ADVERTISEMENT

Intellectual Dark Web

ChrisKnight06

Todd's Tiki Bar
Gold Member
Nov 30, 2005
33,525
17,254
113
Ewe made a post in another thread and one particular line reminded me to bring this topic up.

Perhaps I'm naive, but I think more and more people are seeing the MSM for what they are - entertainment. For me it's akin to the revelation that wrestling is fake.

This is something I wholeheartedly agree with and if you pay close enough attention you can see the shift.

Anyone else up on this Intellectual Dark Web thing? It's a silly name but for purposes of discussion I think it gets the point across. People like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin etc. Not an official group or anything, just a bunch of people kinda getting lumped together (you know, since we have to group people and all). Some of yall know I just basically did a 6 week road trip and I listened to hours upon hours of these folks and others and it's fascinating. Podcasting and long form discussion around intellectually stimulating ideas is here to stay and people are craving it. It 100% makes you look at MSM with a total eye roll.

The best part is the political ideologies are so wide ranging and it just doesn't get in the way. Everyone just shares a general hunger for truths and discussing interesting ideas.

"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 Weinstein and Heather Heying; Jordan Peterson, the psychologist and best-selling author; the conservative commentators Ben Shapiro and Douglas Murray; Maajid Nawaz, the former Islamist turned anti-extremist activist; and the feminists Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Christina Hoff Sommers. But in typical dark web fashion, no one knows who put the website up.

The core members have little in common politically. Bret and Eric Weinstein and Ms. Heying were Bernie Sanders supporters. Mr. Harris was an outspoken Hillary voter. Ben Shapiro is an anti-Trump conservative.

But 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. Second, in an age in which popular feelings about the way things ought to be often override facts about the way things actually are, each is determined to resist parroting what’s politically convenient. And third, 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.
"

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

Anyone else find themselves exploring this dark web? Who are some of your favorite podcasters?



 
Unfamiliar w the IDW, but podcasts are where its at. I’m a sucker for Peter Attia MD. Been on Tim Ferriss (probably the God of this whole arena IYAM), Jocko, Rogan. I also enjoy Meb Faber & Patrick O’Shaughnessy’s (Attia been on as well) podcasts. Disclaimer: They’re both financial and will put people to sleep. Also a sucker for Gary Taubes. Econtalk & Farnam Street are solid. Attia just started his own podcast. MSM is an outdated business model for marketing & propaganda. Rogan is probably my fav of the ones you listed.
 
Yea I never heard the term until a Rogan episode with Jordan Peterson a few weeks back. Later he had a cpl other guests that referenced the NYT piece I linked so I finally took a look. It's definitely a rabbit hole that usually seems to start with Rogan (my favorite as well) and spirals from there. Before you know it you're listening to an amazing 3 hr conversation between Attia and Rogan on the benefits of fasting and your life is changed.
 
"Recently a new meme started doing the rounds on the Internet — the “Intellectual Dark Web”. The phrase was coined by the mathematician Eric Weinstein. It seems to have caught on — showing that whatever it is, quite a few people are recognising it — even though there’s a lot of discussion about what exactly it means.

My theory in this post is that the phenomenon that’s being loosely described as the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ is an early, but significant evolutionary leap in public thought and discussion, that has been facilitated by the medium of the internet — and that the spread of the name is the coming to public consciousness (and self-consciousness) of a conversation that is existentially important.

Why existentially? Because one of the things that unifies many of the thinkers in the IDW is a belief that the evolutionary strategies that got us to where we are now are unlikely to get us any further — particularly our hard-wired tribalism. That the tools at our disposal are so powerful that the odds of our survival are not high unless we can find a way to move beyond our current level of thinking. As Eric’s brother and evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein says: “Evolution gets you here and it almost certainly will end in a self extinguishing event if you keep playing the evolutionary game. You can’t continue to dance with the one that brought you.”

