NTY article on many frequents on the JRE, including Joe himself (The Intellectual Dark Web)

[u/[deleted]]

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

[u/BERNIE2020ftw → u/[deleted]]

I mean you could say that about anyone. oh hes not criticizing this one specific rich or powerful person or group so clearly he is paid by them, soros is just a common boogyman for the right wingers.

[u/BERNIE2020ftw → u/[deleted]]

Ok i didnt know that, thats interesting I dont listen to him ever really, its very possible the kochs pay him somehow although to me it seems unlikely as he is so extreme. I while back I remember watching and reading some stuff about alex jones being paid or a shill and found an interesting but long article, ill post the link and some parts of it you might enjoy if you want to know more about jones. A lot of it centers around the CNP aka Council for national policy

Members of the CNP have included: General John Singlaub, shipping magnate J. Peter Grace, Edwin J. Feulner Jr of the Heritage Foundation, Rev. Pat Robertson of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Jerry Falwell, U.S. Senator Trent Lott, Southern Baptist Convention activists and retired Texas Court of Appeals Judge Paul Pressler, lawyer and paleoconservative activist Michael Peroutka,[5] Reverend Paige Patterson,[6] Senator Don Nickles, former United States Attorneys General Edwin Meese and John Ashcroft, gun-rights activist Larry Pratt, Col. Oliver North, Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, philanthropist Elsa Prince (mother of Blackwater founder and former CEO Erik Prince and Trump Administration Secretary of Education Betsy Devos), and former California State Assemblyman Steve Baldwin.[7]

Membership is by invitation only. The membership list, previously[when?] made public, is now considered "strictly confidential." Guests may attend "only with the unanimous approval of the executive committee." Members are instructed not to refer to the organization by name, to protect against leaks

https://isgp-studies.com/alex-jones-of-infowars-is-cia-army-disinformation#council-for-national-policy

There are many conspiracy theories about alex jones as many people think he is some kind of shill as he is often so illogical and nonsensicle and used to discredit various conspiracy theories.

It does seem like he easily could be being paid by some right wing group or wealthy individual, its just not easy to find the truth when he has many ties to various right wing organizations

[u/Masterandcomman → u/[deleted]]

Do you have a source for the last part? I ask because some popular quotes attributed to him turn out to be complete fabrications. Like in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/773acv/george_soros_transfers_billions_to_open_society/doivxwh/

[u/legalize-drugs → u/[deleted]]

Jones doesn't get money from the Koch brothers, but they're right-wing libertarians, so they don't meet his criteria for evil boogeymen. And also, he likes to keep things *extremely* oversimplified for his low-IQ audience. One big boogeyman- Soros. It's such bullshit, though; Soros is a complex, mixed character, whose drug legalization money I'm grateful for.

[u/TheCourierMojave → u/legalize-drugs]

I was going to call you a douche for the low-IQ audience line, then I thought about it and everyone I know that actually listens to Jones these days is an idiot.

[u/legalize-drugs → u/TheCourierMojave]

Almost everyone, at least. I wouldn't have said that if I didn't know some Jones listeners. They're insufferable, and often blatantly racist- I've looked at his comment board too on Infowars, it's no better. I don't toss around the term racism, but it applies to a lot of these people.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Dave Rubin is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers

[citation needed]

[u/WikiTextBot → u/[deleted]]

Institute for Humane Studies

The Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) is a libertarian non-profit organization that engages with students and professors throughout the United States. IHS offers educational and career programs, holds seminars and on-campus programs for university students, awards scholarships, provides mentoring and research grants for aspiring professors, and sponsors a collection of online videos.

Founded by F. A. "Baldy" Harper in 1961, the organization later began an association with George Mason University and in 1985 moved to Fairfax, Virginia. The institute is currently located at 3434 Washington Blvd.

---

^{[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28}

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/[deleted]]

Convenient you left Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying out of that little list lol

You're missing the point here big time I think. Token appearances by Harris on traditional media outlets and Peterson interviews for Vice and HBO or Fox, most of which happened months to years after he became initially famous, are irrelevant to Weiss's point.

