slug.com slug.com
29 15

What happened to the Intellectual Dark Web's influence?

The IDW became popular as it was perceived that the core members were standing up against false narratives - primarily related to identity politics.

Bret Weinstein says the core principle of the IDW was "stating what one actually believes irrespective of the social consequences" and to "hold the discovery of truth to be of higher value than pushing ones agenda".

There was strength in having a set of intellectuals who cross-promoted and challenged each other to focus on finding the truth. They were, in effect, the media branch of the resistance to false narratives.

Some conversation ideas:

  • What beliefs do the IDW promote that seem controversial?

  • Do you think they uphold these principles for all of their beliefs or are they still limiting the clarity of their statements so as to not be canceled? If so, which beliefs are they hiding?

  • How can the IDW convert an intellectual discussion into activists who are willing to engage with those who peddle false narratives?

  • If the IDW is a prototype of something to come, what does it need to embrace to have meaningful impact

  • As the Progressive Left has advanced their ideology in the past year, has the IDW kept up with the challenge of presenting an alternative view?

Admin 8 June 24
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

29 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

"What beliefs do the IDW promote that seem controversial?"

IDW (or any group of people) promote might making right as a standard rule, as if the software loaded into each individual is loaded with this virus. The controversy is nearly absent, but that does not mean that there is no controversy. Might does not make right, the opposite is true, so those (in any group) who promote the false narrative don't "seem controversial" among themselves. The controversy is only visible to those who have identified the virus and have killed it, so as to then allow the true software to emerge from the dark web of deceit.

  1. Ubiquitous parroting of the Might Makes Right non-principle as if it were the governing law of human beings.

  2. Almost completely absent Golden Rule principle failing to inspire controversy because the false narrative is so ubiquitous and internally defended by it's promoters.

"Do you think they uphold these principles for all of their beliefs or are they still limiting the clarity of their statements so as to not be canceled? If so, which beliefs are they hiding?"

"They" (those who promote Might Makes Right: a non-principle dependent upon deception and other criminal means) will be canceled as so often is demonstrated for any failure to promote that narrative. If "they" are hiding any beliefs I suppose they could be hiding the belief that they are promoting deception: self-deception. What would they need to hide from those who know about the nature of their non-principle? If they admit that they are promoting deception internally, yet they still promote deception externally, it looks the same from outside the deceiver. If they admit externally (stop hiding the fact that they know they are in the business of promoting a deception), then they stop hiding the "secret."

"How can the IDW convert an intellectual discussion into activists who are willing to engage with those who peddle false narratives?"

Those in or out of the group called IDW are obviously going to have a hard time "converting" or convincing other people to disengage a false narrative if they themselves promote (peddle) a false narrative. People who are infected with the Might Makes Right non-principle virus share the same devious methods required to maintain the deception internally as well as externally. Honor among thieves is a strict set of rules, and no one is allowed to defect. A fellow deceiver attempting to convince another fellow deceiver to "engage with those who peddle false narratives" is to put it mildly: insincere. To put it bluntly "they" first ignore facts that unmask their dogma, "they" then resort to changing the subject from the data that unmasks their dogma when ignoring it does not work, and routinely the subject matter introduced into the flow of data is called a personal attack, also known as an ad hominem attack, changing the subject from the facts that matter which expose the dogma, to made up fictional personal faults of anyone who dares to expose the false narrative. So, how does that work, do as I say not as a do? Who in IDW ever tries to convert an intellectual discussion into activists who are willing to engage with those who peddle false narratives? Where is this ever attempted? Having an example of this happening could help reach the stated goal, so as to see why it fails, how it fails, or how it succeeds, and why it succeeds.

"If the IDW is a prototype of something to come, what does it need to embrace to have meaningful impact"

The facts that matter in any case of any controversial phenomenon, religion, science, medicine, education, government (law), etc. can only have a meaningful impact if the facts are discovered and acknowledged as facts that matter in the case.

Case in point: What is meant by "meaningful impact?"

If it is hatched from a Might Makes Right perspective (the dominant perspective) then "meaningful impact" must be defined by those in that group.

