4 ms·

Video begins with this Eric touted as a founder/coiner of "The Intellectual Darkweb" which as far as I can tell is something like a new political brand. I don't

Video begins with this Eric touted as a founder/coiner of "The Intellectual Darkweb" which as far as I can tell is something like a new political brand. I don't think it's appropriate for any political branding to appear as a part an exposition of Science & Math positions (or otherwise) on HN. IE, HN usually isn't a platform for any political position. Vaguely skipped forward and found speculation about like Tom Lahrer as a marker for intelligence. I like Tom Lahrer but this all seems way outside the concrete AI and compiler articles I come to HN for.

freedomben 8y ago
The Intellectual Darkweb absolutely belongs on HN when they're talking about interesting stuff. There are people from the left and right in the IDW - it's quite intellectually diverse. That said, I don't agree with the premise that because somebody is open about their political beliefs, they can't say or do "anything that good hackers would find interesting." [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- joe_the_user 8y ago
  I don't think the claim that the "intellectual darkweb" includes a broad range of political positions holds up to any scrutiny - the many prominent members of the group (Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro) are strongly identified with right wing politics and not one left wing of similar significance appears.
  - rwz 8y ago
    Well, there's also Sam Harris, Brett Weinstein. Both are strongly left wing.
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Indeed. Its far from being a right wing group.
    - kgarten 8y ago
      Ahem ... that's not really my understanding what left means. Sam Harris is definitely not left wing (see his discussions with a progressive: Glen Greenwald). Brett Weinstein seems to be, but he's an exception. The dark web was assoicated with Alex Jones (now he vanished from their website) In addition, Peterson, Weinstein, Harris ... etc see themselves as libertarians. Freedom of speech advocates. Yet, they just speak out when somebody of their tribe is restricted (see the Patreon debate or the Evergreen State College issues). If it's about somebody not in their "tribe", e.g. refusing a Pro-Israel Oath they are awfully quiet. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/ https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-la... Real left wing, progressives (Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman) will defend freedom of speech even for people that they don't share a cause of opinions with. For example: Greenwald defended Neo-Nazis as a lawyer on freedom of speech grounds. Can't take the dark web serious. It's just another tribe pushing their agenda. Sam Harris is pro war against terror and talks about the US foreign politics as a "gentle, benevolent giant". Check what US does in Venezuela right now. And Compare Sam Harris actions to Jeremy who went undercover in Iraq ;) Edits: grammar
      - freedomben 8y ago
        I think those are fair criticisms, tho Dave Rubin does defend free speech to the extreme. He calls himself a free speech absolutist. Ben Shapiro is quite a free speech absolutist as well (when he's not accusing people of being anti semitic lol). I do wish the others would be as rock solid as Rubin and Greenwald tho. I actually consider Greenwald to be part of the the IDW because he asks the questions that you're not supposed to ask, and does real journalism, and defends real free speech.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > Check what US does in Venezuela right now. As a Venezuelan, I’m curious to know what you mean by this.
  - pryce 8y ago
    I'm yet to be convinced that the adjective "intellectual" in "Intellectual DarkWeb" holds up to any scrutiny either. I think history shows we should be suspicious of movements that claim the intellectual high-ground (or moral high-ground) in their name - even when I am sympathetic to their conclusions. Examples include: The "Brights", the "Rationalist" Societies, "Euthanasia" (translating to 'good death'). The "Intellectual" DarkWeb is populated by many examples fringe figures whose contributions are considered laughable in their own claimed fields, Stephan Molyneux being a complete joke in Philosophical circles but impressing his teenage and tech-trained audience is a prime example. Christina Hoff Sommers is another figure whose brand of feminism seems far more widely supported by people who've never taken the time to read a book by a single other feminist. Sam Harris's forays into Moral Philosophy and Free Will again do not find a sympathetic audience of any significant size among people who actually study these subjects and know much about them. Jordan B Petersen is an unusual case because his noteriety and audience is far more to do with his political statements (attacking trans people, misogynist comments, claims of a conspiracy of Post-Modern Marxists) that are substantially separatable from both his academic work (Maps of Meaning) or his weird self-help manual (even though this shoehorns in his conspiracy theorizing).
    - ekianjo 8y ago
      Peterson never attacked trans people. This reflects poorly on how much you actually know about him.
      - pryce 8y ago
        Peterson's attacks on trans people are the primary reason he became a prominent internet public figure at all.
        espeed 8y ago
        No, it's not. Incorrect on all levels. Please stop. Do yourself a favor and give everyone else the courtesy of checking your references. Who was it who said, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."?

