectuals who want to be more important than they are.
8
The issue I have with these so-called "intellectuals" is how much they are transparently self-serving. They like to discuss how we need to examine how white people may have a higher IQ (a result they think will be flattering to them, as they are largely white males and historically have done well on those tests) but they don't discuss whether we need to examine the science on whether white men are particularly prone to committing genocide (a result that might not be as flattering to their group.) Their intellectual freedom is a thin veneer for digging for the results that will flatter them the most.
In the marketplace of ideas, I think we all need to be ready for a measure of discomfort. But when you are a white male digging for ideas that are flattering to you personally, you are not seeking discomfort but doing everything you can to make yourself feel comfortable. The people I admire, intellectually, are those willing to expand and grow, especially embracing ideas that may not be so flattering to themselves. Humility is the mark of great thinkers. This group is anything but humble.
11
Agreed. And very well stated.
1
One thing that we have all suffered from, and the rise of Trump is a symptom of, is everything turned up to 11. You are either with "us" or you are "them". We have 2 sides supposedly from this environment: oppressive whiny SJWs or sexist racists. Who is going to listen to anyone to make an objective decision based on the facts and cases brought when you are hearing the argument from either one of those extremes?
Or worse, and mostly the case, you are hearing from someone that is neither one of those but is tossed into one of those binary categories due to them mentioning very reasonable middle ground points.
The only way to make your case is to save the hyperbole for only the most extreme people. Marking everyone as extremists and talking like them is not going to convince anyone to think differently. After all, they don't want to be labeled as one of "them"
2
It seems to me that any group that unquestioningly and uncritically accepts comments by wackos like Alex Jones has just demonstrated that it has no regard for anything that means anything.
You can't stand by and say nothing while people blatantly lie (or just make it up off the tops of their heads) and expect to be taken seriously. Fiction is fiction, and if presented and labeled as reality, somebody has a serious problem. That somebody is not me.
The old adage that you are known by the company you keep applies here.
Should we be listening? You can decide for yourself. Me? I won't be wasting my time on this group. As a scientific experimentalist in a prior career, I am not prepared to accept as true information that runs counter to what can be observed.
9
Aside from Sam Harris this group of "new" intellectuals aren't saying much, and Harris is largely uninteresting imo. Read/watch interviews with Zizek or David Harvey and realize we're all missing the conversation that surrounds all the flash points in vogue rn...that capitalism ha 's run out of pivots, excuses, and is now bare to the world as the ultimate driver of economic inequality and environmental degradation.
These "intellectuals" may say something worth while from time to time but don't address the fundamental question of how to build a better world without the logic and government capture of capital.
3
I listen to/have listened to a lot of these people. While I often disagree with them, and even find myself infuriated sometimes, these are different conversations than you find elsewhere in the mainstream media, and I include mainstream social media in that. I find it refreshing to listen to these conversations. They tend to be very long and detailed. No one-off soundbites with this crowd.
It is good to think. Use your brain. Neither side of our political divide is infallible. Questioning your own tribe is a good thing.
9
In times like this, it is important to remember there have always been times like this from the beginning of recorded history.
1
Please! To include people like non-reader Kanye West or Joe Rogan illustrates the underlying commerciality of this so-called IDW endeavor. Rogan, for example, simply panders to whichever guest he has on mic at the time. When he hosts people like Alex Jones, Rogan yuks it up whenever Jones offers up more conspiracy statements instead of truly challenging him. Rogan and others who aid the spread of hate-filled, non-scientific-based rhetoric, such as that which Jones spews, aren't intellectuals at all. They are opportunists who have sold any semblance of righteousness or intellect for celebrity and money.
9
The closest I ever came to having a nominal "political identity" was my experience with the original Star Trek series in the late 1960's. That was when I realized I am an alien hybrid because I'd long understood that most of you Earth people become absurd about the age of 5 or 6 and start believing you have to choose up sides and speak a language of hostility to get candy. I remain privately comfortable as an alien because I know how to hide in plain sight which provides range for the insulating sense of humor that makes me partially human.
I read this article for clarification of unfamiliar names and terms I've encountered in browsing the web. But despite its prolonged tedium, it only gets close to the obvious in its final paragraph:
“Some say the I.D.W. is dangerous,” Ms. Heying said. “But the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.”
Not to worry; from an alien perspective, the only real threat is the human propensity for taking oneself very seriously. Fortunately, it usually wears too thin to stand the strain and yields to the relief found in a private chuckle.
3
As George Orwell said, “There are some ideas so absurd that only an intellectual could believe them.”
3
People need to talk in a civil fashion, no matter the subject. The best way to change minds is with evidence and civility.
8
But propaganda and lies work faster than any evidence or civility.
3
Calling this the "Intellectual Dark Web" is like calling Reno the "Intellectual Las Vegas". These people are just self-promoters aspiring to be provocative at a time when provocative is mistaken for brave. They're making money at it. That's the only point.
13
“Some say the I.D.W. is dangerous,” Ms. Heying said. “But the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.”
That may be true, if you can establish (1) that members of the group truly ARE intellectuals and (2) that "discoveries" based solely on intellect ARE more informed and represent "truth" more closely than do "discoveries" based on intellect combined with areas including, but not limited to, those we classify as morals, ethics, philosophy, artistry, and spirituality, or those made through a combination of intellect and human capacities including, but not limited to, compassion, empathy, selflessness, generosity, even-handedness, and kindness.
Barring an established basis involving these, then yes, I may indeed be scared of what self-professed "intellectuals" might "discover" since we all seem to "discover" that which we seek, whether or not reality supports either our "discoveries" or our claims to intellectualism.
7
It is incredible that there are so many freaked out posters here who have trouble understanding the notion of intellectuals from all sides of the spectrum debating and trying to convince their opponents that they are correct on an issue.
13
Is expertise not clearly delineated among most professions? I think that is where many are having the problem with putting IDW on the same standing as Professor X of University Y with 1000 other equally qualified experts arguing with them. That really filters out the loonies and crackpots who just want their name jotted in the annals of history. Some Biologist claiming expertise in sociology and then being challenged others without that expertise - uhhhhmmmmm. Sorry no.
You see the problem here - it's playground like atmosphere when in fact there are serious barriers to entry to really understand what is being said. I know enough to know I know nothing about most subjects. Not sure IDW enthusiasts do.
3
Seems like these people have realized what Irving Kristol figured out a long time ago, when he invented 'neoconservatism':
There's good money to be made as a 'contrarian', if you can can find the right broadcast medium.
Alex Jones and Milo Whosis have expanded the trade into appealing to baser human instincts.
They make a nice dollar at it, too.
Donald Trump proved it can be scaled up to a national audience, and 'intellectual' is not part of the program.
It all comes down to the tagline of Robert Redford's movie about the question-fixing scandal on the TV show 'Sixty-four Thousand Dollar Question'. When cornered at a congressional hearing the producer of the show acted surprised at all the fuss: "It's just entertainment", he said.
11
I am so grateful to these men and women for what they are doing to keep our intellectual environment healthy. Although I would sometimes wish for Sam Harris to exhibit more empathy--without, of course, giving up intellectual rigor (Bret Weinstein is a master at this); and although I wish Joe Rogan were either more articulate or more taciturn; and although sometimes the IDW's determination not to miss good ideas on the right causes them to overlook good ideas on the left, what they are doing is urgent and essential. Whether every one of their discussions gets to truth is not important. What is important is that they are maintaining a culture where truth can thrive.
9
After reading this article i almost think i would rather listen to the sounds coming from chimps and gorillas. No pretensions there.
It was our species that elected Trump. Our DNA.
Speaking of sounds i am now listening to the spring peepers who are singing their song in my back yard. Underneath these peepers and surrounding them is gooey mud filled with unseen life and slime and algae. I consider this to be a holy symphony because from this primitive life animals and humans evolved. Some people would consider this to be wrong, others would say I'm on the right track. It matter not. It brings me peace and joy. For the most part, i don't need other people telling me how to think including I.D.W. Yes, i have read Harris, and Hitchens. At least Harris has a sense of humor. However, tonight i will pray to whomever it may concern or maybe to the Intelligence who provided the means for all of this to exist, to bless us all and give us more wisdom and to steer us away from nuclear war.
4
But it would seem to me that the purpose of the I.D.W is to promote an environment where you aren't told how to think, not the opposite.
4
Yes, but this article struck me as a babble of voices, and frankly some of these people sound like a rooster crowing thinking that his crowing is bringing forth the sun. Who really knows anything of ultimate purpose? Who? At least Einstein did not claim to know everything about the Universe.
1
Capitalism is the universal religion of the world now.
The 2,208 known billionaires in the world have attained high priest status. Multinational corporations are the temples of worship.
Data capture is the foundation of the new heavens and new earth. Marketing is the Holy Spirit moving through the high priests declaring the will of the money Gods.
The high priests are convinced that eternal life is attainable through advanced technologies and that we may exhaust this planet's resources before attaining immortality. They also view most other life forms as inferior in importance and their continued allowed existence as a benevolence bestowed (until their usefulness and value are deemed expendable).
The world is full of individuals seeking to enter the high priesthood. The world is also full of individuals happy to support the existing systems because of the financial benefits provided for their assistance in maintaining the status quo. These people are called winners.
Granted, equating our economic systems and their adherents to a traditional religious structure can be seen as mere hyperbole. But, I think I'm not far off.
The challenge for the thinkers is that the world is controlled by the doers. The doers tend to be controlled by what's in it for them. The doers have co-opted the traditional political parties, branches of government, media outlets, etc. to propagate their vision(s) for what human existence should be about. More winning.
7
The danger here is using mass-released video for dissecting and debating complicated issues (or at least attempting that). It's too easy to forget the warnings of Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Example: In the 19th century a large percentage of our population did read and did understand the thousands of words (in long sentences) spoken during Lincoln-Douglass debates. Now, regarding complex issues, we have millions scooping up a couple of words from a video clip and running with that. Murray's work is a prime example: cross-disciplinary conclusion-drawing between biology (hard science) and social science (soft science) can be provocative, but it's fraught with logical liabilities; plus there have been for decades excellent theories and data even to say that IQ tests have little to do with measuring intelligence (see the extensive and respected work of Sternberg and Gardner on intelligence), yet none of that context is available when there's a spoken reference in a video to Charles Murray's work that tries to connect genetics to IQ.
Not saying we shouldn't have intellectual debate on video, but if w don't find a way to address Postman's concerns, we're doomed.
10
Unspeakableness is a powerful discursive tool. It equates to moral censorship. There is a seemingly self-evident aspect to it. A Neo-Nazi spouting hate. The KKK perchance. The problem is when unspeakableness is weaponized to the point where anyone you diaagree with gets "fnorded" with a bunch of disqualifiers instead of having their arguments rebutted on their own merits. If people you disagree with are so terrible you should be able to trounce their arguments, rather than the fact that they are espousing them.
7
It is a sign of how far the NYT has veered left that most of these ideas may be labelled 'heresy' (telling choice of term!) and supposedly outside the 'mainstream' conversation.
F. Scott Fitzgerald said the test of a mature mind is to be able to hold two opposing ideas and still function. I propose - just for example - that those who identify themselves as 'transsexual' should enjoy all rights of a citizen and human, and also that so-called sex-change surgery doesn't actually change your sex, and that insisting on mutilating a healthy body to create a simulacrum of the opposite sex is a form of Body Dysmorphic Disorder. To some, this would be 'hate speech'. To me, it's at least worth discussing like grownups, using our 'indoor voices' and abstaining from namecalling. I could explain, but I'd be shrieked down as 'racist' (the all-purpose conversation-ending accusation - you can always find a way to drag race into it).
It saddens me that the left has become as intellectually sterile, shrill, truculent and closed-minded as the right. But the turn that 'debate' has taken in the past 50 years has led me to re-examine my commitment to the 'liberal-progressive' and see the light in which they are neither ... in which, in fact, their version of 'freedom' promotes conformity and advocates indoctrination and outright thought control. (No room to explore that here. That would be a separate, nuanced essay. I wonder if there is a place on this fabled IDW to write it?)
20
Is this IDW led largely by white, wealthy individuals? Who discuss "controversial" topics that lead to conclusions that only further their way of life?
Hmmmm......
18
Denigrating a group because of their skin color is so last century. What this group has in common is respect for free speech, respect for the marketplace of ideas, where concepts compete and are compared. Something which is critical for a functioning democracy. They are from all over the ideological spectrum. In case no one has told you, let me be the first. The new tribes are organized around ideas, not race and not religion. We should applaud this new development instead of insisting we remain stuck in the mire of dead ideas. Cheers!
9
Have you ever heard of an ad hominem argument? Here's a guess: no.
4
First, there is not really an I.D.W. No such organization or entity. And there is no shared ideology among the people mentioned in this article. If anything, they are known for their disagreements with each other. They are, perhaps, collectively, a function of the repressive, progressive illiberalism of the left. They are willing to have vigorous public debates and they are willing to explore ideas and lines of reasoning and science that are taboo in MSM and at Google. If the dominant culture had not become so repressive and conformist and censoring and party-line governed, then this "group" would not have emerged.
The other thing they have in common is an independent media practice. They create their own podcasts and lectures and often prefer interviews and conversation formats in which different ideas can be explored and tested. They are what intellectuals were before the intellectual repression and censoring of our time.
You should make up your own mind about them. Watch some of the interviews and conversations and lectures. They range from brilliant to not-worth-the-time. I have seen Peterson in top form, and that is well worth the time. I have also seen him exhausted and just incapable of sustaining his energy. The Cathy Newman interview is the gateway to Peterson.
I sure hope Bari Weiss keeps her job. One of the few windows still open at the NYT.
340
"...no one knows who put the website up."
CAA.
2
Question about the 'Day of Absence': was the purpose of it asked about? Or did the loony left say something like 'Just because'? If it was put forward as an experiment of sorts with one or more stated objectives, I might be willing to absent my pale face from the campus for a day. (I am in my early sixties). But I don't cotton to anyone telling me 'Do it and don't ask questions'--that's not a democracy. Nor do I wish to encourage anyone treating themselves like oh-so-delicate orchids. Another way in which we palefaces (at least where upper-class women are concerned) established something that may return to bite us in the rear.
2
"Question about the 'Day of Absence': was the purpose of it asked about?"
Here is an earlier piece by Weiss on that:
When the Left Turns on Its Own
By Bari Weiss
June 1, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-ow...
1
If the “dark web” is known mainly for its child pornography and illicit drug sales, then I guess “intellectual dark web” works ok to describe this group of whining charlatans.
9
This article is hilarious ... namely because it's entirely framed on the assumption that NY Times or the other "traditional" media outlets still have some kind of respectability and record of ethical/honest journalism. Neither of which is true ... by ANY stretch.
I don't love all these people but I do know that each of these people will deliver far more truthful and factual takes on any given topic than you'll ever get from NY Times, CNN, NBC, Washington Post, etc.
This article should be re-titled:
The Replacements for the Old, Lying Media.
3
Expressing views is great! But if you want a dialog you better be more articulate than calling someone a 'slave' for being a 'democrat'. By the same token, calling yourself an 'intellectual' is very likely the definition of 'sanctimonious'.
7
I already left one comment but here's one more point.
This predictable and boring essay depresses me for many reasons but the biggest is because it's in the Times. The Times should not be swallowing this stuff. There is nothing "heretical" or edgy or interesting about most of the people featured in this essay; they're just right-wingers with old, recycled ideas making a mint off of their claims of victimhood, even as they get huge megaphones handed to them daily by credulous audiences and journalists.
The Times should be better than this. We deserve better conservatives than Bari Weiss.
26
Ironic that this comment only reinforces the argument. You object them to because you disagree with them and yet you claim they are not heretical? You also say these ideas should just be shut down. Why? Because you say so.
Thank god somebody is standing up to the sterile orthodoxies, the endless internal contradictions, the flagrant refusals to acknowledge evidence that have swallowed the left whole. I have spent my whole life on the left, but it's pretty clear that, with views like yours now dominating it, I'm now--out.
8
Funny. You just proved this article's point and have no clue you did.
6
this sounds a lot like The Realist, an outre newsletter cheaply cobbled together on the Lower East Side by Paul Krasner in the 1960s... only with a much bigger audience and runnung on electricity instead of newsprint.
4
Weiss dismisses Abby Martin by calling her a "9/11 Truther", which is just as intellectually lazy and disingenuous as alt-right or leftist tribalism. Bin Laden denied responsibility for 9/11 several times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attack...
1
If Kanye West is considered a truth seeking "intellectual," dark, light, or anything else, by this agglomeration of thinkers intent on talking about ideas, your understanding of "thinking" is truly bizarre.
2
Very important and timely piece. As a middle aged liberal I've watched in horror as liberalism has been taken over by the ethnic and gender studies crowd. It brings back memories of how like minded people tried to take over science during 'the science wars' of the 90s. Back then they decided science wasn't an objective pursuit of reality, but instead was a construct of the white patriarchy, and therefore amenable to their 'remedies'. A physicist named Alan Sokal wrote a paper that was gibberish from front to back, but it used the popular buzzwords and cited the right people. As a test of their intellectual standards, he sent it in to one of their leading journals to see what would happen. And they published it! They literally couldn't differentiate between gibberish and real research. It plainly exposed them as idiots masquerading as intellectuals. Who will be the Sokal of today? Maybe one of these dark web people. We can only hope...
11
"Civil" is hardly what I'd call the output of Shapiro, Peterson, and Harris, among others.
Yet again, I'm given reason to question the Times' relevance & judgement.
5
Can anyone join this club?
Do you first have to be photographed in an evocative pose amidst schubbery or does that come after admission?
Mr. Harris first saw the "light" after a dose of ecstasy; is that a prerequisite for becoming a member of the dark web?
Where have I heard this pretentious drivel before? The 1960s?
9
Why is the website link blocked as a possible phishing site? Any significance as a response to the opinion?
1
The "dark web". Really.
There is no such thing. Using this term in this context just makes the entire article completely laughable. And the author is... someone who knows nothing about IT.
Also the mainstream conversation? What conversation is there? There is only one opinion that you are allowed to voice. There is no dialogue, there is only monologue from the Clintons, Merkels, Macrons and Kerrys of the world and their brain dead supporters.
3
A major ideological flaw of the I.D.W seems to be that they are willing to let any one individual voice speak, on the grounds that all voices are valid. Yet many of them, including Mr. Harris, don't give that same benefit-of-the-doubt to cultures, institutions, or groups in general. There is a bias towards individualistic thinking but collectivist thinking is almost laughed away as "the blinded, mainstream."
It frankly reeks of the same elitism many in the I.D.W lampoon the "Left" for having.
Any intellectual movement is doomed if it can't agree on a fundamental set of principles and values. Groups are like any other organism, which requires an immune system to protect against virulent and harmful agents. Instead of pathogens though, social groups deal with ideas and memes.
If people like Mr. Harris think it's so obvious that some cultures are more conducive to human flourishing than others, why can't he admit the same is true for the individual ethos?
106
...and yet, isn't that exactly where the tension in critical thinking, logic and rhetoric... aka "free thought" is?
Your comment is essentially saying "their ideological flaw" is that they are not operating from within a "properly vetted cage".
Kind of ironic, really.
The real issue may be how people intellectually define "freedom".
"Animal Farm" and "1984", so far as their obviously applicable zeitgeist, to modern society... are not separate stories. They are the same story told with different perspectives on their primary point... what is applicable to modern societies.
1984 is about totalitarian government. Animal Farm is about totalitarian society and people... where people are open minded and everyone is equal... "...but some people are more equal than others."
Amazing how many fairly nice well educated folks are intellectual despots and social totalitarianism adherents.
53
This dishonest description of these Heterodox intellectuals is exactly the reason the IDW exists. Every single one is capable of conversing with mainstream thinkers and has done so many with frequency on twitter, youtube and their own platforms. To accuse Harris of being close minded is mind bogglingly inaccurate. He's had people from all over the ideological spectrum on his show and they challenge him all the time. What is that if not an openess to discuss "Individual Ethos"?
"Any intellectual movement is doomed if it can't agree on a fundamental set of principles and values." Wrong. This is the lD pol orthodoxy that has strangled free speech in America. Leaving your tribe and questioning your own beliefs and listening to others, agreeing to disagree, these are the foundations of civil discourse that were once part of American life. These intellectual you malign are having the most civil and long form discussions and they have sparked the renewal of Buckley's Firing Line on PBS. The broadcast news soundbite culture has boxed everyone into ideological units and permits no nuance to emerge. Bari Weis was demonized and the NTY was boycotted because they simply hired 4 intellectually diverse writers. The heterodoxy of IDW is antidote to tribalism. You have this whole movement backwards.
89
So many strawmen here. I'll address the most important one. This is not an organized group of intellectuals who have some common ideological goals.
The only thing common is they have a larger capacity to think for themselves and express those thoughts publicly. They have blind spots and cognitive biases like all of us do. They're not always rational and rigorous in their thinking and worldview. But I admire that they're not afraid to speak their mind.
That's not elitism. That's how the society progresses and human conditions improve.
57
It'd be slightly easier for the IDW to gain credibility if they took more aim at conservatism's idiosyncrasies and malformed thinking. It may be that they believe that the left and the left-leaning media already hit those targets early and often, but the right, especially the religious right, is probably due as much criticism as the doctrinaire left.
Surprisingly, there's already a version of the IDW called "Secular Right" -- conservatives critiquing religious seepage into conservatism -- that's doing this, although not without the IDW's apparent popularity and moxie.
Where the IDW could really gain traction is unleashing some of their iconoclasm on capitalist economics. Double standards on mostly social issues -- gender, sexuality, Islam -- seem easy to find and kind of cheap and easy to criticize. Critiquing contemporary capitalism without coming off as a socialist or libertarian ideologue isn't easy, and I will award bonus points if it can be done in a way that gives even professional economists pause.
6
The malformed thinking of the socialist/communist regimes of the 20th century led to over 100 million people being slaughtered. What conservative thought created consequences like that? Laughable gibberish
2
Really? We're giving a platform to more EdgeLords who think their unique brand of quirky "controversy" qualifies them as a minority/oppressed group? The constant victim complex they perpetuate because people exercise their right to not buy in is obnoxious, at best. People don't have to listen to their woe-is-me politics or give them a venue. Cry me a river, kids. For a group that loves to push the snowflake narrative, they get awfully whiny that many don't like them. You're not a hero because you're contrarian and willing to publicly fly a Confederate flag. Give us all a break.
14
good article, thanks for it.
the pendulum is swinging a little too far on intellectual discourse, and I feel that the IDW is a response to that.
this reminds me of a recent SNL skit where no one felt comfortable talking about ANYTHING controversial - which led to no conversation at all.
however, this final statement is a tough one:
I can’t be alone in hoping the I.D.W. finds a way to eschew the cranks, grifters and bigots and sticks to the truth-seeking.
as those cranks, grifters and bigots think what they spout is indeed the truth... and for the record, I absolutely disagree with those cranks, grifters and bigots, especially Jones (I'm not familiar with the others)
4
Thanks Bari. You always have smart and interesting columns.
I do think we have gone too far tippy-toeing around a lot of issues where people have strong opinions -- sexual preferences, abortion, male/female, black/white, liberal/conservative. Protesters at colleges -- since when is it o.k. to scream, shout and be violent just because you don't agree with someone -- or not to allow them to speak at all. Can't we stand to listen to someone we don't agree with -- or just not show up?
Someone used the word consensus -- you reach an understanding an agreement after arguing your case. I had a philosophy teacher who was constantly telling me to argue the other side (the one I didn't agree with). I was pretty stupid, so I didn't want to go there. But, now I get it. Someone said critical thinking. We do need to be able to think. Like exercise for the body, we need it for the mind too.
An open dialogue is worth the really dumb stuff you invariably are going to hear along with the really good stuff.
15
I question the value in the opposing opinion. It is not always worthy of consideration. A simple reality rejected by those apparently oblivious to human history is this: people will not always agree.
That is not a challenge. It is a fact. I am very liberal but I seek consensus. Unfortunately, I am not willing to negotiate on human rights. I am similarly unwilling to embrace any role for someone else's religion in my life, and how politely they ask will have no persuasive power over me.
There is plenty of room for debate on many subjects. There is no room at the table for the ideologies masquerading as "conversations" in these circles. These bigots lost their seat at the adults' table long ago. To invite them back with their notions of racial supremacy and their desire for theocracy is a bridge or twenty too far.
At what point do we stop appeasing this regressive movement and call it by its name? The internet has spawned an echo chamber of trolls as warped by hatred and prejudice as any group in history. They are organized, and they are dangerous. Ambivalence about their cause can only be attributed to ignorance of their true nature--which they will loudly advertise if you listen.
We do not owe them a seat at the table. We do not owe them soft language. We do not owe them acceptance. It is time for liberals to recognize that these are bad people with bad ideas. They cannot be saved from themselves. And they should not be spared from our censure.
376
Andre - this response demonstrates complete ignorance concerning what these individuals stand for. Before calling them "racial supremacists" and "bigots", it is incredibly important that you do your research. I can not imagine labeling someone with a word as powerful as "bigot" without having listened to and read everything they have produced.
And unfortunately, given your comment, you most definitely have not done your homework - or at least any research that is proportionate to your attack on them.
This demonstration of intellectually lazy censorship is just what is wrong with our country - this is what is destroying our unity.
1
A perfect example of what Bari Weiss is pushing against. Anyone who disagrees with YOUR notion of human rights has notions of "racial supremacy" and is a "bad person with bad ideas".
Who made you the arbiter of what arguments are allowable and what aren't? There is breathtaking arrogance in this idea that you get to decide which topics are OK and which are verboten.