Just look at the topics covered in just these two conversations, the Rubin Report shows with Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro and Eric and Bret Weinstein. The first starts with the deepest questions of the relationship between religion and society, and in the first ten minutes seems to integrates two very different religious perspectives. Peterson integrates Shapiro’s perspective that there is a divine principle ‘from above’ so to speak — with his argument that there is also an emergent morality that comes from evolution ‘from below’ — and that they in some sense come together.

The Weinstein discussion ranges from the likelihood of annihilation via technology, through an analysis of the corruption of news by the profit motive all the way to a description of the “political PTSD” many of the left are now feeling as they are pushed out of their tribe by identity politics.

In both you have a sense of a freewheeling exploratory conversation where the participants are genuinely discovering new territory as they travel.

My sense is that the evolving conversation that has been tagged as the ‘Intellectual Dark Web’ is the conversation that needs to be had to allow us to move forward. And it’s a conversation that is now becoming self-aware — as you see in the ‘meta-conversation’ (as in, the conversation ABOUT the fact the conversation itself is taking place) that you hear when a number of these thinkers get together.

It was while watching these two interviews in quick succession — Dave Rubin’s talk with Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, and his discussion with Eric and Bret Weinstein, that I came to my conclusion of what the conversation actually represented.

It mapped clearly onto a model I was familiar with — the philosopher Ken Wilber’s idea of ‘Integral’ consciousness as an essential evolutionary leap. I’m shortly going to argue that the conversation is an early but spontaneous manifestation of a more advanced way of thinking that Wilber called ‘Integral’. I’ll try to keep it simple — but if you genuinely want to join the Intellectual Dark Web, you should be able to keep up. ;)"
 
lol at Joe Rogan being an intellect. Maybe he thinks he is after smoking
I actually just listened to the Rogan podcast with Peterson. It's like 3 hours long, but very interesting. Yeah Rogan is kind of dopey in ways(he is constantly repeating things Peterson said like it was his idea), but he is willing to listen to differing opinions and talk about them. That is what makes him interesting.
 
Rogan and Uncle Ted did a podcast some time ago that was pretty good.

Yea I listened to that one on my trip. He's an interesting guy. I think it's a perfect example of how important long form discussion is. You come away from something like that with a whole new perspective and you question wtf your previous perspective was actually built on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1ofTheseKnights
lol at Joe Rogan being an intellect. Maybe he thinks he is after smoking

He's more genuinely curious than anything and that's what makes him appealing regardless of his level of sophistication. He wants to ask questions and let the person across from him shine. I think that's awesome and clearly missing from the mainstream.
 
Seems like there's been a bigly conscious effort to condition people to want their echo chamber of: "my whatever good, your whatever bad" then everything else is bucketizing from there.
 
Seems like there's been a bigly conscious effort to condition people to want their echo chamber of: "my whatever good, your whatever bad" then everything else is bucketizing from there.


1. Is it a conscious effort that goes hand in hand with the economic system being plugged in to media/journalism?

2. Is it instinctual. Tribalism is hard-wired in to us. IS it something we have reverted back to impulsively after realizing the dysfunction of postmodernity.

1*3EEe4SGnhwbniFLQBad0Sw.jpeg



I kinda like the idea of #2 and that you can't see each level for what it is until you're removed from it. We've been in the green meme, seen the dysfunction and realized it leads to utter chaos. We've rebooted to tribalism which can and will lead to violence unless we transcend. How to transcend? It MUST be integrative don't you agree? How do you integrate? All the groups are necessary. Start at the ground ****ing level of evaluating core principles and truths. From there it's communication.

