6 ms·

HN submission title is missing the "of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,'" bit.

by Sujan 8y ago

hbosch 8y ago
That part is an absolute joke.
- cm2187 8y ago
  What is a joke?
  - hbosch 8y ago
    Oh my god. As of right now, I was blissfully unaware that this group of towering idiots actually called themselves the 'Intellectual Dark Web'. I thought it was an ironic editorial twist.
    - Ninjaneered 8y ago
      That's a stiff statement that could use support beyond a passing comment on Hacker News. Let's take a few members of the "Intellectual Dark Web"[0] like Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris, and Michael Shermer; I'm truly curious how you classify them as "towering idiots". [0] https://intellectualdarkweb.site/vanguards-of-the-intellectual-dark-web/ https://intellectualdarkweb.site/vanguards-of-the-intellectu...
    - Raphmedia 8y ago
      As far as I can gather, it's a media coined theme. Similar to the "alternative influencer network" that they coined for YouTubers. The whole thing is grasping at straws really. The medias seems to think that everyone who is in the edgy/troll/internet/meme culture are working together for some nefarious purpose. Their latest smearing campaign is against free thinkers, podcasters and debaters... or using their words, the "Intellectual Dark Web". The only relation those people (both thinkers and influencers) have is that they use the Internet to 𝐚) spread their content and 𝐛) reference each other and sometimes collaborate together. Both of those actions are done by every content creators online no matter their intentions. Collaborations and networking is the basis of the internet.
Raphmedia 8y ago
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'”.
- douglaswlance 8y ago
  The term was coined by this NYT piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark...
- cm2187 8y ago
  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).
  - Raphmedia 8y ago
    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".

HN submission title is missing the "of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,'" bit.

by Sujan 8y ago

HN submission title is missing the "of the 'Intellectual Dark Web,'" bit.

hbosch 8y ago

That part is an absolute joke.

cm2187 8y ago
What is a joke?
- hbosch 8y ago
  Oh my god. As of right now, I was blissfully unaware that this group of towering idiots actually called themselves the 'Intellectual Dark Web'. I thought it was an ironic editorial twist.
  - Ninjaneered 8y ago
    That's a stiff statement that could use support beyond a passing comment on Hacker News. Let's take a few members of the "Intellectual Dark Web"[0] like Bret Weinstein, Sam Harris, and Michael Shermer; I'm truly curious how you classify them as "towering idiots". [0] https://intellectualdarkweb.site/vanguards-of-the-intellectual-dark-web/ https://intellectualdarkweb.site/vanguards-of-the-intellectu...
  - Raphmedia 8y ago
    As far as I can gather, it's a media coined theme. Similar to the "alternative influencer network" that they coined for YouTubers. The whole thing is grasping at straws really. The medias seems to think that everyone who is in the edgy/troll/internet/meme culture are working together for some nefarious purpose. Their latest smearing campaign is against free thinkers, podcasters and debaters... or using their words, the "Intellectual Dark Web". The only relation those people (both thinkers and influencers) have is that they use the Internet to 𝐚) spread their content and 𝐛) reference each other and sometimes collaborate together. Both of those actions are done by every content creators online no matter their intentions. Collaborations and networking is the basis of the internet.

Raphmedia 8y ago

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'”.

douglaswlance 8y ago
The term was coined by this NYT piece: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark-web.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/opinion/intellectual-dark...
cm2187 8y ago
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).
- Raphmedia 8y ago
  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".