Sit back and listen to other people unlike you sometime, without immediate judgment and scorn. You may even - Gasp! - learn something new that you don't already know.
1
The author states he understands the appeal of these sophists, who wouldn't be popular on youtube if they didn't argue in bad faith (arguing in good faith is a poor way to "wreck liberals"). Let me state my own confusion.
Appreciating these people appears to require two simultaneous beliefs, which certainly appear contradictory to me: 1. Progressives have lost moral perspective. 2. Progressives have complete moral authority, to the point that they're so effective at causing shame, they can dominate all political conversations.
This is bizarre. Sometimes people are going to think you have reprehensible beliefs. They should absolutely be allowed to say so. Examples of actual, practical consequences are so rare and extreme, a single professor at an obscure, tiny college became a celebrity when it happened to him.
These people remind me of George Constanza, walking around proclaiming, "No, everyone has to like me!" The idea that someone, somewhere thinks you're (for instance) racist is so outrageous and abhorrent, they see it as constricting their rights.
The goal of the IDW fans is to have a world where no one's allowed to call them racist anymore. It's as simple as that. When people think this of them, it's so upsetting and unacceptable, they can't tell that they're not actually being bullied.
7
last paragraph of the article says:
Some say the I.D.W. is dangerous,” Ms. Heying said. “But the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.”
I'm not sure the motivation is really talking to each other and discovering things. Seems like they're motivated by attention and building their audience
4
I think of myself as a liberal. I despise Trump and his lackeys. I am optimistic for Democratic victories this year and in 2020. However, somehow I spend more time in fights with people on the left than on the right. The idea that we have to protect vulnerable students from controversial views is repugnant. The idea of a right to migration regardless of law simply does not fit a world order consisting of nation states. The idea that black protest and separatism were sufficient and are still sufficient to improve racial relations is an example of the logical problem of confusing the part with the whole. The idea that a woman is always to be believed flies in the face of life experience (isn't it actually demeaning of women to believe that they are incapable of treachery?). The idea that socialism (which has never worked, anywhere) should replace a regulated market economy is absurd. The idea that the United States has ruined the world through economic and military conquest ignores the fact that Pax Americana since World War II has led to the freest, most prosperous, healthiest, and most populous condition ever experienced in history. The irony, of course, is that the Trumpers are far more dangerous (they are unhinged from fact and logical argument) than my leftist friends with whom I argue. Sometimes I think I should just keep quiet when I disagree with a leftist - the better to focus on the real liars. It appears that these I. D. W. people have chosen not to keep quiet.
9
This article did nothing to dispel my view that all of the I.D.W.s are solipsistic self-marketers. Honestly, good for them if they can get their acolytes to pay for them spouting their views; however, I would never spend a cent to watch what I can see for free. All of them, including Mr. West, are blips in the world of buzz, to be replaced by another in a microsecond.
7
Intellectuals? Try glib blowhards who run a Gish Gallop against unwary debaters, or guests at the table of the intellectual feast that is Bill Maher's show.
They write books that are little more than printed versions of their blog postings or live appearances, and their live appearances are little more than rehashed greatest hits. It's like the National Review opened up a stage at Branson.
Clive James wrote of one such big brain "I believe in many of the same things, usually before they did, but whenever I see that we share a belief, I instantly re-evaluate it."
14
If this movement reveals anything, it reveals just how deeply unpopular progressivism is.
The first clue was the left's loss of more than 1,000 congressional and local seats during the Obama era. This was followed by the election of Trump. And now this - a cottage industry of people who literally get paid merely to point out the inanities of progressivism.
What more do progressives need to see in order to realize that a large number of Americans think they're crazy? Not being able to take the House and Senate in '18? Losing to Trump, again? If they haven't caught on yet, will they ever?
5
Well, whadya know? Turns out I'm a darkie. I was driven into early retirement from my community college teaching job because I refused to stop teaching Plato and Sophocles in my Humanities classes. The English composition course outline I wrote was scrapped because, among other leftie no-nos, it cited George Orwell as an exemplar ("no white males allowed in this syllabus" I was told. Well, is it any wonder that the humanities are dying when they have become the sandboxes of the strident left? I'm glad I'm out of there. I wouldn't go into that work today.
9
This is not the dark web. These are conversations openly expressed in places like Quillette and sold as "intellectual diversity" on college campuses.
2
Isn't everyone tired of this culture of victimhood yet? Seriously, no one is stopping you from saying anything. If you're not catching fire like you think you should it's probably because no one is interested your agenda. Get over yourselves!
10
Gosh, that was a lot of words to say something so inane your own colleague is making fun of you on Twitter. I wish I had your job.
3
The "IDW"? Renegades swimming against the "mainstream"?
It doesn't get much more "mainstream" than Ben Shapiro these days. Rubin's "mentor is Larry King." Shermer reflects on his 25 years of being on shows like Oprah.
Framing a broad group this way gives subtle credibility to the 'dark web' types who focus more on disinformation than intellectual debate. It's disappointing how much ink the NYT has contributed to their cause as of late.
5
Bari Weiss seems excited that American culture has fully transitioned to a point where "public intellectuals" is a category solely composed of professional trolls who whine when their opinions are challenged yet incessantly badger others to accept their opinions without challenge. I've followed Sam Harris for a loooooooong time, and I've been able to see that he is intellectually dishonest and a lazy thinker for at least a decade. That Ms. Weiss thinks he's a hero of free discourse is convincing evidence that her opinion on most any topic may be safely ignored as irrelevant and callow. The others in this would-be superhero club have been engaged in a circle of mutual self-promotion for some time, and to see the Times doing their marketing for them is a shame and a disgrace for the Times. But then, the Times hired Bari Weiss to give its readers supposedly necessary freethought medicine.
4
So many commentors are angry at the NYT for giving these public figures a "platform" with this article (especially the attractive photos!). Readers want the NYT to only publish propaganda they agree with. Because in this postmodern era, all media is propaganda.
7
Eric Weinstein's ludicrous tweet that sought educate incels on how to get laid with just a few easy steps smashed any credibility he could have with the "dark denizens" of the web. The truth is most of them are depressed, anti-social, extremely ugly, or just plain crazy.
3
My god, are you people ever going to get over your pity party?
I keep reading about how the big, bad liberals are running conservative voices - voices that don’t hew to “the narrative” - yet you guys are all over the Times, the Post, the Journal, and various magazines plying your lament. Do you get how absurd it is to cry censorship when virtually every mainstream publication in America publishes your silliness?
The irony is that conservatives love to go on about others’ sense of perpetual victimhood.
Your views are represented everywhere. You want a diversity of views? How about publishing socialist opinions? Or voices advocating for military drawdown and an end to American Empire? Or voices opposed to zionism? Pigs will fly before such opinions are published in mainstream American outlets.
Stop whining.
27
Ah yes, the poor censored "renegades" of the "intellectual dark web" who appear in, and receive fawning media coverage from, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post...
14
But who will be the gatekeeper? What criteria will be used to keep someone out? Use of SPLC can't be credible, as they have devolved into nothing but left-wing activists.
2
We live in a polarized society, currently in the convulsive midst of an historic transition away from national, racial, sexual and religious tribalism. While it is certainly true that some on the left are just as capable of going “too far” as those on the far right, we must also recognize that the left overall is currently leading the human race into this historically positive transition. Conversely, most aligned with social conservatism are fighting tooth and nail to reverse this hundred year march towards peace, equality and diversity. Just as there were supposed “intellectual” arguments made against civil rights legislation in the fifties and sixties, most of these “thinkers” only provide a basis for those who resist change to rally around. Even if they have a few points that may be worthy of discussion, now is not the time. Too much is at stake.
6
I think your comment succinctly summarizes how many are viewing this- we are on this progressive march toward a more unified global society, but have reached a rather perilous moment were the gains of the last several decades could be lost. Conservatives have been fighting this transition tooth and nail and I think it has taken a huge toll on both sides (there are really more than two sides). The damage it has done to the right is apparent (DJT is now their leader for christ's sake). The damage it has done on the left is a little more subtle, but potentially just as damaging. Both are, in my mind, a symptom of the intellectual decay in this and other countries. People lack the ability (or at least treated as if they lack the ability) to decipher truth were they see it. The source of information, has in many cases on the right and left, become more important than the substance. It is very easy to stir outrage in a sound byte culture that seizes on a few objectionable quotations without considering the broader context of what is being said, or the broader body of someone's work. We need to be cultivating a democratic character that is able to reflect on any given set of ideas and take the good- leave the bad. This is the opposite of tribal thinking. I am afraid that ostracizing 'thinker' who are deemed obstructions on our march will undermine the very philosophical underpinnings the march should be based on- non-duality, open, peaceful society,
1
Your fanciful, confused view of the world may work in certain parts of Chicago, SF and NYC, and some college campuses, but Moscow, Beijing and other centers of oppression would beg to differ. Your City's President always talked about the arc of the universe bending towards justice, but he left out the part where those who believe in justice have to actually do something about it. Which is why under his watch the Russians invaded the Ukraine and democracy slipped around the world. I hope someday your vision becomes true. Unfortunately, here in the 21st Century, and on this planet, we are a long way from mission accomplished.
2
Sorry, this article is an embarrassment. Why is somebody like Abby Martin, a legitimate left wing journalist, lumped in with not only this crowd of charlatans, but Alex Jones? Shapiro and Kirk have said that “Israeli settlements rock,” but they are treated as oppressed. Plus the photos are cheesy and horrible. Please stop!
6
Ugh, where to start! An actual intellectual would ask how the Taliban came to be the way they are, not proclaim them to be inferior human beings. What if a culture blinded every third child, an "intellectual" asks, hypothetically. How about this question: What happens when people in countries kill off their girl children to the extent that their gender demographics became lopsided? How does that relate to questions of which gender is inferior and superior? In short, what are the real life outcomes and consequences of these "conversations" about the inferiority and superiority of "cultures" and genders? We are already seeing them in live time, and they are horrific. NYT, you are better than this. One final thought: these "conversations" are not "civilized." If you call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot (Shapiro) or a slave (Ward), it's no wonder that people don't take you seriously.
11
Dumbest article I have ever seen the NYT publish.
Noam Chomsky is an intellectual. These people have found a way to profit by playing the very victim game they "claim" to think is so destructive to America.
Jordan Peterson has suggested that men and women can not work together because men can not control themselves. The solution for him is to not have women work at all, or at least in their own workplaces.
This is not an intellectual idea. It's the kind of thinking that is the beginning of the road to a white male christian fascism.
13
"But whether or not one approves of the superstar’s newest intellectual bauble, it is hard to deny that he [Kanye West] has consistently been three steps ahead of the zeitgeist."
It's not hard for me at all. Your statement is close to what used to be called "begging the question," back before journalists, young people, politicians, etc., started using the phrase to mean "prompting the question" or "leading one to raise the question," back when "begging the question" meant circular reasoning. In this case you base your assertion that one can barely deny that Kanye has consistently been "three steps ahead of the zeitgeist (why not one? why not ten?), seeming to insist that there has been and is, in fact, a zeitgeist.
Pray, Ms. Weiss, just what is the current zeitgeist? What was it last year, or ten years ago? After years of using the word myself, I have come to believe that is best used by historians discussing the deep past and even then only if the historians acknowledge that there are always conflicting spirits of an age at any moment of any age. With that in mind, perhaps it is best that even historians don't use it, lest they paint a false picture of the past.
But maybe you are right. Maybe Mr. West's unhinged rantings and ravings over the years do signify the true spirit of our unhinged age, and we should all just hop three steps right over the cliff with him and the intellectuals of the dark web. Pardon me if I stand still.
3
The folks profiled here are to be congratulated; to turn spouting schoolyard taunts into lucrative careers is an impressive achievement.
How nourishing for the ego it must be to imagine oneself the brave solitary truth-teller, lighting a path through the enormous cave whose walls are covered with lists of "THINGS YOU MUST NOT SAY".
Almost as potent a fantasy as that of the blacklist of Hollywood conservatives.
10
This seems like an opportune moment to reminisce about Christopher Hitchens, who was arguably one of the founding fathers of the 'Intellectual Dark Web'. He was an unrivaled orator who was never afraid to confront the dogmatic and theocratic, with style and wit no less.
I recently read his memoir and it was evident that at stages in his life he was right about certain things and wrong about other things. The takeaway point, though, is that he was always willing to debate about it and change his mind if that's what it took. This appears to me to be a core pillar upon which the I.D.W depends (or at least Sam Harris, with whom I am most familiar).
Needless, to say, intellectual honesty is of utmost importance moving forward and I think that certain members of the I.D.W are doing a good job of ensuring that it is upheld.
11
The IDW seems like a group of pseudo-intellectuals; applying their highly specialized crafts to complex systems they have very little if any expertise. A mathematician works in ideals with abstract constraints; a perfect world. However, throw in more than 3 variables and you can have Chaos, that is losing your ability to make predictions based on what you previously knew. The mathematician can describe the dynamics of the situation, but can't predict behaviors in all but the most simplistic of situations. The only way the mathematician can predict a complex system forever is to control it; effectively reducing the complex system to something simple. That simple reduction only applies to a specific tiny part of the complex system. Which is why a mathematician practicing as a sociologist is shocked to hear that a culture may employ a behavior which appears externally abhorrent to an external culture but the removal of such behavior may have a worse outcome for the culture. Hence while a trained sociologist would have seen a more holistic view of the social practices, the mathematician can only see the tiny little solution they are controlling or thinking about.
On the intellectual merits, the message is so naive it's not even worth my time to engage. I'll stick with peer-reviewed scientific studies, regardless of what politics says it pays much better to use proven repeatable facts. Unless of course, your getting money for nothing and gigs for free.
11
Your reply is a big load of contradiction. You ignore a broad scope of intellectuals advocating a public forum and stick to peer-reviewed scientific studies... in order to avoid specialization.
1
"... a mathematician practicing as a sociologist ..."
Unless you have a specific "mathematician" in mind, you are creating a straw man.
1
Cue all the comments from the "privilege" brigade that will prove their point.
7
If your comment is not proof of belittling opposing opinions, I don't know what it is. Have you conducted a census? Do you know for a fact the people disagreeing with the article are privileged? Does "privilege" include everyone that shares education and/or money, or just those on the Left?
2
"talk constantly about the regressive left but far less about the threat from the right."
Far less is a bit of an understatement and indicative of this entire article. These "thinkers" never confront conservative ideology. These people pretend that college students and their pejorative "social justice warriors" are the real threat, when an unhinged Trump and an enabling Republican Congress dismantle the social safety net. Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens aren't intellectuals exploring the boundaries of right wing thought, they're propagandists looking to outrage. Christine Hoff Sommers is not by any stretch of the imagination a feminist. And every time they are confronted by their veiled support of outlandish racial/gender theories they cry "censorship!" Do they ever debate respected left wing thinkers? Or in any way respond to legitimate critics or are they just living in their own bubble?
13
so many voices, and with so little time...
to whom shall i lend my wandering ear
to the ones that hypnotize with rhetoric
or to whispers from the darkness i fear
5
“People are starved for controversial opinions,”
Yes. But women and men have fundamental biological differences? It says biological.
Free speech is under siege? When I look at a YouTube video owned by a foreign government, Youtube finds it necessary to tell me I must be aware it is made and supported by a foreign gov; Are Russia and USA at war and hence we can't watch the video?
Identity politics does truly, by definition, separate people.
Harris can convince you in a short time that we do not have free will! We don't.
So What are you talking about?
3
If you haven't figured this out yet, these people are all saying EXACTLY what is said on conservative news & opinion sites like National Review and several others.
Those reading here whose progressive commissars have banned them from such thinking have a way to break into the other world outside the Left Fringe.
Start at RealClearPolitics for thinkers on both sides of the divide. Then try other non-whacked-out news spot like Bretibart where at least the news articles are brief and you'll only have to hold your breath momentarily.
2
RealClearPolitics is an interesting experiment in trying to create a centrist and eclectic news outlet. I don't know if they have the resources to do it well, and I haven't yet made my mind up about the format.
2
Kevin says, " It's not persecution when people no longer let you say whatever you want unchallenged, in fact, it's an expansion of the free speech rights they so love until people who disagree with them chose to exercise their rights as well. "
Does that apply to Colin Kaepernick and the kneelers as well Kevin? Need to be consistent here. Many on the left cried 1st amendment violation when he could not be hired by any team.
3
Jordan Peterson, is great at one thing, and its not writing books. Hes great at making a certain mindset think they are morally and intellectually superior, by him making them think they agree wholeheartedly with his very basic philosophy 101 statement.
If you like fortune cookie standard ultra basic philosophy fleshed out in to a waste of paper, Please give him ALL your money, he has a patreon set up.
4
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but the "IDW" seems more like a business model than an intellectual movement.
The members shovel faux-intellectual junk food at the alt-right-curious and/or adjacent in exchange for donations, celebrity connections and air time. It's mercenary babbling. Resentful sophistry for hire.
Otherwise, where's the thread? These people are all on the outs with their respective tribes because they managed to gussy up some petty resentfulness and racial bias with rhetoric about classical liberalism. What are their ideas? That some social/religious groups or genders are jerks? That's deep.
Joe Rogan's podcast is typical. He'll have whoever on, to say whatever, because why not? People totally want to hear whatever, man. Or, at least the paying customers do.
7
"Resentful sophistry for hire" is at the heart of the matter. If the so-called IDW "thinkers" couldn't monetize their skills in provoking base instincts, how long would they keep doing it?
3
I have no idea what this article is about. Here are some people who have sometimes controversial views that sometimes other people argue against.
Um . . . OK.
4
What I want to know is what all these thinkers are doing to help their fellow human beings. Their discussions among themselves don't mean much if they are not helping others.
5
I think they believe that fighting for free speech, resisting censorship and maintaining diversity of discourse counts as helping human beings.
4
Great to see the NYT finally recognize this community. I have one primary concern, which is that it would be misguided to lump intellectual giants like Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein and Jordan Peterson, as well as moral and idea leaders like Majid Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali with people like Dave Rubin and Joe Rogan - the latter two being essentially very accomplished YouTubers with massive and possibly important platforms, but by no stretch intellectuals or idea leaders in their own rights. And certainly do not manufacture some similarity with people like Candice Owen just because they too seem to deviate from predictable political axes and might on occasion cross paths. Otherwise not only in a completely different league - but not even playing the same game.
(Disclaimer - while I very much enjoy thinkers mentioned above, that is not to say that I agree with them on all issues.)
11
This is not new. I was introduced to this line of thought in 1987 by Alan Bloom's ‘The Closing of the American Mind', which described eloquently the origins of the ‘politically correct’ anti-intellectual culture which has now reached critical mass at Evergreen, Berkeley, and really, throughout the EU, UK, US, and Canada.
What is astonishing is that so many are now willing to stand up and say ‘the Emperor has no clothes’, even at the risk of losing jobs and friends. Young acquaintances of mine tell me that all their friends have been so indoctrinated at university, and have conflated their identities with their politics so tightly, that it is absolutely impossible to discuss philosophy, culture, or politics.
But rather than allow their minds and mouths to be closed in the way Bloom describes, they are slowly, carefully, seeking out other iconoclasts, educating themselves, and carrying on the conversation. There is still hope.
9
I myself first heard about some of these podcasts and interviews from students and 20-somethings who graze broadly. They recommended them to me.
2
To me, the characterisation of these individuals is a bit overblown. I'm sure they have interesting things to say, and I am sorry that Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying were forced to leave their faculty positions, but I doubt that they would have received the readership and publicity they are now getting were they to have remained academics - people love controversy and conspiracy theories and iconoclasts, and this kind of notoriety fits right in with the intellectual laziness of the digital age. So I'm happy to hear what they have to say, but less convinced that they (or Ms Weiss) are really saying new and interesting things.
3
Great article! Refreshing stuff from the New York Times!
7
The “intellectual dark web” sounds more like a compendium of malcontents (impossible without the internet) than an “alliance.” Weiss’s imagination is running away with her. Should we be listening? Depends on who’s talking. Maybe not if it’s Weiss.
2
This article moves people away from calling them Alt right though. There’s a lot of good that’ll come of it, I think.
2
I’ve seen ‘this’ first hand.
It’s hard to explain to people what ‘this’ is some times — but there’s a malaise about research topics at my university that wasn’t there before. My degree is in an education subfield, and even on the Hard Quantative side where it’s all based on statistics the range of acceptable topics has shrunk.
I don’t know that I could articulate why this is. Only that it’s real, and if you’re not worried about what this means for you; you should be.
9
The shrinking of available subjects can be caused because our knowledge has expanded, so we don't have to invent the wheel again and again. If we already know that blacks perform worse in school because of sociology economic factors, and NOT biological ones, should we fund someone racist hobby if they wanna prove an already discarded speculation? Nope, it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Fascinating article indeed, and trying to always classify myself, I
as ambivalent & confused as ever.
I recall a graduate student in education psychology who insisted that males and females aren't different in physical
strength.
I wanted to argue , but perceived it would be too ... something, so I merely raised my hand, and asked
do you really hold this extreme view, a reducto ad absurdum at least imho.
Good article, and I will pursue it as much as I can stand.
I must admire non-conformity, because quite a few kooks
eventually proved not so d ridiculous, including Simmelweiss (sp?) & perhaps Louis Pasteur.
Furthermore, anomalies are ... the ultimate issues, aren't they?
3
"I wanted to argue [about an assertion], but perceived it would be too ... something, so I merely raised my hand, and asked do you really hold this extreme view, a reducto ad absurdum at least imho."
You "argued" when you called the other person's "view" "extreme".
Instead, you could have asked the other person for *evidence*. In particular, you could have asked how "physical strength" was measured, how many "males and females" were in the study, how they were selected, etc.
1
Education school ideology and human resource departments (and expanding bureaucracies in general) are frequent targets of criticism by some in this group. You might find them interesting.
1
Seems an entirely sensible reaction to a terrible situation. Censorship or personal destruction by twitter mob has become an acceptable position for a lot of people. The other day my wife, a Hillary liberal and lifelong feminist (who doesn't scare easy) said, "I'm upset by what happened to Al Frankin, but I could never say that. I'm too scared I might lose my job or worse."
The left was long overdue their McCarthy moment, but this current climate goes way beyond McCarthyism. Bravo to the heroes of the IDW.
9
Good to know that there is a place for people with different opinions to express them. The politics of division and hate have made mainstream social media toxic.
6
My knowledge of these 'renegades' is limited to Peterson and Rogan, and is mixed: huge audiences, some intriguing ideas, but muddied with near-racist, homophobic, sexist, and other less-than-admirable views. And that's not coming from a "liberal" or other left-wing thinker -- just someone put off by twisted thinking masked by (in Peterson's case) some multisyllabic and elaborate verbiage. In Rogan's case, his kind of charismatic bluntness can be captivating, but I'd rather listen to the Dalai Lama for my moments of wisdom.
In other words, I'll check out the other folks noted, but I'm still convinced our trumpist era today remains in short supply of truly gifted philosophers, profound thinkers, and those more interested in deep, original thinking than building up followers, viewers, and more tribe members.
6
If you could give clear examples of "near-racist," homophobic or sexist views promoted by Peterson, would you share them? I've listened and read carefully, and I haven't found that. If you mean by "sexist" that he believes in evolutionary psychology as a science and that there are biological differences between men and women, then OK. I don't think that's sexist (though it is the Google/Pichai view), but at least then I can understand what you're trying to say.
4
When you write, "[Harris] has defended the work of the social scientist Charles Murray, who argues that genetic differences may explain differences in average IQ across racial groups — while insisting that this does not make one group inferior to another," do you mean to suggest that such an "insistence" is enough to make Harris's defense safe, valid?
I don't know enough about Mr. Murray's work to comment on it. But I do know we must insist that certain assumptions about race, already proven false by the evidence-based work that Mr. Harris himself touts, need not surface again in any conversation. What for? To cut Mr. Murray some slack?
5
I believe that the Intellectual Dark Web as a movement is the most important thing to happen to the left in a long time. Its hallmarks of intellectual honesty, curiosity, and openness are of utmost importance in this time of dishonesty and tribalism. People like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Joe Rogan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ben Shapiro, Douglas Murray, Eric Weinstein and others are doing the hard work of having difficult conversations with people that hold different (sometimes vastly different) opinions and we, as a people and as a nation, are better off for it. The problem with this article is that you are lumping Mike Cernovich, Candace Owens, and that carnival barker Alex Jones in with the IDW and they have absolutely nothing in common with these true modern intellectuals. They have much more in common with the failed comic Milo Yiannopolis in that they are ideological provocateurs that have an agenda with no intellectual underpinnings.
8
Thank you, Bari for participating in the mature, respectful discussion this AM on "Morning Joe". It was so nice to see everyone model exactly how to debate an issue, without assigning improper motives to those on the other side.
Cries of "You're a racist!" or "You're a socialist!" don't solve our problems. At best, they divert the discussion away from whatever issue is at hand, and toward personalities ("No, I'm not..." "Yes, you are..." At worst, they abruptly slam the conversation to a halt, and no common understanding or solution can be found.
I just experienced this yesterday, in debate about Jordan Peterson. I think he is intellectually dishonest, but wanted to challenge my thinking, given his current cultural importance. I was debating a Jordan fan, who was making some good points, and I was more and more open to changing my mind.
Out of the blue, I was told "You're only saying that because you want to crucify Peterson, you're a religious zealot who thinks the Inquisition was a good idea". Being like, I don't know, an actual human being, I sort of lost my drive to continue talking to this person.
He lost the opportunity to convince me he was correct, and I lost the opportunity to learn.
We have to learn how to talk to one another!
5
Surprising thing about having a conversation with “free” thinkers, it’s really easy to get them to give up the conversation they purport to value.
