Intellectual Dark Web

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

1. Get off YouTube.

2. Learn what a "Liberal" is on this side of the Atlantic before opening your mouth and shaming yourself.

3. Go outside.

4. Talk to some real people.

Ahh another one that seems to know all the facts.

What's wrong with youtube exactly?
I know what a liberal is thank you. If you believe I've been incorrect somewhere then please point it out.
I go outside often, in fact I walk several kilometres every day. Do you?
I talk to real people all the time Your insinuation is baseless.

You seem the type of person the IDW is in existence to combat :cool:

In retrospect I realize your post is just thank whoring like in post #2. In which case work away whatever floats your boat.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Ahh another one that seems to know all the facts.

:rolleyes:

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

What's wrong with youtube exactly?

It's full of clickbait **** propagating the worst of childish American politics (or what passes for politics) that lead the young and the stupid astray.

Which one are you, young or just stupid.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I know what a liberal is thank you. If you believe I've been incorrect somewhere then please point it out.

Too many people today are picking up this nonsense talk from the web. You're one of them.

The "Liberals" you're banging on about don't exist on this side of the pond and your "culture war" is pretty non-existent over here too.

As I said get off YouTube.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I go outside often, in fact I walk several kilometres every day.

Do it more often.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I talk to real people all the time

The voices in your head are not real people.

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

You seem the type of person the IDW is in existence to combat :cool:

You have no idea what the dark web is, intellectual or otherwise.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

:rolleyes:

It's full of clickbait **** propagating the worst of childish American politics (or what passes for politics) that lead the young and the stupid astray.
Which one are you, young or just stupid.
Too many people today are picking up this nonsense talk from the web. You're one of them.

The "Liberals" you're banging on about don't exist on this side of the pond and your "culture war" is pretty non-existent over here too.

As I said get off YouTube.
Do it more often.
The voices in your head are not real people.
You have no idea what the dark web is, intellectual or otherwise.

So many words that said so little.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

So many words that said so little.

Go to bed kid. You have school in the morning.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

Go to bed kid. You have school in the morning.

I don't know what gives you the impression I'm young, but I wish I were. Just the first of your baseless accusations against me. But you're right I am getting tired- of you.

kowloon

Thread starts from a BS position: massively popular talk show hosts, authors and entertainers don't belong to a 'dark' anything any more than Amazon is a dark web retailer.

Veritas Libertas

kowloon wrote: »

Thread starts from a BS position: massively popular talk show hosts, authors and entertainers don't belong to a 'dark' anything any more than Amazon is a dark web retailer.

They talk about topics that the mainstream media won't dare touch. Do you dispute this?

Everything else is just dressing.

Veritas Libertas

Here's a subject that flies in the face of many 'societal norms' we've established recently that if you talk about it makes you sexist and a misogynist.

I'm sure Brian will say it's mainstream already

• 43.8% of lesbian women and 61.1% of bisexual women have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime, as opposed to 35% of heterosexual women.
• 26% of gay men and 37.3% of bisexual men have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, in comparison to 29% of heterosexual men.

Source

Domestic abuse in heterosexual relationships seems to be about equal among the sexes, so why is it continually seen and funded as a gendered issue?

Veritas Libertas

cdgalwegian wrote: »

The Rubin Report appears to be a coalescence of validating these views. Validation, rather than authentic challenging, is the structure of echo chambers; your quote above shows how this is reinforced by the semblance of challenging views. Much of mainstream material is obviously biased, but resorting to this particular non-mainstream bunch seems the wrong answer to it. It's only going to reinforce what you may already believe. It's not easy to find 'balanced' reporting, but that's life.

You assume this is the only content that I watch. I watch a wide variety of content. I just checked Rubin has hundreds of videos, I've maybe watched a dozen. My only point is that it is content not available elsewhere. The reason being that stigmas get attached to conversations and they get shut down. Especially when it comes to the IDW theme of clashing with PC culture.
Governments, corporations, academia, the arts, Hollywood, culture are all politically correct these days. To honestly criticize this is to face the wrath of the mob. Could you honestly have conversations spoken about in this thread in your everyday life? Outside of your closest friends&family?

