Comment by Karawebnetwork | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Karawebnetwork | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

So, I've have listened to quite a few of Jordan Peterson's talks to understand what was going on last time there was a controversy around him. I'm part of one of the demographics that was really angered about some of his conversations. After actually watching the content, I have seen nothing to worry or get mad about.

How could anyone think that "intellectual dark web" is any accurate to describe him?

There's nothing secret about what he does. He has podcasts, public talks and university classes that he uploads to his youtube channel.

It seems that the only way to create controversy around him is to clickbait stories and not actually listen to or describe his actual content.

Other than a profile / link aggregator called "intellectualdark.website" that hosts his profile, I don't see any relation at all.

Am I missing some details? Anyone has the full explanation?

---

Edit:

This is about the article's full title: “Top Patreon creators, of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,' say they're launching an alternate crowdfunding platform not 'susceptible to arbitrary censorship'”.

The "intellectual dark web" is a term that I believe Eric Weinstein coined to refer to themselves, so it is not meant to be critical or to refer to secrecy. Rather I understand it as a reference to a relatively diverse circle of intellectuals (Harris and Peterson for instance are on the opposite side of the political spectrum on many topics), that have a large direct audience (through youtube, conferences and podcasts), but that are persona non grata on mainstream medias (other than the occasional hit piece).

You seem to know a bit about the subject, I'll take the opportunity to ask a few questions if you don't mind (well, anyone else can answer too).

I am scouring the internet in the search of any snippets of information that actually links those youtubers / podcasters together.

Other than being at the center of controversies and having a lot of public notoriety, I'm not seeing anything. Even their ideologies and philosophies are not the same.

From my point of view, it almost seems like a huge misunderstanding... or perhaps a smearing campaign but I'm not one to cry wolf.

The situation is somewhat similar to that time mainstream media was implying relationship between youtubers based on 3rd degrees connections that occurred after collaborations. "X worked with Y. Y also worked with Z who is evil. X must be evil".

If you were asking how Harris and Peterson can be linked, they've debated publicly and have hosted discussions with one another on their podcasts.

This is grasping at straws. I am no alt-right apologist and consider myself quite the democratic socialist. Even from my point of view, it seems like this is nothing more than a vilification of the social discourse.

Would Sir Roger Scruton, The Cambridge Centre for the Study of Platonism and the Ralston College be considered part of the "Intellectual Dark Web" for hosting Jordan Peterson? (I'm not well versed in Peterson's career, this is the latest video on his youtube channel).

Perhaps Channel 4 News is also part of the conspiracy for hosting him on TV. Channel 4 is operated by Channel Four Television Corporation which is a public corporation of UK's Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Does that means that the UK is at the head of the "dark intellectual web"? ...

I'm obliviously kidding, but there's no limit on how far you can spin this situation.

Thanks for answering. I'm leaving it at that, now I know more but this is not a rabbit hole I want to dive in any further.

Mostly agreed. I'm following a lot of them, and I have seen common themes, other than the ones you mention.

They all seem to share an interest in science and truth.

They also seem to share a willingness to enter debate, and an aversion to smearing.

> Other than being at the center of controversies and having a lot of public notoriety, I'm not seeing anything. Even their ideologies and philosophies are not the same.

The intellectual dark web isn't about having the same ideas. It's about being willing to talk about and debate those ideas in a civil, calm way. They invite each other onto their Youtube channels/shows/podcasts, and are invited together into more formal events to do the same.

>Other than being at the center of controversies and having a lot of public notoriety, I'm not seeing anything.

That's basically it, as far as I can tell. They're heretics that weren't sufficiently shut-up by the societal forces working against them.

I think Scott Alexander explains the phenomenon pretty well: http://slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-popu...

Well they occasionally debate with each others but aren't supporting the same ideas. They do have in common that they disagree with identity politics, and as you can tell from the name calling on this HN page, this is a topic on which for many there is zero tolerance for any disagreement.