1
Mr. Weiss tells us IDW luminaries are supported by donations, some earning as much as $80,000 a month. Do we know who the donors are? Is it the Mercers, Adelsons, Kochs , Thiels and the like? Are we talking of a new, slicker iteration of the so-called think tanks and institutes like AEI that are funded by "charitable" contributions from oligarchs and corporations who subvert the tax laws to further their self-serving interests? Answers to questions like these might give us a better perspective about what the IDW is all about.
8
No, in Jordan Petersons case his 80,000 a month donations come from more than 10,000 patreon fans who donate anywhere from 5 to 250 USD a month. True community support, no "high-powered-mogul agenda" there.
4
First, Ms. Weiss, I'd like to commend you for your decision to refrain from joining the I.D.W.
Second, self identification is fine but may not be how others see us, especially as so many labels are often not clarified. You refer to yourself as a "classical liberal". I read your columns and consider you a centrist; in the tradition of classic liberalism, yes, but certainly far from left or progressive.
Finally, from what I read here, these people are simply engaging in more false equivalency. To wit, "Dr. Soh said that she started 'waking up' in the last two years of her doctorate program. 'It was clear that the environment was inhospitable to conducting research,' she said. 'If you produce findings that the public doesn’t like, you can lose your job.” What absolute nonsense! Anyone in academic science knows that no one piece of research is definitive and that all research does not reach the same conclusions. It is a process of testing and retesting to build a body of knowledge all the while discovering that some research is more flawed than others. That is why we should believe the 97% of climate scientists (and not the 3% of outliers), should believe the majority of researchers who have concluded that IQ variation within cultural groups is more common than between groups, and should believe that, while men and women are biologically different (duh!), there is absolutely no reason why they can't function equally in modern society.
Alex and Milo? Seriously?
6
Do you remember who said this? "Democracy is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder. It dispenses a sort of equality to equals and unequals alike." Hint - it was said a couple of thousand years ago.
Progressive dogma says humans can simply "step above" basic biological truths via cultural and economic rule making. Those who don't obey these rules quickly enough (or at all) are lesser people. Extreme radical progressives (such as Mao or Stalin) ended up killing millions in the name of a socialist ideal.
6
Jung's people of the box don't do this.
Civil, frank discussion without the hemlock consequence is laudable.
3
Thanks for the refreshing and comprehensive article about the state of things. I can tell it’s written well and not just my bias by how many people are upset and trying to silence this sort of piece in the comments.
My only criticism is this: Weinstein’s coining this loosely related group of people “intellectual dark web” is not something I would’ve run with. Weinstein is perhaps the least influential of all these people and apparently has no idea what the dark web actually is if he thinks it’s similar to being popular voices on YouTube and Twitter.
8
The far right is attempting to use the "free speech" argument to maintain that all ideas, including their radical, fringe ideas, are equal and worthy of consideration. Free speech only dictates that these ideas can be expressed--it does not require us to actually entertain and give a platform to ideas that are at odds with the values our society has agreed upon. These extremists who are trying to drag us back into the Dark Ages because of their fear of progress try to play the victim and act as though they are being oppressed by liberal thought. These people should be shut down, not given attention; this is just as bad as the fact that we allow flat-Earthers and creationists to continue to manipulate children with their anti-science drivel, regarding them as "equal" viewpoints instead of understanding that not all truth is subjective.
2
Seems that at least some of these people are liberal and reacting to political correctness on the left but they will find, or already have, that their audience on the right (primarily what it seems to be) have a similar 'correctness' including patriotic correctness, similarly devoid of nuance and dialogue and facts. I recall the shouting down of our representatives in 2010 when they had town halls to try to explain the ACA to their constituents. I also suspect that while many of their 'fans' like some of the things they say, many will also turn away from them when the talk becomes too nuanced, not black and white enough, not all or nothing.
If they can change minds, sure, that is a worthy endeavor, but I suspect more of them are being used as tools of the alt-right. The danger of doing this in a vacuum, of course, is that it is a vacuum.
Others are more of the same from the alt-right - the black conservative Owens, saying that liberals think blacks are stupid ignores that conservatives harbor much stronger negative opinions about 'the other' be it blacks, latinos, muslims, Catholics, Jews (in Charlottesville and elsewhere: "Jews will not replace us" was the chant).
8
Those of you that are just encountering the IDW and dismiss it as shallow intellectually and not worth paying attention to are will be rudely awakened in the coming years. Citing the cranks on the fringes as typical of the movement will only work for so long.
The fearless intellectual honesty and openess to discussion is infecting young thinkers across the spectrum, and yes, the movement as a whole leans right. Meaning that the NYTs and other Left-leaning institutions are going to try and discredit it. But the influence of those institutions is fading, isn't it. And the Dark Web is growing. Let the conversations continue!
7
An "alliance of heretics" - I know editors are a necessary evil in journalism - they write the headlines that attract attention - perhaps we the public are to blame for not paying attention as we should so that it requires such a profession. I can't get past this phrase though - opinion or no - it could not be a better representation of the mind of those in media today. There are many of us who have watched this industry called media/journalism lower the bar over the last 25 years more than we ever thought possible as the need for clicks, subscriptions and/or viewers increases. These so called "heretics" are far from revolutionary and anyone who thinks they are has lost their way from the world of common sense. The use of such a phrase is a window into the mind of someone who is possibly seeing common sense in front of them for the very first time and can't understand what they are seeing and hearing - its so far from their world of today where hysterics rule the day and adults are allowed to act as children. Those of us who have never abandoned common sense and know how important it is to keep an "open" mind find nothing short of solace from listening to these fine people - finally good rational, intellectual, non hysterical, based in FACT conversations. There are plenty of us still out here who will not "panic" despite the so called "mainstream conversation" presenting such an absurd view that could recognize this group as heretics. Good grief people get a grip.
4
Hurrah for the IDWers! For my money, free discussion is not only the best long-run way to a civilized and progressing society, but also a good thing in and of itself. It's enjoyable!
It's disgraceful when folks (of any political persuasion, and all are represented here) deny well-substantiated facts (or even want to suppress questions) for fear of repercussions that they wouldn't like. From Socrates, to Galileo, to Edward O. Wilson, to Sam Harris... And, sad to say, during the last ten or so years the major censors are left-wing academics.
This tension will likely never go away. There will always be those who are more than willing to sweep inconvenient facts or questions under the rug. So there will always be a need for IDWers. Carry on!!!
5
Funny how "that which cannot be said" has yet another lengthy NY Times feature and is already being paraded around teevee networks like MSNBC. All of these melancholy Wood Nymphs are mainstream thinkers who have made lucrative careers opining on these repressed ideas. Questioning the value of multiculturalism, wondering about IQ differences across races, being unsure about this whole "trans" thing, these Big Ideas all have a huge constituency... within the Republican Party. Here's an idea that never sees the light of day on the pages of the NY Times: the modern radical political centrism that much of the mainstream media adheres to has enabled the rise of right-wing fascism. Weiss's decision to produce a never-ending series on the Intolerant Left while the Trump administration and the authoritarian-minded GOP runs rampant could be Exhibit A.
4
It seems the IDW, rather than provoking discrimination, is stubbornly trying to validate that all people are equal, something we know is not true and never has been true. They are the great levelers of all distinctive thought embedded in society, boiling it’s fundamental lessons down to ‘sencus communis’; and in this manner strengthening the systems they claim to oppose.
“People are starved for controversial opinions,” said Joe Rogan, an MMA color commentator and comedian who hosts one of the most popular podcasts in the country. “And they are starved for an actual conversation.”
Rogan's half correct.
We are starving for respectful, intelligent, conversations.
But Joe, respectfully, we're sick and tired of sound-bite, gotcha, shouting matches about "controversial opinions.”
3
I shall quote - Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
Sam Harris, a prominent scientist? That is laughable. Like saying Bill Nye is a scientist. Sam Harris is of course in essence an atheist version of Ann Coulter.
2
"Sam Harris, a prominent scientist?"
The sentence* you are referring to is ambiguous, but the list of participants is longer than what is in the OpEd. See the Wikipedia article:
Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason and Survival
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Belief:_Science,_Religion,_Reason_a...
* "Sam Harris says his moment came in 2006, at a conference at the Salk Institute with Richard Dawkins, Neil deGrasse Tyson and other prominent scientists."
2
The people he mentioned in the article are boring status-quo warriors, not iconoclasts. The reason they have such an audience is because they pseudo-intellectualize all the "common sense" narratives of our time to make average people feel smart and comfortable within the dominant ideology (Nytimes provides the same cultural function, never forget their role in selling the Iraq war to liberals). Of course in a time of rapid change basic people like this would find a large audience of bobbleheads. Also all of Sam Harris' sanctimonious outrage over the excesses of "multiculturalism" rings pretty hollow coming from a guy whose own imperialist country has proved little regard for the sanctity of human life
6
I joined the IDW in 1975, when I abandoned my PhD and Academia.
Yeah, 1975. Some of us have been around a long time. Still an activist, which is why I bother to comment on the NYT and other places, etc. Saying things (last week?) like "Race is a biological reality; but not a basis for 'racism.' "
Just one piece of advice here: "'I don’t know that we are in the position to police it,' Mr. Rubin said."
Mr. Rubin you MUST police it; the sooner the better. Or you are wasting your time, and everyone else's.
The toxic elements are toxic forever; they are NOT interested in intellectual "truth" - but only power; and untruth is their main weapon.
You have to bite the bullet; set up a way to sift out untruth, no matter how imperfect the mechanism. The value of what you do will go up in direct proportion to the untruth removed. And likewise down, as untruth pervades.
4
The key question is "where do these ideas lead"? Do they lead to support for more racism, sexism, heterosexism, cisgenderism and other structural inequities in our society? if so, then they need to be "gated", refuted, rejected, and shunned.
2
Hmm, renegades? Not so sure - but they have all found a way to make a buck by spouting their beliefs. I'm so bored with what people think. Whenever someone states they are a passionate Trump supporter they lose me, not because they are conservative but because their naked emperor needs to be recognized as a guy who only cares about making his monthly debt payments - support Pence if you need to settle on a conservative in power.
The web is dark and more often than not we the people are unable to relate or care about others - whether the other are our neighbors or our political enemies. Renegades to me don't speak of one people being better and brighter than the other but fight for equality in drinking water, in housing, in ones vote really counting and trying to slow global warming - the list goes on but not one of these "thinkers" will be getting all of my spare pennies. Talk, talk, talk about abortion boys - at the end of the day its all talk-you don't go through it, and don't make the final decision. When one deprives women of education, access to birth control, etc. there will be abortions.
2
It is easy to talk about why groups of people are the way they are, by labelling and psychoanalyzing them, as is the wont of IDW members and plenty of other professional talkers.
The difficulty is in studying and proposing methods to do good for the maximum number of people. If these windbags come up with some solid ideas for educating, housing, and keeping healthy all members of society, including the youngest, oldest, and weakest, I will be interested in what they have to say.
Until then, I am not interested.
2
Illustrated beautifully in this article is what these deep thinkers have in common with the politicos they’re aligned with: the whole lot of them are popinjays. If it’s not extravagant apparel, then it’s meticulous coif. Or, ideally, both.
Normally such a Dowdish fixation on surface should be a bright red flag in any dialectic on deep thought, but in this case the clothes make the men (and token girls). Behind the deep thoughts this lot is ultimately out for one idea, and one idea only: themselves. They all know it, but won’t ever say it outright, because they’re already signaling it loud and clear to their target audience, who all believe in the same thing.
Rather than IDW, call them the SSS: the Society of Sinking Shiprats.
2
Fascinating. The authors says, " ... some have paid for this commitment by being purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to unorthodox thought — and have found receptive audiences elsewhere."
Wrong. They have been purged from institutions that have become increasingly hostile to "orthodox" thought.
2
"These ideas are so edgy and controversial that no one can say them anymore!" said the author advocating them in the national newspaper on record.
"Like many in this group, I am a classical liberal who has run afoul of the left, often for voicing my convictions and sometimes simply by accident."
In general, I align with the author, Bari. I too consider myself a classical liberal who runs afoul of the far left, the ideologues who demand purity. I too am more interested in the truth, but as Sam Harris points out in the article:
“The moral confusion that operates under the banner of ‘multiculturalism’ can blind even well-educated people to the problems of intolerance and cruelty in other communities."
The problem is loyalty. Loyalty to ideology, whether right wing or left wing rather than to the truth. And, of course, it gets even worse when the loyalty is to fame or money under the guise of openness. What is not discussed is the penchant for the public to buy into conspiracy theories and how the IDW doesn't play into that. The problem is...it will. It is or will become a playground for charlatans. Snake oil intellectualism. Every prejudice will find a champion here, and that's the problem with the internet that produced the election of Trump, a man who lies with every breath he takes.
These people sometimes have a nugget of truth under pounds of trash, but they're basically monetizing a population that doesn't get thrilled by tv explosions or reality programming anymore.
As soon as someone more provocative comes along this "movement" will be as relevant as Duck Dynasty.
There's a reason Trump couldn't win twenty years ago but he's the President today. People are thirsty for their fix. Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death seems ever more prescient.
2
The Intellectual Dark Web seems like a group of garden variety social conservatives who are re-branding themselves to seem dark and mysterious.
3
The only thing that is 'dark' is the ignorance of the American people.
What scares me about this article is that seemingly political correctness has led to the demise of expressing alt opinions or even being allowed to present opinions that are considered outside the social box and therefore taboo.
It seems that freedom of speech has been under attack prior to a Trump in the WH who firmly believes that the only freedom of speech others have in this country is to voice his opinion or flatter this hollow shell of a parody of a real man or real president profusely even if the flattery is all lies.
This is an excellent thought-provoking article that appears to express that intellectual thought can only safely reside on a dark web of its own. Dark web occupancy because some of the opinions expressed here are actually promoting hate and segregation from others because of their religion or skin color.
The term 'dark web' may just mean that some of the opinions that involve hating the differences of others should not see the light of day as we, or most of the society of mankind, has progressed from this and does not want to go back from acceptance of the differences in all of us.
There is clearly a place for the IDW. Doubters can look up an opinion piece in today’s NYT online by Albertus and Menaldo detailing why ‘democracies’ are failing worldwide. Although they spend a great deal of time on Turkey and other countries, they maintain radio silence about the USA. Just about everything they cite is applicable to the USA, which escaped all mention.
1
The degree to which so many of you are proving their very points, without realizing that you are doing it, is honestly astounding.
14
This collection is not at all dark, they're all over YouTube.
The intellectual contribution is, hmmm, marginal (and that's being generous). Many have benefited from the fact that they have been subject to only cursory scrutiny. Harris, Peterson, Owens,Shapiro, Weinstein and Rubin and most of the others are poorly regarded among traditional scholars but that doesn't mean they are not influential. Peterson is a fine example of how to make money saying obvious things. Shapiro is a Zionist zealot who just talks really fast.
In general, it's good that "thinkers" have an outlet outside of the university to make money. It would be more impressive if at least one of them would try to solve a social problem, and not just complain about liberals and free speech. So far there has been none of that.
7
This is one of the most boring and predictable pieces I've read in the Times in as long as I can remember. The editorial board really should be ashamed and embarrassed.
Personally, I'm always interested in new conservative ideas, and read many conservative blogs and magazines in search of them. But nearly every wonderfully "heretical" idea offered up by this newly-awkwardly-coined "IDW" crew is actually an old idea, much debated for decades, that some of us have watched lose so many rounds of past intellectual debate that it's no longer really much of a debate. Some ideas are just losers. That doesn't make their proponents interesting heretics; just people whose views happen to be mistaken. (And often mistaken in very familiar and obvious ways.)
But, the "IDW" crew knows something. They know that there is an insatiable, inexhaustible demand among one half of the media elite of our country (from Alex Jones all the way up to our Fox News overlords) for breezy and telegenic new versions of certain old ideas, that can now be dressed up as subversive! edgy! interesting again! Kind of like the impression one gets from the photographs in this piece (which are very good, by the way).
So in summary, nice photos, but please do not try to foist this kind of puff piece about boring and tired old ideas on your readers again. I can, and do, get enough of that from other sources as these guys complain and complain about their silencing and oppression, all the way to the bank.
8
Interestingly you seem to have forgotten to identify any of these "old" ideas that you accuse the IDW types of digging up. I'm sure it was just an oversight.
1
By the time this comment appears, if ever, it's doubtful anyone will see it. But just to take one painfully obvious example, Jordan Peterson is basically a younger, less smart, less erudite Harvey Mansfield. Mansfield was completely wrong (but popular on the right, of course) and Peterson hasn't made any progress since then, but he's even better on YouTube. He's undoubtedly better at styling himself as a truth-telling victim in this new weird right-wing snowflake way. So he's even more popular. Meanwhile Harris doesn't even pretend to have improved upon the completely, exhaustively, exhaustingly debunked Charles Murray race-and-IQ stuff, which he just cites by way of fun scientistic revivalism. Why not give it another go round? I've heard Murray speak and I'd rather listen to Murray than Harris any day. And that's saying something.
Give me NEW conservative ideas, and I listen, even though I usually disagree. Give me this kind of article, and I just get depressed that when Bari Weiss (predictably) pitched it, somebody said, "yeah, that sounds like a good story for the Magazine." Come on. It's just a sad depth for the Times to reach.
what actually links all these writers? there is a world of difference between on the one hand christina hoff-summers, sam harris, and maybe jonathan haidt, from the ben shapiros and dave rubins of the world on the other. being provocative and having a podcast doesn't itself form an identity of idea or movement. that you are writing this piece in the times and that others, e.g. mark lilla, have done so before, kinda puts the main street edia rhetoric into puzzling relief. better to just drop it and just begin the conversation and see what ideas come out in the process.
Great article, Bari. You should definitely join the IDW. That way you can help ensure it stays on the right path. You don't have to give up your day job, right? It would also be good for them to have a reporter as a member.
2
They already have Claire Lehmann (editor of quillette dot com), but I agree Bari would be a good addition to the ranks
1
An appropriate response to this article is found here:
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2018/05/08/try-you-hand-at-grading-college-wr...
Let whatever opinions there are be spoken. That's not really the problem. A free flow of ideas, even if they are complicated or challenging or uncomfortable or, even, repugnant is fine. Education is about confronting darkness and shining a light on it and you have to explore uncomfortable truths and discredit comfortable and uncomfortable lies alike.
The problem we have isn't that there are people out there espousing bad ideas. That's always going to happen. The problem is that somehow, even among many of us who are supposedly educated, we've failed to instill a rational skepticism driven by good critical thinking skills. We also don't seem to value organized thought or good debates at the micro level anymore.
Fix that and no amount of quack ideas or repugnant philosophies will be truly dangerous.
199
Except that the free utterance of controversial opinion really does seem to be under threat at the moment. I don't agree with Bill Maher in lockstep, but he has a point about so-called progressives shouting down any thought they deem objectionable. If our best universities are incubators of this intolerance, then I find it hard to sanguine about the state of things.
19
I think you're proving my point that our educational system if failing us.
I get that things like safe spaces and trigger warnings might make students feel good and protected, but it also prevents them from growing a thick skin and an ability to think about hard things in a rational way.
I don't think that in any way shape or form we live in an era where the ability to push controversial opinions is strangled. The Internet and Social Media really has Democratized that (so far, we'll see what happens as bandwidth providers consolidate) but the issue isn't so much that this University or that Television Station or Newspaper or that a progressive is intolerant or a conservative is intolerant but it's that we have a huge population of people who are very unsophisticated consumers of information.
You would think that it would literally kill someone to fact check something before they just spewed it out onto Twitter or Facebook where it's reach is potentially unlimited.
The shouting down of opposing opinions and retreats into echo chambers is again, as I said, an inability for people to think critically, organize an argument, and then present it in a civil manner that fosters debate and that's a huge cultural problem that in so many ways stems from how our education system has evolved to just churn out specialized professionals instead of well rounded humanists with an understanding, if not a mastery, of a wide range of subjects.
9
El Herno,
"The problem we have isn't that there are people out there espousing bad ideas."
This is the fatal flaw of liberal 'thinking.'
There is no such thing as 'bad idea.' Ideas can be more or less accurate in the sense of reflecting available facts.
'Bad' can only be milk beyond its expiration date.
6
Two professors had their lives destroyed for opposing a reversal of the usual Day of Absence.
In the play and in past practice, the oppressed stayed away themselves, intending to highlight the unappreciated importance of their roles.
Instead, whites were asked to stay away. There were two problems with this.
First, driving someone else away is quite different from boycotting by staying away.
Second, it is essentially a White Power racist move if whites highlight their own role as majority in making the thing work.
These two concerns may be offset by other concerns, but it is certainly a couple of things worth thinking about.
It can't be said, and can't be talked about. That is a problem in a university setting, which is meant to talk and think about things just like this.
This is very different from things done in the public forum to be "provocative" meaning really just to be incendiary and offensive.
3
Another great article by Ms. Weiss. Always look forward to reading her reports.
4
Not all intelligent people are intellectuals. People with advanced degrees know their narrow academic topics, it is does not necessarily make them experts about broader social and political issues. Neither does eloquence or rhetorical skill necessarily make a good debater a thought leader.
Outside the box thinkers are essential. They are often punished for being heretical. But not everyone who challenges the status quo is an important intellectual. There are also cranks and crackpots, people who like attention for saying shocking things, as well as people espousing dangerous ideas.
The problem is how to distinguish between the next Copernicus and the next Hitler. It may have been hard initially to understand that Copernicus was correct; it should not have been hard to know that Hitler was dangerous. Facts discussed in the open help to make the distinction, not polemics spread through the unfiltered internet.
Mushrooms thrive in dark places. Intellectuals do not.
2
A real breath of fresh air! Kudos to true and brave intellectuals like Ms. Weiss and those mentioned here. Ms. Weiss should be commended as well for her strong stand on today's Morning Joe where she had to endure the pouting tantrum of so-called liberal elite and faux intellectual Eddie Glaude, and the weak defense of the overmatched hosts of that show. How dare she challenge the strict dogma of the liberal code to suggest that many people's opinions are not given fair time. I mean the Evergreen College fiasco alone that victimized Mr. Weinstein and Ms. Heying should be enough to prove the utter intellectual bankruptcy of the far left creed. When enough free thinkers like the people mentioned here throw off the shackles of oppressive liberal correctness perhaps we can have the kind of discussions that will lead to true progress.
225
Except that their pseudo-intellectual trap is being used by the alt-right to justify hate. The only reason anyone knows who they are is because they're willing to give bigots a thin veneer of intellectual legitimacy.
24
Hey ST,
I thought Mr. Glaude was condescending to Ms. Weiss, but her reactions were defensive. She was obviously nervous. I heard nothing intellectual in that discussion.
Nor, is there any indication of intellectuality, as I know it, anywhere in her standard issue reporting, which seems solid and illuminating. Cultural observations, no more, no less. It is a NYT quality effort.
I am entertained by Morning Joe, but there is rarely an insight born of any originality. Most of the contributors are center, neither left nor right. It is an amusing way to start the day that is a cut above broadcast TV. No more, no less.
5
"Except that their pseudo-intellectual trap is being used by the alt-right to justify hate."
Says Angry. Very fitting, indeed.
1
I'll confess that I have not exhaustively reviewed the work of all of thinkers profiled in this piece. However, based on the work from this group that I have encountered I can state that my personal objection to the "IDW" is not necessarily the ideas it seeks to explore (e.g the existence of innate biological differences between the sexes), but rather to the conclusions that are almost uniformly drawn from, and justified by, these ideas. To be specific, the conclusions I've seen this group draw seem to always follow this general template:
Some outgroup (African Americans, women, Muslims, LBGT, etc.) is biologically, genetically, and/or culturally inferior to the ingroup (Americans of European or Scandinavian decent, men, Christians, straights), and therefore some historic inequity (e.g. the gender pay gap) is justified, and public policy should make no effort to remedy it. Rather, for the greater good, public policy should prioritize investment of the ingroup as it is the group the drives human progress. Also, any disagreement with this conclusion constitutes reverse racism/suppression of speech/a triumph of emotion over logic.
Am I missing anything? What other wisdom is available via the IDW that isn't captured in the above template?
10
I'm no expert, but it seems you've concluded they categorize their opinions based on groups. Yet, every single one of them I've listened to seeks to avoid doing that very thing. Dividing people up into groups based on immutable characteristics, and then using that to draw conclusions about them is exactly what they deride. In fact, one of the primary tenants of the IDW as far as I know is: individual before group.
5
Gator - you won't find suggestion among the serious thinkers of the IDW that Euros, straights, men or Christians are superior to those outside those categories. Peterson is the only member of that group that identifies as Christian, Dave Rubin is gay, etc. Nor will you find any inkling of the nutso idea that public policy should prioritize investment in dominant groups.
3
From what I've read from this group, its exposure of individual before group is nothing but a thinly veiled slight of hand to justify inequity against outgroups.
For example, in justifying the gender pay gap thinkers of this genre frequently point to differences in career choice between men and women. They argue men chose to prioritize pay and status, while women chose to prioritize flexibility and work life balance, and that interfering with these "individual choices" is wrong, and therefore active attempts to remedy the gender pay gap are misguided. They ignore that these choices, though they may be made by individuals, are made within a larger cultural context that presumes that the women will bear primary responsibility childcare, and which frequently punishes women who deviate from this norm. Hence these "individual choices" are not truly individual or really choices. Rather they result from the active coercion and manipulation of the choices of an outgroup.