Especially in this day and age I think it the only way possible to get a balanced perspective is to endure the bias from both 'sides'. I read Breitbart occasionally, I read the Guardian a lot, I read the Independent online, I read Quilliam(My favourite) I listen to the IDW guys, I watch late night comics, I read newspapers occasionally, books articles opinions pieces a lot. I always try to balance my perspective and look up the argument from the otherside. On youtube I'm subscribed to

• NYT
• Hoover Institute
• RT news
• Sky news
• Channel 4
• CNN
• American institute
• TED
• The guardian
• Reason TV
• Subverse
• and 257 more, mostly science, atheist and philosophy channels including all of the IDW.

That's why its infuriating when people assume I'm ignorant of the otherside, when usually it is them that are ignorant of my position happy to strawman me, just like they do members of the IDW. It's infuriating, as evidenced by people popping up in this thread making wild insinuations and then performing disappearing acts.

The One Doctor

Jesus. Eventually someone is going to have to point out to people that the internet is not the same as real life.

Why do you care about such remote and unimportant issues, OP? Single? Only child? Office job with unlimited hours on the internet?

I bet it's the last one.

kowloon

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

They talk about topics that the mainstream media won't dare touch. Do you dispute this?

Everything else is just dressing.

They are mainstream media. Jordan Peterson's book has been in the top 10 bestsellers since the beginning of time and Joe Rogan has millions of viewers and has talked to presidential candidates alongside all sorts of other people. They're not inaccessible or hard to find and they're not people with some sort of secret insight that's hidden from society. The fact that a lot of their material is on the internet rather than on tv stations is just a sign of how media delivery is changing.

Veritas Libertas

kowloon wrote: »

They are mainstream media. .

Jordan Peterson may have done a world tour, and he appear on MSM about twice i.e. channel 4 interview & the Guardian also kind of did a mini series on him.
Only about 2-3 others on that list you could accuse of being mainstream.

Except for the guardian series nearly every mention of the IDW is unfair criticism and dismissive.

Just because they have large following/support doesn't make them apart of the MSM, maybe it is our definitions that are different.

Tony EH

FFS.

Rogan's on YouTube and a pretty famous stand up comedian to boot.

Sam Harris is likewise all over YouTube. Ditto for Rubin and Shapirio.

Douglas Murray's been on 'Newsnight' and 'Question Time' on lots of occasions.


You really haven't the first bloody clue what you are talking about.

Darkweb. :pac:

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

FFS.

Rogan's on YouTube and a pretty famous stand up comedian to boot.

Sam Harris is likewise all over YouTube. Ditto for Rubin and Shapirio.

Douglas Murray's been on 'Newsnight' and 'Question Time' on lots of occasions.


You really haven't the first bloody clue what you are talking about.

Darkweb. :pac:

I have addressed this straw-man repeatedly in this thread. But I'll happily address it again for you because you may have a problem comprehending this point:

I'm saying the things these people are talking about are not mainstream. The things they talk about are a part of the 'dark web'. If Rubin/Shapiro/Murray/Harris came new on the scene today and were speaking about the things they speak about; they would be banned, de-platformed, misrepresented and strawmanned, just like you're doing to me.

It is because they have audiences that they are immune to such misrepresentations of the things they are saying.

If you or I go on twitter, and say "Greta could be abused by her parents" we will get banned and called hate-speakers. Not so easy to do that to someone with a big audience.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

You really haven't the first bloody clue what you are talking about.
:

Watch this and you will know what I'm talking about, you can stop projecting your ignorance onto me.

You, like the politicians, have become incredibly good at coming down on the secondary reaction. Why not instead target the primary problem?

Veritas Libertas

The One Doctor wrote: »

Jesus. Eventually someone is going to have to point out to people that the internet is not the same as real life.

Why do you care about such remote and unimportant issues, OP? Single? Only child? Office job with unlimited hours on the internet?

I bet it's the last one.

Why do you attack me for trying to expose a problem, even if it is by your standards remote and unimportant?

This is exactly why I created this thread.

Maybe you're attacking me because it makes you feel like a big man? Or because you were bullied as a child? Or because you have aversion to facts? I bet nobody likes you in real life

Junkyard Tom

Just did a couple of searches titled 'modern intellectuals'. The top 3 results named 20, 50 and 100 public intellectuals respectively. Two names on OP's collection feature, Steven Pinker and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I think the term 'Dark Web Intellectual' particularly intellectual is pushing the meaning of words to its limits.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

I have addressed this straw-man repeatedly in this thread. But I'll happily address it again for you because you may have a problem comprehending this point:

I'm saying the things these people are talking about are not mainstream. The things they talk about are a part of the 'dark web'. If Rubin/Shapiro/Murray/Harris came new on the scene today and were speaking about the things they speak about; they would be banned, de-platformed, misrepresented and strawmanned, just like you're doing to me.