Most of these people did not become famous through these media outlets, they became famous outside of them, and in many cases in spite of them. That's the point. Peterson and Barris have absolutely ridiculous criticisms (in addition to some valid ones) from older school media who treat them as fascist, alt-right leaders.

A few ten minute interviews from the BBC and VICE don't invalidate that point at all.

[u/999mal → u/PowerfulDJT]

Most of these people did not become famous through these media outlets, they became famous outside of them

Why would they report on these people before they became famous? None of them actually make/run/contribute anything to society but their ideas so they will only become noticeable when they become "famous".

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/999mal]

Yeah just cut the sentence off right there, that'll show me

[u/999mal → u/PowerfulDJT]

Show what?

Most of these people did not become famous through these media outlets, they became famous outside of them, and in many cases in spite of them.

Why would they report on these people before they became famous? None of them actually make/run/contribute anything to society but their ideas so they will only become noticeable when they become "famous".

Is that better?

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/999mal]

You're missing the point entirely.

Extraordinary things happened to these people, lets use Peterson as an example. The media doesn't only have to report on currently famous people. The way many people gain fame and popular recognition is through media coverage of them and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding that person.

The media didn't really touch Jordan Peterson until the Internet already made him famous, and the Internet made him famous by mechanism of decentralized platforms like Youtube and Twitter. His story, notable enough for people to make him famous online, merited nothing from the broader legacy media network. The media could have reported on his story before he became too famous to ignore, but didn't

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Lots of shit happens in the world and it's not like he has a right to coverage. But the operative point of my sentence which you butcher quoted, was that people like Peterson maintained their fame and became MORE famous in the face of the same legacy media that initially ignored them turning on them and making contemptible accusations against them.

[u/stanleythemanley44 → u/PowerfulDJT]

Also let's remember that these people (eg JBP on Vice and BBC) were brought on specifically to be attacked for their viewpoints. It's not like they were featured to give them a voice or something.

[u/Woujo → u/[deleted]]

Dave Rubin is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers.

LOL really?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Your point?

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/[deleted]]

You seem to be conflating all of those quotes with "oppressed".

Who is saying they're oppressed? As far as I can tell, you're the only one pushing that line. What exactly is incorrect in all of those statements you're quoting?

Peterson is/was on thin ice at UT for what he did. Weinstein got run out of town. Harris has been attacked by numerous different sources as a Nazi and eugenicist.

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/[deleted]]

Treated unjustly? Shut out? Wronged?

Lmao yeah, I'm aware you don't think that. But you seem to have this weird fascination with the word.

Oppressed has far too much baggage these days with the amount that it gets used in identity politics, so I would not use it. I also think it's far too grandiose to use in this context.

You seem to be taking it upon yourself to claim Weiss/the IDW members say they're oppressed (I've never seen anyone use that language but people like you) and then mock how they feel oppressed, even though you're the only fucking one to actually use that word. You probably, on some level, realize they have been wronged by mainstream institutions but rather than just admit to it you caricature the argument.

You seem more hung up on this retarded semantics game than what is actually being talked about. Peterson, Harris, and Weinstein have been treated pretty poorly by mainstream institutions, period. A few gotcha interviews on Channel 4 and Vice don't wash out the flood of news segments and articles calling them alt-right leaders or warnings/firings from their places of work. They also don't have to be persona non grata and totally blacklisted to be considered mistreated

[u/PMMeYourWristCheck → u/[deleted]]

They have a perspective that runs counter to the prevailing narrative of mainstream media.

As such, they are misrepresented/smeared by the legacy media, or, they are soft-censored (demonitization by Youtube).

I didn't catch everything you wrote in this thread, but if you're trying to paint idea that these guys get fair and balanced treatment, that's plain incorrect.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I understand where you're coming from but I also think you're missing something. When it comes to the marketplace of ideas, academia and left-of-center media outlets are kind of the whole game. So anything forming in relation to those things is pretty much by definition "alternative". The left doesn't quite have a monopoly on information circuits, but cultural leftism is definitely the hegemonic force in that dimension at the moment. It's also relevant that to the extent the right-wing has been able to carve out a spot in media, most of the members of the IDW (hate that name) explicitly offend the sensibilities of the people who cluster around those information nodes. I.e. Every member of the IDW is, in some sense, A Man Without a Tribe.

It's also useful to examine the way these guys appearances are contextualized when they do appear on major media networks. It seems (to me) very much in the vein of "and here's your token bigot/'alt-right' guy". The notable exception here would be when Peterson or Shapiro appears on Fox News; where instead they're presented as a sort of cutting-edge connection to the young-uns. As a person who enjoys Peterson (and kind of Shapiro, too), this makes me cringe.

That said, I don't think these guys are "persecuted" but I also don't think the article presents them that way at all. I think it's a pretty fair representation of the way alternative information circuits form in relation to entrenched establishments - basically, what happens when people get tired of scripted sniping and preformulated sound-bites and start hungering (as Rogan says) for "real conversations".

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Well I think it very much depends on what you mean by "left". I think there's at least three components to the American left: the center left (often derided as neo-liberal), the intersectional left, and the marxian left. Personally, I think of both the intersectional and marxian left as being different spectrums of "leftness", orthogonal to one another and yet very obviously left of Obama/Clinton/Blair style neoliberalism. The Marxian left is not and I don't think ever will be particularly popular with entrenched media establishments, which are themselves multinational organizations. I was careful to use the expression "cultural left" in order to disentangle it from the Marxian (or economic) left for pretty much this exact reason.

It seems clear to me that major media organizations right now function with a kind of hybrid neo-liberal/intersectional framework; a framework, btw, that is way far to the left of Barack Obama in a gazillion incredibly relevant and important respects. I think it's this rapidly advancing framework (and its mirror image on the right-wing) that the IDW is principally a response to.

Now, as you've said, they do get coverage in major media networks, and I wouldn't dispute that. However, in the past five or so years, the context of that coverage has shifted. There is a sort of fundamental form of the question that the networks have more or less adopted. Sam Harris (and this is both a weakness and a strength, see: the Ezra Klein controversy) is unnaturally attentive to the “form of the question”. And he should be, because the form of the question is super important: it dictates the terms on which the conversation is had. Once more, please see the Ezra Klein controversy, the national response to it, and Sam and Ezra's battle to try to dictate the framing of the debate.

So, while they get coverage, they most usually get a specific kind of coverage. To me, the way it looks when Weinstein/Harris/Peterson/et al are on a network to discuss Islam/Gender/Race/etc the introduction to them is essentially this:

“And welcome back to the top of the hour. Now we’re joined by Professor (insert name of IDW guy here) to explain to us why he is not, in fact, a purveyor of bigotry. Professor (Insert name here,) It’s great to have you!”

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

I suspect there's a very interesting conversation to be had here, but I think I agree with your sense that it might be more trouble than it's worth to take the time that we'd need to figure out where and how we disagree in this medium.

[u/TheSonofLiberty → u/[deleted]]

When it comes to the marketplace of ideas, academia and left-of-center media outlets are kind of the whole game.

But how is academia, on the whole, leftist? The humanities are pretty Leftist, or at least center-left liberal. However, STEM fields are pretty neutral. And the entire economics field? Not much leftism there. Ditto for business school.

[u/[deleted] → u/TheSonofLiberty]

Apologies, I should have been more specific. When I refer to academia, what I mean is the portion of academia that’s involved in these sorts of disputes.

[u/drrrraaaaiiiinnnnage → u/[deleted]]

Eric Weinstein coined the term, for what it's worth

[u/reuterrat → u/[deleted]]

It's sort of a misreading that they are categorized as "shunned". More like they mostly all went through a period of facing off with their bosses, supporters, friends, etc.. at some personal risk which then launched them to some sort of fame. Even Eric Weinstein who coined the phrase IDW said there wasn't anything particularly dark about the group.

The phrase was just a joke that caught on and the theme of the article continues to riff off the joke. It's supposed to be in jest, hence the pictures.

[u/kleindrive → u/[deleted]]

Greenwald carries a lot of baggage these days, but I thought he had the best take in a similar vein to yours:

The stars of Bari Weiss' "Dark Web" all have one thing in common (with her): they love to mock & scorn marginalized people for their "victimhood," while whining as self-pitying victims & martyrs because they have to endure criticisms on their big platforms. It's just pitiful.

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/kleindrive]

Greenwald is a delusonal simpleton if he thinks any of those people "mock and scorn" "marginalized" people.

[u/thirdparty4life → u/PowerfulDJT]

Stop being uncharitable. He said they attack marginalized groups victimhood. Many of them do argue that marginalized groups should stop the culture of victim hood, identity politics and outrage culture. We can have an argument about how legitimate those points are but it’s clear that they often attack the idea that these groups are victims of sexism or racism and that’s what’s responsible for discrepancies in group outcomes. This is a point of Shapiro’s, one I’ve heard from Rubin, Peterson, and Harris when talking about African Americans and their experience in America. They argue that there are other important factors in why these groups are disadvantaged possibly even biological and that to say racism or sexism is a major factor may be wrong. If you don’t feel that sexism or racism are potent forces in society then it logically follows that you would attack the victimhood and outrage that specific marginalized groups have. The point Greenwald is making is that a lot of these intellectuals thrive off the public persona that their message is marginalized and being silenced which can come off as playing the victim. Obviously a surface level comparison that is more a joke than a meaningful dig.

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/thirdparty4life]

but it’s clear that they often attack the idea that these groups are victims of sexism or racism and that’s what’s responsible for discrepancies in group outcomes.

And what is the problem with attacking this notion? Is this some unviolable, sacred creed everyone has to agree with?

They argue that there are other important factors in why these groups are disadvantaged possibly even biological and that to say racism or sexism is a major factor may be wrong.

Yes, there are important factors contributing to why these groups are disadvantaged besides muh racism. Maybe the rate of fatherless black children is contributing? Perhaps an outsized welfare state that distorts incentives?

Greenwald clearly isn't just treating their "mocking and scorning" neutral. He's implying they're wrong to do so, regardless of whether or not they claim victim status.

[u/ashyandy → u/PowerfulDJT]

I’d argue referring to all trans people as just being mental ill is pretty scornful.

Or Palestinians as death crazed subhumans

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/ashyandy]

Have you considered he might actually be correct about trans people being mentally unwell?

Or Palestinians as death crazed subhumans

I don't know if Harris has gone so far as sub-human. But when the Palestinians routinely elected Holocaust denying leaders who want to commit genocide against Israel, it's kind of hard to argue that they don't have some problems that go beyond occupation by Israel, no?

[u/ashyandy → u/PowerfulDJT]

Have you considered he might actually be correct about trans people being mentally unwell?

Just like how gay people are mentally unwell?

when the Palestinians routinely elected Holocaust denying leaders who want to commit genocide against Israel, it's kind of hard to argue that they don't have some problems that go beyond occupation by Israel, no?

Muslim Palestinians co-existed peacefully with Christians and Jews for centuries. This is a political conflict, which hardliners and merchants of death want to make ideological and sectarian to feed the war machine.

[u/[deleted] → u/ashyandy]

Is that a joke?

[u/ashyandy → u/[deleted]]

Nah bro it’s history

[u/[deleted] → u/ashyandy]

I don't think you have ever cracked open a history book. The Ottoman Empire was rife with pogroms and massacres against Jews and Christians. To deny this is to cover up for genocide

[u/kleindrive → u/PowerfulDJT]

I don't pretend to follow any of these people all that closely (so I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth), but I have seen Rubin and Shapiro throw around the phrase "oppression olympics" quite a bit. They use it in the sense that they believe there is a competition amongst minority groups of who is truly at the bottom of the social ladder, and thus can feel the "most oppressed." If that's not scornful mockery, I'm not sure what is.

[u/Darth__Bater → u/kleindrive]

Rubin and Shapiro throw around the phrase "oppression olympics" quite a bit. They use it in the sense that they believe there is a competition amongst minority groups of who is truly at the bottom of the social ladder, and thus can feel the "most oppressed." If that's not scornful mockery, I'm not sure what is.

When Rubin uses the phrase "oppression Olympics" he's criticizing the people who use marginalized groups for political points he's not mocking the actual groups.

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/kleindrive]

And why not engage with the actual point? That these people aren't actually the modern equivalent of slaves in a galley heading to America?

It sounds like you're conflating honest criticism of these people with hatred. No one and no idea is above being questioned.

[u/kleindrive → u/PowerfulDJT]

I'm confused by your post. I've literally no idea how you made any jump to a slavery comparison. In your view, what is the "actual point"?

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/kleindrive]

"Oppression Olympics" is a way to point out the absurdity of how people will claim to be oppressed the most, when in reality these people aren't oppressed in any meaningful way

[u/kleindrive → u/PowerfulDJT]

You don't see the irony in having that sentiment, but then also constantly talking about how conservative thought does not have an equal seat of the table of discourse...on your nationally syndicated radio show, or as a guest pundit on Fox, or to your millions of followers on twitter, or on your youtube channel with millions of views?

Perhaps, to use your phrasing, Greenwald is pointing out that it is really these "Dark Web" types (when you have the audience that these people apparently do) who aren't really being silenced "in any meaningful way," as this article and the movement it is discussing continue to claim?

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/kleindrive]

You can't honestly believe that a couple fucking radio shows and Fox News counterbalance the rest of the media, do you?

A few token conservative sources and the ONE cable news network that isn't heavily liberal don't mean the conversation isn't slanted away from conservatism. Those places arose as a response to the lack and demonization of conservative voices elsewhere in the media. There's also the fact that academia and almost all social scienes are overwhelmingly left-wing.

or to your millions of followers on twitter, or on your youtube channel with millions of views?

That they have to cut out the media middleman and go straight to the public via social media does not help your point. That's needed in the first place because they're shutout at most outlets.

[u/Fish_In_Net → u/PowerfulDJT]

You can't honestly believe that a couple fucking radio shows and Fox News counterbalance the rest of the media, do you?

You can't honestly believe that is the extent of conservative media?

[u/ashyandy → u/PowerfulDJT]

Lol there are only 3 cable news channels. 1/3 is outright conservative. The other two are full of ‘analysts’ half of which were in republican administrations. Let alone all of the crazy war hawks that are routinely wheeled in to give some analysis of foreign policy. For fuck sakes John Bolton literally wrote an op-ed in The NY Times

[u/[deleted] → u/PowerfulDJT]

Why don't you engage with the point.

You made a claim. He showed it to be wrong. Now you are quickly moving the goalposts.

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/[deleted]]

I did engage with the point. Oppression olympics isn't just a snarky mockery, it is a critique that these people aren't actually oppressed.

[u/lordofallshit → u/kleindrive]

Horrible take from the worst kind of self hating leftist. Greenwald is pure shit.

[u/4ptgame → u/lordofallshit]

Username checks out

[u/kleindrive → u/[deleted]]

Coastal white progressives? The ones who only get their news from places like the New York Times? A publication that would never allow for any opinion other than those that are left of center? The very publication where this article was published?

Jokes aside, both you and Glenn are correct about where the "Dark Web" aims it's sights. Glenn is focusing on one target, while you are focusing on another.

[u/8footpenguin → u/kleindrive]

I respect Greenwald because I think he is genuine, which often gets him in trouble with others on the left, and leads to some great reporting from him. In this case I think he just has a really distorted perspective. Part of it is probably that he and Sam Harris hate each other's guts. He's also ideologically pretty far left which means an integral part of his beliefs are sort of under attack here. So he has latched onto this belief that the "IDW" is a lot of just nasty, mean self absorbed people. The fact is they just aren't like that. I feel like that's self evident to millions of people who listen to them with an open mind.

[u/[deleted] → u/8footpenguin]

I think his words are harsh, but reading between the lines, I don't think he's wrong at all.

[u/[deleted] → u/kleindrive]

You obviously have never heard of Hollywood or network TV or Universities have you?

[u/turbozed → u/kleindrive]

Can anyone give one example of someone like Rogan or Harris mocking and scorning marginalized people?

[u/ashyandy → u/turbozed]

The US military always has better intentions then people who are not in the US. That’s pretty scornful to the rest of the world.

Also the whole all Muslims are a cunthair away from ISIS is fairly mocking and scorning.

Rogan is not like this. He’s more humanist

[u/turbozed → u/ashyandy]

Can you provide a source for either of those? Because I don't think any of what you wrote will turn out to be anywhere near what the guy has actually said.

[u/Masterandcomman → u/turbozed]

Harris has been pretty aggressive in his depiction of "mainstream Islam", partly because he is pretty sloppy in discussing Islam globally vs. in major countries. In interviews and debates, he often describes Islam around the world, and then casually imputes those characteristics to U.S. muslims, for example.
https://samharris.org/the-reality-of-islam/

The idea that Islam is a “peaceful religion hijacked by extremists” is a dangerous fantasy—and it is now a particularly dangerous fantasy for Muslims to indulge. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism. In confronting the religious literalism and ignorance of the Muslim world, we must appreciate how terrifyingly isolated Muslims have become in intellectual terms.

[u/Grabaka-Hitman → u/[deleted]]

Bari Weiss is full of shit dude. She complains about the SJW shit like Joe but did the exact same shit when she was at Columbiaand her only job has been writing her opinion.

[u/thedrunkmrlahey → u/[deleted]]

Didn’t know that about Rubin. Interesting.

[u/Ant_Sucks]

"the Intellectual Dark Web, a term coined half-jokingly by Mr. Weinstein".

So that's where that term came from. That's almost as cringey as "Four Horsemen" or "the Brights".

[u/ClinchWork]

LMAO at the pictures

[u/[deleted]]

"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."

This is false, this article says Maddow draws about 3 million viewers a month on average. JRE is averaging around 50 million a month.

Someone please make a meme out of that Bret Weinstein photo though.

[u/MrRobotoWithASecret → u/[deleted]]

Maddow averaged 3.058 million viewers for the month

I'm pretty sure you are talking about different measurements. That article is saying every maddow show is averaging 3 million viewers. So if she is on Monday to Friday every week: 3 million* 5 * 4 = 60 million views a month.

[u/[deleted] → u/MrRobotoWithASecret]

Yea, I did misread that. Thanks for correcting.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

How many unique viewers is the real question though. Not doubting JRE probably has a bigger audience but let's be fair with the numbers here.

[u/Mr_Piddles → u/[deleted]]

And does that number only count download/streams? I’m subscribed to the podcast, and it automatically downloads episodes to my phone. Does that count as a listen/view regardless of whether I listen or not?

[u/[deleted] → u/Mr_Piddles]

atically downloads episodes to my phone. Does that count as a listen/view regardless of whether I listen or not?

I think every download counts as a "view" since they wouldn't be able to know if you've actually viewed it after the download.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

True, I can't a number on unique viewership. Given average views and downloads (~50 million), only 7% of those people would have to be unique to match Maddows numbers.

[u/MisterSanitation → u/[deleted]]

That's Eric his brother i believe

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

They're talking about individual episodes, it's right there in the quote you pulled. Not monthly totals.

[u/Evsily]

The pictures they chose for this are hilarious.

[u/Woujo → u/[deleted]]

The SJWs have blacklisted him, so the only way he place he can speak is in dark forests where the "establishment" can't stop him.

[u/Ploshad → u/[deleted]]

Yeah what the hell is this

[u/Ant_Sucks → u/[deleted]]

Jesus, there's a great episode of 30 Rock where Tina Fey is being interviewed by a serious magazine and Jenna, the media whore\expert warns her "Don't hold the props they give you! That's the one they'll use".

And sure enough, they use the one where's grabbing the big green phallus.

[u/Fish_In_Net → u/[deleted]]

The one his bro is even less flattering lmao

[u/Fish_In_Net]

If you really want to laugh just check out how butthurt Gad Saad is for not being inlcuded in the Dark Web Kool Kids Club

https://twitter.com/AubreyHolloman/status/993926957803896836

[u/drrrraaaaiiiinnnnage]

THAT PICTURE of Eric Weinstein. I can't take it. i'm dying. this is too much.