I'm truly open to learning about novel thinking from this group. However, everything that has ever been referred to me suffers from the same problem of presuming that individual choice can occur outside the context of the broader culture. The truly racists/bigoted stuff takes it a step further an asserts the primacy of preserving the individual choices of the members of the ingroup, and that attempts to alter the broader culture away from its current state are inherently wrong.
The writer claims this statement is controversial: "There are fundamental biological differences between men and women." But the statement is not controversial. Everyone knows, for example, that only women can give birth. What she apparently meant to write is: "There are fundamental INTELLECTUAL differences between men and women." Why didn't she just say that? Does she think it's too controversial?!
11
Comments like yours are why the illiberal left is dying on its feet. The main players in the IDW all trend to agree that the scientific data shows very clearly that "There are fundamental BIOLOGICAL BEHAVIORAL differences between men and woman at a population level".
That is to say that they display fundamental difference in what interests them at a population level, and that manifests itself right from birth. See studies of day of children's interest in people and things. See studies of toys young male and female monkeys want to play with.
6
@Jack Do you ever wonder why these alternative thinkers find little purchase among the mainstream? Why they seldom publish respectable papers? Why there is absolutely no scientific consensus behind their theories? Anyone can make numbers dance
The IDW represents the best that the internet has to offer. They've tapped into the enormous hunger in America for intellectual analysis of ideas, discussed in rational, calm, logical long-form discussions (going as much as 3 hours for many Joe Rogan Experience podcasts). IDW is not only taken podcasting by storm it's also spawning a new vanguard of journalism with websites like Quilette. What distinguishes members of the IDW is their brave and contrarian take on taboo issues, which is so badly needed in this time of virtue signalling and political correctness. I've attended many live events with IDW speakers - who would have thought that bookish intellectuals in their 50s and 60s, like Steve Pinker, Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris, could go on tour, talk about philosophy, cosmology, religion and physics, and be greeted like rock stars by overwhelmingly young audiences? It's a wonderful thing.
12
It IS a wonderful thing. You are so right.
People who went to college last century won't understand why this is a big deal.
But kids in college today love this stuff because they haven't heard it before.
5
There is 0 critical analysis about what some of these people are saying. I have listened to some of their podcasts. In particular Sam Harris initially comes off as sounding quite reasonable, but as he digs in, many of his opinions are quite offensive. And yes they are opinions. I don't happen to think that a society where women wear burqas is a just society either, but that is still my point of view. It is in no way a fact.
11
That there might be inherent differences between races or cultures should be of no interest to anyone engaged in selecting individuals for something. If we want to differentiate people on the basis of intelligence, we need only give them a test and tattoo the results on their foreheads. Unless the test is very badly designed and administered, the tattoos will tell more about the person's abilities than skin pigment or native language or whatever.
Since we do not want to do this more accurately, we should also be unwilling to do it less accurately. But many of us arent. So any research on racial or ethnic differences is bound to be misused.
1
Ah yes, "classical liberal," i.e. right-leaning conservative/libertarian who would like to present themselves as somehow "progressive." None of the people mentioned in this article are isolated from the mainstream or inhabiting a "dark web." All of these people are just academic celebrities and or just plain celebrities with contentious opinions. A lot of these opinions aren't even thought out, but rather designed to get attention (like much of the alt-right and self-described "victims of censorship"). The idea that these people present some kind of alternative is nonsensical. Telling someone that their ideas are bad or poorly thought out or missing critical information is not censoring them. Free speech is a two-way street. People are allowed to voice their opinions and we are allowed to vigorously oppose them through our own speech.
25
Interesting that you describe these thinkers as deep, brave, using real evidence, etc. And yet Jordan Peterson's deep response to a negative review is an ad hominem attack and an indirect threat (because that increases his donations from the alt-right, he admits). Harris was not attacked by the woman who disagreed with him about Burqas. They had an argument. Such consistency. How many of these people on the IDW stand up for women and people of color they disagree with when they're attacked and threatened by the alt-right?
14
truth arrives to us mediated through discourse.
where discourse fails or does not exist there truth cannot form but only unsubstantiated and mealy opinion.
authentic discourse requires that those who participate in it approach it with the understanding that they may be wrong about that which they hold most dear.
that is why discourse is a dangerous thing.
8
Civil conversation is absolutely essential to a functioning democratic republic, and the members of the IDW are to be complimented for their willingness to "disagree ferociously, but talk civilly". Ideas need to be attacked and defended to prove their solidity. Those who are afraid to discuss their positions are suspect.
21
How does Jordan Peterson's threat to physically assault someone who disagrees with him qualify as a 'willingness to "disagree ferociously but talk civilly?"'
The idea that Evergreen College affects anything is pretty funny. They've lived in their very own world since the place was founded and that will never change.
As I recall, in the 70's, they had a movement to get rid of parking lots, among other interesting ideas. They are about as tolerant as Trump's base when it comes to their issues and they've been shouting people down and physically confronting them for years.
Makes 'em feel good but affects nothing off campus. And never will.
6
"Episodes of 'The Joe Rogan Experience,' which have featured many members of the I.D.W., can draw nearly as big an audience as Rachel Maddow." I was unaware that large audiences formed some sort of secret underground. Especially a "dark web". This is an embarrassing piece.
10
"Dark web" is unecessarily provocative, implying an agenda and (potentially) nefarious outcomes. How about "2nd layer media" or "new opinion makers" or some such?
1
This is the same math used in the claim they are draining the swamp with an administration stuffed with billionaires and millionaire career politicians.
1
Was it on purpose the set for these photos looks like the SNL sketch about Kanye?
1
There's a whiff or pretentiousness and insecurity and clubbiness about the whole thing. The name and the photos don't help. But more substantively, the IDW houses some people who manifestly are, as the author notes, cranks, grifters and bigots -- the opposite of truth-seekers. So some of this is just stupidity in the guise of openminded intellectual engagement. Bleah.
18
Sounds like Dungeons and Dragons.
1
Except for the fact that those who play D&D understand that they are engaging in make-believe.
3
Anyone who's changed a diaper knows there are biological differences between male and female. What's so intellectual about saying that?
9
Don't know you would have to ask those who believe gender identity is not fixed, a matter of choice.
2
Hello white privileged academics. You have the luxury of being ‘free thinking radicals’ because you have been raised having people listen to you with polite discourse.
This is NOT true for many. For many just the color of their skin, their socioeconomic status, is sufficient to have people ignore them.
You are not heroes of free speech. You are critics throwing esoteric stones from the dark rather than addressing the significant ills that impact the bulk of humanity. You are a drain of energy.
Issue with the left? Get in there and work on it by engaging openly — fostering discontent doesn’t solve any problems. Offer solutions.
Putting up ‘academic’ papers which undermine the dignity of every human? You are a fraud trying to preserve power for those who already have it by writing lofty-sounding decisive rhetoric. Enjoy the 8th circle, Bolgias 7-10. You’ll fit right in.
19
An enjoyable read. it's definitely true that people devoted to truth or the discovery there of catch a lot of flack. The thing about being in the middle is both sides hate you. People constantly try to characterize me as some hateful misogynistic Christian geek gatekeeper and I'm actually an agnostic 20 something gamer who shockingly has opinions. But people are desperate to put a label on you so they can attack that. just like they pretended Jordan Peterson was transphobic
13
I totally understand/"get" that we have to talk about uncomfortable topics.
What I take issue with is that Sam Harris and some other of the intellectuals featured here are being co-opted by the right-wing through the alt-right to pursue social policy is harmful and, as history proves, been detrimental in practice. Remember eugenics. Germany took it further and it ended up being a Holocaust. They do not have responsible conversations about how their "finding" will be used.
The other problem I have is the intellectual dishonesty of some of them, like Sam Harris interviewing Charles Murray and glossing over that Murray's work, The Bell Curve, arguing that African Americans are inherently unable to have the same level of academic achievement as White Americans, with Sam Harris softening it as African Americans are unfortunately a group that endured societal oppression and with no concern or belief that it can be remedied, like they're a mutation. You cannot argue that it is scientifically proven fact when you underfund schools, have deep intergenerational poverty which we know retards intellectual development in children. If you do that to a population from circa 1600s, starving them, refusing them access to the same resources as you do, and then chock it up "genetic differences" that is intellectually dishonest. You don't have a scientific control group to prove this. And you're not even taking in account epigenetics! Scientific dishonesty!
10
Tha nastiness directed at these people is really something to behold. It's especially insructional to see the fury directed at these apostates from supposedly "liberal" and "progressive" sources, with their desperate justifications for their hypocrisy being the most educational part.
19
Do you think Jordan Peterson's threats to physically assault various detractors constitutes "nastiness?"
Doing and Saying. Recently It’s clearer to me that it’s OK for others to hold a view that differs from mine, even if an opposite view. I say “No God exists”. You say “God exists”. What I say about what you say is central to how things unfold. The positive and negative consequences of words to society and it’s members, including to me, can be considered. In general it’s best to say, if you can and will, “Your view no doubt has merit but since it is the opposite of mine, I wonder if you would share your reason for holding it”. To be sincere you cannot covertly think (This person is an idiot)! The hardest thing is to find a way of overcoming the brick wall that usually emerges to completely separates interlocutors (I love that word!).
3
I believe this is the first time I have read something that used “Joe Rogan” and “intellectual” in the same sentence.
6
Awesome -- tribalism of the tragically hip iconoclast. Intellectually, you label and collectivize, you lose. While I don't have the inclination to judge any of the individuals discussed, this article's cloying labeling and self-congratulatory tone nauseate me.
8
why blame these "thinkers"? when I read that a "biological differences between the sexes" is considered controversial, I realize the real failure is the education system. it's ironic, in a time when most high school students are funneled into colleges that such an obvious scientific fact is considered taboo. certainly the social implications of this fact may be contentious, but not the fact itself. students who cannot distinguish the two make the intellectual landscape ripe for alternative facts and those that confront them (with various agendas).
6
No one is arguing that there aren't biological differences between male and female humans--the question is more what "fundamental" means? Through much of history, certainly in the last thousand years or so, the obvious biological differences have been used to systematically deny women rights in the public sphere, and often in the private one as well. In this country, a man could legally rape his wife with impunity until 20 years ago. Women have been denied jobs, access to education and power, all on the basis of the fact that they are the ones who have the babies. All of that denial of rights was justified with "biological difference." And the point of saying "there is no FUNDAMENTAL biological difference" is merely to say that all of that violence and oppression is not justified by the biological distinctions by the sexes. There are differences, but they are not fundamental to our right to be treated as social and political equals before the law.
Most important piece I've read in NYT in ages.
9
“People are starved for controversial opinions". Then why listen to these lightweights?
7
Criticism is not censorship. Criticism is free speech. Freedom of speech does not guarantee you a podium or a quiet milquetoast audience. It is one thing to be criticized for what you think, it is altogether another to be criticized for what you are, for your race, for your creed, your gender. If you can't stand to have your ideas criticized you are a weakling. So you find out some catch phrase you have been using all your life is sexist or racist, BIG DEAL, no one is going to arrest you for saying it. PC from the right is a thousand years old and we tolerate it without question as a manner of tradition. Maybe you should write something about that.
7
James Smith, ostracism and criticism are not the same thing. Also, being placed on an SPLC list of extremists (something that was once done only to members of groups like the KKK and Aryan Nations) constitutes a career ending kind of defamation that amounts to far more than verbal criticism. Maajid Nawaz, mentioned in this article, was placed on one such SPLC list, and complained that it was effectively making him a target for violence perpetrated by Islamists, not unlike the kind of violence that led Salman Rushdie or Aayan Hirsi Ali to go into hiding, or the kind of violence that led to the murder of Theo Van Gogh.
2
You know what they say about people's opinions--people have them just like a certain part of one's anatomy. But who needs opinions when they're little more than regurgitated tribal rules?
So in a group like this, where are the boundaries limited by science based facts? I'm not interested in hearing some bigoted, racist ideas because they have that "right" to their stupidity. I'm more interested in how we myth bust racism by advancing the findings of the Human Genome project and others discoveries that promote equality. Now, apply these same principles to climate change, tax cuts, abortion, and a host of other issues we confront, and how do we find the room to compromise on solutions so that societies can meet the 21st century needs?
3
Something about all of this strikes me as adolescent.
5
They NYTs is in the process of holding these fine people up for ridicule. The first part of this piece was acceptable, pretty neutral politically, but then (typically for the NYTs) it went off the rails and became another tedious hit piece.
I'm so sorry you cannot accept that Americans can be anything they wish politically, and that it isn't your job to make them see the error in their ways if they happen to disagree with you.
.
6
Could you provide some examples of what makes this a "hit piece?" Frankly, I just don't see it.
The debate about political correctness, just like the astonishing fact that somebody like Trump was ever elected, or the hypocrisy of the AG of New York, demonstrates the advanced stage of our cultural decay.
Meanwhile, climate chaos marches on, we are fighting wars all over the world, and Noam Chomsky has been forever banned from the pages of the New York Times.
5
IDW? How about APC - Anti-Political-Correctness.
1
These wealthy people's views are being 'silenced' right here in the op-ed section of the NYT. My deepest sympathies to their plight. All they want to do is reinforce old social hierarchies indefinitely with junk science and self-victimization
10
This piece is sheer lunacy. Most of these so-called "renegades" has received a huge amount of mainstream media coverage, including endless fawning words from Ms. Weiss herself.
Ironically enough, the endless, baseless whining about being ignored by mainstream media is exactly the sort of victim culture that so many of these self-appointed rebels decry.
3
The conversations these men and women are having are, in my opinion, the most intellectually interesting thing happening in our (thought) culture.
For those who have lost the ability to think critically, and cannot resist the reflex to hurl "racist sexist bigot homophobe" at these individuals...
I'm sorry, but you have lost the plot my friends.
7
It's not courageous to complain about being rejected for having odious views about women and people of color. It is super manipulative. Racism and sexism have no place in civil discourse, no matter how hard these "iconoclasts" try to shoehorn them in. Bringing these attention-hungry extremists to the fore, validating their positions through tolerant listening is abetting the slaughters committed by disgruntled white guys.
7
It has already been affected by greed, it appears. When you are unable to speak truth for fear of offending your audience-- and losing those dollars-- you are no longer a truth-teller, but a panderer.
I used to argue with anti-Walmart people that part of why they hate Walmart is they don't want to be associated with Walmart shoppers. Last year, when I told Jeff Giesea (who I feel certain is part of this IDW) that although he brought up good points, people would not want to be associated with his group of paid Twitter fabulous memesters, such as Cernovich and Posobiec. One cannot have a serious discussion about Islam/headscarves/immigration with a group who is so nasty to fellow human beings. He blocked me.
However, this does bring to mind how long it took people to understand that discussing the horrendous things Israel has done is not antisemitic, that Israel is a state and not a religion. These types of discussions, along with the annoyance of college kids going ballistic and drawing much more attention to those they do no want to hear on their campuses, are discussions people need to have.
When you have a group of intellectuals, followed by an ignorant group of nasty bigots, it cannot turn out well, though.
2
These people have more in common with the identity-politics left than they realize. Like 3rd wave feminists and ethnic studies professors living in nice American college towns, their entire identities are based on an overwhelming persecution complex. Sure, whatever it takes to fill the void, but that doesn't make this an insightful political movement. Yes, university "SJW"'s and their professors are pretty ridiculous, and a self-pitying, censorious, victim hood-fetishizing strand of the left has gone unfortunately mainstream in the last couple years, but how many times can you say this? Does Dave Rubin have any point at all besides saying this over and over again? A lot of these people do have an actual agenda. They're basically trying to smuggle in a radical libertarian ideology along with "look at these dumb college students", since they don't have the guts to come out and say "let the poor starve". This is why Dave Rubin never interviews any intelligent leftists who are critical of academic identity politics, and Jordan Peterson seems to be perpetually having and argument with blue haired 19 years who live in his head. Has Dave Rubin ever invited Noam Chomsky, Angela Nagle, Bernie Sanders, or any labor activist to his show?
That's what someone actually interested in intellectual growth and dialogue would do. And it's definitely not a coincidence that Eric Weinstein makes his living managing Peter Thiel's money.
2
Cool. Another new cult opportunity.
3
Just because someone who disagrees with you calls you names doesn't mean you are right.
5
News Flash: NYT discovers half the country. These people are well known if you read any conservative blog or news site. The difference is that people who read these sites are familiar with Chris Cuomo, Don Lemon, Maddow, and Mika. Get out of your bubble.
7
The Times has received tons of coverage for hiring former conservatives like Bret Stephens to add "diversity" to the op-ed page. And Bret is clearly not a predictable ideologue like Paul Krugman or Charles Blow. But I suspect James Bennet and his colleagues were in reality just trying to find yet another anti-Trump voice, this one operating under the cover of once having GOP leaning views. But Bennet's s true contribution to diversity is the invaluable Bari Weiss, who has the intestinal fortitude to question liberalism's increasing intolerance for dissent. Perhaps the Times is sending a subtle, indirect message to its generally liberal-left readership that they are going too far in repressing unpopular ideas. I hope this is the case, and if so, Bennet and Co. have chosen a most effective intellectual battering ram in Ms. Weiss.
6
I applaud the desire for civil discussions of controversial topics, and any search for truth. But the central premise of the I.D.W. appears to be that there is no objective truth, that all views, "facts" or opinions are equally valid. Should we give equal weight to the claims of flat earthers, or climate change deniers, versus scientific consensus based on overwhelming evidence?
Too many of these people are little more than in-your-face provocateurs. Gross, unsupported generalizations such as "The Left Thinks Black People Are Stupid" add nothing to civil discussion. Making counter factual claims, by 9/11 "truthers" or denying the moon landing or the Sandy Hook massacre, hardly constitutes an attempt to search for truth.
3
The PG-Right.
"There are fundamental biological differences between men and women...
"Free speech is under siege."-- Yes - and -- ?
"Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart. " -- As can be seen by the recent example of a white female high-school student being excoriated and shamed on Social Media for wearing a traditional Asian dress to her prom --
And we’re in a dangerous place if these ideas are considered 'dark.'" -- When you're terrified of making a most seemingly-innocent comment, only to be accused of being a politically-incorrect Trump supporter -- as in --
“You have to understand that the I.D.W. emerged as a response to a world where perfectly reasonable intellectuals were being regularly mislabeled by activists, institutions and mainstream journalists with every career-ending epithet from ‘Islamophobe’ to ‘Nazi,’”
Here are some questions to ponder --
Is it possible to be an "Activist" for right-wing causes - such as being an Anti-Abortion Activist -- or has this term been appropriated by the left for its use only -- ?
Can you imagine what is must be like for liberals who may also deeply religious - and believe there is some power greater than one's will and intellect which they look to for guidance -- ?
This argument is fine - but as my all-time favorite liberal - Nat Hentoff - used to say --
The whole point of the First Amendment is to protect the speech of others which you find to be insulting, disgusting and reprehensible...
6
This is journalism. Thank you Barri.
6
The only members of this "Intellectual Dark Web" who appear as honest intellectual brokers are Eric Weinstein, Bret Weinstein, and Heather Heying. This apparent honesty is being increasingly tarnished by the company that they keep.
Ben Shapiro is a Nihilist who preaches in banal, retrograde rhetoric to any who might be confused enough to listen.
Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist who promotes Christianity as the epistemologically true path toward righteousness, and even went so far as to create his own ego cult.
Sam Harris is a Buddhist evangelist whose individual pursuit of meaning is dedicated to the myopic and short-sighted debasement of all that Islam represents, unaware of the historic implications outside of the context of modernity.
77
I had to look up the definition of nihilist to make sure that I was not going crazy.
Your characterizations of all three men is so far removed from reality that I find it hard to believe you've listened to any of them in any way other than sound bites.
60
Shapiro is a nihilist? What can you possibly mean by that? He's an orthodox jew who believes in God and objective morality.
What? Jordan Peterson does not speak of Christianity "epistemologically" at all. He explores the allegorical and mythical and psychological dimensions of religion.
Sam Harris's individual pursuit of meaning is Buddhist, true, but his accounts of Islam tend to be empirical and specific. If you are saying that he doesn't address the history of Islam or its geographical range, you are right. That's limited but not necessarily "debasing of all that Islam represents."
I don't understand where this is coming from.
65
"He created his own ego cult." lol. People, opinions like this are why you should look for yourself. Form your own opinions and watch out for the guys that tell you how to think.
27
I'm a middle-aged gay man who was born before Stonewall and grew up admiring (and appreciating) traditional broad-minded American liberalism. I agreed with Bill Clinton's characterization of social progress as a perennial tension between the envelope pushers and the line drawers. But that metaphor implies an engagement between two camps, with at least minimal respect and mutual recognition. I now worry that self-satisfied arrogance too often characterizes "progressives," my putative allies. The example of children transitioning is a good one: there must be many happy, adjusted gay adults who might have had their lives upended by a misguided transgender effort in response to grade-school gender play. Gay "conversion therapy" for minors (and adults) is clearly nuts, but I have similar suspicions about childhood transitioning. I wouldn't want to make that point at Slate or Huffington Post, which kind of explains the I.D.W.
425
I've wondered this myself, having kids in SF. Some parents are in a huge rush to transition kids who don't conform to gender roles. Isn't this implicitly saying that breaking gender roles is wrong? We had just a handful of years where we embraced the fact that some boys are just feminine (and girls masculine), but now we're back to trying to "fix" the "problem", but in a more "progressive" way. I'm not so sure it's progressive...
64
But you should make that point on Slate/Huffpo. And defend it. Less echo chamber. More conversations without the pejoratives. You lead by showing.
27
So true. I was run out of an "evidence-based" social media group for gently questioning the use of lifelong hormones in all teens who express discomfort with their gender. The number of transgender kids has skyrocketed in the past couple years - is it because they no longer fear for their lives in coming out, or a sort of social contagion? I don't know, but asking the question shouldn't get people fired from jobs or alienated for being "transphobic."
55
Among the consequences of excess wealth is the proliferation of people with time on their hands who can fancy themselves 'thinkers'. Their means and skills help them fashion a medium and find an audience....
Oftentimes I find them trite, and sometimes dangerously obsessive....
Alas, the times we live in.... I guess they need to rationalize their existence, somehow. I have a few nutty acquaintances like that.
I wish them all the very best, and peace.... As for respect? Maybe, on a case-by-case basis. The early results, though, are not encouraging.
2
It's worth noting that orthodoxy is, to a large extent, defined by the heretical. In other words, what is orthodox crystallizes as it responds to heretical challenges.
On the one hand, the IDW serves a purpose- it helps define orthodoxy by opposing it. On the other hand, and what I find intriguing, is that the IDW pushes against both conservative and liberal social orthodoxies using, by and large, similar rational underpinnings. This alone makes them worth hearing out- perhaps some element of truth can emerge that is missing in the traditional bi-polarized discourse.
I recall what Carl Sagan once said about Velikovsky's unorthodox idea that Jupiter once spit out a comet that flitted about the solar system- "The worse aspect ... was not that many of his ideas are in gross contraindication to the facts. Rather, the worst aspect is that some scientists attempted to suppress Velikovsky's ideas. The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science."
Note Sagan said common in religion or politics- not necessary nor fundamental. All world views benefit from heretical challenge, including "ours".
9
Discourse today is destroyed before it starts allowing people to miss the lack of integrity in their beliefs. We've retreated into tribes that defensively react to perceived threats without listening and processing. I believe that most people are simply overwhelmed with information and complexity in a way that humans are not genetically wired to cope with. They're in a defense mode because of this. Direct attacks on their perceptions of reality are not welcome because there is no room for the information.
Waking people up to controversial and mind expanding conversation takes a thoughtful approach. One has to get people to become open to listening. A frontal assault on a tribe's ideals will fail unless there is an intellectual acknowledgement of the validity of the tribe's ideals. Society oppresses by necessity simply to survive. Acknowledging that everyone is oppressed by stereotypes, perceived gender roles, religious values and other "values" that help a culture survive is an important place to start. Acknowledgement breeds acceptance and opens the mind to seeing where we don't have integrity in our thoughts and ideals. I get these folks have mind expanding ideas but provoking makes much of their work a waste of time.
And why not call yourselves something like "Integrity Builders" or something that doesn't sound nefarious and "Dark".
Some on the IDW actually discuss issues rationally and actually use facts and I listen to them but a majority of folks like Ms. Owens seem to be arguing for argument sake and fanning the flames of division or spreading various conspiracy theories like Alex Jones. None of those contribute to a rational logical discussion and are better left nattering among themselves. However, they share an identical problem as MSM and won't admit it. They provide a safe space and a very narrow "news" source so their followers have places to confirm their own preconceptions that allows no intrusion of a conflicting thought.
1
"Mr. Harris said something that he thought was obvious on its face: Not all cultures are equally conducive to human flourishing. Some are superior to others."
While I find much of the arguments and ideas of the intellectuals quoted here to be compelling, I would suggest that there ARE lines that can and should be drawn. No culture that gives air to patent lies and false information is superior. I agree that there is not an objective truth about everything, but where there is, it must be treated as such. You're entitled to your own opinions; not to your own facts.
3
Feels like the goal for many of these participants is "celebrity" for celebrity's sake. Regardless of what each may be celebrating in whatever multitude of stripes they may couch it. And money, of course. But that's the point here, I believe. Almost as simplistically as "the more noise you make", i.e. the more personal celebrity you can generate, the more money you receive. The "Dark" part of this for me though, is "celebrity" is a sinister equalizer - making all loud noise seem equally valuable - regardless of any demonstrable proof of truth or fact. Hence, our current president, as the most obvious result of celebrity as the only qualification for "winning", has become a model for anyone to emulate. Doesn't matter what you say. Just say it louder and louder.
3
That's reading into it. The "dark" refers to "dark web", the uncensored, scary part of the internet most of us have no idea how to access, or any reason to. Shady, illegal things go on there, like drug deals and human trafficking.