It is because they have audiences that they are immune to such misrepresentations of the things they are saying.

If you or I go on twitter, and say "Greta could be abused by her parents" we will get banned and called hate-speakers. Not so easy to do that to someone with a big audience.

You don't know what you're trying to talk about kid.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

You don't know what you're trying to talk about kid.

So enlighten me oh wise Tony, EH

You know this thread is about the tactics you normally employ, and yet you're still using those tactics to highlight how absurd your position really is.

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Just did a couple of searches titled 'modern intellectuals'. The top 3 results produced a list of 20, 50 and 100 respectively. Two names on OP's collection feature, Steven Pinker and Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

I think the term 'Dark Web Intellectual' particularly intellectual is pushing the meaning of words to its limits.

I have absolute no qualms with the name. Call it what you like.

The thing that gets me is people being unfairly represented. Usually by smearing the person rather than focusing on the evidence being presented.

Veritas Libertas

Here is a recent letter in an exchange between Author James Flynn and publisher Emerald Press.

It details how scared they are to break laws that incite hatred in the UK, despite them admitting they clearly see no intent to do so. If you think topics can't be talked about your head is still in the sand. junkyard tom and Tony EH will completely ignore this post of course.

I am contacting you in regard to your manuscript In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor. Emerald believes that its publication, in particular in the United Kingdom, would raise serious concerns. By the nature of its subject matter, the work addresses sensitive topics of race, religion, and gender. The challenging manner in which you handle these topics as author, particularly at the beginning of the work, whilst no doubt editorially powerful, increase the sensitivity and the risk of reaction and legal challenge. As a result, we have taken external legal advice on the contents of the manuscript and summarize our concerns below.

There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant.

Source: Quillette

That’s shocking [the rejection] even by the standards of contemporary restrictions on free speech, and especially ironic given the subject of your book.
—Steven Pinker

James Flynn critically examines the way universities censor their teaching, how student activism tends to censor the opposing side and how academics censor themselves, and suggests that few, if any, universities can truly be seen as ‘good.’ In an age marred by fake news and social and political polarization, In Defense of Free Speech makes an impassioned argument for a return to critical thought.

James Flynn has also had an 'effect' named after him. Pity his books aren't getting published.
Yep this guy who appeared on TED is having difficulty getting his books published.

Junkyard Tom

Find another publisher and stop crying would be my advice.

Tony EH

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

So enlighten me oh wise Tony, EH

You know this thread is about the tactics you normally employ, and yet you're still using those tactics to highlight how absurd your position really is.

WTF are talking about. You're only here a wet weekend. You know nothing about me or "the tactics" I "normally employ". :pac:

It's great that you've just discovered these figures and their talking points and felt the need to open a Boards account to tell everyone about it.

The problem, though, is that a good proportion of folk on here and elsewhere have already come across the people you mention, because they and their conversations are, literally, all over the clearweb, on areas such as YouTube, National and International radio and the bleedin BBC.

There is nothing "darkweb" about the people you mention in your OP or their talking points either. The simple fact is is that you are wrong and have been wrong since your OP and people are trying to correct you, despite your efforts to double down on your mistake.

However, if you aren't intelligent enough to be open to a mere point of correction, then there is nothing that can be done for you.

Brian?

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Here is a recent letter in an exchange between Author James Flynn and publisher Emerald Press.

It details how scared they are to break laws that incite hatred in the UK, despite them admitting they clearly see no intent to do so. If you think topics can't be talked about your head is still in the sand. junkyard tom and Tony EH will completely ignore this post of course.

I am contacting you in regard to your manuscript In Defense of Free Speech: The University as Censor. Emerald believes that its publication, in particular in the United Kingdom, would raise serious concerns. By the nature of its subject matter, the work addresses sensitive topics of race, religion, and gender. The challenging manner in which you handle these topics as author, particularly at the beginning of the work, whilst no doubt editorially powerful, increase the sensitivity and the risk of reaction and legal challenge. As a result, we have taken external legal advice on the contents of the manuscript and summarize our concerns below.

There are two main causes of concern for Emerald. Firstly, the work could be seen to incite racial hatred and stir up religious hatred under United Kingdom law. Clearly you have no intention of promoting racism but intent can be irrelevant.