If it is instead defined by someone in the group that has discovered, acknowledged, and shed the Might Makes Right dogma, then "meaningful impact" means in no uncertain terms an increase in the number of people shedding the Might Makes Right dogma.

"As the Progressive Left has advanced their ideology in the past year, has the IDW kept up with the challenge of presenting an alternative view?"

Why not present a viewpoint that will effectively defend against the criminal Marxists whose Might Make Right dogma, combine with the Conservative Right Might Makes Right dogma, and deter further criminal acts perpetrated by both sides of the same coin, acts that are thinly hidden behind a cloak of fraudulent legality?

13

First, any group home will experience its share of refugees when they are losing basic freedoms elsewhere. If they cannot speak anywhere else they will speak "here".

Where I think the issue always lies i alternative forums like this is that people are not encouraged to be open-minded or engaged. It's lashing out at those who harmed them--that IS what refugees do anywhere. It's the double edged sword of accepting them. People are fleeing mainstream gaslighting. They are fleeing the loss of free speech. You will get the ineloquent along with the eloquent.

Why I started a Tolkien fans page was with the hopes of discussing these broader issues of our society and politics theoretically as fiction has always been a safe way to do that.

I am certain that there will be those who claim that the IDW is a potentially failed experiement--not because it is being squeezed out of existence by Big Tech but because it attracted the wrong sort. To many intellectuals the addition of the right leaning prevents them from their actual goal of "saving the left" and I'm sure they are quite appalled to watch their project devolve into a haven for the right. This is ego. They are still locked into the "right sort of people" and the "wrong sort of people" mentality. Atheism is too cool for Christianity in their opinion because, well, because they never were cool until Obama's presidency. Getting that opportunity to be cool, albeit brief, is hard to give up.

People don't understand that the most important part of being cool is not being cool. But...

Most of the self-appointed classical liberals, even those who claim they arem't, are extroverts and gregarious. Being an introvert in these circles is like wearing black--it makes you cooler. Most intellectuals love to pretend they don't need approval but most of them need it more than the ruffians they turn their nose down to. They just need approval from "certain" people. They need to be accepted by the people they chose and it hurts them that they are now stuck with people that they--quite honestly looked down upon.

I'll be honest that I'm not always comfortable being political bedfellows with people who I fundamentally disagree with on social issues. It's not an easy thing to be in a group of people who think that all anyone needs is gravel in their guts to succeed in life. It's that simplistic thinking that drives me nuts. To me the people who are success stories are exceptional people. They are exceptional people who were determined and worked hard but--they were exceptional people. Most of us aren't. The only thing that makes it easier to throw in with that lot is that I now see this same simplistic thinking on the left. To them if you're rich you didn't deserve it. ESPECIALLY if you are white. All whites are racist--White Fragility told me so.

Sorry for the long-winded musing.

If you want to encourage thinking there should be some rules about posting--not about what people cannot say but what they HAVE to say to remain. They have to engage. They have to demonstrate an openness to have their mind changed.

Very nice ... good ... I like it.
“Success in Life” is actually more what one considers ‘success’ rather than some socially imposed version as far as I am concerned.
The person who can look at themselves ... their life ... in the mirror ... and be content, satisfied with what they see is “Successful”
(At the moment anyway as all of Life is Change)

@Bay0Wulf I was mostly parroting what the mantra is on the right.

I consider success to be able to leave this world surrounded by my loved ones and able to say, regrets, I've had a few. But then again, too few to mention. I did what I had to do and saw it through without exemption. I planned each chartered course and every careful step along the byway. But more, much more than this. I did it my way.

@ThomasinaPaine
Get em’ Frankie

11

Addressing point one, perhaps the most controversial belief the IDW promoted is free speech, even if said speech hurts one's feelings or causing one to become offended. The "woke" crowd would generally be against such speech.

On point two, I think most of them (IDW) hold true to their beliefs and practice what they preach.

Three, pays to keep in mind some folks cannot be reasoned with, and even in the face of overwhelming evidence some will still bitterly cling to that of which they believe to be true.

Four, meaningful impact? The creation of this site was a start, gave a space for them (IDW) to converse with others who keep an open mind. Open dialogue minus hurling personal insults is necessary in order to advance the movement.