Weinstein made his flippant observation about how many of their views were considered shady, unspeakable in the mainstream, and in some parts of the world even illegal, but that they were going to go ahead and discuss them anyway. Much like drug trafficking, where there's a market there will be a product, regardless of the immorality you may attach to it.
1
My key point is intended to be "celebrity as a sinister equalizer". Seemingly making every idea/discussion/thought/etc equivalent just because someone is famous. Regardless the nuances of the word "dark" in this or other contexts - and of course I understand the reality and the nuances of the term "dark web" - my concern of "darkness" is related to the concern that truth or fact doesn't matter to many "celebrities". It's all about how many hear them rather than what they actually say.
What's your deal, NYT? Providing a platform for the most vacuous trogs isn't helping. Be better.
5
"A Sob Story About Six Poor People Who Found out They Could Make Millions Attacking Liberalism"
15
I wish that people who seek to influence others would get out of their own wake long enough to ask themselves why they are doing that. Most of the "bad" folks in this article trigger fear in their readers and hearers because they are seeking to force other people into molds they have created. Like many religious fanatics, their main goal is to control other people. Yes, there are significant differences biologically between men and women, the apparatus for child-production being the most evident. But those differences should never be used to deny women, or anyone, the right to strive for success in any field whatsoever. No neurological scientist I know can prove that women, blacks, muslims, or anyone else have less brain capacity than white males. Emotional responses? Use them, don't try to get away from them! For millennia they have saved our lives. My litmus test for whether the person talking is worth listening to is first emotional: am I feeling reduced and squeezed into a box or told what to do with my life by this loud-mouthed stranger? If so, I do become afraid. But that fear doesn't lead me to rush for a gun. It makes me pay close attention. Just as being stalked by any predator does. Yes, this is dangerous. How can I get safely where I want to go if I'm being targeted?
5
"...those differences should never be used to deny women, or anyone, the right to strive for success in any field whatsoever." Absolutely. But when extensive practical experience demonstrates differing levels of success, that just might be attributable to some basic biological difference, ongoing efforts at equity of outcome are immoral and should be discontinued. IOW, equality of outcome over equality of opportunity is wrong.
3
The reason the IDW exists is because the sorts of things you mention in your comment are often so misunderstood, many people who discuss them rationally are tossed into the same box as those who would use them to stoke fear and bigotry. If you spend time listening to the people mentioned in the article, like Harris and Weinstein, there is a very clear difference that is lost on so much of society today.
2
Extensive practical experience? I doubt if you're fine with women making accusations of violence against men with no "real" proof. Just remember that they have extensive practical experience! Really. It's responses like this that keep me believing that the enemy to any hope or ambition I may have is breathing down my neck. And will make a judgment on "extensive practical experience."
Interesting piece but the photos make everybody look like "Game of Thrones" characters.
3
Sounds like stuff everybody knows and shares in private that is taboo in the public or corporate arena where the religious police of political correctness are omnipresent and threatening.
16
Did we really need the glamor shots? Aren’t the outsize egos of these dubious intellectuals (who are basically just rebranding well-worn ideas) enough?
3
The absurd photo portraits accompanying the article say it all. Let's create a commodity/celebrity by catering to people's same old prejudices. I'd be more interested in seeing profiles of the brave, unsung journalists covering Parkland, Me Too, those not looking to create a brand or a look. Honest intellectual pursuit doesn't need to style itself as an 'intellectual dark web.' These new celebrities certainly seem to be making a lot off money off of their 'provocations.' Meanwhile, despite all the outrage, the same disempowered, disenfranchised folks toil onward.
1
Consider the idea that the disempowered and disenfranchised folks who you care for are not being served well in the current intellectual climate of Critical Theory and Intersectionality that has pushed so many intellectuals into the "dark web".
1
What they should be discussing is why there are intellectual "no go zones" in the first place. This phenomena didn't manifest itself out of thin air. It is a reaction; a strong rebound reaction to age-old and actively propagated suppression of other people's humanity.
Why might a reasonable person discussing the merits of not legalizing gay marriage (maybe they think that the government should stay out of marriage all together) be shouted down? Maybe it's because being a gay human was essentially illegal for hundreds of years and now bigots of the same ilk still marginalize homosexuals. Maybe because, as public sentiment has grown to embrace marginalized people, these bigots cloak themselves in "well-meaning intellectualism" to enforce inhumane power structures.
If these "thinkers" want to differentiate themselves from the racists, the homophobes, the alt-right trolls, the white nationalists maybe they should start by clearly and loudly acknowledging our history of hate and repression, and denouncing those who are obviously co-opting actual earnest intellectual discussions. And I don't mean muttering it a couple times as is convenient to them... I mean championing it always.
If the Dark Web Intellectuals want to be taken seriously by society at large they must brutally and passionately stand up for human rights and stand against hate and prejudice. Without that no one can differentiate between those who want to discuss and those who want to undercut that discussion.
5
The title led me to believe I was going to be introduced to renegades. Sounds to me like more people seeking a paying audience (or are they now called patrons?). This isn't an opinion piece, it's an advertisement.
God, for more Thomas Edsalls in the world...
2
For long, I'd wondered about the value Ms. Weiss added to the NY Times opinion pages. Her brand of center-rightism was already well represented here and Israel too seems to receive far more attention in our debates than is warranted by its actual import today.
This column changes that as she has struck a deep rich vein here by touching an issue of fundamental importance (and I can only speak for the left here though right too has an analog case): There appears to run a fault line on the left that appears to pit a set of liberal values against others, most prominently, 'free speech' vs. 'tolerance'. To what extent would we be collectively willing to suppress free speech or inconvenient truths (but relevant truths nonetheless) to aid certain causes or members of the coalition? Mismanaged, this fault-line has real potential to cleave the left. For instance, Sam Harris (an avowed atheist) did bring up certain aspects of Islam that are clearly illiberal and was tried to shut down for pointing those out. Others, including Nick Kristof of these pages (also admirable for his other stands), have taken the view that if anyone bringing up such inconvenient issues has to have bad motives and is being unhelpful. But the same Sam Harris spent much time on the dangers of Trump presidency and argued vociferously for a Hillary vote. Clearly this is not a left-vs-right issue but rather a left-vs-left issue. And greatest threat here is from people passing quick moral judgements.
7
Under the guise of intellectualism, this "movement" is nothing more than drunks at the end of the bar being civil toward each other and low-key as they spout nonsense, e.g. Peterson's barely concealed quivering over burqas.
I.D.W. seems nothing more than collection of right-wing bellyachers who are trying to out-Trump Trump.
Alex Jones? Really?
1
When Bari Weiss writes that the episode of "The Joe Rogan Experience" featuring Weinstein and Heying "was viewed on YouTube over a million times, even though the conversation lasted for nearly three hours," she suggests, erroneously, that a "view" on YouTube views indicates a user has watched the entire video. In fact—as has been widely reported—a "view" registers ~30 seconds into a video. Either Weiss could not be bothered to Google this fact or has a vested interest in misrepresenting the meaning of YouTube views counts. Both possibilities are a journalistic disgrace.
2
“People are starved for controversial opinions,” said Joe Rogan, an MMA color commentator and comedian who hosts one of the most popular podcasts in the country.
Yeah,because , if there's anything society has a paucity of, it's more brash middle-aged bros with hot takes like Joe Rogan.
5
First of all, as a nasty, leftist, feminist progressive, I would like to say I think you are fabulous, Bari Weiss. You have not lost all of us.
I loved reading about these intellectuals and their views in an even-handed tone, rather than the usual language of hyperbole and outrage that accompanies the coverage they get.
That being said, Christina Hoff Sommers really doesn't do it for me. If she thinks the hardships women face are exaggerated or even mythical, then she must be cherry picking her facts. Maybe she should talk to some single mothers in the U.S. and ask them what they think, and what kind of challenges they've faced because our society and government vastly undervalues and disregards them. It's absolutely real. Not a myth, or a frame of mind, or a state of perpetual victimhood. Real.
191
Appreciate your comment.
Regarding single mothers and their struggles, I’ll agree society and government undervalues them. But consider the possibility that society undervalues the men they might marry even more.
You can’t force marriage. In marriage, don’t abuse and do your best to pull your weight.
But gender roles aren’t as rigid as they once were as to working outside the home and responsibilities within the home. Many people may need to take more time to find their way. There are more options, and it’s worth taking the time, if you can, to find useful work that you’re good at and that pays enough and allows time enough for a two income family to make it.
Society may need to help young working class people think through whether and how they might marry while they’re still finding their way, and make that work, in the absence of clear well-defined roles backed by the old societal arrangements (like paying men enough to support a family) and strong expectations (the old gender roles plus don’t have children out of wedlock).
College educated people in or on the way into the upper middle class seem to find it easier than working class people to work through all that.
8
My God, this isn't about provocative ideas. It's another sad attempt at branding one person's ideas - sorta like, "The Voice," is to singers . . . it a pass for me.
All of the people mentioned in this article make a living, a good living by American standards, presenting these ideas. As well, an editor at the New York Times just gave them all a platform, and this appeared in the front page of the website. To say these people have been demonized and attacked for their views is no different from what any so-called "mainstream" commentator has gone through. Attempting to act like they are under attack and their free speech rights have been assaulted is a huge part of their shtick and how they maintain a living presenting ideas.
What we should wonder about is how people like Ezra Klein at Vox and David French at National Review can present controversial ideas and get attacked and yet neither acts like the victim. Maybe the issue isn't the ideas, but the talent of those presenting them.
3
GBB26, the people profiled in this piece are not making a living as provocateurs by choice. They are people who were essentially run out of town on a rail by the communities from which they came, because they had dissenting opinions.
2
"That Which Cannot Be Said" Utter nonsense. Self-promoting puffery of the worst sort. All propositions mentioned (said) in this article have been said, repeatedly, loudly, such that every American has heard them.
What upsets these whiners who imagine themselves renegades is that they are not applauded by their peers with whom they disagree. They, like most Americans, mistake free speech for happy talk, and have the narcissistic nerve to expect to be slapped on the back and congratulated for saying things that most, rightly or wrongly, consider erroneous and destructive.
Taking a stand, intellectual or otherwise, is not a free ride. It doesn't always have a happy ending, not in one's own lifetime. One does it because one feels compelled to, not to bask in the warm glow of success and universal adoration. Anything else is just inveterate privilege whining about not getting its due.
2
For a split second I wondered if the Times, contrary to its long-time policy, was going to acknowledge the real renegades (in its eyes): the thousands of respected intellectuals, scholars and others who stand as firm opponents of Capitalism. Some other time, maybe.
4
Ms sommers really needs to ditch that leopard skin coat if she wants to be taken as speaking with an ethical voice.
Dominant Thought, or "meta-narratives" are as old as society. The are there for a number of — often conflincting, but perfectly rational — reasons. And the history of civilisation shows that dominant thought always goes through cycles of revolution and recyvling. Our epoch is no different from previous ones in that respect. Merely belonging to a group loosely self-proclaimed "rebellious" doesn't make one an agent of change, because society will only pick what new ideas it can progress with. As was the case 50 years ago, our time is ripe for iconoclastic discourse that helps us re-evaluate our tenets and prioroties, but the so-called I.D.W. doesn't have monopoly on this — their self-designated nemesis on the radical left — which contrary to their pretentions, aren't mainstream at all — are ALSO breaking the mould. What will emerge from this tug-of-war is some form of progress, as well as some level of residual stupidity (can't ever get rid of that). I listen to all of the sides in this conflict and there's plenty idiocy to be shared among them, and a lot of ego-tripping a — it must be said, unsatiable appetite for stardom and hard cash.
Watch out Bari. They will single YOU out next. When he said it's about "JUSTICE" that means if you disagree you are UNJUST. If you are against "FAIRNESS" you must be UNFAIR.
This sure reminds anyone who knows history about the way communism worked in Russia, China (remember the "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution") and Cambodia. and all the rest.
Great performance on MSNBC, by the way, this morning.
Know a little about communism, having been born in it.
Its not popular opinion, or intellectual thought, that made it oppressive. It was a choice made by the dictators in power, who manipulate(d?) the media and the language and target(ed?) the opposition. They specifically suppress popular AND intellectual opinion. Regardless of how Ms. Weiss tries to frame the suppression of the IDWs, they seem to have a pretty loud megaphone. In the US. Probably not too widely/openly read/seen in post-communist Russia.
1
I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.
Abraham Lincoln
5
For a dark web, the skin tone is pretty pale.
But seriously, as the article mentions, there's a variety of concerns and quality of discussion the people featured here. Just because someone is the target of protests or threats and sometimes violence doesn't make their work any better or worse. It's no different than one of Sarah Palin's talking points: saying she must be doing something important because of all the liberals who are mad at her. The IDW's over focus on who they disagree with or what's permissible discussion. That seems to be what's behind Sam Harris needing 2 hour podcasts for 30-45 minutes of material (esp the episode with Ezra Klein). Christina Hoff Sommers spends a lot of time critiquing some strands of feminism, but where's the positive agenda?
1
If Jordan B. Peterson is engaging in "civil discussion" of opposing ideas, does that include his suggestions that his left-leaning colleagues are "bloody equity monsters" whose ideologies lead inevitably to the gulag?
1
What is “corrupting to free thought” is the desire to “monetize” it.
2
It appears many of these 'renegades' are more sophist than intellectual. They use contrarian arguments to advance celebrity notoriety for personal or capital gain rather than challenging stereotypical platitudes to advance knowledge.
1
Without endorsing any particular position Sam Harris takes, I do agree with his read on those who refuse to criticize Trump. At least his criticality is aimed in all directions. One can be right or wrong about almost anything, but it's intellectually dishonest to only criticize those who don't provide succor. Trump, Jones, et al., and those who support them, are either cynical (Jones), naive (Owens) or stupid (Kanye). They have every right to criticize the left, whose excesses are inexcusable, but to gloss over the considerable sins of the far right is opportunistic and worse.
1
Any group that provides"intellectual" cover for Trumpian impulses of sexism, bigotry, and nationalism should be regarded with appropriate skepticism. They are the digital agitprop descendants of William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol, providing media-saavy gloss to the old time right wing prejudices, whether the media takes the form of Commentary magazine or slickly produced podcasts. The IDW crew must be happy to see their acolyte Bari planted on the Times editorial board. To readers and listeners out there, if you really want to be radical, try thinking for yourself instead of letting any self proclaimed group of intellectuals tell you what to think.
1
Ideas like those can only survive in the dark, like the wriggly bugs living under rocks.
It would really help if the link in this paragraph actually worked:
"
The closest thing to a phone book for the I.D.W. is a sleek website
^^^^^^^^^^
that lists the dramatis personae of the network, including Mr. Harris; Mr. Weinstein and his brother and sister-in-law, the evolutionary biologists Bret
Bari Weiss asserts "that the boundaries of public discourse have become so proscribed as to make impossible frank discussions of anything remotely controversial." Like the notion, per Kanye West, that black people "volunteered" for slavery. By that standard, Weiss would no doubt lament the lack of debate over the reality of the Holocaust.
Weiss wrings her hands and hopes that "the I.D.W. finds a way to eschew the cranks, grifters and bigots and sticks to the truth-seeking." Well, one way would be to, you know, simply eschew them. Ignoring is not equal to suppressing.
Move along people, there's no news here. It's always been known as the contrarian viewpoint.
The author did not include Jonathan Haidt whom I consider part of the new intellectual YOU TUBE crowd. Haidt has studied the mindset of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and SJWs. He is probably as interesting as all the others but presents himself in a very neutral manner.
1
Proudly wearing the iconoclast badge is all well and good but what about consensus? I guess that's just a euphemism for vile orthodoxy these days, and yet without it where are we heading? I used to think I knew, and I thought it was ploddingly in the direction of progress. But now even the idea of progress as a society is fair game for the pseudo indignation of self righteous alternet blabbers who aren't sufficiently energized unless they are railing against their arbitrarily chosen pet orthodoxy. It all winds up amounting to a shouting match in which the listener has to filter out what they don't want to hear so they can focus on what they most agree or identify with.
51
Steve's letter touches on a thought that this IDW article raised for me. Evolutionary survival has depended on making yes/no choices about one's environment. Yes/no becomes good/bad becomes orthodoxy. Orthodoxies serve to make life more manageable, and new ideas, such as those of the IDW, are likely to crystallize into their own orthodoxy as the movement evolves and expands. The challenge becomes to make its walls permeable enough to maintain intellectual vitality without succumbing to destruction from without. This is also a sort democracy/first amendment political issue that's currently playing out.
5
Their point is that they can change minds and in so doing, create a new consensus. And for some, that is frightening and, therefore, dangerous.
8
I haven't heard one shouting match with the people I have watched. All of these people believe that you should not follow them, but do your own thinking. They will hear your good arguments, and challenge them with their own.
10
Plenty of dark but no intellectual here. As a counter example, I listened to Terry Eagleton on "Open Source" on the 200th anniversary of the birth of Marx, and the continued relevance of Marx, especially in light of globalization, the abusive "gig economy," and late capitalism. Worth a listen to. And as for the two professors canned from Evergreen College, perhaps they could learn from the gent in the article who offered that some cultures are more "adaptable" than others. They made they wrong choice, so natural selection weeded them out.
74
The 2 professors weren't canned. And no one said "adaptable."
8
You don’t seem to grasp the meaning “natural selection.”
11
I guess the Kulaks made the wrong choice, too. Weird conceptual revision of "natural selection."
I agree that Eagleton is usually worth attention. Reason , Faith, and Revolution is actually smart AND funny.
3
Jordan Peterson, you mean the guy with almost uniformly dismissed views in the scientific community regarding transgenders who gave ammunition to the far right to hate on them? Ben Shapiro, the disingenuous "intellectual" who won't participate in a moderated debate because it's easier to use the Gish gallop against college undergrads? The Weinstein brothers, excusing discrimination through biology? Yawn, I'll pass on the whole lot. When their ideas aren't garbage (and their personas a little less coarse) maybe they'll be respected in the mainstrwam
Addendum: It feels wrong that Sommers is lumped in with this lot. Her positions are typically well founded and she's generally a reasonable person
115
"Excusing discrimination through biology." But, biology is fact-based. How can facts be discriminatory?
32
You clearly have never listened to either of the Weinstein brothers in any thorough capacity as in only one of them is even a evolutionary biologist. Your apparent ignorance on who they are and what they believe actively undermines your attempt to discredit them and further drives the people you ostensibly want to bring to your side (although it’s more likely you just want to demonize and virtue signal) right into the arms of the people you hate. I would suggest listening with an open mind and refute civility in any area you think is wrong/unhelpful. Civil discourse is the only way to solve problems, not bomb throwing.
47
@Robby The facts themselves aren't discriminatory, its the way they are spun to justify a narrative. Weinstein argues that because there are innate differences between men and women, it's alright to discriminate against women. It's the specious misapplication of science to justify oppression. It's better grounded than phrenology, but it's applied to the same ends, namely justifying prejudice.
22
Some people have generated a forum for expressing ideas that are outside the mainstream. Hooray for them. I'm sure this has been happening since the first caveman talked about growing some grain instead of relying only on hunting mammoths. The fact that the internet makes it easier to reach more people means that the capability of the medium has finally caught up with the size of the audience.
Like all frontiers, this one resembles the Wild West in some aspects.
Mark Twain said you should never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel. It appears than everyone now has access to barrels of ink. Gatekeepers will evolve, but they aren't in control yet. Recent efforts by Facebook reflect this nascent process. Enjoy the frontier while it is still wild; the robber barons and the barbed wire fences are closing in.
1
Let's not confuse the message with the label. "I.D.W" is a silly label, but the message is this: human evolution is a function of our willingness to have long, thoughtful, provocative discussions. We must use reason and evidence, while acknowledging that cultural and emotional biases are always at work.
My thanks go out to Harris, Peterson, Rogan and the others who have the drive, intellect and fortitude to lead us through these tough conversations.
Rock on, I.D.W. But please let's try to find another label!
10
Sorry to disagree at a fundamental level. Human evolution is a function of accidental mistakes/innovation in DNA that lead to a survival advantage for the offspring etc.
Culture is deeply engrained in us, as well as conditioning from upbringing. I suspect the notion of self reflexivity should a prerequisite for "thoughtful provocative discussion".
Take the example of IQ tests so dear to Murray. IQ tests are deeply molded by socio-cultural and individual conditioning. Why would any rational person believe that they actually represent intelligence? A more likely "outcast" would be Stephen Jay Gould. He presents plenty of evidence in the "Mismeasure of Man". Yet we are brainwashed to believe that IQ tests actually represent "intelligence". It is accepted without question by some of the folks participating in the Dark Web .
As for some cultures "flourishing" more than others, it is evident that the person propounding that view is thinking of high Eurocentric culture even though such culture made a pariah of many artists during their lifetime....
I have to stop right here (late for an appointment) but every statement from the people discussed make me think of hypocrisy run amok.
There are times that call for passion. If someone is about to kill you and everyone in your village, there is no room for "rational " discussion (I'm thinking of the Rohinga genocide that is happening right now...).
A lot of people mentioned in this article have great podcast, youtube channel and blogs. For example Sam Harris hosts a podcast and David Rubin hosts the Rubin Report. They all had great guest on their show like Steven Pinkerton and Sean Carroll, some interesting guests like James Damore and Lindsay Shepherd, also some not so great ones like Sebastian Gorka. I love their work.
These people are not perfect, some of them flawed, but nevertheless they are important to the public discussion. The old media are not capeble giving the audience long, challenging and intense discussion. Most of the new media producers are young or focused on their personal commercial success. Universities and colleges have too much restrictions and concerns to host intense events to challenge ideas. But these guys are able to bring genuine intelligent conversation to the masses.
Keep up the good work!
7
The current level of intolerance of the so called Progressive Movement on the Left reminds me of nothing so much as the harm the Radical Left did to Liberal causes during the 1960's and early 70's.
The refusal to even consider or discuss, in public, contrary views coming from less radical view points on the Left ,as well as the the on-going attempts to launch pogroms of Left-leaning intellectuals, activists or celebrities who question the validity of Far Left solutions, is simply a mirror of the intolerance and self righteousness of the 60's Radicals that managed to help turn the nation against the once popular Liberal causes of the New Deal and the Kennedy Camelot; and, in fact, heavily influenced the rise of the 'Silent Majority', the election of Richard Nixon and the enfeeblement of the Democratic Party for the next 25 years (until the election of Bill Clinton).
And yes, this is one old liberal (with a capital 'L') that predicts that unless the Progressive Movement begins to reestablish an aura of acceptance and openness within the Left, learns to welcome debate and re-embraces a return to its fundamental Blue Collar and egalitarian roots, we will continue to experience politics as a minority on the political and social-economic scene for a long time to come.
8
Until the mid terms you mean.
1
There is NO radical left in the USA. Unless you consider school teacher striking to just a little bit more pay radical lefties? How about people flipping burger for half a living asking for a $15 minimum wage? Oh that's so radical!
1
In an America which perhaps no longer exists anywhere but in my mind, these honest and independent thinkers would be heroes of the mainstream rather than "renegades" risking their livelihoods. The American Left, once heroic defenders of free speech, free thought, and individualism have fallen prey to the totalitarian instinct toward conformity (historically common both Left and Right) in the name of the greater good. We have become what we feared: Big Brother, always vigilant against wrongthink, enacting the obligatory daily Two Minutes Hate against those we deem "deplorable," and becoming the fundamentalist, conformist killjoys we appropriately derided the "Church Lady" and her ilk for being not that long ago. As hard as it may be to consider, we of the Left are today espousing the kind of dehumanizing rhetoric against those who dare to disagree with our cultural mandarins which tends to end with violence and murder. Though we unquestionably rule academe, we seem to be the ones forgetting history.
12
Missing from this post is any mention of the Radical Right's increasing attacks on anyone and anything that gets labeled as "Left" or "Progressive." Why so negative about us fighting back, with words, against those who are actively attempting to take away our cherished freedoms and rights? Would you recommend we passively lie down in the face of violent words and deeds condoned and conducted by self-identified fascist and white supremacists? If America isn't careful, we'll all look back fondly to the time when we were only shouting at each other.
2
I recommend that, just as we fought actual, literal Fascism during the Second World War without losing our souls and becoming the evil that we fought, we should similarly fight a war of words today without losing the Progressive soul's morally upright valuing of free thought and civil discourse.
The ACLU which fought for the rights of the KKK to hold demonstrations did more to support true Progressive values than the spoiled and intolerant children of today who are calling people like Orthodox Jew Ben Shapiro "literal Nazis" and advocating physical violence against those whose only sin is disagreement.
I recommend that we fight literal violence with violence, when necessary. And that we fight words and ideas with better words and ideas, not with the censorship, shunning, and name-calling more appropriate to fundamentalist communities.
I would also ask which "cherished freedoms" Sam Harris, Ben Shapiro, and Jordan Peterson threaten. And which of the figures in this article are "self-identified fascists and white supremacists"? Your words sound more like appeals to emotion and incitement than reason. My apologies if I'm misinterpreting you.
Has it come to this, that we're this bored? I'm more appreciative by the day that I'm now in my late sixties, and I'll just leave it at that.
2
This is Nina Castro:
The salon doors have been flung open, and the chattering class, acknowledging the new voices, starts the "sniff test" of acceptability. Personally I enjoy those among them to whom I've been exposed (Peterson, Rogan Harris) because they more often then not, smack of common sense and intelligence. It remains to be seen whether the chattering is any more productive when they do it as opposed to their left/right polarized colleagues . If they inspire some to run for office, or start NGOs or to take some other ACTION, then great. There are definitely worse influencers.