Source: Quillette

That’s shocking [the rejection] even by the standards of contemporary restrictions on free speech, and especially ironic given the subject of your book.
—Steven Pinker

James Flynn critically examines the way universities censor their teaching, how student activism tends to censor the opposing side and how academics censor themselves, and suggests that few, if any, universities can truly be seen as ‘good.’ In an age marred by fake news and social and political polarization, In Defense of Free Speech makes an impassioned argument for a return to critical thought.

James Flynn has also had an 'effect' named after him. Pity his books aren't getting published.
Yep this guy who appeared on TED is having difficulty getting his books published.

James Flynn is having his right to free speech abused and is being deplatformed.

Here's a video of him doing tedtalk.

Stop and think there for a second.

marieholmfan

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Who are Ireland's enemies and who decides this. I never got the memo..

Free speech is a human right. When you start denying human rights to your enemies you start down a slippery slope. I see many people at the bottom of this slope already.

The British Tories most obviously.


I can well believe you never got the memo - you seem completely disconnected from this society (so much that I don't believe that you are Irish).



Ireland has never been a free speech society. Never ever. We do not have a right to free speech in this country.

Veritas Libertas

Brian? wrote: »

James Flynn is having his right to free speech abused and is being deplatformed.

Here's a video of him doing tedtalk.

Stop and think there for a second.

It's you that needs to back and re-read my post. Then sit and think. Then you'll realize how pointless your post was.

Veritas Libertas

Tony EH wrote: »

WTF are talking about. You're only here a wet weekend. You know nothing about me or "the tactics" I "normally employ". :pac:

It's great that you've just discovered these figures and their talking points and felt the need to open a Boards account to tell everyone about it.

The problem, though, is that a good proportion of folk on here and elsewhere have already come across the people you mention, because they and their conversations are, literally, all over the clearweb, on areas such as YouTube, National and International radio and the bleedin BBC.

There is nothing "darkweb" about the people you mention in your OP or their talking points either. The simple fact is is that you are wrong and have been wrong since your OP and people are trying to correct you, despite your efforts to double down on your mistake.

However, if you aren't intelligent enough to be open to a mere point of correction, then there is nothing that can be done for you.

So many words, that say so little; you are a pro at doing this. I gave plenty examples in this thread you can talk about, but you prefer to generalize everything.

To your point in bold:
What do you think about James flynn's publisher being too scared to print a book? Is this not a sign of the times? A sign that mainstream are too scared to talk about topics for fear of a backlash from SJW's?

Can you address this point without further obfuscation? Doubtful!

Veritas Libertas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Find another publisher and stop crying would be my advice.

Black person walks into a restaurant.
Is told you're not allowed here in, you're black.

Tom's advice:
Stop crying and find another restaurant.

20Cent

Relevant as to why the IDW are so disliked.


Non-profits and the media claim there is a radicalization pipeline on YouTube. Its content creators would sponsor fringe ideas, and its recommender system would steer users towards edgier content. Yet, the supporting evidence for this claim is mostly anecdotal, and there are no proper measurements of the influence of YouTube's recommender system. In this work, we conduct a large scale audit of user radicalization on YouTube. We analyze 331,849 videos of 360 channels which we broadly classify into: control, the Alt-lite, the Intellectual Dark Web (I.D.W.), and the Alt-right ---channels in the I.D.W. and the Alt-lite would be gateways to fringe far-right ideology, here represented by Alt-right channels. Processing more than 79M comments, we show that the three communities increasingly share the same user base; that users consistently migrate from milder to more extreme content; and that a large percentage of users who consume Alt-right content now consumed Alt-lite and I.D.W. content in the past. We also probe YouTube's recommendation algorithm, looking at more than 2M million recommendations for videos and channels between May and July 2019. We find that Alt-lite content is easily reachable from I.D.W. channels via recommendations and that Alt-right channels may be reached from both I.D.W. and Alt-lite channels. Overall, we paint a comprehensive picture of user radicalization on YouTube and provide methods to transparently audit the platform and its recommender system.


Auditing Radicalization Pathways on YouTube
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335337464_Auditing_Radicalization_Pathways_on_YouTube

James Brown

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

..

You, like the politicians, have become incredibly good at coming down on the secondary reaction. Why not instead target the primary problem?

I find the 'secondary' reaction is often based on no first reaction beyond a few randos on social media.