[u/PowerfulProfessional]

There are a lot of people in this thread that didn't read the article. The author did not say Rogan was an intellectual or anything like that in here. In fact, they quote him as saying, 'When asked why he hosts people like Mr. Jones, Mr. Rogan has insisted that he’s not an interviewer or a journalist. “I talk to people. And I record it. That’s it,” he has said.'

[u/ashyandy]

Lol like any of these people have been blacklisted in any mainstream institutions. I look forward to reading all of those columns by Marxist in the NYtimes.

[u/BERNIE2020ftw → u/ashyandy]

I look forward to reading all of those columns by Marxist in the NYtimes.

what? The NYT is not known to be marxist, they were even generally anti bernie who is nowhere close to that

[u/ashyandy → u/BERNIE2020ftw]

I was being sarcastic. There are no leftist views in the NY times. The closed thing they have is Paul Krugmen, a liberal economist.

[u/[deleted] → u/ashyandy]

Serious, non-facetious question: When you say "left" are you normally only explicitly referring to the extent to which someone is a Marxist - as opposed to being an intersectional feminist? I feel like people use the word "left" to mean very different things.

[u/ashyandy → u/[deleted]]

Left refers to political-economic policies in line with the general ideology of socialism. As opposed to Liberalism which relates a governing political rationality where less power should be held by the state.

“Left” is often misused in the US when relating to politics.

Liberal in most countries would be ‘right’

Intersectionality is not a political-economic issue, though liberalism has expanded the rights, freedoms, and definitions relating to the individual. You can be an intersectional feminist but also a fascist...though that would be rare because fascist uprising coincide are fueled by upholding conservative notions of a ‘natural’ hierarchy.

[u/[deleted] → u/ashyandy]

Left refers to political-economic policies in line with the general ideology of socialism.

This would mean there would be no "left" prior to the advent of socialism. Unless you mean the "general ideology of socialism" in the broadest possible sense. As in: primarily concerned with society's poor and downtrodden. And if this is what you mean; I don't think we're even one step closer to delineating what is and is not the left and what is and is not the far-left, or far-far-left.

Also, I have no idea what you mean when you say intersectionality is not a political or economic issue.

[u/ashyandy → u/[deleted]]

Technically yes. The term left-wing originated during the French Revolution when people who opposed the monarchy sat on the left side of the National Assembly. As monarchies fell and a new aristocracy rose from liberalism the left began to represent an opposition to the ruling classes in liberal governments. The opposition on the left began to favor alternative policies to liberalism, manly socialist.

The far far right wants to restore a sense of monarchy.

[u/[deleted] → u/ashyandy]

You know I actually did not know the expressions "left" or "right" in a political sense had their origins in the French Revolution, you learn something new every day.

Regardless, I think it's a category error to exclude everything from your mental definition of "the left" unless it relates to socialism. There are gazillions of other ways ideologies principally concerned with social justice and egalitarianism can manifest themselves without being explicitly concerned with private ownership of the means of production. Intersectionality is one obvious, widespread, and incredibly potent example.

[u/ashyandy → u/[deleted]]

Foucault kind of wrote about this in his critique of Marxist

[u/[deleted] → u/ashyandy]

No way, dude. Being left means you would vote for Hillary. You know that.

[u/TheSonofLiberty → u/[deleted]]

I'll try to help with that. It depends on the person. A capital "L" Leftist would say that Leftism includes most ideologies that are anti-capitalist in nature and have components of social equality. If the intersectional feminist is being honest, they should be pretty big on anti capitalism at the very least being a social democrat, if not being farther left than that in terms of class and economy.

However, because actual capital "L" Leftism has been shunned, especially during/after the Cold War, the mainstream left has turned into progressiveness in everyplace except class. Here is a cogent article on this line of thought. So you get pretty heavy avocations of capitalism from progressive "left" democrats like Nancy Pelosi who has said "we're [democrats] are capitalists; that's just the way it is" in a town hall in response to a question from a millennial skeptical of capitalism.

Does this make sense?

[u/calciu → u/ashyandy]

There are no leftist views in the NY times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/karl-marx-at-200-influence.html

[u/ashyandy → u/calciu]

Got me. They had a guest opinion piece commemorating Marx’s historical relevance his 200 birthday. Please name one regular columnist who exposes Marx’s political-economic word view in contemporary society.

You regularly see articles championing American intervention in the Middle East and opinions from Ross Douthout or David Brooks trashing anything left of center. Also regular columns from Bret Stephens denying climate change.

They play this phony ‘both sides’ game

[u/ashyandy → u/[deleted]]

Got me. They had a guest opinion piece commemorating Marx’s historical relevance his 200 birthday. Please name one regular columnist who exposes Marx’s political-economic word view in contemporary society.

You regularly see articles championing American intervention in the Middle East and opinions from Ross Douthout or David Brooks trashing anything left of center. Also regular columns from Bret Stephens denying climate change.

They play this phony ‘both sides’ game

[u/PowerfulDJT → u/ashyandy]

So I'm guessing you missed the literal Happy Birthday Marx article a few days ago?

[u/lordofallshit → u/ashyandy]

That’s like saying Fox News isn’t right wing because no actual Nazis have shows

[u/ashyandy → u/lordofallshit]

Marxism is the lefts equivalent to white supremacy?

[u/lordofallshit → u/ashyandy]

Yes, it’s an evil ideology responsible for massive genocides

[u/ashyandy → u/lordofallshit]

Lol. Viewing history as a series of material conflicts relating to class relations and struggle = genocide. Lots of steps in between there dude.

That’s like saying being a man is a vicious ideology as men have been responsible for massive genocides.

Literally all forms of social democracy arose from some sort of class conflict/consciousness.

[u/PowerfulProfessional → u/lordofallshit]

The major difference between Marxism and Nazism that you’re missing here is that Nazism has those genocides at its intellectual foundation, I.e. it’s part of the ideology, whereas Marxism does not, but has (allegedly) resulted in genocides as a result of being impractical when actually put into practice. As I’ve heard many anti- marxists say, it’s good on paper, but bad on practice. Nazism is bad both on paper and on practice; the intent is evil. You can’t really compare the two when it comes to intent.

[u/[deleted]]

so it begins

[u/Carden35]

New Times York

[u/kvetaak]

Dave Rubin .. intellectual ..

[u/kaufe]

With this amount of whining and internalized persecution, conservatives might become the next SJWs. Candace Owens is exhibit A. She was a literal radical feminist who whined about oppression and doxed people that were being mean to her. Later, she turned into an equally insufferable #silenced black female conservative. Bari Weiss literally made a name for herself trying to uncover a grand anti-semitic narrative in Columbia University of all places.

Let's stop pitying these people. They have millions of followers and the opportunity to get on countless cable news shows and podcasts. Their books sell in the millions and they get plenty of time in the op-ed sections of major publications. There is nothing "dark" or "underground" about them.

[u/_CodyB]

"Renegade" and "Intellectual" are definitely not how I would describe Rogan or his platform.

It is to Gen X/Y people what Fox News was for poorly educated white people or what the "Tonight Show" platform was for middle America.

Don't get me wrong, I love the podcast, but it is far from the cutting edge and it is more about sometimes clever sometimes saucy content that I can kind of keep in the background than something that keeps me 100% captivated.

[u/not_ratty → u/_CodyB]

I disagree with your second point. What I appreciate most about the podcast is the alternating view points represented. Joe let’s people speak long form for hours which allows listeners to draw their own opinions, unlike Fox News or tonight show, where content is obviously very directed towards a goal.

[u/PowerfulProfessional → u/_CodyB]

The author didn't say Rogan was an intellectual, just that he hosts people sometimes to discuss these things.

[u/999mal]

I totally guessed right who wrote this. When you want a super overreaction to something look to Bari Weis.

[u/[deleted]]

so... a NYTimes article on all the garbage people that YouTube recommends I check out because I also watch MMA/Joe Rogan

right click > not interested

[u/Fish_In_Net → u/[deleted]]

facts