5
Is there anything new here? It looks kind of like maximally applied libertarianism with a veneer of "scientific thinking", whatever that is, all for the sake of provocation. Sure, political correctness can be pushed too far, but its vilification from the right is self-serving, enabling them to ignore the legitimate concerns behind the PC impulse. I find nothing into which I want to look more deeply.
17
I’m sorry, but to dismiss many of these people as members of intellectual “libertarianism” is doing a disservice to intellectual exploration. It’s one thing to dismiss Kanye “His Highness” West or Cernovich, but Michael Shermer, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Pinker, Rebecca Goldstei, or Ayaan Hirsi Ali are not conspiracy wing nuts.
3
I've read a number of books by Dawkins and Pinker. They are great in their areas of expertise, but when they branch out into other areas, I do think what they say is more of less dismissable. That being said, this article fails to prove there is much of anything behind it. Frankly, I wish it did succeed, because I am looking for new directions, and it ain't here, so far as I can tell.
There are no more gatekeepers. None. The internet has made everyone utterly equal in their ability to broadcast their views to the entire world. The goofiest blogger or tweeter has as much ability to get their views out to 7.4 billion people as the NYT does. The internet drove the cost of publishing down to about zero. Infinite freedom of expression. Of course, not all ideas are very well thought out. The internet puts all--all--responsibility on the viewer to sort out what is correct from what is incorrect. That is a fact. The genie cannot be put back in the bottle. All ideas for controlling the transmission of ideas on the internet will fail. It is way too huge. No one is in charge. Tens of millions are in charge. And they are going to go their own way. That is how freedom works.
4
"I share the belief that our institutional gatekeepers need to crack the gates open much more. I don’t, however, want to live in a culture where there are no gatekeepers at all."
I wish for a widespread and open and productive conversation about climate chaos, cleaning up and protecting our precious, irreplaceable environment (you know, for the grandkids), social justice...just those would be a good start...
3
We should not be so concerned with what any one person thinks, but with our own ability to think critically about it, and to discern what is valuable from the intellectual or popular detritus that can be ignored. That is the true societal gatekeeper. Maybe that is ridiculously old-fashioned, but some perspective is badly needed. The opinions of a famous show business personality, for example, are no more important than that of anyone posting a comment today on the 'Times', and we should remind ourselves of that instead of getting bent out of shape about it.
4
Unfortunately, universities--the institutions we have traditionally trusted to teach the next generation to follow truth wherever it leads, even when it upends their most cherished beliefs--have shrunk the boundaries of what can be discussed on their campuses to where students can spend their entire four-year tenures protected from any real challenge to the myths they arrived with, and leave never having learned how to think critically or engage in civil conversation with those who disagree with them.
1
Wait: "There are fundamental biological differences between men and women." Is this supposed to be a controversial statement among liberal intellectuals?
Apparently I've drifted apart from my tribe. Guess I'd better start reading these other folks. Maybe I've become a dark intellectual without knowing it.
8
"There are fundamental biological differences between men and women" is code for "female brains are always and without exception inherently inferior to male brains." They just dress it up in bland language in order to try and fend off justly-deserved disagreement and outrage.
2
But you must still be familiar with the concept of a "straw man argument"?
Yeah, no. It's not controversial among any intellectuals. Saying these biological differences mean men are superior at computer science or are more pre-disposed to like computer science is what is disputed by "liberal" intellectuals.
2
What these people seem to mostly share is a tendency to over-generalize while not being entirely well informed about the subjects they are passionate about. As soon as they encounter intellectual resistance to their beliefs they seem to dismiss the disagreement as a case of being up against a brainwashed person rather than being up against other thoughtful and sincerely held beliefs. The possibility that their point of view is a minority view among a lot of people who have considered and sincerely held opposing views seems impossible to them; the others in their view are always straw people who can't think. The dark web as described here is a purgatory for would-be intellectuals who don't yet know what they don't know and aren't ready to duke it out with the really sharp minds...
13
"As soon as they encounter intellectual resistance to their beliefs..."
Well....
As soon as DEMOCRATS encounter intellectual resistance to their beliefs ...they use violence to shut it down. They block roads, burn cars and businesses, beat people with bats and then after the carnage they create is over they retreat to a "safe space"
4
Literally every claim you make about them is also made by them about you. But of course you’re right and they’re wrong, right?
4
“... the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.”
A fittingly ignorant end to an opinion article that fails to voice an opinion. (Forgetting too that the realm of ideas is not Survival of the Truest).
While I could brainstorm a dozen ways a group of people talking to each other could be dangerous, here's what make a few of these folks (not all) particularly troubling:
1) Their conversations happen within a hyperbolic echo chamber with zero disagreement (Rubin "letting them talk", demonizing any contradictory opinion as a cabalistic "MSM" source)
2) Their narcissism (yes, I'll go there) trains listeners to disregard outside argument and select only the facts that support their feelings. Peterson being the obstinate torchbearer in his continued insistence that Bill C-16 legally obligates certain pronouns (it doesn't, it never did, he's peddling a fantasy to generate controversy).
3) The audience for those conversations is, from my experience, either blowhards who harbor a toxic view of women and foreigners, or their co-dependent counterparts, both of whom are enthralled by what these "intellectuals" have to say because it inflates their sense of superiority.
No, they're not dangerous now, but when their ideas reach the mainstream (and they will), they will infect our politics and begin tearing down at the religious and personal protections we take for granted.
7
I am in my early 30's and have been a dedicated "leftist" since high school, but over the last 10 years have been increasingly frustrated as many of my millennial counterparts have become so sensitive that having a conversation about controversial topics is impossible unless I "toe the party line." The smallest slip and you could be branded racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. or compared to the demagogues spewing hate from the Right. Several months ago I discovered Jordan Peterson. I was thrilled to hear someone rationally and politely discussing controversial topics and even more excited to learn how many others shared my concerns.
The IDW could also be considered a developing middle ground between the often oppressive ideological homogeneity of today's Right and Left. There may be some unsavory individuals associated with the movement, but to be fair, no movement in the history of humanity has been 100% pure.
28
I'm with you, Zack. I like to say that there is "no Left left" because all the various political stripes and identities on that side of the spectrum spend so much time tearing each other down. Meanwhile, people on the right end of the spectrum enjoy the spectacle.
9
How does one separate the nonsense from the merely unconventional? Einstein's Relativity was branded "Jewish physics" by his antagonists, but it survived the test of time. Sometimes the lone voice crying out in the darkness is right.
How does one determine, a priori, what is true? Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Sam Harris are frequently derided by the left for their criticism of Islam, but are we sure that they're wrong? Is it a question of values or an objective truth?
Original thought often sounds heretical, but should it be barred because it doesn't conform to our confirmation bias? Which is the greater sin, opening the tent too widely or closing it too narrowly? I suspect the latter is worse. What would we do if well-done science shows us that a cherished belief is wrong?
Ultimately, we have to listen to all comers and then decide. That will leave room for the Alex Jones' of the world, but time will solve that problem. The preponderance of evidence will strengthen some ideas and cripple others. We understand that the earth orbits the sun because the heretic's ideas were heard and they withstood the test of time. Critical thinking will separate the wheat from the chaff, but it will require great effort and an open mind.
24
I lean left. But the left hasn't embraced "population control" or simply "birth control" has the means to mitigate global warming. It's a topic that is "verboten". The left has embraced windmills, ethanol and technological advancements as the answer to global warming. As electricity gets cheaper, houses get bigger, cars get bigger. We are on a treadmill headed to disaster.
7
"Population control" and "birth control" (as you identify them in quotes) is not "verboten" among progressives insofar as it relates to global climate change.
So let's talk about it.
By country, the two largest sources of emissions affecting global climate change are China and the United States. [0] Taking into account population, the top 5 highest sources of emissions per capita are Canada, the United States, the Russian Federation, Japan, and then the entire European Union. Per capita, China is seventh.
So if we are to meaningfully talk about mitigating global climate change by controlling birthrates, the first country such efforts should target is the United States followed, if at all, by the European Union (9% of global emissions compared to the US at 15%).
Perhaps in addition to talking about population control (which in the US would actually have to be increasing population reduction since as of 2016 the population has declined by 0.6%) we could talk about reducing emissions using green energy technologies such as solar and wind power.
Or maybe you had something else in mind when talking about "population control" in the context of global climate change?
[0] https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#Co...
[1]
Where have you been? Contraception and abortion have been made one of the top topic of discussion by your fellow Americans. Are you even aware of the successful closing of Planned Parenthood clinics in a number of states? There are no progressives who are anti-choice.
I just don't understand such blindness?
1
I recognized that fact, the US is world's biggest polluter, or has been. (Pollution includes invisible greenhouse gases, CO2.) We've got too many Americans. The Chinese have too many Chinese, the Indians from too many Indians and the Egyptians have too many Egyptians. There are too many people in the world using too much in the way of natural resources. And I understand that some people use very little in the way of natural resources and create very little in the way of pollution. (Yes, I'm a natural resource using, CO2 greenhouse gas creating pig.)
I'm not seeing much more here than a shared program of self-promotion.
We can look past the absurd, preening photos and think about their self-regarding label for themselves. "Dark Web" in what sense? They're a bunch of bloggers and YouTubers, just like hundreds of thousands of others, widely to be seen and heard running their mouths. Nothing "dark web" about it.
As for "Intellectual," I had to look up "MMA" to figure out what Joe Rogan was a color commentator for. And I'd much rather read David Reich, Harvard geneticist, talk about the genetics of race than Sam Harris's defense of Charles Murray's 1990s social science, neuroscientist though Harris is.
The common thread, as is said explicitly without embarrassment. is the desire to "monetize" outrage--whether through their "Patreons" (patrons) or some other means. I can't see much admirable here, intellectually or otherwise.
And I can't feel too sorry about the "exile" of the professors from Evergreen State, when they left of their own accord because they'd rather do something else. I know being yelled at by 19-year-olds isn't pleasant, but being unwilling to face it doesn't make you a refugee.
The wind of self-promotion is blowing through this whole piece. There is a diversity of actual intellectuals out there with interesting and informed opinions who don't aggrandize themselves with a sense of their own "dark" heroism.
11
Well put Jim!
“The moral confusion that operates under the banner of ‘multiculturalism’ can blind even well-educated people to the problems of intolerance and cruelty in other communities,”
Comedian George Carlin was mocking this world back in the 80s. He probably never would have envisioned the depths to which it has morphed today.
9
Those who would name illumination (light) as darkness; are those the ones inverting the meaning of so many critical words as we once knew them? The values inverters and perverters? Not surprising.
What do these people have in common, other than podcasts? What is the simplest explanation of their popularity? Maybe it's a massive podcast market, and lots of people with earbuds. Or the feeling that listening to something "edgy" sets you apart, or educates you when you aren't up to the task of what reasoned intellectual debate requires.
3
Personally what sets (some of them) apart is that they keep arguing politely even if they vehemently disagree. The litmus test for me was the Damore affaire that was scandalously handled by most of the progressive press but where these people actually talked to him.
4
This movement is refreshing. The problem is people need tribes to belong to and simple labels to classify others.
My values and ideals are what many would consider to be extremely liberal. Yet, I might as well be Rush Limbaugh to some for simply going against the orthodoxy on issues like affirmative action and immigration.
I certainly don't agree with Bill Maher on everything, but he's been spot-on about this issue for years. The groupthink in so-called liberal circles is disgusting. There seems to be no room for disagreement. The perfect must always be the enemy of the good. The "left" does a great job of eating its own.
So-called liberals really hurt their own cause with this lockstep thinking.
Not so different than dismissively labeling as "conspiracy theory" any claim that government actors actually conspired to lie to the American public. The irony being that government actors have indeed conspired to do all sorts of bad things in the past, and they continue to do so today.
14
Could someone tell me how people with followers in the hundreds of thousands, into the millions, are somehow marginalized?
What they really represent are exemplars of the paradox of tolerance, where people abuse the idea of free speech in order to destroy the institutions that support free speech in the first place.
These are not "renegades", they're bomb-throwers.
5
And this piece comes on the heels of Stanley Fish's article yesterday about truth, fake news and the suggestion that there may be no absolute "facts." Are we better people for spending so much time talking about these things? Dissecting them? Arguing about them? As I mentioned yesterday the wars and genocide in certain Southeast Asian areas are linked to Facebook postings of "real" incidents and Facebook's refusal to stop posting pictures of these incidents. Or so I've been led to believe by what I read.
Time to become a Luddite. And let everyone live life as they wish. Oh, to let everyone just live!
It's misleading to say that the "only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover."
The I.D.W. doesn't seem to understand the difference between pro-social intellectual discourse and anti-social anti-intellectual disinformation that promotes a cult of ignorance. Knowing the difference between "social justice warriors" and "social injustice combatants" matters.
The I.D.W. are not simply engaging in thoughtful, rational discourse with intellectuals of differing views. They are also exploiting and promoting the personal ideologies of extremists who are clearly mentally, emotionally and intellectually disordered.
No one is misconstruing anything. No one is "scared" of discovering contrary viewpoints. No one thinks it's "dangerous" for a group of intellectuals to talk to each other.
However, it is in fact dangerous to help promote and expose vulnerable populations of people who are susceptible to the kind of twisted propaganda that inspires and emboldens extremist movements.
As a note: Peterson says, "I’ve figured out how to monetize" the I.D.W. This is no different from any other for-profit, tabloid-style "information" platform.
10
See Ivan Illich's work on "de-schooling". Anti-establishment "movements" come and go. It is always interesting to measure how much is self-aggrandizement and promotion and how much is breaking new ground.
2
In this case, renegade is a romantic euphemism for retrograde.
1
The fact that exploring and debating controversial topics is the definition free thinking and liberalism seems completely lost on the vast majority of commenters here. Ironic.
10
They are not just "talking to each other." People talk to each other about controversial things all the time [or discuss or fight about them] informally, in their own circle of friends, family, etc. These Intellectual Dark Web folks are cultivating "audiences" and "publics" like any other celebrity with their goods. Perhaps they started out with good intentions, now they are amplifying their voices and ideas feeding off tweets, media, etc.self fashioning--branding?-- themselves as skeptics [which everyone is at a private level]. They are not merely making a living out of this--they are actually making a lot of money. They also have a product to sell. And indeed, it may be a dangerous one in our present context. This article is contributing to the publicity and the "brand" with thrilling labels such as "renegades" "heretics" "truth seekers" rebels, etc. And the posed photos of these new glamorous rule breakers are over the top .
3
Beautifully written and part of the problem ... If we can't have a place to grow intellectually, we'll continue to have vitriolic discourse.
The old way of clinging to power by going underground (whether those in power or those at the fringe) is over.
That is why I put together with a few friends https://Forum.OutragedDems.NYC as a place to have a discussion and https://WWW.outragedDems.NYC as the place to fill in the Legislative body of the New York County committee to take the power and put in places the decisions that were brainstormed on the Forum.
I just heard about Jordan Peterson in reference to the Toronto massacre and "incels." Apparently, he is a big influence. And this is the fine line most of these intellectuals walk - how to distinguish themselves from the rabble they inspire.
Final thought on this piece - is this whole "movement" just another way to monetize our polarized times? These people are intellectuals, sure, but they are most genius at making money. In a word, seems vulgar.
3
The Clintons famously said they were "dead broke" when they left the Whitehouse. Today, they are worth $125,000,000. That comes out to $19,787 dollars per day. That's after paying taxes, expenses, food, travel, insurance, email servers, bit bleach, hush money or whatever else may have some up. All while not making anything or selling anything. These guys are amateurs compared to the professionals.
2
Anyone can lob an opinion from whatever media sideline they choose and find a frightened, angry, resentful audience ready to jump onboard. It is much more difficult to actually create public policy through good governance and consensus. The problem to me is that people who are elected to make our laws are vilified as "the deep state" or "government bureaucrats" by commentators who have never experienced the mind numbing drudgery of creating legislation or the endless slog of campaigning and actually getting elected. I'd have a lot more respect for any of these commentators if they had actually served in government or done anything besides spew their unfiltered and unfocused opinions and create even more polarization in our society. We don't need more "commentary"--we need for public service to become an honorable profession again for educated, empathetic and intelligent people. Alex Jones and his bretheren are corrosive destructive clowns.
9
Where is the discussion of these "intellectuals" obvious intellectual failings? Many of these folks are contrarians who reject any criticism as persecution - when in fact they are often simply wrong. This article only offers up their strawmen and anecdotal 'crazy liberals,' as if those were the only people pointing out the problems with their arguments and statements.
For example, Jordan Peterson advocates a lot of junk biology, and his arguments destroyed by more competent scientists. Does he reconsider, or engage in self-reflection? No, he just blasts critics as 'social justice warriors,' and his fans take that ad hominem attack as sufficient to dismiss pointing out the flaws.
Or Sam Harris - anyone who has been paying attention has figured out that Charles Murray is toxic, so overlooking the racism in his work is a clear problem.
Or the Evergreen professors. What they said was less important than how they said it. And their failure to reflect, listen and understand that shows that they're putting their pride before an opportunity to learn. A true intellectual (a rare breed, to be sure) would take the opportunity to grow and understand others' perspectives and their own biases.
These folks are not 'intellectuals,' they are contrarian cranks who leverage our society's anti-intellectualism for ego boosts and financial gain.
When can I expect to see the counter-point piece, offering the level-headed responses that show these folks for the buffoons they are?
8
I listen to Jordan Peterson some on most days. My own day usually is a little bit better because of it.
4
Thanks for the illustration of this article ...
2
Well -- grain of salt, people. What's clear here is mainly the commoditization and branding of intellectual discourse, using the standard marketing tools of contrast, novelty and bold counterfactuals. Media metrics and audience donations? -- I sneer a Swiftian sneer at human foibles.
The disarray in our discourse arises from a failure to confront basic issues. Those are not gender differences, religious differences, cultural differences, political differences -- who cares, as an adult and free thinker, who really cares? -- but the transformation of human into a feedlot herd exploited for profit and bred for economic input. Do you actually worry whether the prole in the veal pen or assembly line or harvest is a muslim or a jew? They burn the same carbon, pollute the same environment, and breed the same future generations.
If identity politics is such a poison, then why do you revel in making a profit out of opposing it?
The intellectual tribalism of culture has always been there, as social class and strata; now it's amplified by social media and the elites can be shocked, shocked by what the lower classes think.
Arguing over black and white, male and female, left and right, truth and lies, the juggernaut of consumer capitalism keeps burning, churning and driving its zero sum game toward profound social dislocations. Where's the virtuous IDW on those issues?
10
I love this quaint idea of a "left monoculture." An oxymoron if ever I did see one. Try getting genuine free thinking progressive to agree on what socialism (or better yet) what social democracy is, and you'll find nothing in any way shape resembling a monoculture. That exists in the minds of people who hear about "safe spaces" at certain very expensive, private colleges and they think, the left is running amok in higher ed. Yes there's some coddling of undergraduates--after all it's a very big bill to pay. But that's another issue having to do with privilege and income inequality and the current state of the demographics of American universities. Real left intellectuals live for the fire of debate, and we miss no one quite so much as the late William F. Buckley, who was mostly unafraid of arguing with the Chomsky's of the world. The numbers of genuine intellectuals are always few, whether they're syndicalists or libertarians or followers of Buckminster Fuller. Civil, ferocious disagreement is our bread and butter, please let's not spoil things with fatuous misattributions and false consciousness, and never, ever forget the comedy of it all.
8
"I don’t, however, want to live in a culture where there are no gatekeepers at all." This is, at minimum, a dangerous view to hold - gatekeeping is well-suited for slippery slopes and advocates must hope nobody they disagree with ever achieves the position of censor. Such risks are one of the primary arguments for free speech. Further, in this age in which both the left AND the right are increasingly suspicious of elites, such gatekeeping gives instant credibility to that which you would want suppressed.
Gatekeeping: Dangerous and counterproductive. A nice combination.
Finally, it is rather disturbing that a New York Times writer, who unlike most actually HAS to power to act as such a gatekeeper, would espouse such a position - and listed individuals to be kept out of public discourse. Consistent with this advocacy of gate-keeping, the author tells me absolutely nothing about what beliefs make Cernovich, Molyneux, & Yiannopoulos so much worse than Bret Weinstein, Peterson, Rogan, etc.
According to the article Harris' cultural non-relativism, Bret Weinstein's consistent anti-segregationism, and the whole IDW's support of free speech exiled these figures from public discourse. An admitted supporter of gate-keeping further assures us that certain others really SHOULD be exiled from public discourse without explanation Thus: if all I knew was this one article I'd say the claim that there are bad apples in the IDW was lacking credibility.
2
Very interesting article. I had never heard of the Intellectual Dark Web or listened to podcasts of any of their members. In a way, I applaud their willingness to have serious discussions on matters that may be considered outside of the norm in our super-charged political atmosphere.
However, the main weakness of their approach is in their "audience-supported" funding mechanism. In my opinion, it is a fatal flaw that renders suspect anything they say. Are they speaking for themselves or for their audience?
Never underestimate the ability of someone to spout nonsense when his or her paycheck depends on it.
Sorry, but I won't be listening.
3
I was taught that you should be able to defend your position with a rational argument that supports it. This is easily possible if one arrives at positions by reasoning ones way to it.
Once one determines that a person has adopted and not arrived at a position one has the duty to say so and stop treating the person as an equal on this topic. If this happens on many topics...you be the judge. Choosing irrationality is a disqualifying choice. One must still be able to say why. If you cannot rationally refute a position that you assert is wrong, how exactly is it that you arrived at the position that it is wrong?
“It told me that a culture that told itself it was radically open-minded was actually a culture cowed by fear.” This is what I learned about "hippies" those supposedly open minded folks very early in life. The perfect example that the well intended "liberal" minded can be bigots of the worst sort is Rajneeshpuram. It's people had all the same hatreds and prejudices we associate with ignorant whiteness based in South Asian ideas complete with the South Asian justifications and oh so reasonable explanations for it.
"...how is a viewer supposed to know better?" The purpose of an education is to teach a person how to think, not what to think. If you stop focusing on the what and concentrate on the how these objectionable ideas will fall under their own weight.
You are responsible for requiring the people you deal with daily adhere to reason when dealing with them.
1
"If you are willing to sit across from an Alex Jones or Mike Cernovich and take him seriously, . . . you’re either cynical or stupid."
Amen. But this problem is not confined to the "intellectual dark web." I am sick of watching interviewers in the MSM listen to drivel from the McConnells & Ryans, nodding their heads, smiling & occasionally interjecting a "but your critics might say that..." And the rituals in which Sarah Sanders makes complete fools of the press corps. Ms. Owens sounds about as outrageous as powerful people like Ben Carson & Ted Cruz, so I'm not sure why we pretend she's breaking taboos. College campuses are not media corporations, though they serve well as straw men for them. When I see a discussion on right wing media, I'm less angered by lock-step orthodoxy of the "right" than by the house "liberals" who pretend that they're engaging in meaningful debate. And though the MSM was willing to directly challenge Hillary Clinton, they only did so on phony issues like her email server, and not on her politically & financially convenient principles.
What I see, in our bi-polar division, is a completely predictable & dishonest Right wing which gets credit for unorthodoxy, and a liberal "mainstream" that is too deeply invested in the system as it stands to either examine itself or criticize the right in a direct way. So anyone who's willing to look for new standards & new institutions, I'm willing to listen.
9
I think all speech should be protected but the problem today is that we often don’t know where that speech is coming from and by whom.
A lot of this gets reworked into the MSM (hate that term) to sound very legitimate with no understanding of origination, motive, etc.
I can easily decipher a fund or think tank supported by the Koch Brothers is going to advance their agenda. That would be fine if it was the Koch Brothers speaking but many times there is no way to track it for perspective or motivation.
We should all be offended by the lies and attacks on the press the president dishes out daily along with his staff.
And the real danger is to our democracy. If we stop caring about truth and stop reporting and calling out lies (all intellectuals should be in search of opinions based on fact) we will lose the very thing the dark and light webs??? want and that is freedom of the press.
2
I would have liked to take this column and its subject seriously but couldn't stop alternately SMH and laughing. I think it was the combination of wounded privilege and pretentious drivel.
Possibly the thought that some ideas are not worthy of respect much less debate was a factor as well; e.g., fascism, slavery, ethnic cleansing, etc. Not everything is open to discussion, some ideas, things (and people) are, at best, only worth a tide of tossed rotten fruit.
"I feel obliged to say that the emotional universes we inhabit are so distinct, and in deepest ways opposed, that nothing fruitful or sincere could ever emerge from association between us." ~Bertrand Russell (in response to offer of debate from Sir Oswald Mosley, founder of the British Union of Fascists)
7
Nobody (at least in this article) is arguing all ideas are worthy of respect and debate. These people are saying the ideas THEY are discussing are worthy of respect and debate, but have instead been shouted down w/accusations of racism and intolerance. I am familiar with Rogan, Harris and Bret Weinstein, and though I've often disagreed with some of their perspectives, I've never heard them say anything that should be dismissed w/out consideration. I am most familiar with Harris and he is almost exclusively attacked by using straw men such as those mentioned in the article.
3
Hello white privileged academics. You have the luxury of being ‘free thinking radicals’ because you have been raised having people listen to you with polite discourse.
This is NOT true for many. For many just the color of their skin, their socioeconomic status, is sufficient to have people ignore them.
You are not heroes of free speech. You are critics throwing esoteric stones from the dark rather than addressing the significant ills that impact the bulk of humanity. You are a drain of energy.
Issue with the left? Get in there and work on it by engaging openly — fostering discontent doesn’t solve any problems. Offer solutions.
Putting up ‘academic’ papers which undermine the dignity of every human? You are a fraud trying to preserve power for those who already have it.
5
Snazzy, the people profiled in this article have engaged with those they disagreed with, and paid the price for it by being ostracized or otherwise portrayed as villains. This isn't about them being "white privileged academics." Attempts to discredit them based on their ethnic backgrounds are precisely the kind of criticisms that only serve to validate their arguments.
7
As for the title: I don't think "Intellectual" means what you think it means. The "Dark Web" part I get, but I would probably go with "Dim Web." I don't even know what to say about "Renegades," other than suggest that you abandon the word entirely for the purposes of describing peoples' activities on the internet or social media.
4
Yes, nothing says "my opinions are unacceptable in the mainstream media" like a doting 4,000 word piece accompanied by a professional photo shoot in the most prominent newspaper in the country.
34
The problem with this article is that it makes no mention of the various intellectual inconsistencys with many of the opinons made by most of the people profiled. It seems that most of their draw is derived from the fact that they get a lot of hate mail while seeming like relatively likeable people. Which I think is why a lot of normal folks think these people are reasonable and intellectual. However at a closer look at their actual politics (especially DAVE RUBIN), there are some glaring political and ideological fallacies that many of these personalities are spewing. (see Dave Rubin re: free speech) I know Americans LOVE a good underdog (especially one receiving so much hate) - and I myself used to be a huge supporter of most of the people profiled- but at a closer look at the content of their conversations tells a different story. (I find reading transcripts the best way to absorb the information). If they are willing to have conversations about "meaningful" subjects like religion or abortion, they have to be willing to engage in discussions that counter their claims. It's like a constant loop with these people, in which they're each reaffirm their own paranoia (see Sam Harris).
8
The thing with all this grousing about the decline of free speech is that it takes a few examples and paints academia in a completely distorted light. As a professor myself, I can promise those of you not actually on a campus that most classes I teach and have sat in on do not have the intolerant atmosphere painted in so many of these articles. Authors like Weiss take the most extreme examples and mislead the public into thinking Oberlin College thinking permeates academia. This is not true.
Moreover, much of the viewpoints expressed by the academics in this piece are not really transgressive but cliched, boring, and only interesting to those with little understanding of what academics research. The notion an academic should be judging cultures as "bad" or "good" is silly. These are questions an undergrad would find interesting but most people in academia would role their eyes at because it doesn't further our understanding of other cultures to dismiss or approve of them. Understanding a culture is not condoning it and people like Weiss who base their understanding of academia on their four-year undergraduate experience miss that point. Whatever your personal feelings about a culture, challenging easy perceptions about that culture is the whole point of academia. A question that challenges the easy assumption a culture is inferior is intended to challenge not to correct, but is often misinterpreted as an apology.
5
Renegades? Please. That a person can intellectually and psychological resist the Boorstinian contrived pseudo-realities of postmodern hype and media is no great shake. Educated people should be able to resist the special-interest snake oil and analyze and appreciate for themselves what is in their best interest. And from there progress to further developing and to then critically participate in the public arguments and contentions seeking to redefine and/or refine our collective values and norms.
2
'what is in their best interest'
I'd prefer we acted more on the collective good personally.
.
Your position is virtually totalitarian. The right to self-determine what is in a person's best interest is our ground of our freedom.
Such conversations can happen in less august settings. How about a McDonalds with a half dozen or so guys who play tennis on a public court in California.
While most of us are avid Trump opponents, there are at least two who support him. When we get on a riff of contempt, I make sure I acknowledge both of the Republicans and moderate our anger. I am someone who studies history and sociology, and has the ability to look at our current moment as the result of what came before, from the compact in our Constitution to embrace slavery in order to seal the deal with the South, which gave them the authority to be enraged when this was threatened by Lincoln's election.
The Civil War really ended with a truce, rather than a full acceptance of defeat by the Confederacy. A form of slavery, under the guise of the "except for punishment for a crime" clause in the 13th amendment continued a limited version of slavery up to 1945.
Our group happens to genuinely like each other so our different views never threaten our friendship. I'm willing to describe the defects of Obama and the current Democratic party, while still castigating aspects of Trump's regime. And when I put in this context I usually get agreement with the Trump fans.
I even attempt this on the liberal website Dailykos, as exemplified in this recent essay:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/5/3/1761688/-Dailykos-and-RedState...
5
I think this group, as many others, springs forth from the desperate need to break out of intellectual orthodoxies that so often seem to stymie progress.
As a liberal, I've experienced this: When I argue that affirmative action is too little, too late, and what's heard is that I oppose fairness for disadvantaged groups; when I argue that racial differences in IQ may have remediable environmental causes, and what's heard is that I believe some races are smarter than others.
I understand the frustration over orthodoxies that have become refractory to evidence-based arguments.
However, I'll wager that this group is going down the same road, for the following reason: To the extent that our thoughts and ideas affect our finances and popularity, they are beholden to the same forces of tribalism that creates any orthodoxy. The people interviewed for this article have clearly cultivated increasingly popular public personas, and many are monetizing their (perhaps) newly created podiums. It won't be long...
I wish social progress was a simple, iconoclastic act. However, when we smash a statue, we too often become one ourselves. So long as people are more likely to believe a good story over actual evidence, we'll cycle through a lot of statues. It's not the particular ideologies that need to change, it's the nature of the human intellect.
13
Arrogance is the first warning sign that a person spouting is not to be trusted.
Civil discourse at scholarly presentations simply allow other researchers to question the data gathered.
Presenters develop a deserved reputation, or not. Some rise, some boast loudly, but humility allows comfort and reliability.
3
Three cheers to Bari (and the NYT) for bringing these important thinkers -- who do the incredibly important work of challenging the censorious authoritarian/Left monoculture -- to the forefront.
16
There are very few real intellectuals and I would not place this group among them, although some individual members may qualify as that. What have they published, are their beliefs grounded in research and critical thought, have they proposed rational solutions, or contributed to society?
8
I agree.
Bravo, Damon Winter! Fantastic accompanying portraits.
2
"if you are scared of what they might discover," can be misleading.Inadvertently or not. A critical issue, whether the process is one of random finding, or active searching, is what is being created as one moves from relevant "data" which is/can be generalizable, to their appropriate analysis.In this non-linear process for most human behaviors, types, levels and qualities of information will be created.By flawed people with agendas.Biasis.By individuals and groups driven by principles of faith, while some may be "faithless" regarding a menschlich weltanschauung.All too often, in this daily process of coping, adapting and functioning, each of us may not be sufficiently sensitive to distinguishing between knowing and understanding with our awareness of...Our perceptions.Thoughts.Feelings.Judgments which interact with, and influence decisions which are,or aren't, implemented.Learned from or not.Repeated again and again, changed or newly "birthed."And all of this dynamic, multidimensionality exists, whether we acknowledge it,or not,within an everpresent reality of uncertainties. Continua of diversities while "addicted," culturally, to the binary-banalties of either/or. Left or right. Open minded/ closed minded.Fact or fiction.Daily life which increasingly doesn't easily enable distinguishing between Identity and behaviors.And ongoing "randomness. Unpredictabilities. Lack of total control, whatever our types, levels and qualities of efforts.Words and deeds.IDW=a quest/ answer?
1
Thank you Bari. I have followed the I.D.G., as it seems to be called, because of its members’ sincerity, open-mindedness, depth of thinking and courage (knowing only too well how vicious and brutal the illiberal left, notably those into identity politics, can get). To me, these people are a breath of fresh air and a source of hope for the future! But I share your reservations about their, what I will call, “eagerness to openness”. I also share your liberal universalist values. I believe these folks should remain conscious of the importance of winning hearts and minds among the moderate left who, at least here in Canada, have been heavily seduced by the thinking of the illiberal elements on the left. I hope that the members of the I.D.W. will be more politically strategic about their public exchanges with these extreme or unpredictable elements to the right – notice I say public here. I admit, this is very tricky emotionally fraught business.
6
If arguing that different cultures are not equally conducive to human flourishing; that radical Islam is bad; that socialism murdered millions of people; and that there are statistical genetic difference among population groups is seen as heretical, then count me as a heretic. The idea that you can lose your job and reputation for expressing an opinion is perfectly familiar from my childhood spent in the USSR. My increasing disillusionment with mindless political correctness has been cemented by this article. The American left has now become George Orwell’s Inner Party (incidentally this is not true about the left in other countries, including Muslim countries). I identify as a liberal and a feminist. But if the mainstream Democrats do not stand up in defense of people like Sam Harris and Hirsi Ali, I’ll vote for Trump. The damage to the social-economic fabric can be repaired, the dame to the freedom of thought and expression is forever.
20
Your threat to vote for Trump is a rhetorical device, right?
The fact is the mainstream media isn't going to stick up for people who challenge orthodoxy, whether it be on the left or the right. This is why this IDW group has opened up its own media outlet, to be heard.
Just keep up the conversation, but don't issue shallow threats like "you'd vote for Trump..." or Nunes, or whoever. Just vote for the Green Party, even though some of its members too are afflicted with political correctness. At least Greens aren't bought and paid for already.
You just provided the main reason why otherwise moderate-minded voters endorsed Trump for President.
2
Please, Mor, don't cast your electoral fate into the Sheol of Trumpian pollution; pique at Democratic factionalism isn't close to morally equivalent. There is a thing called political correctness but its a much milder malady than the poisonous McCarthyite "know-nothingism" of America's far right. Harris and Ali, yes cheer on their obstreperous truth-telling. But let's avoid and chastise the liars wherever we find them.
1
Big advocate of free speech here. But...not so much the cost associated with security staff at 'free' speech events. One of my favorite college admissions prompts is: design a class. Given the importance of listening to the other side, and the lack of students' interest in doing so, I suggest we use the $600,000 allotted for security services at controversial speaking engagements to endow a "free speech chair". That chair could create a seminar series to bring in the IDWs, Louis Farrakhans, Ann Coulters, #MeToo activists,etc in a Lincoln-Douglas style debate, or in a 60 minutes 'point/counterpoint' style. YouTube it. Put it on Coursera. Teach all of us how to discuss and debate.
Backs turned towards speakers, and speaker's fiery responses, looks more like performance art, not speech and rhetoric. That's an entirely different department.
5
Now we’re talkin.
Glad to see this piece. I've been listening to Sam Harris for two years or so now, which has introduced me to the others mentioned. I do not always agree with Sam and the others, but what draws me in is they "disagree ferociously, but talk civilly." The 2016 election season was and the Trump presidency is a brain banger. What I get out of these discussions is the consideration of the ideas behand the "side taking" rather than unconsidered "side taking." I find the experience uplifting.
10
What most of us call common sense, has been relegated to the "dark web." The left has gone mad. This is why Republicans keep winning.
This groupthink is seen so often in the NYTimes comments. I read them for fun.
46
I completely agree with your post. This whole story made me laugh out loud, i.e., having your own opinion and disagreeing with the "PC" viewpoint is now taboo.
5
I'm an "old school" pro-environment, pro-peace, egalitarian, kill your television liberal who embraced the internet in the 90s as a wonderful tool for intellectual and cultural progress. "Both sides" of today's political spectrum have run off the rails due to today's incarnation of the mass media and the money involved and everybody with a smart phone has an opinion to be broadcast. My new mantra: Kill the Internet.
16
There are days when I read pieces in reputable journals that leave me scratching my head. “But the only way you can construe a group of intellectuals talking to each other as dangerous is if you are scared of what they might discover.” Just what might those "they"s discover? And how scary have other reasonable "others" opinions become? Have these people not lived on this planet long enough to realize that just about everyone has opinions that are different from theirs even if they are self-professed "liberals" or even" conservatives". Who holds these folks hands when they have to cross a street?
My, Oh My! What a world this has become.
9
Bravo!!
1
Especially because Bari Weiss remains uncomfortable with debate unfettered by ideology, thinking that is guided only by fact and logic (how can you be sure you will come to the politically correct conclusions?), she is turning into a real hero of the age by continuing to report, and report honestly, on this important social development.
8
I too stumbled upon most of these brilliant, brave folks after Trump won. They make me feel sane. This is such a great, important story. I initially hated the headline/subhead but I understand the reason
6
I left the plantation a long time ago. As a progressive I've observed first hand the fascism that exist in my so-called liberal colleagues. The disgraceful episode at Evergreen was no surprise to me. It sort of reminds me of when the communist in post revolution Russia turned on the progressive element of the revolution. My liberal friends tell me I need to vote for someone with two X chromosomes even though that person's policy positions are corporate and regressive. MSNBC has morphed into the lefts equivalent of Fox news, which is why I no longer watch corporate news. Is every idea on the web good? Heck no, just watch Alex Jones on Info Wars; a raving lunatic. But find the plethora of great discussions out there from the Jimmy Dore show, The young Turks, Secular Talk, The Humanist Report and many more. Watch others you may disagree also to hone rebuttals or maybe to see their perspective. I actually found myself agreeing with Tucker Carlson on his coverage of Syria and the Russian Red Scare pushed by the corporate Democrats.
17
Indeed. Can there be other valid opinions and/or truths than those espoused every day by the NYTimes. Why should employment by a university automatically define who is/is not an academic and possesses "truth thought"? "I.D.W. is dangerous": I would posit that our so called modern proper thought and behavior is much more dangerous as evidenced by bigotry, violence, endless wars, repetitive mass killings, corporate and congressional corruption and greed, to name a few. Where is "the truth" and good for all in this "enlightened web/social media" so many citizens embrace, the media reports Ad nauseum. Why should we find solace as agreeable sheeple? Brilliant minds keep speaking, many are listening, weary of the devolution of our society and "rightspeak"
1
I fail to understand the thrust of this article. These people have followers, listeners and readers. They are being featured in a nicely photographed feature in the New York Times. The have their opinions and they have people who share them. But they also have people who do not share their opinions and in fact find their "intellectual" expressions to be just more conservative rhetoric or worse. So what is the argument here? "They have an audience but want a bigger one? And if they don't get to get it they are the victim?"
It doesn't work that way, folks.
163
They were "kicked out" and started over ... that's the thrust.
4
It is always risky to believe that because someone is articulate, educated, well read, that they don’t have significant flaws in their thought processes. Giving this I.D.W. credibility ‘just because’ is exactly the same trap that this piece is warning against.
18
"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
2
"Just because" ??? What does that mean? No, point out "significant flaws in their thought process" after you actually listen to their arguments. That is what the piece is asking for.
3
Just an observation here: for someone whose entire brand is basically complaining about being silenced, Bari Weiss has an enormous platform.
20
It's a tiny platform on the stage of the NYT as compared to the orthodox left. The NYT's own journalists have disparaged Weiss savagely. She has good reason to complain.
2
Words, words, words. What is needed is compassionate action. What do these people do?
14
Calling something the 'Intellectual Dark Web' is a stupidly dramatic way to tribalize a bunch of people who are doing very interesting thinking and speaking. That we have to make challenging thought in to some kind of scary, threatening, secretive, subversive thing is a sad statement on our ability to debate, think critically, and embrace or reject new ideas on their merit. Elevating these writers and thinkers to 'bad boy intellectual status' is not very helpful.
The reality is that we as humans often have big blind spots, and sacredly held beliefs that we're simply not willing to question. Those of us on the left seem to generally feel this is true of our 'opponents' on the right, but that we're above it. We're not.
I've followed Jordan Peterson more closely than everyone mentioned here, and he's fascinating to watch—mostly because of how people react to him. Often it's based in strong emotion, not reason.
For another example, look no further than this august institution's 'controversial' hiring of Bret Stephens, and the 40k+ people who threatened to cancel their subscriptions. It's a sad state when fear of challenging ideas overwhelms the faith we have in our own judgement and capacity to think for ourselves.
502
A consistent injustice in this discussion is that the folks on the side of the "dark-web" attribute the rejection of their ideas and figures as due to offense or fear of the mainstream's ideas being challenge. This is just not the case; it's most often just simply a result of disagreement with bad ideas.
50
To this I might mention that the accompanying images (by the enormously talented Damon Winter) just add to the dark and (seemingly cultivated) mysterious aura of this group.
I just wish intellectuals (or whatever these people are) would let their ideas stand on their own, without seductive atmospherics and/or cultivated mystique.
22
I don't know about "most often", but Nawaz is listed as an anti-Muslim extremist by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying were hounded out of their jobs at Evergreen State. Not just "disagreemtn." A point of the article was to contrast the vigorous but respectful exchanges found within this group with the authoritarian tendencies rising on both right and left. I do dislike the term "dark web," though.
5
The real problem seems to me to be that we have succumbed to a mob mentality in the U.S., in which anyone who voices opinions deemed by the majority (or more often by a vocal elite), to be dangerous or insulting is attacked for speaking his or her opinion. The MSM and, in some cases, institutions, such as universities, have followed suit, and protest groups have justified tactics that rob people with dissenting views of their right to free speech. However courageous, or simply sensation and perhaps money-seeking those who speak out are, the answer to this situation is not to create a group of semi-sub rosa media stars, who entertain with their anti-establishment opinions (and only a few of these people mentioned fall into this category), it is to continue to convince and enroll more mainstream thinkers and voices into a movement that subscribes to the unwavering principle of free speech and the underlying free thought that such speech allows. Right now, mainstream voices are afraid to speak up, so the stage is given over to those with the most courage and those on the fringe who are seeking notoriety. Michael Shermer, Sam Harris and Jonathan Haidt, among others, are a few who represent a serious effort at pushing this free speech agenda. We also need the editorial boards of media giants such as the NYT.
12
My goodness! Other people are actually having a conversation! Who are these "others" you ask? And how dare they presume to discuss important matters among themselves? After all they are outside the academic and journalistic mainstream! Therefore, their views are deemed "heretical" - your word! And their discussion among themselves is regarded as an insurrection against, and challenge to, the cultural authority main-stream journalists and hyper politically correct academics arrogate to themselves. But a lot of people - even people like me, who are liberals, who only ever voted for democrats, who detest Trump, even we are finding in this forbidden discourse a refreshing breeze free of cant and old, tired assumptions - call it dogma. If they are the heretics what does that make you? The dogmatists? And truly it is with the blind faith of religion that so much cant prevails in academia and journalism today - it is enforced by social disapproval, career sabotage, and outright violence. So naturally people are doing an end run around your orthodoxy and creating new avenues of discussion and opening new lines of thought. Your choice of words - heresy, end run - is revealing of your own assumptions and the religious way in which you adhere to and enforce them. I for one find this trend liberating and am a avid listener to these intellectuals - who by the way are not on the so-called "dark-web" but in broad daylight on something called "the internet".
29
‘But with a figure like Mr. Cernovich, who can occasionally sound reasonable, how is a viewer supposed to know better?’
You see, this is why I no longer care about the ‘mainstream conversation.’ I am perfectly capable of listening to Mike Cernovich and coming to my own conclusions. I don’t need the intelligentsia to hold my hand on my journeys through the internet. Real conversation is risky. Sometimes we take offence and sometimes we give offence. I much prefer this to the censorious, programmed nature of what passes for ‘mainstream conversation.’
12
I was wondering when this would be discovered.
Saying that Joe Rogan's audience is the similar to Rachel Maddow is misleading. It's actually much larger.
The size of the audience that listen to his whole 2 or 3 hour interviews is similar to Maddow, but those interviews get chopped up into 5 or 10 or 15 minute bites that collectively get more listens and views.
Then people make reaction video where they give their own opinions about what was said or mash up clips from several places that are all about a theme.
Over all, I thought this piece was excellent.
It's actually shocking to see something in the mainstream media this balanced.
It turns out there are really people who think deeply about big issues, disagree profoundly and respectfully AND not just people who want to watch CNN talk about 23 hours in a day about Stormy Davis.
31
Anyone looking for a particularly egregious example of the left policing legitimate thought should google David Remnick's interview with Mark Lilla regarding his book challenging identity politics, Once and Future Liberal. The book is worth reading, Lilla has many valid points, and Remnick lambastes his political values and essentially calls him a traitor. When Remnick interviewed Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, the Nigerian author who has also challenged lazy thinking on the left, he lauded her as an bold and insightful thinker.
8
A negative book review amounts to "policing legitimate thought?"
Intellectual discourse is an important part of a free speech and our democracy. I beg to differ, however, that giving a voice, and therefore credence, to the like Alex Jones and others does nothing to enhance the discourse on serious issues facing our society, one being a rise in fascism. Madeleine Albright has written an excellent book on this topic. The likes of Jones and others on the extreme right are dealing with lies, guilt by association, and negation of factual information to form their "opinions". This does not lend itself to understanding the differences between conservatives and progressives. It may good TV or podcasts, etc. but does nothing to enhance our democratic principles of fair play and forming opinions based on factual information.
7
I find much of this disingenuous. The valid point here is this—we all (and this includes people who use words like “ thoughtful” to praise articles they like) live to some degree in cognitive bubbles. Get outside your bubble. Read people with whom you disagree and don’t assume that they are all motivated by bad faith.
But I suspect Weiss basically wants rightwing heretics who criticize Trump and leftwing heretics who criticize the left, especially the left which criticizes her. The word “ heretic” is a cliche— it is actually a term of praise. I am a heretic, you are a stodgy mainstream person and that guy over there is a crackpot.
If the mainstream press wants a wider range of views presented on TV or in print, both to the left and the right, this is easily fixed. Set the example.
6
Welcome to the Radical Center: where the pursuit of truth and the supremacy of the individual are paramount. These folks have their work cut out for them. Best of luck - you'll need it.
28
Thank you for this. Informally and without plan, I had already been following many of these people -- their writing or podcasts. I truly appreciate civil discussion and debate, even if I don't agree with the argument or the result.
I'm sure that over time, a sorting out will continue to happen. There's a difference between the scholarship of Sam Harris and that of Alex Jones (!). While I wouldn't spend five seconds on anything Alex Jones has to say, I don't condemn people who interview him in the interest of understand him -- how he came to be, what his objectives are. I think they do it because they're trying to understand his followers. Listening and understanding are the precursor to making any argument.
Again, thanks for putting a name to the alliance of heretics with whom I've increasingly found myself turning.
37
So many different actors in this piece- hard to keep them all straight. But this brought to mind two things;
1) Often the refrain ‘ where is my Party’ runs through my head when I align with most progressive domestic issues, but agree with more...conservative views on international issues. Our two Parties are, at times, like straight jackets. Contrarily, assault weapons defenders don’t seem to belong in the Demo Party. Go figure.
2) I had to chuckle a bit trying to follow the differing points of view, but it so reminded me of in-family disagreements during holidays...when none of us were....politically correct. We always end up agreeing to disagree, but then none of us have gone out on the whacko limbs, either. Well, .....never mind.
2
These people are just as close-minded as the folks they criticize. The failure to acknowledge one's biases is just another bias. There can be little dispute that while both "the left" and "the right" wear bias blinders, the rise of today's American fascism is most certainly a product of "right" thinking. Giving respectability to hate is not a movement I can embrace.
24
Right wing fascism? Really? Who's shutting down free speech on campuses? Who beat up a left-leaning professor because she brought a conservative intellectual on campus? Who drove two very liberal professors out because they did not believe in holding a white-free day on campus? None of those were right-wing actions.
9
You got Joe Scarborough to repeat the trope about liberal higher education on his show this morning. I don't see that many liberals in colleges of engineering or schools of business. Yet, the right exploits the few voices they dislike in say, women's studies, to inflame legions of "incels." The dark web, heh.
12
Intellectual Dark Web is a bit dramatic for describing YouTube. That would be like calling a McDonald's a "Sardic Church to American Greatness"
Can you see my eyes rolling?
43
I find the points generally made by members of the IDW are not new or original. Their apparent intent is to demoralize any movement for a more just and humane society.
20
A few thoughts.
It seems we are surrounded by victims. Almost everyone feels a victim of something. "Intellectual" Dark Web comes from this sense of being a victim of various societal norms.
They claim they are victims of the MSM and political correctness, but here they are in the NYT and monitizing, quite successfully, their brand.
Any group that promotes creators of fake and dangerous propaganda like Pizzagate as "free thought," has lost any right to use the word "intellectual."
189
This morning on Twitter I discovered via a thread that crying is a display of white privilege, especially white women who tear up. According to the theory, crying by white women have gotten many people of color in trouble with the police. A NYT op-ed contributor prescribes to this belief. Tweeters who challenged that notion were scorned.
Which in a strange way explains the phenomena that Bari describes. Wow.
17
hmmmm; truth without penalty. Could work - we have a President who lies without penalty.
4
Add Dennis Prager, Heather Mac Donald, Camille Paglia, Megan McArdle, and even John McWhorter to the list of those who talk and listen. And especially Jonathan Haidt.
18
Because I live in Washington state, I am exposed to a more story about Evergreen's issues and experiences. Weinstein taught biology and Heying taught anthropology at Evergreen. Weinstein objected to a change in an voluntary event. Students protested. Weinstein went on Tucker Carlson. Alt right trolls aimed threats at Evergreen. Conservative pundits jumped on Weinstein bandwagon. Weinstein and Heying sued Evergreen and settled for $500,000 and left their teaching jobs for "dark web intellectual" speaking fees.
I'd compare Weinstein and the others to televangelists. Charismatic preachers monetize a desire for meaning and preach religion. Weinstein and others monetize a sense of confusion and persecution and preach superiority. Good grief.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/evergreen-copes-with-fallout-months-af...
31
Oh good grief. He objected to having to cancel his classes for a stunt. He upheld academic standards.
7
No. The norm was that a certain group of people VOLUNTARILY chose not to attend classes for a day each year in support of their cause and identity. The change that activists proposed was an involuntary banishment from the campus for everyone not of that identity. Eric Weinstein took what he believed to be a principled stand for his academic freedom. Most of his colleagues did not. But it is on inconvenient exceptions like his that academic freedom hinges.
7
“People are starved for controversial opinions,” said Joe Rogan, an MMA color commentator and comedian who hosts one of the most popular podcasts in the country. “And they are starved for an actual conversation.”
The fact that the first sentence is true (and you can substitute "political incorrectness" for "controversial opinions") explains why Trump drew attention and support during the 2016 campaign. The fact that the last sentence is NOT true, at least for a majority of citizens who prefer not to think, explains how he got elected.
12
"they all share three distinct qualities. First, they are willing to disagree ferociously, but talk civilly, about nearly every meaningful subject: religion, abortion, immigration, the nature of consciousness."
you know, i see this supposedly rare quality on virtually every comment board i go on. not all, but most people on the publoic boards are doing exactly this. maybe we're the real intellectual web. maybe there's a public web. and we're it.
1
About the only thing these individuals of the Intellectual Dark Web seem to have in common is an old fashioned belief: the best way to deal with a bad idea is to refute it.
In our age, though, we can deal with anything except reality.
14
These folks are mighty brave. A tree-hugging liberal my entire life. I've been unable to explain my problems with same-sex marriage, gender politics and #MeToo without getting shouted down an/or made to feel insensitive and out-of-touch. I think the IDW's slogan might be "Listen, For Once!".
34
Feeling insensitive and out-of-touch is, in the end, an internal response. If you truly believe same-sex marriage is wrong, and that the societal benefits of a ban outweigh any personal impact on the the millions of LGBTQ in this country, why would you ever feel insensitive or out-of-touch for holding these views, regardless of whether you think people are listening to you or not?
2
B, Listen .. for once. I never said nor do I believe same-sex marriage is wrong and I'd never support a ban. But, I believe there is justification for providing certain tax benefits (note I didn't say health benefits) to male/female marriage to the exclusion of same sex marriage. Your response "kills the messenger" at the expense of the message and is the "mainstream" the IDW opposes.
Great, I've been unable to explain my problems with dismissive white men, so maybe this movement could help us both.
1
Intellectual Dark Web. Wasn't that the name of a famous cafe in Paris during the early 20th century?
2
I wish Nicholas Christakis had been included. He is an amazing thinking and sensitive man who was persecuted because his wife expressed attitudes about Halloween costumes that some students of Yale disagreed with. Former Governor and Presidential candidate Howard Dean recently in a debate cited Christakis and his wife as racist. When Dean was confronted with the false narrative he had promoted instead of admitting he made a mistake he doubled down. When Democrats try to curry favor by slurring good people (and lifelong liberals) like Erika and Nicholas Christakis as bigots then I'm outta there.
The individuals cited as dark web thinkers certainly have, to varying degree, flaws. But they are a godsent. No dissent is allowed in today's leftism. Ms. Heying is right that the dark web is dangerous, not because they actually promote dangerous or offensive ideas, but they challenge the far left gatekeepers and their bullying. They are smart people, mostly with liberal bents, who are willing to say the emperor has no clothes.
36
'How can you say that forcing women to wear burqas is wrong?’
The answer is in the question: "forcing". The same applies to criticism of every culture on earth if the dominate group FORCES members to behave in a certain way.
'Force' implies the inability to convince or otherwise persuade. Any person, group or culture that must rely on force -- other than as a defense of the self -- has weak arguments and a faulty premise.
Forcing sex. Forcing individuals to wear a certain type of garment. Forcing food, religion, or political beliefs -- all are indicators of frailty and failure.
133
By this logic, you would understand Mr. Peterson's rejection to being compelled to use pronouns to refer to transgender people. He is being forced by the Canadian government to talk in a certain way.
What we need to understand is that things are much more nuanced than a soundbite or a twitter quote.
5
A fascinating piece of journalism. The one point that was made numerous times that I find most disturbing is the problem people seem to have with associations with people of less than sterling moral character. Even a moral degenerate, which none of these people seem to be, may well have good ideas outside of the area of his depravity and his failings should not take away from those ideas.
5
Well said.
Not every speaker deserves a platform. This is how terrible ideas and stereotypes spread among the masses. By giving every voice a microphone under the context of intellectual discourse, we normalize ideas that dehumanize other people. Should we give race science a platform? or Louis Farrakhan? Jordan Peterson, Charles Murray can say whatever they want but should expect criticisms. At least the last time I checked they have not been banned from any public discourse.
14
If it is science, I don't see the issue?
1
I disagree. Right now it's important to give every idea an airing. If you are confident in your position argue it. Have faith in yourself and in the audience to see what's right. Truth will win in the end. If you can't do this reconsider your position or argument. Learn from the critique.
What ,exactly, is wrong with what Murray or farakan are saying and why is it wrong?
2
"... Charles Murray ... At least the last time I checked they have not been banned from any public discourse."
You must not have "checked" in over a year, because Murray was shouted down at Middlebury College:
Protesters Disrupt Speech by ‘Bell Curve’ Author at Vermont College
By Katharine Q. Seelye
March 3, 2017
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/us/middlebury-college-charles-murray-...
1
Ah, the "Intellectual Dark Web." This includes, I suppose, articles at the top of the main webpage of the New York Times? And constant coverage in every other major press venue? And book deals? And TV appearances? And still occupying most major positions of social and economic power?
There are genuine disputes here, but the idea that these people are somehow going unheard -- that what they have to say is what "Cannot be Said" -- is ridiculous. It's one thing they've definitely learned from their alleged opponents: how to play the victim.
They are being effectively challenged. What does it say about their confidence in the truth of their views that they understand effective challenge as silencing?
58
Well, a lot of them do have to hire security in order to be able to give a scheduled speech, even in public universities. If it were not for the web I'm not sure any of them would have a platform to make themselves heard.
8
Having to hire security in order to present a speech at a venue which has ostensibly invited a speaker there seems to beg the question as to how necessary it truly is for such a speaker to be invited in the first place.
1
These people have appeared on MSNBC, HBO, and other mainstream media outlets. The Daily Wire is one of the most popular news sites on Facebook with Fox News. These people aren't hiding on the dark web as the title suggest. They are in the mainstream but somehow always try to be victims when people criticize their ideas. We are reading this in the NYT. No one is being silenced here.
1
An interesting argue from yesterday's article https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/07/opinion/transparency-fake-news.html?r...
Bravo, thanks for an excuse to do some thinking.
Just goes to prove that if two crazy people sitting together in a room can agree that they're both sane, that as far as they're concerned they are and could care less what the rest think so long as they have each other. Sanity is and always probably has been a moot point, happiness is what matters most to people. God bless the Dark Web.
1
These people are intellectual hucksters. They traffic the idea that they're being "censored" to make it seem like they have some sort of forbidden knowledge, when in reality people just disagree with them vociferously. The social justice warrior crisis they constantly rail against is vastly over-exaggerated, and they exploit the outrage against this small number of SJW's for clicks and money. They confuse other people telling them they're wrong with people telling them they cannot speak. There are some who go too far in protest of them, but these people are a fraction of a percentage of their critics.
Many of them are funded by conservative think tanks or conservative billionaire investors like the Koch brothers to soft-peddle their views.
Also, using the term "intellectual dark web" is absurd. They have very popular YouTube channels. Joe Rogan has a top podcast where he prominently features interviews with almost all of the people mentioned in this article. They either have a victim complex that they claim that their critics have, or they have realized this is a good way to monetize outrage culture. Either way, they should be ignored.
428
Thank you for this! This entire piece is so incredibly dishonest about who these intellectuals actually are. The fact that Christina Sommers is labeled as a feminist should discount it completely.
34
"Also, using the term "intellectual dark web" is absurd."
Yeah that's what makes it funny.
It's not meant to be taken literally but I guess that flew over your head.
11
Yep. They’re completely wrong about everything. At least in the the context of what’s considered right.
Right?
9
Bari says it is incredulous to interpret an argument for IQ differences between groups being explained by genetics as synonymous with arguing that one group is inferior to another. By definition, the argument fundamentally requires certain groups' IQs be inferior to others. What is her reason for using a specific, expansive definition of the word "inferior" in order to reject this obvious inference?
7
In these conversations inferiority is often used with reference to a persons overall value. I believe it is this kind of inferiority that people fear when scientists try to understand intelligence differences among populations. One group may have an IQ higher than another, but this by no means makes them a "superior" population. Do you see how it's reasonable to make that kind of distinction?
5
Anyone still harping over the core value or relevance of "Intelligence Quotient" in attempting to discover what it might mean to be human has clearly wandered into the dark.
Stating that Norwegians are taller than Japanese is NOT stating that Japanese are inferior to Norwegians. However many social justice warriors shut down any discussion of genetics and IQ by shouting that linking genetic group differences to IQ differences is a claim that one genetic group (e.g., race) is inferior to another. It is not such a claim. The adjective "inferior" should not be tied to genetic differences in height, hair color, IQ, etc. these are just features of the world that we need to acknowledge and live with.
3
The problem, as I see it, is that this group is no different than all the others. Too bad they don't really offer the alternative the author suggests even if he ultimately rejects them. The problem again is factual truth. All through this article there are examples where this group crosses the same line they criticize others for crossing.
Take as one example, the claim that among immigrants there are surely some Muslim radicals. Well of course. But then we get this "estimate)):" about 20% of Muslims in the world are extremists or jihadists. Nice to smuggle that in as truth. This group, like the others, treats facts as creations not givens. When they can treat facts in a way different from Trump they will be ready for prime time. At the moment they remain part of the problem.
42
We need to be careful with our choice of words here. He said 20% are either Islamists or jihadists. Keep in mind that a small fraction are of the terroristic sort. Islamism has a specific meaning that implies the promotion of Islam as a political system. Jihadist can mean anything from deep religious conviction in a personal struggle or a spiritual war. I believe this 20% figure comes from Pew polling on the issue. Harris doesn't tend to use unfounded statistics (see the references in his book The End of Faith).
8
"The problem again is factual truth."
The phrase "factual truth" is redundant.
'But then we get this "estimate)):" about 20% of Muslims in the world are extremists or jihadists. Nice to smuggle that in as truth.'
A good place to start seeking the "truth" is with an *exact* quote:
"He [Harris] has also estimated that some 20 percent of Muslims worldwide are Islamists or jihadis."
The OpEd doesn't explain how that "estimate" was obtained, so the problem isn't with the "truth", but with inadequate sourcing. That is a common problem with Times OpEds.
8
We all who cherish democracy and freedom should welcome broad discussions of controversies and reject uniformity expressed in the forms of political correctness and manipulations. I believe that openness is essential to eliminate people like Trump from our lives. His rise to power was not accidental but resulted from decades of shutting down voices, by both conservative and liberal elites, with the goal to preserve dogmas serving political purposes.
15
Philosophical debate and discussion is as old as Plato. The search for truth and meaning should be the goal of every human being. Are these people searching for truth and meaning or are they searching for fame and fortune by simply being iconoclasts.
10
if Milo and Stefan are the alt rights figure heads I feel a lot safer now!
2
I feel so aligned with Bari Weiss based on her writing and TV appearances.
The apparent acceptance of opposing views presented civilly is truly welcome. However, I worry that this is just another intellectual bubble to shield those who think like me from those who disagree. I desperately want to have meaningful discussions with those whose views I oppose, but finding people willing to debate ferociously AND politely is impossible to find in the ostensibly "open" environs of NYC.
As a society, we have lost something when we cannot learn from one another in the crucible of academic and intellectual debate.
19
Tony
Why does it matter how politely people debate? The only thing necessary is that when they are 'ferocious' or rude, it does NOT prevent the responsible continuation of the argument (ie, discussion.)
For that, both sides need to be not polite, but intensely interested in ascertaining the truth about the topic.
The real problem with intellectual debate by opposed sides is not rudeness, for heaven's sake, but whether the participants are intellectually honest & responsible in their views, not to mention adequately articulate & know how to argue.
It is most important to find out what you really see & to understand how you come to have that view; in fact where opinions, views. come from in general.
Most peoples' opinions are not their own; we generally want to believe we have views that define us the way we want to be seen, rather than to understand what it is we actually see with our own eyes.
Very balanced and needed article.
The identity politics on the hypocritical left, in particular on college campuses, doesn't advance a bit the interests of the groups they claim to support, but only their own careers. These are the social justice tenured warriors, who don't mind exploiting adjuncts at their own institutions. So if you want an open intellectual conversation, it seems, you have to get out of campus and on youtube, to listen professors who are cast out.
27
Which university do you attend/teach at? Maybe it’s just your school, not country wide. Or maybe you just got a bun selection of professors. What you describe doesn’t sound at all like my experience on campus.
1
How about the hypocritical evangelicals on the right who like to stand on their high horses to moralize about how everyone else should live their lives but are totally cool with a twice-divorced philandering president who has a slush fund to pay off porn stars, brags about sexual assault, fully supports a child molester in a senate race, calls Mexicans rapists and murders, etc., etc., etc.?
If I had to choose, I would rather be on the side of a hypocritical liberal, who may be misguided in their overreach with "identity politics", because at least they believe they are trying to protect groups of people who they see as vulnerable. The hypocritical right is not looking out for anyone but themselves.
2
Two wrongs don't make a right. People need to think and examine the facts, and if someone is hypocritical, I don't care if they are on the political left or right.
1
The most stunning aspect of this article is that values such as respecting opinions, listening, seeking to understand, using reason, and civility are considered an 'underground movement'.
It gives quite a bit of insight into our activist driven culture which seeks an end in itself and is not concerned with the values listed above.
232
Unfortunately, their respect of opinions and listening and seeking to understand only happens if you subscribe to a core set of values that this group shares. If you do not, you are intentionally excluded (if you're not well known enough) or met with the most vociferous of criticism (if you are well known).
To be part of this "intellectual dark web," one must subscribe to the idea that Western Judeo-Christian values and cultures are supreme and right and the standard by which all values, cultures, and faiths should be judged. Read through the arguments being shared by all of these people and you'll find that the supremacy of Western culture and values underlies all of it. They never question that fundamental piece of the puzzle and strongly criticize anyone who does.
9
I was sufficiently intrigued by this article to Google (lol) those identified as part of the Dark Web. I wouldn’t say that Western Judeo-Christian values underpin their views. Far from it. More likely the set of values running through all races and religions which has evolutionarily developed to protect the family unit which, of course, includes the male domination role. That said, humans have moved past the point where brute force and nurture served us well, into more dangerous times, and our collective response will determine our future, if any. I see humanity goose stepping towards it’s own demise, with the extremists of political correctness and their opposites locked in a ridiculous ideological battle dragging with them their millions of mindless followers. Dissenting views are a good thing, and the stars of the Dark Web do dissent. If you think their dissent is inadequate, start up another channel to take it further. I might join you. PS. Having read the “notorious Google email” I fail to see how it could get anyone fired, unless he made it public. If he did, he’s a fool in the category of the #metoo extremists who consider a harmless pat on the rump sexual violation.
1
On April 21, Kanye West crystallized this problem when he tweeted seven words that set Twitter on fire: “I love the way Candace Owens thinks.”
Candace Owens, the communications director for Turning Point USA, is a sharp, young, black conservative — a telegenic speaker with killer instincts who makes videos with titles like “How to Escape the Democrat Plantation” and “The Left Thinks Black People Are Stupid.” Mr. West’s praise for her was sandwiched inside a longer thread that referenced many of the markers of the Intellectual Dark Web, like the tyranny of thought policing and the importance of independent thinking.
Jeez, now we have to contend with people who think they invented the wheel — but did not, not even close.
1
Thank you, Bari. Thank you.
15
I grew up in the US, did 7 years of undergrad and grad school, and then moved to the UK to do a graduate degree at Oxford. They operated in a manner completely different to all my US professors. In the US, I was expected to agree with the professor or be penalized, whereas in the UK they expected you to argue, and they rewarded good arguments. They were perfectly happy for you to argue against their own positions so long as you argued well. The emphasis was highly weighted towards critical thinking. I conclude: we do not teach people here in the United States to think critically. We talk about critical thinking, but everything we do works against that supposed goal. This explains a lot of the craziness surrounding unpopular ideas. When you’re incapable of making an argument for your own position, all you have left to do work with is venting anger to ward off the scary ideas that are different than yours. If we don’t learn to think critically we will just always sink into toxic emotion, eventually.
664
I do that with my students in Cleveland Ohio. Their exams are completely anonymous to assure them protection and my questions are always preceded with, "any comments, arguments, criticisms, personal attacks, or personal advice?l" And I remind them at every turn that grades and exams are anonymous. They're free to say anything and I always hope it's well reasoned, but they're free to vent if they want. Otherwise what am I doing it for?
25
What field do you study in which a sample size of presumably 2-3 out of a poplulation of 10s of thousands was enough to draw meaningful conclusions?
10
After Brexit it might be difficult to maintain that Brits excel at critical thinking.
20
What these people have in common is that they take criticism of their views way too personally. Disagreement is not censorship.
236
Brett Weinstein and his wife Heather had to move because their safety was in danger. The professor who invited Charles Murray to talk at her college received a concussion from a mob of students. Do you call this mere disagreement?
34
You're aware what happened to Bret Weinstein, right? In fact, it's mentioned in this very article. To assert that people are just "disagreeing" when they show up with an intent to use violence, or get people fired is either ignorant or disingenuous.
27
Damon Winter's photographs are stunning and evocative. They make Bari Weiss' dense, thoughtful and thought-provoking article "live" more deeply in my mind.
Thanks to both.
15
The one element that seems to run through all of these intellectuals is the underlying presumption that Western values are superior to all other values. The bit in the middle where Sam Harris was telling:
“The moral confusion that operates under the banner of ‘multiculturalism’ can blind even well-educated people to the problems of intolerance and cruelty in other communities,” Mr. Harris said. “This had never fully crystallized for me until that moment.”
Yet his criticism was of practices of non-Western culture. I do agree with him that I find the practices he mentioned immoral, particularly foot binding, but I also consider the Western cultural norm of allowing young children unfettered access to the Internet when they're cognitively unable to distinguish between genuine facts and ideas and disingenuous persuasion is similarly immoral. There are many Western norms I consider immoral, just as there are many non-Western norms I consider immoral.
However, the consistent thread amongst all of these intellectuals is that Western Judeo-Christian norms are the only moral norms and that all cultural norms should be judged against them. That's an assumption I can't fully swallow. Virtually all cultures have norms that should be questioned, but folks like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, and Candace Owens hold Western norms above such questioning. That's where I jump off the "intellectual dark web" train - it's a poisonous base assumption that leads nowhere good.
67
Harris is a strong proponent of Eastern meditation practices and became famous for attacking both Christianity and Islam. He is not a defender of Judeo-Christian norms.
19
Trent,
Respectfully, you should listen to Sam Harris more, or do so more carefully. Your description of him is inaccurate. Harris seeks a rational, evidence-based understanding of morality that is not tied to "western" norms at all, but doesn't flinch when it comes to the superstitions and perversions of religion and "faith." He finds Buddhism, for example, to be a better form of belief than many other (even "western") canons of superstition, etc.
I don't really care for the term "intellectual dark web," because it lends a misleadingly sinister tone to these conversations. While many (such as Alex Jones) might deserve that appellation, others merely express the common sense and enlightenment of a scientific age, unfettered by the intellect-curtailing demands of a paranoid culture of religion. Religions worry - correctly - that if their inanities are subjected to ordinary analysis, they will lose the "free pass" society offers them for their ludicrous rules and benefits. Others, on the right and left, have tended more and more to start out with favored "answers," and then find questions and data carefully designed to confirm those predetermined conclusions. This, too, is faulty thinking. We need people like Harris to help us tear down these walls of anti-intellectualism and to approach real-world questions with honesty, clarity, and integrity.
24
Apparently, you haven't listened to Sam Harris. He's an atheist. He absolutely doesn't argue for Judeo-Christian values except where those values agree with his values. I imagine he would come out strongly against many "Western Judeo-Christian" values such as early, unfettered internet access, if he wasn't dealing with foot binding. It may just be that he thinks foot binding deserves more criticism than internet access.
16
The fundamental binding of this group is the willingness to have long-form, respectful, and details discussions, a true antidote for a world consumed by cable news and bumper-sticker facebook posts.
Thank you Bari Weiss, maybe now the "Intellectual Dark Web" might not be so dark after all.
26
"Intellectuals have made plenty of disastrous mistakes over the centuries- mistakes that undoubtedly started out as conversations."
Of course; it all started with Socrates. Since then, dangerous conversation has been our fate. So, is the alternative to have no conversation, or to abandon ourselves innocently to the drift of public opinion? Kowtowing to the orthodoxies of academic leftism seems like a non-starter. Evidently the multiculural prime directive, though attractive in theory, is pretty much unobservable in practice. It's time (as ever) for some "inspired adhoccery".
7
Quite a dense but fascinating piece. but several things really struck me about these "new" intellectuals, the most important being, won't they simply devolve into infighting about whose opinions and views are more accurate?
I've seen that often attitudes and remarks seen as so refreshing sometimes cave under the weight of analysis: e.g., something is great in the beginning but then seen as heretic if a body of work contains one tabu thought.
the other thing that grabs me is, how long can this "freedom" to speak outside the bounds of traditional right and left last? look what happened when celebrities like Kanye jumped into this mix.
I suspect neither average Americans or Donald Trump for that matter would give a hoot about any of this debate.
Which is too bad, because unless a majority can converge on a common understanding of what matters, nothing will change.
6
This is a journey I'm currently making. I'm a progressive, two time president of a Unitarian Church, where I've been vocally supportive of marriage equality since the 1990s, used my position of president to provide support to the trans-gendered community, led marches against the Iraq War, and have been overwhelmingly supportive of progressive candidates. I have not changed my beliefs on any of those issues. But I am also a committed supporter of free speech and am alarmed by the public censuring of many of these thinkers, some of whom (Sommers and Peterson, notably) I find compelling. The left's treatment of these people (straw man arguments, science denialism, and ad hominem attacks) strongly echos the tea party of a decade ago, which cast aside prominent intellectuals (David Frum). This censuring not only hurts progressive policies, but our political culture in general. The coming blue wave in 2018 will likely only solidify this trend like the 2010 wave solidified tea party politics as the dominant mode of movement conservatives.
73
How have Peterson and Sommers been censured? People disagreeing with their arguments isn't censoring, even if the disagreements are unfounded.
4
"The coming blue wave in 2018 will likely only solidify this trend like the 2010 wave solidified tea party politics as the dominant mode of movement conservatives."
Bring it on! Can't wait!
2
I’m looking forward to the policies and the desperately needed check on Trump, but I worry about the health of our national dialogue. For the record, I’ll be actively supporting Dems this election with just as much passion (maybe more) as I usually do.
Can I just say that as a mainstream liberal, I absolutely accept that there are biological differences between the sexes. I didnt know that anyone thought this was controversial, particularly enough to launch a movement of anti-mainstream intellectualism. That women have less body muscle, smaller hands, tend to be more empathetic and less aggressive etc etc does not mean that either sex is superior however. Of course these things are true, but unfortunately they are sometimes used as a basis to justify unequal treatment. Pushing back against that notion is the liberalism that I know and subscribe to.
536
Wow Ed, you say, "I absolutely accept that there are biological differences between the sexes. I didnt know that anyone thought this was controversial."
Where've you been the last forty years?
33
In the last 40 years,i have lived my entire life, in the USA, sometimes in conservative areas and situations and other times liberal ones. I have attended a liberal arts school in new england studying the humanities, a state university studying the hard sciences in graduate school, to a successful business and philanthropic career that has brought me all over the United States. In all my travels and years on this earth, I have never heard anyone argue that men and women do not have biological differences.
5
What about that confuses you? Women and men are biologically different. How is that controversial?
Where have YOU been for the last 10K years?
4
I don't know how anyone can talk about the Intellectual Dark Web without mentioning Steve Sailer.
Sure, he's a bit more "toxic" than the rest because he pulls fewer punches. In his favor, he gets just about everything right in terms of predictions -- one of the forgotten upsides of facing truths, however unpleasant.
Sailer was the rare political commentator who foresaw well in advance how a figure like Trump might win. But of course accolades today go to the pundits who predict the morally correct outcome, not the actual one.
Someday, perhaps, our pundit class will tire of being wrong about everything -- or perhaps their audience will.
Then Steve Sailer may commence to get his due.
3
Sailer is definitely further to the right and has made comments that legitimately can be construed as bigoted. I don't think most dark web types would be overly interested in him. Having said that though, in a world where liberals openly embrace Louis Farrakhan, including elected officials, they have lost any right to tell people who they can or cannot listen to. Sailer is smart, and although I am in a demographic that he often puts down, I'd still say he has more than a little to offer.
3
I find it amusing that so many labels seem to be getting applied to many of the same people. "Intellectual Dark Web" is the latest in line, but Weiss still chooses "Classical Liberal". 10 years ago, many of them would have been called "Skeptics" and found themselves in atheist movements. Allum Bokhari listed several of them in his "Rise of the Cultural Libertarians" piece. Their followers are often lumped in with the alt-right, and so they can even be called "alt-right leaders"!
I also find it amusing that an equally adequate label could be "professional victims" or "professional trolls". I'm glad Weiss did not shy away from discussing the incredible amount of money that surrounds these individuals who are making a living talking and tweeting about how they've been protested and cast out of academia and liberalism.
37
Once upon a time (last year) I was nestled safely in my progressive liberal echo chamber. Only recently through happenstance and coincidence have I allowed myself to be exposed to the writings and media of these people. I haven't had my mind so gloriously challenged since I was in college (especially by Dr. Peterson.) Thank you for this article! I hope all of these people keep up their work, and keep talking across their ideological belief systems.
105