Last point, given that the IDW is still a somewhat small movement (meaning membership is presently limited, not alot of them in the movement) their impact has been limited to an extent, but like I mentioned above this site was a good start in which to help grow the movement. They must keep at it if they are to be a solid challenge to the PC progressive movement. Guys like us (and mostly everyone on this site for that matter) can make a difference, I truly believe that.

11

I keep wondering why the republicans are so passive
Why Hillary and Barry Soetoro haven’t been hung for treason.
Why George Soros is allowed to use his money to reek havoc on our nation.
Why the liberal media isn’t held culpable for lives lost and damage done during the riots the incite.
Buy most of all I wonder why people of color, don’t see how democrats are exploiting them ?

David42 Level 7 June 24, 2020

I think an increasing amoutn of people do see it.

That’s some pretty tough questions. You’ve come to the right place for an answer... if there is one. We have some real sharp cookies here.

Because the system either has good actors trying to stop those that are evil from taking advantage of it, or it is full of people taking whatever share they can without becoming a scapegoat for appealing to the masses.

Of course it is the later, and that means those on the outside are stuck.

As to the last question - it is the immediate, the promise of the future, the intentional effort to ignore the past all rolled up into an uneducated (purposefully) population.

7

Dear @Admin with all due respect, creation of SLUG was not the best idea. As IDW was gaining real traction, and momentum, therefore the focus on growing IDW shouldn't have been broken.

Lt-JW Level 8 June 25, 2020

Despite the fact that I came here by way of Slug and then subsequently learned of IDW, I have to agree. The pool of ideas/concerns seems to have been muddied by giving the platform an edgier(Slug!) more popular feel. I think not everyone attracted to a site named Slug may have the intellectual acumen to add much real substance to the discussions. I have to admit my own failings as emotion sometimes drives my bus more than intellect. I'm not the brightest light but I recognize it.

4

The “controversial” beliefs are anything that dissents from the official woke-progressive narrative.

The issue isn’t promotion, or clarity or engagement. The barrier is that the woke-left has a death grip on academia, cultural institutions, a good chunk of politics and the corporate sector. Progressives have embedded themselves deeply through equity legislation, an activist court, diversity guidelines, human rights tribunals, and slanted HR policies. They have spent the past half century eating away at the culture’s foundations like starved termites.

The IDW tries to be effective, and occasionally is, but amounts to a tiny drop of common sense in an ocean of progressive cynicism.

GeeMac Level 8 June 24, 2020
4

The IDW has been quick to accuse its ideological opponents of being part of conspiracies of influence, but I think they would be more trusted and influential themselves if they were open about the funders, institutions, and networks that support them.

I also think they would have a more attractive image if they projected confidence and expertise rather than victimhood. Perhaps they could include someone who can use fluency in identity politics to communicate their own dogma to leftists even though they don't subscribe to it.

A more explicit ideology about the role of history in politics would be informative too. Do they think history should inform politics or do they see themselves as outside history? And how about myth? Is it a wellspring of political narratives or is there a line where rationalism is abandoned in pursuit of bad faith arguments?

Moreover, when does associating with ethnoreligious chauvinists of various degree create worse problems than identity politics? Should more nuanced critiques of identity politics from the left (e.g. Adolph Reed, Jr.) be engaged or must a hard line be maintained?

Nothing stops you from asking any of those questions or create groups to discuss that, or inviting others here.

And why does there need to be either associating with ethnoreligious chauvinists of varying degrees
Or
identify politics (who by the way is exactly the same as the other group above)?

Why can’t there be an option not to care about race or sex of religion but focus on everyone are the same and should be treated as such and given the same opportunities... and allowing each one to succeed or fail according to his own ability and willingness to accept personal responsibility?

Or is that too hard!

3

I still do not understand what if anything happened to IDW!!!!
It was working fine and I was able to state my opinions, good or bad, without worrying about getting kicked off the site11
I never got on Twitter or FB because my wife gets kick off those sights about twice a month!!!
My comments, I believe are much more pointed than her's, so I would not stand a chance!!!
I do not agree with everyone on IDW, but I respect their right to state their opinion!!!!!!
To me, growing up in the Pacific Northwest, a SLUG is a slimy creator that you definitely do NOT want to step on!!!
They are almost impossible to get off the bottom of your shoe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
KEEP IDW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Serg97 Level 8 June 24, 2020

I second that, IDW was a much more fitting name.

3

Reading the posts indicate that most are the right pushing an agenda and not trying to come to any understanding of what is really going on. There is definitely racism in posts (both left and right), hateful feelings expressed, referring to opposition as despicable dirt but very little of "What is my opponent doing that is not helpful, how am I looking at this and what do I have to do to to better the situation." The approach seems to be finding instances of what certain individuals on the left are doing that is hateful and stupid and using it to say that this is what everyone on the left is doing. We are mistaking satisfaction for truth.

The left has lost its way and seems to be trying to satisfy groups who feel victimized and want special attention and sympathy. That attitude expresses a racist arrogance saying we are the only ones who can help these poor little people who are unable to handle their own problems. Further left are those trying to tear down the system and replacing it with something worse.

There is much that both sides are doing that is tearing our country apart. We will never come out of it until we admit that we are not perfect, don't have all the answers and have the courage of humility to help make things better.

Pand0ro Level 7 June 24, 2020

Well said @Pand0ro and I agree that opposing the left with hate, racism, or by embracing identity is just playing into their hands. I’m at a bit of a loss as to an alternative, though. As in the old Soviet Bloc, the cost of standing up to progressive power is just too great for most people, because they rely on income from a job. They know what happens to people who speak out against the mob.

@GeeMac Standing up to the dominant power is always dangerous no matter who it is or where it is. I find who has appropriate humility, certainly not kneeling before someone, and will take the time to listen will find that the opposition might have valid concerns. People like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro have that type of respect for their opponents that they listen and learn, not necessarily agree.

3

My first reaction is that IDW has gone out scraping at the Barrel Bottom by creating “SLUG”and is reaping the obvious “rewards”.
You make Yourself “Irrelevant” by trying to “attract” people who aren’t particular “Intellectual” by nature.

I would further note that paragraphs 1 & 2 of your question seem contradictory AND complimentary...
I never perceived this; “...it was perceived that the core members were standing up against faith-based political ideology” and have no problem with “faith-based political ideology” ... in fact had IDW been overtly Anti faith-based political ideology ... I would have considered it LESS “Intellectual” and more likely a Biased Hack Forum like FaceBook but with a different Bias

Can you elaborate? We are completely independent of IDW and are focusing our support on attracting those who willing to express their views as good-faith participants in discussions. One does not need to be a PhD in something to be considered intellectual.

I edited the first paragraph from "faith-based political ideology” to "false narratives" so not to imply I'm referring to traditional religions. I was using the term "faith-based" to mean narratives that are believed without investigation or question.

@Admin
WHAT!?!?

“We are completely independent of IDW”?
It is My understanding that “idw.community” = IDW = Intellectual Dark Web ...
AND You’re all Dressed Up as its “Admin”

How is it that You can state that you’re “Completely Independent of ...”?

I agree the "SLUG" is a mistake.

@Bay0Wulf As stated on our "about" page, "... is a member-focused organization that doesn’t charge anything, have ads or sell your information to anyone, nor are we directly affiliated with any public figure.". While I have close contacts with several of the prominent IDW members, this website acts as a forum to discuss IDW topics and members independently.

@pbuck0145 can you elaborate? Slug is simply a second way to reach this community and easier to type/etc. IDW as a term needs reinvigoration [trends.google.com]

@Admin I do not believe that being the subject of increasing Google searches is an intrinsically worthwhile pursuit. We need to revert to the guest described by Eric Weinstein.

"Slug" evokes this image:

@pbuck0145
Being that I’ve done LOTS of SCUBA and Snorkeling, the only “Positive Connotation” I can come up with for the word “SLUG” is “Sea Slugs” which aren’t really slugs but they certainly are beautiful.
Otherwise, I can’t think of a single positive usage.
Some people have suggested its a “Punch” but every use of Slug or Slugger in terms of a “punch” is basically negative ... usually a “Low” or unforeseen punch delivered to someone who is either unsuspecting or unable to defend themselves.
The only other usage I can think of thats “positive” is not “slug” but “slugger” used to describe a major hitter in baseball.

@Bay0Wulf

A slug of whiskey?

@govols
Still kind of negative / uncultured perhaps. Like drinking booze at a bar.
I don’t drink “shots” unless I’m at a “dirt” or “biker” bar and even then I usually ask for an old fashion glass ...
If you’re taking a “slug” of whiskey (often followed by; “Cough!! Hmmm smooth ...) you’re usually out for the alcohol rather than the ... experience or flavor ...

@Bay0Wulf
Fair enough.

2

I like the IDW because it allows me to have deeper conversations with a lot of intelligent people who have opposing views on topics. I'd hate to see it disappear. I've had conversations where I left with a different view on things, and hopefully others have as well. I think personally the layout of the IDW, is so different from other social media platforms, that maybe people just revert to what they know. The mobs would rather follow people, than topics or groups?

I think it's more that the term "IDW" has less status as when it first came out. The principles of discourse remain. 🙂

@Admin please explain how, exactly, the term "Intellectual Dark Web" would have less status now?

2

I forgot to add a very important comment about how to create activists, especially today where dissent of the left can get you physically assaulted--money. They employ it by paying their shock troops and no one else does.

Those of us who were progressive activists know this to be true. You got paid for protesting. You can get paid for posting. You get paid...

It used to bother me and may have been one of the first things to rattle my cult-like faith in progressivism.

If you want purely strategic then go to women. Go to the Gender Criticals on Reddit. Go to Feminist Current and offer them space. Women have always been the workers for the left. We are naturally more active and volunteer more. Marriage equality would not have happened without straight women joining with the LGBT groups. They know this.

If you want to save the left then you need to get the silent majority on Lipstick Alley and Gender Critical--or Glinnr/Spinster and invite them to come and answer this very question.

We are sick of being the wife getting to clean the house, cook the food, do the laundry, feed the kids and every new marginalized group gets the mistress treatment.

Hey, did you take my Soros bux?

@WilyRickWiles Oh hun, you need to quit with the faux sarcasm. Either that or you never actually were an activist aside from social media. But its never too late. Go on Indeed and find yourself a job canvassing.

BTW, why is it when you tell a progressive AIPAC buys influence no one denies it or tries the Muh Soros BS that you just did.

I feel like maybe you get hurt feelings that I left the cult. You shouldn't. It's nothing personal to you. I just don't like to hang out with violent little monsters anymore.

@ThomasinaPaine Not kidding, I want my back pay.

@WilyRickWiles I'd rather have my time back.

@ThomasinaPaine OK, this is actually getting interesting. Tell me what you think the difference is between the agendas of AIPAC and Soros? I don't deny that he and others provide funding to a number of progressive organizations.

@WilyRickWiles There is no difference. In the Gospels they say "he who has ears let him hear". In the Zohar it says you cannot force a heart to feel. ALL organizations that use money to influence people, who market to them, whether its useless consumer shit they don't need or politics--are evil. These people attempt to manipulate others to their side using tactics that appeal not to the logical mind but the emotional. Do you think the boom of the beauty industry was organic? No. We told people they're ugly without makeup. We've done the same to people when it comes to politics. You're evil if you don't think like me.

When the average person does this we call them a narcissist but when these organizations do it we look the other way because we've already been brainwashed to accept this as normal behavior.

Show people that you love them. Don't just say the words and e don't say "If you turn me down you'll never get anyone else because you're so ugly!" If the philosophy of the modern left is moral and right then develop moral communities of like-minded people and SHOW people what it is like to live according to your belief system.

If Israel is doing the right thing by the Palestinians they wouldn't need billion dollars in lobbying work to convince people. The truth would be self-evident.

I used to say to Christians that the moment they try to scare people to Christ they've stopped being Christ-like. Now, I'm having that same conversation with the left.

If JK Rowling is wrong, engage her in a debate. Don't silence her. Don't THREATEN her. Don't insult her. Don't demonize her. Don't HARM her. Talk to her.

If you can't, then the problem is not with her but with you and your arguments.

@ThomasinaPaine I didn't ask you whether political spending in the abstract was morally good. Let me be more clear. What do you think their respective interests are?

I personally believe that different interests have different moral value even if I theoretically would also like to end the influence game. You clearly have made a similar calculation in favor of a different team of influencers, so enough with the moral posturing.

@WilyRickWiles Again, you make statements about me that are inaccurate and spout them as truth. To quote the Lady of Thorns, as am authority on myself I must disagree.

I have not made a calculation in favor of anyone. I maintain all of the beliefs that I had for the last 15 years. I just stopped believing that you can achieve moral goals through immoral means. The lot I have thrown in with is the principle of freedom. That does not reside with any one philosophy or person. I will disobey anyone who seeks to make me less free. I will disobey and repudiate propaganda used to condition people against free will.

It was my biggest issue with evangelicals and sadly it is my biggest issue with the modern left. People should be free to make their own choices of how they speak, live, and love. Until they do physical harm to someone else and their property they should be left alone.

My social beliefs are not focused upon a government taking my taxes to recycle in a wash of war and blood money with some trickling down to the poor. My social beliefs require ME to be my brother's keeper and for ME to actively care for him/her.

Now... if you dislike my moral posturing then retire to any given safe space that prevents such posturing: Twitter, Facebook, et al.

The problem with the modern left is not philosophy but the means they use to allegedly achieve those ends. It is immoral.

If you didn't believe that you perch on some moral high ground you wouldn't condescend to people on this and other platforms. You would engage them like an equal and ask them questions with sincerity.

People can tell if you really truly care, if you want to listen, if you LOVE them and they know when its a ruse. Sadly many people will put up with fake love out of fear they will get none at all. That's a different subject, however.

@ThomasinaPaine Psst... You're using the same means.

@WilyRickWiles Actually I would say that there is a difference in the means...in that the Left has stooped to using disingenuous arguments built on fear and threat where the Right uses arguments (perhaps sometimes disingenuous as well) based on hope and promise. However it may be, I follow the side that tells me the lies I want to hear until I hear something that really rings of truth. Frighten or threaten me and I'll simply send you on your way. Honey works better than vinegar and money in politics always lies.

@Geofrank The Spider-Man pointing at Spider-Man meme but with straw men.

2

Never underestimate the human need to be apart of something, and never think those on the left are merely idiots and morons, they are far more clever than people thing and have a greater understanding of manipulation then we give them credit for.

The left’s leaders are cleverly evil. Their followers are the morons

1

I should also add, if IDW could accommodate direct video uploads as opposed to links to other platforms- since large portion of materials we discuss here are banned and taken down on YouTube, would be great attraction.

Lastly, why IDW doesn't host exclusive interviews (live streaming)with the very prominent people who thought of creating it in the first place?

Lt-JW Level 8 June 25, 2020
1

The fact that it is difficult to upload meaningful video content unless first going through another site such as YouTube where material can be censored or deleted makes it difficult to engage in any meaningful way as many content providers don't have time to sit down and write out long articles.

1

Much of the problem is that many people are not interested in dialogue. They are only interested in argument; and more specifically winning any argument. The IDW was different from that. It was a genuine exchange of ideas between and among people who had respect for the conversation itself and for the participants in that conversation. That environment is no more. It was infected by a few people who either didn’t understand the premise or didn’t care. And it died.

1

What happened?

They came up against the iron wall of race and wouldn't "go there".

Thus they have no relevance to the future where the Indo-European Expansion squares off against the Rising Tide of Color.

Sam Harris has talked with Charles Murray, Rubin with Molyneux, Brett has pondered the question of disproportionate representation among Jews, Pinker has challenged Blank Slate....baby steps to some, but giant leaps compared to typical mainstream.

1

Its "influence" was consumed by its success. It created a reality for a few million people, a reality that didn't previously exist, one in which alternative ideas could be explored in spaces other than those controlled by authoritarian progressives. Rebel Wisdom has as a project, "How do we do sense-making now that all prior "received-wisdom" systems have been shattered by a reality that's too complex for any of them to grasp hold of now that their faith component has been rejected by the modern age?"

Eric Weinstein is playing with "Escaping the institutional structure that work to suppress heterodox ideas about science, economics, the human condition, etc."

There are quite a lot of very small movements that have taken root since the IDW (not this site) blazed a trail into the weeds that sprout among the institutional;y structured garden of human thinking and ideas.

govols Level 8 June 24, 2020
0

What beliefs do the IDW promote that seem controversial?

    There's a huge focus on the radical left, but very little focus on the radical right.  The emphasis should be on radicalism and its dangers if they want to get reasonable people on both sides to communicate.  And that emphasis needs to be balanced or you miss the target audience.  I've been on the left all my life, and I believe the radical left presents a greater danger than the radical right at this time, but most people on the left don't, and won't hear the message without that balance.  It's the focus on one side or the other that seems controversial.

How can the IDW convert an intellectual discussion into activists who are willing to engage with those who peddle false narratives?

    Structural support.  As others have said, it's going to take a measure of financial security.  It will also take building a community that can support activists.  It's going to take training in activism -- things like facilitating small group conversations, organizing counter-protests, and most importantly: diving into things like administration in both the private sector and academia.  Because it's the administration that actually implements policy; it's administration that has the actual power.

If the IDW is a prototype of something to come, what does it need to embrace to have meaningful impact

Storytelling.   Most people aren't wonks, aren't into intellectual discussion or debate.  The IDW needs to tap into media.  We need oral stories (people will listen to audio stories, they won't read books) and especially movies.  The stories can't be propaganda, that just turns people off.  They have to be mythic.

They might also want to look into starting a new media/news channel.  An internet channel would be great, not too expensive, but it can't be platformed on YouTube -- it needs to own the means of production.  And that channel will need to be moderated not in terms of content, but in terms of discourse.  

It's taken me a while to start writing here.  I was initially turned off by the tribalism.

As the Progressive Left has advanced their ideology in the past year, has the IDW kept up with the challenge of presenting an alternative view?

    No.

    The IDW needs to come up with a conceptual framework that's easy to grasp, internally consistent, and yet can be embraced by those on the left as well as the right.  "Classical liberalism" in a nutshell, but the term "liberal" is unfortunately poisoned, as is the term "conservative."  

    The IDW needs much better marketing.
0

I think the issue at hand is that now we need to keep a long-term relationship with our sweetheart IDW and there are members that make this easier than others. I find Shapiro and Rubin tedious and shallow and difficult to share because I don't know how many pejorative references to "the left" a normie can take. Besides, being the most open minded liberal/con gets tired too. Peterson is too intense and I am not surprised of his demise, though I still enjoy his lectures.

The Weinstein Bros + Heather de Weinstein are way better people. They are privileged that use their advantaged position to take risks we cannot take and I will be forever grateful to them. Besides that they are wicked smart and as quirky as big heads can be, this is a compliment.

Rogan is a fantastic guy that is as close to normie think as you can be, while being honest, so this is the best of them in my opinion.

As Harvard.edu commits sepuku with new post-colonialist admission criteria I like Mencius Molbug's idea of replacing the current Cathedral with something new and better. Other than lab supplies and buildings for STEM is relatively cheap to replace them as professional training institutions. For lower schooling we need committed communities that opt-out of whatever public education wants to use to brainwash the young. Basic research looks more difficult, but current academia is in their own way nowadays so it would require a Bill Gates like figure on our side to start new institutions. Anyways, at this point is not clear what can replace basic research, other than trying to recreate the conditions we had at the boundary between XXI and XX centuries.

0

The IDW had a strong start because a not-too-small group of people were starving for real thinking outside narratives. But one problem is many of them are not good for a long-term intellectual relationship. You can get tired very easily of Shapiro and Rubin, for example. Rogan is from a different club and he is still great, being very close to normie thinking serves him well and he is not part of a victim club like the Shapiros and Rubins. The Weinstein Bros are the ones I like the most, being idiosyncratic big heads, with all the good and bad of being that way. The Weinsteins look to me like extremely privileged guys who keep an independent mind because they can afford to, and this is a compliment on them. And Peterson burned himself in his own mental stew. I still listen to his stuff and it is brilliant, but he has a preacher style that somehow makes sense when you learn about his substance problem.

I am still a current viewer of the Weinstein Bros + Heather de Weinstein and Rogan. With an occasional visit to JP's lectures. The thing about keeping the "movement" alive is that a long term relationship with the IDW requires adjusting it to keep good ideas flowing and discarding things that are clearly nonsense (like Shapiro's Daily Wire style of making a controversy, keeping tired phrases like 'the left': hard to explain to your normie friends that you are not recommending them Fox News lite). One thing that Eric W has clear is that we need institutions that have high tolerance for dissenting ideas and that have contempt of the mob so they don't cave to every social media fabricated controversy.

One can easily get tired of the self congratulatory mood of some IDW corners (we are the only ones with open discussion, etc), when it is clear that some of them have taboo subjects and people they would not host in their shows.

As Mencius Moldbug of UR says, we need to replace the existing system with something better as the current one has been fully taken by "cultural Marxism" and they will not give the keys back. Subversion is always cheaper: promoting alternatives for public school is easier for tight knit communities, colleges are dirt cheap to set up (except for laboratories for STEM) if you don't care about the profit and prestige. We even need an alternative to DNS providers, bank services, etc. I know this is easier said than done, but the idea is not to far fetched if you consider that soon Harvard.edu is going to be worthless when they stop using proof of skill in their admissions because they are colonialist or whatever.

0

Any platform which is intended to give a voice to those on the new right is subject to being infiltrated with subversives. Many intellectuals on the right have careers which would be ruined if their association with new-right social media was exposed - and many have.

I'm relatively new to Slug and still finding my way around. But I think the creators of this social media format should pay close attention to anyone who is a member here yet is critical of its existence.

Triumph Level 6 June 25, 2020
0

Any platform which is intended to give a voice to those on the new right is subject to being infiltrated with subversives. Many intellectuals on the right have careers which would be ruined if their association with new-right social media was exposed - and many have.

I'm relatively new to Slug and still finding my way around. But I think the creators of this social media format should pay close attention to anyone who is here yet is critical of its existence.

Triumph Level 6 June 25, 2020
0

Someone the Progressive school made it into the admin camp!

0

#1 In today's ultra polarized environment one controversial thing might be the idea that one can have a principled discussion with another who heretofore has been seen as an enemy by virtue of their beliefs. The promise of freedom of speech sadly has become controversial as well with the advent of "triggering" and "safe spaces."
#2 Unless this is a trick question I'd have to say that no one here can answer this about anyone but themselves. Everyone has something to hide; something that they are not proud of...maybe in the deep past- which either side of an argument is prone to dig up and wave around to discredit the veracity of the opponent side. This is deeply ingrained in human nature and requires a promethean will and Gandhi-like sincerity to avoid such tactics as well as to weather such exposure with real honesty, responding to anger and hate with principled discipline.
#3 Define engage. It might sound like a wimpy answer but, for myself- as a 69 year old- the best, most effective conversion of an intellectual discussion is for it to inspire one to live his beliefs; not just have a convincing argument that sounds good on line but requires no rubber on the road. Living examples of what the narrative aims for will always be more enduring in the minds of people than mere words. Again, responding to anger and hatred with equanimity and restraint.
#4 I don't know how popular this idea will be but I think IDW should be careful not to too quickly dismiss the emotional responses of it's members. Frequently an action that seems very emotionally grounded can be based on lengthy prior intellectual consideration. Hence, "Rest in reason; move (act) in passion."
#5 No. Obviously, the whole world knows about the Progressive Left, either to abhor or admire. By comparison, nobody knows who or what the IDW is or represents. It has a century of catching up to do. I fear that, sadly, a lot of money... I repeat, A LOT OF MONEY may be the only way to rapidly catch up. I would just add, beware the unwanted side effects that come in the wake of a lot of money.

0

In my experience they went full on leftist on facebook. Not in ideology but in tolerance for varying opinions.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 219

Photos 127 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #government #liberal #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #friends #videos #Identity #FreeSpeech #Google #book #policy #vote #Police #conservative #evidence #culture #violence #reason #economic #USA #liberals #tech #Socialmedia #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,848Top

    Moderator