freedomben 8y ago

The Intellectual Darkweb absolutely belongs on HN when they're talking about interesting stuff. There are people from the left and right in the IDW - it's quite intellectually diverse. That said, I don't agree with the premise that because somebody is open about their political beliefs, they can't say or do "anything that good hackers would find interesting." [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

joe_the_user 8y ago
I don't think the claim that the "intellectual darkweb" includes a broad range of political positions holds up to any scrutiny - the many prominent members of the group (Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro) are strongly identified with right wing politics and not one left wing of similar significance appears.
- rwz 8y ago
  Well, there's also Sam Harris, Brett Weinstein. Both are strongly left wing.
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Indeed. Its far from being a right wing group.
  - kgarten 8y ago
    Ahem ... that's not really my understanding what left means. Sam Harris is definitely not left wing (see his discussions with a progressive: Glen Greenwald). Brett Weinstein seems to be, but he's an exception. The dark web was assoicated with Alex Jones (now he vanished from their website) In addition, Peterson, Weinstein, Harris ... etc see themselves as libertarians. Freedom of speech advocates. Yet, they just speak out when somebody of their tribe is restricted (see the Patreon debate or the Evergreen State College issues). If it's about somebody not in their "tribe", e.g. refusing a Pro-Israel Oath they are awfully quiet. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/ https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-la... Real left wing, progressives (Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Amy Goodman) will defend freedom of speech even for people that they don't share a cause of opinions with. For example: Greenwald defended Neo-Nazis as a lawyer on freedom of speech grounds. Can't take the dark web serious. It's just another tribe pushing their agenda. Sam Harris is pro war against terror and talks about the US foreign politics as a "gentle, benevolent giant". Check what US does in Venezuela right now. And Compare Sam Harris actions to Jeremy who went undercover in Iraq ;) Edits: grammar
    - freedomben 8y ago
      I think those are fair criticisms, tho Dave Rubin does defend free speech to the extreme. He calls himself a free speech absolutist. Ben Shapiro is quite a free speech absolutist as well (when he's not accusing people of being anti semitic lol). I do wish the others would be as rock solid as Rubin and Greenwald tho. I actually consider Greenwald to be part of the the IDW because he asks the questions that you're not supposed to ask, and does real journalism, and defends real free speech.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > Check what US does in Venezuela right now. As a Venezuelan, I’m curious to know what you mean by this.
- pryce 8y ago
  I'm yet to be convinced that the adjective "intellectual" in "Intellectual DarkWeb" holds up to any scrutiny either. I think history shows we should be suspicious of movements that claim the intellectual high-ground (or moral high-ground) in their name - even when I am sympathetic to their conclusions. Examples include: The "Brights", the "Rationalist" Societies, "Euthanasia" (translating to 'good death'). The "Intellectual" DarkWeb is populated by many examples fringe figures whose contributions are considered laughable in their own claimed fields, Stephan Molyneux being a complete joke in Philosophical circles but impressing his teenage and tech-trained audience is a prime example. Christina Hoff Sommers is another figure whose brand of feminism seems far more widely supported by people who've never taken the time to read a book by a single other feminist. Sam Harris's forays into Moral Philosophy and Free Will again do not find a sympathetic audience of any significant size among people who actually study these subjects and know much about them. Jordan B Petersen is an unusual case because his noteriety and audience is far more to do with his political statements (attacking trans people, misogynist comments, claims of a conspiracy of Post-Modern Marxists) that are substantially separatable from both his academic work (Maps of Meaning) or his weird self-help manual (even though this shoehorns in his conspiracy theorizing).
  - ekianjo 8y ago
    Peterson never attacked trans people. This reflects poorly on how much you actually know about him.
    - pryce 8y ago
      Peterson's attacks on trans people are the primary reason he became a prominent internet public figure at all.
      - espeed 8y ago
        No, it's not. Incorrect on all levels. Please stop. Do yourself a favor and give everyone else the courtesy of checking your references. Who was it who said, "You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant."?