Peterson mostly discusses religion (from a philosophical point of view), self-improvement, identity politics. He tends to be more on the conservative side but outside of identity politics doesn't discuss politics that much. His videos are all on his youtube channel [1]. A good way to make your own opinion is to watch the channel 4 interview, which I think is the way many people discovered him [2]

Harris is a Democrat, furiously anti-religious and anti-Trump, talks about quite a variety of topics. You can browse through his podcasts [3]. He also doesn't like identity politics and islamist extremism. To get a good idea of his position on a touchy topic, you can try his interview of Charles Murray [4], which is very interesting and I think is a good example of how a relatively balanced point of view can get unfairly attacked.

I am less familiar with Rubin [5]. My understanding is that he is more of a libertarian.

Also less familiar with Eric Weinstein (and his brother Bret Weinstein). But you can listen to his discussion on the Intellectual Dark Web with Sam Harris [6]. Harris also has some interesting discussions with Bret Weinstein.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL_f53ZEJxp8TtlOkHwMV9Q

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMcjxSThD54

[3] https://samharris.org/podcast/

[4] https://samharris.org/podcasts/forbidden-knowledge/

[5] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng

[6] https://samharris.org/podcasts/112-intellectual-dark-web/

It’s very much a smear campaign. This is a common tactic that their detractors use to great effect. It was also used to get Damore fired from Google. A lot of outrage and false headlines, not many people actually reading the document that he wrote. They tried to get everyone to make up their mind that he was an evil to be destroyed before even listening to or engaging his ideas.

The term was coined by this NYT piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark...

The name is just part of the conspiracy-laced aesthetic of the alt-right in the spirit of QAnon and InfoWars.

As for where Peterson fits: he's the father figure of the alt-right. His rhetoric is slightly more palatable to the main stream, so he can be the face of alt-right media while also providing shelter to his rowdier alt-right children (in this case, Milo Y). This arrangement provides the necessary veneer of legitimacy to the platform while ensuring the protection of hate speech.

Peterson is definitely a gateway drug. There's a gradual progression from "conservative left-wing" (e.g. Carl Benjamin, who for a long time self-identified as "left-wing"), "anti-SJW"/antifeminists and centrists to the alt-right and actual nazis.

I'm sure Peterson sees himself as a conservative and a moderate, just as I'm certain Carl Benjamin used to think of himself as "actually a leftist". But the "moderates" and "centrists" obsession with "SJWs" has shifted the Overton window and some former alt-right creators have recognised this and since reoriented themselves.

Peterson and Harris are useful figureheads because they register as moderates or centrists if not liberals in most people's minds, but they're extremely close to conspiracy nuts like Paul Joseph Watson, race realists like Stefan Molyneux, or people like Ben Shapiro.

I used to watch a lot of YouTube "skeptics" (mostly former YouTube atheists who left that movement over the "Atheism+" debate) and I experienced the progression first-hand, with anti-SJW panic, Buzzfeed obsession and other nonsense resulting in self-described centrists aligning themselves with the right by seeking out the more presentable right-wing extremists (and maybe a few center-left moderates "for balance"). Quickly there were videos about race realism, white genocide, and even "the Jewish question".

Luckily I managed to jump off that train but it wouldn't have take much to nudge me over that "centrist" stop gap (especially with Peterson and Damore normalising the rational disconnect I experienced).

Also it's worth mentioning that even at my most "centrist" I never got as much hate online from "SJWs" for incredibly dumb statements as I got from "liberals" as I shifted back to the left. Leftists just blocked me. "Liberals" trolled me, downvoted me and drowned me out with vapid memes (all in the name of "free speech").

EDIT: Case in point, here's YouTube atheist CultOfDusty who joined the alt-right until he realised that put him in the company of people supporting Mike Pence, who stood against everything he believed in. Note that he's still "anti-SJW" but other YT atheists don't make that distinction and have since tried to slander him by taking him out of context or putting words in his mouth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thliETccJss

Reply on news.ycombinator.com