My question is who is willing to be a part of that vs who is willing to be stuck in the mud of tribalism. This identity politics game is incredibly dangerous. We're sorting this shit out through shouting at each other now but it won't take much for people to start acting it out when one group decides to elevate it to a physical dominance game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sk8knight
The MSM -- national broadcast and 24x7 news -- bias is real.
  1. Much cable news entertainment is outsourced, and those parties have no dedication to impartiality, and even rely on media. CNN has fought this constantly with its partners, as it outsources shows owned by 3rd parties the most.
    • That said, Sinclair is the growing, conservative approach using local stations. Conservatives are now trying to leverage the partiality of the media too.
  2. Reason.COM fully documented exactly how Gary Johnson would be prevented from entering the debates -- showcasing how much direct control the DNC has over the national broadcast and 24x7 news.
    • E.g., 3 weeks before the first debate, 70% of Americans thought a 3rd party should be in the debates. Using both $50M in funded advertisements in 10 states where Johnson was polling as high as 25%, along with CNN and others (officially CPD selectors) yanking the polls for ages 18-34 where Johnson was polling in excess of 30% -- "breaking" the magical "15%" (even with Stein taking away 3%+), along with 'celebrities' in 'analyst shows,' that was reduced to 30% (from 70%) in 2 weeks ... well before Johnson's first gaffe.
  3. The Harvard and other studies of negativity in the media, especially the advertising results, which mirrors what even Bernie Sanders pointed out with Trump getting 85% of the political airtime in 2016.
    • This is little different than Fox News being #1 while Obama was in office -- except now it's not Fox News, but everyone else.
Sorry, but get used to it.

The US media does not have to 'tell the truth.' It only has to be a source of entertainment. The head of the US FCC recognizes the 1st Amendment isn't about the truth, but the government not interfering.

In the same regard, the US FCC is taking a good look at Sinclair because they've prevented local journalists from being able to speak their minds. I expect that to continue into the MSM too at some point.

Censorship, not truth, is the thing the US FCC has to concern itself with, and the current US FCC head understand this. It's why he also refused to entertain some of the pushes by Progressives and Liberals to investigate other aspects of Conservatives.

Remember, I only care about freedom and censorship, as a Libertarian.

The MSM is free to be as biased for advertising dollars as they want, even have entire days dedicated to analysts discussing a 100% mis-appropriated, debunked and even fraudulent narrative (e.g., 'the cages'). That's the 1st Amendment.

The US media just hasn't been this biased against a party since the Federalists, which ended their reign.

Which maybe what will happen here, the Democratic party will rule for 20-32 years, as the Boomers keep dying off, and then the "new split" will be the Progressive-Socialists v. the Classic Liberals v. the newfound Libertarians from the ashes of the Republican party.

After all, a reason why Gary Johnson was very popular with those aged 18-34 is because Hillary Clinton was seen as far more anti-Freedom. It wasn't until the $50M SuperPAC painted Gary Johnson as a Koch plant to steel votes away in 10 states that he started to drop significantly, as the message to young people was, "You have to vote Hillary. A vote for Johnson is not only a vote for Trump, but exactly what the Koch brothers want you to do."
 
Check out the YouTube clips of Shapiro destroying milinials at college campuses. Dude never raises his voice. Uses logic and facts to take apart their hysterical rants. Often leaves these stoopid hippies speechless. It's glorious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Check out the YouTube clips of Shapiro destroying milinials at college campuses. Dude never raises his voice. Uses logic and facts to take apart their hysterical rants. Often leaves these stoopid hippies speechless. It's glorious.
i love that little jew
 
Anyone listen to this one? Joe really frustrated me during most of this discussion.

 
That was the wrongly convicted guy? That was a strange one. I don't know how much I believe when it comes to that guys story. He seemed a little full of shit.

This was NY gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe. Running as Libertarian. They kept going around in circles over his skeleton education plan and Joe just couldn't get past Larry's idea to lose 4 billion in federal federal funds in order to get from under their iron first and ineffective mandates.
 
This was NY gubernatorial candidate Larry Sharpe. Running as Libertarian. They kept going around in circles over his skeleton education plan and Joe just couldn't get past Larry's idea to lose 4 billion in federal federal funds in order to get from under their iron first and ineffective mandates.
Now I want to listen to it just to hear Joe confused.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT