The intellectual dark web is actually fairly transparent. I’ve been following these forums for some time now and the evidence that the people here are more “rational” than those on the left is fairly scant; if anything people here are far more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.

I’ve seen people pushing the cultural marxism conspiracy theory, the anti-vaccination conspiracy theory, the white genocide conspiracy theory... No flat earthers, young earthers, creationists etc yet, but give it time and I’m sure you’ll find them.

Whether you think the left is rational or not, you must face up to the fact these views aren’t rational and that the IDW’s fanbase is consequently not entirely rational either.

@InternetDorkWeb I THINK you might have MEANT to say, “IMO those things aren’t rational”. After all, the spirit of discussion that I have observed so far on IDW is to state point, and counterpoint, rather that the labeling, derision and straw man accusations that I am hearing...?

Actually there are aspects and considerations involved with ALL of those points of view that are rational, so aren’t you painting with a VERY. BROAD, BRUSH?!?!?

Try Facebook...the yahoos over there really like that stuff?

@Grandmahufford

I’m sorry but I was responding to someone who claimed that:

“The leftist world can't interpret the IDW world view that is based on facts and truths”

“the leftist's ideology, which is to lie about everything,so that their propaganda is the only narrative still standing.”

and you think that I am the one who is “painting with a broad brush”, because I questioned whether people on this website are more rational than anyone else, while pointing to evidence of irrational beliefs?

And this is exactly what I would expect to find on facebook.

@InternetDorkWeb yeah, I rethought that approach after I said it; - but I do think that some of the topics you listed as a symptom of irrationality are real concerns, or at least that “the jury is out” on them as serious concerns.

I’m not “anti-vaccination ”, but I do find some vaccines concerning; - origins of the earth and life are Certainly up for discussionn since none of us were there, AND facts and data are constantly being updated.

It really seemed like you were stigmatizing certain points of view as “irrational”, and almost every one of those topics could invite civil debate even if limited.

I’ve been on FB recently, and labeling an entire topic of debate as “irrational” is an easy discussion closer that is employed regularly.

@Grandmahufford What characterises a belief as a conspiracy theory, is that it is rather than being based on evidence for the phenomenon, it is based on the motives of a group of conspirators; who will use deception, manipulation or other nefarious means to create an “illusion” of evidence. This means the belief is unfalsifiable, and no matter what you say to them they will simply revise the explanation.

Take any conspiracy you think is horse shit, and then try to look at it this way. Flat earthers is a good one because most people can understand why that one is ridiculous.

Flat earthers do claim some form of “evidence” for their beliefs, but when presented with contradictory evidence that the world is a globe, they will try to debunk that evidence repeatedly. Eventually, the explanations given will not be based on the actual claim, but the motives of someone or some organisation. In the case of flat earthers it’s often NASA.

One thing that is interesting about the flat earth conspiracy theory in particular is that when asked why NASA etc “lie” about the shape of the earth most flat earthers concede they don’t know why. But even though they cannot explain the motivation, nonetheless they are reliant on NASA having one for their conspiracy to make sense.

Anything that can fit within this framework can be classed a conspiracy theory. One might also point out that there are real historical events that this can be applied to... the difference being though that the real events are based on evidence and not motivation. We know that the Nazis had ‘motives’ for carrying out the holocaust, but the explanation for the event is based on evidence... the existence of the camps, eyewitness testimony, census data, photographic evidence... rather than using the fact they were Nazis as evidence of guilt.

When it comes to concerns about vaccines, why do you believe that pharmaceutical companies would issue vaccines that they know to be dangerous?
Do they have some sinister motivation that cannot be falsified, like NASA do above?

When it comes to the age of the earth, are geologists simply lying? Has God made the world misleading to test their faith? Is such perverse motivations not similar to what I described?

@InternetDorkWeb You would be amazed at the motivations for developing drugs if government money is involved, simply because once you have a government imprimatur for it that makes it Very Difficult to sue, they have the 3 things EVERY business would crave:

1 - a mandated market
2 - a Huge moneypot where the payee Prints the Money!
3 - almost guaranteed freedom from civil penalties.

[law.cornell.edu]

@Grandmahufford The conditions set out in the link provided seem reasonable to me.

State laws apply in most cases, but cannot be used to hold a vaccine manufacturer responsible for unavoidable injuries (ie those caused by allergic reactions to vaccines) if it was administered correctly, unless they are shown not to have done their due dillegence.

They are also not responsible simply because they didn’t provide a direct warning, because these events are essentially unpredictable. There is nothing a vaccine manufacturer can do to avoid them, they are one in a million events.

@militantMom I know that as a fact, it’s widely reported on. You seem to know that yourself too judging by your comment.

That level of paranoia about security is probably unhealthy tbh.

@militantMom I don’t know how I’m supposed to interpret the badass comment... Should I be flattered or not?

It’s important to remember not all ideas are being “pushed”, they gain traction because large numbers of people find them appealing, for whatever reason.

Advertising is a clear cut example of what happens when something is pushed by outside sources. When you want to push an idea and not a product, it’s going to use similar strategies. This might including

-association with something positive or negative

-emotionally charged language

-the use of incomplete information as enticement (clickbait)

-omission of pertinent details

When someone is genuinely endorsing an idea they won’t normally use these strategies. Imagine trying to persuade someone to watch your favourite movie... it’s not the same as an advertisement, there are differences in expression even though you have a similar goal.

Perhaps the most important aspect though is where the information appears. If they are paying to put it there and it’s not driven by real supporters, you can be sure it’s being “pushed”.

A further complication nowadays is that the motive of the person pushing it isn’t always clear cut, so you need to be extra vigilant.

The “Dark Web” is a different form of “internet”. It doesn’t run on the stuff you normally use ... it’s not accessible here.
If you’re seriously interested you can do a “search” and get links to places where you can download an access portal (aka Browser ... sort of) but be extremely careful what you get into in there ... there are no “safeties” ... I would suggest that accessing it through a 3rd party offsite Portal Provider (?) Like Tor is advised.

One word "LOGIC" hell yes I believe the majority want logical conversation not troll or spam

Couldn't not have said it better myself

@militantMom I suspect that the CIA as being an integral part of it but it's not completely controlled by the CIA is my understanding of it.

thanks. interesting talk

I've tried other alternatives to FB, but they seemed like intellectual monocultures. IDW is diverse and the conversations are interesting.

@timon_phocas Exactly. This is a site where a classical liberal comment will usually NOT be labeled as "right-wing" by the regressive left.

Now! Now is the time, the time is now! IDW

Your original post seems to be missing from this thread, enough said. Why would you make up a fantasy subject to make your point, what view point would you be afraid to defend in public, as an example?

Well ... perhaps that’s good.
If they’re hung up on relatively stupid thought processes like that, perhaps we’re better off without them.

Hey ... Actually Thinking Ain’t for Everybody ....

In geek-speak... MEH

@militantMom That was just a random example off the top of my head, I think you got my point though, change the name.

@Riffdiculous I'm not concerned about names though.

Why?
I mean seriously if someone is foolish enough to get hung up on the name then they should simply leave ... or not get on ...
Simple.
If they’re that stupid ... and it sounds like a PC Kneejerk reaction anyway ... we’ve no need of their input or presence.
Actually I tend to think of it as IDW anyway ...

@Bay0Wulf Personally, I'm not for changing the name, I was just responding to the OP to see what kind of feedback I'd get.

“Intellectual Dark Web” is already super pretentious, you need to tone it down not make it even worse.

@InternetDorkWeb politifacting people, in lieu of simple conversation, or response statements is super prentious too.