Favorite members of the Intellectual Dark Web

[Kingpoleon]

Jordan Peterson, Maajid Nawaz, and Jonathan Haidt/

These lesser known members I included, but I dispute they are part of the IDW: Claire Lehmann, Douglas Murray, Steven Pinker, Lindsay Shepherd, Michael Shermer, Debra W. Soh, Bret Weinstein, and Eric Weinstein. Sommers and Brook have yet to achieve quite the success of the other big figures, but I think that is only a matter of time. Also, Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin are very minimalist figures in the “movement” - they’re very vacuous individuals in and of themselves. Heather Heying is not somebody close to being famous, AFAIK.

[Left Wing]

No

[Ancestral Republican]

[KaiserDave]

I would rather spontaneously combust.


/s obviously

[HisGrace]

I like Pinker and haven't heard of or dislike the others.

But as for the intensely negative reactions here, come on guys, none of these people are any worse than the post-modern word salad you get from the mainstream academy these days.

[Kingpoleon]

I like Pinker and haven't heard of or dislike the others.

But as for the intensely negative reactions here, come on guys, none of these people are any worse than the post-modern word salad you get from the mainstream academy these days.

Peterson is one of a handful of prominent voices in academia openly assaulting the rising consensus between post modernists and literal Marxists in academia. Unless you’re one of them, you should hardly be offended by most of what he says. Yes, he spends most of his time attacking crazy leftists - primarily because there aren’t many crazy rightists in academia. It would be like criticizing Nawaz for spending most of his time on attacking Islamism instead of Stalinism - they go after those in a group that they are in.

Seriously, besides Peterson and Shapiro, how many of these are even that controversial?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

I like Pinker and haven't heard of or dislike the others.

But as for the intensely negative reactions here, come on guys, none of these people are any worse than the post-modern word salad you get from the mainstream academy these days.

Peterson is one of a handful of prominent voices in academia openly assaulting the rising consensus between post modernists and literal Marxists in academia. Unless you’re one of them, you should hardly be offended by most of what he says. Yes, he spends most of his time attacking crazy leftists - primarily because there aren’t many crazy rightists in academia. It would be like criticizing Nawaz for spending most of his time on attacking Islamism instead of Stalinism - they go after those in a group that they are in.

Seriously, besides Peterson and Shapiro, how many of these are even that controversial?

Peterson's ideas themselves are far more absurd than those he spends his time attacking. If what he opposes is Marxism, then his stuff on gender and hierarchy is fascism.

[Ancestral Republican]

I like Pinker and haven't heard of or dislike the others.

But as for the intensely negative reactions here, come on guys, none of these people are any worse than the post-modern word salad you get from the mainstream academy these days.

Peterson is one of a handful of prominent voices in academia openly assaulting the rising consensus between post modernists and literal Marxists in academia. Unless you’re one of them, you should hardly be offended by most of what he says. Yes, he spends most of his time attacking crazy leftists - primarily because there aren’t many crazy rightists in academia. It would be like criticizing Nawaz for spending most of his time on attacking Islamism instead of Stalinism - they go after those in a group that they are in.

Seriously, besides Peterson and Shapiro, how many of these are even that controversial?

Peterson's ideas themselves are far more absurd than those he spends his time attacking. If what he opposes is Marxism, then his stuff on gender and hierarchy is fascism.

Yep, exactly. Peterson doesn't actually understand what Marxism is. That was very apparent when he debated Slavoj Žižek (who's not exactly a torch-bearer but did at least have a clue.) He's a self-help guru who mistakenly thought he could speak on politics.

He also frequently dismisses social causes with an exultation to "work on yourself" instead of outside issues. Meanwhile, he's a benzo addict who was in a coma in rehab from the withdrawals just recently. Which, I'm not trying to shame, everyone has their struggles, but it makes his statements seem hypocritical.

My best friend from high school is a devout follower of Peterson. And I just don't get the hype.

[HisGrace]

That was very apparent when he debated Slavoj Žižek (who's not exactly a torch-bearer but did at least have a clue.)

Zizek is just an academic troll at this point and an excellent one. Half surprised he didn't endorse Kanye this time and write some long-winded mock philosophical article explaining why.

[afleitch]

I'd rather eat bees.

[TheTide]

Seriously, besides Peterson and Shapiro, how many of these are even that controversial?

Well, let's go through them then

• Ali is a crank whose legitimate criticisms of Islam frequently verge into, uh, questionable conclusions ("Islam is responsible for 70% of the bloodshed in the world")
• I'm not familiar with Yaron Brock but you described him as an "Objectivist" so I assume he's an idiot
• Harris is a Great Value Hitchens who is among the most annoying of the New Atheists
• We have covered Joe Rogan in extensive detail on this blog already
• Dave Rubin is a low IQ failed comedian who has realized he can make more money from grifting conservatives, so more power to him I guess
• Sommers is just a standard conservative who has a regular gig for AEI criticizing "feminism" from the perspective of an ex-liberal; there is no evidence to suggest she's anything other than another conservative pundit
• The brothers Weinstein both have unbearable twitter accounts and one of them (don't care who) is a hedge fund creature for noted fascist Peter Thiel
• Murray thinks Muslims are going to wipe out European civilization
• Pinker has a very, very close friendship with America's favorite recently departed sex trafficking pedophile and was a defense witness in one of his trials
• Shermer has also faced credible accusations of sexual misconduct, though nowhere near as high-profile as Pinker

People can have flaws, even significant ones, but that doesn't per se mean that they are controversial.

[Santander]

I'd rather watch some alt-right thing.

[ChrisMcDanielWasRobbed]

Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, and Christina Hoff Sommers.

[Alben Barkley]

Pinker doesn’t really fit with the rest at all.

I voted for him, Ali, and Nawaz. I mostly like them. There are others I’m more mixed on like Sommers. For the most part, I either dislike the rest or am not familiar with them enough to say.

Weird how many are Canadian by the way.

[Alben Barkley]

Seriously, besides Peterson and Shapiro, how many of these are even that controversial?

Pinker has a very, very close friendship with America's favorite recently departed sex trafficking pedophile and was a defense witness in one of his trials

You seriously exaggerate Pinker’s connection to Epstein, almost to a defamatory extent.

Pinker, along with many other scientists and intellectuals (including Stephen Hawking), did know Epstein and occasionally attended gatherings hosted by him, mostly seeking financing for research projects.

According to NYT:

At one session at Harvard, Mr. Epstein criticized efforts to reduce starvation and provide health care to the poor because doing so increased the risk of overpopulation, said Mr. Pinker, who was there. Mr. Pinker said he had rebutted the argument, citing research showing that high rates of infant mortality simply caused people to have more children. Mr. Epstein seemed annoyed, and a Harvard colleague later told Mr. Pinker that he had been “voted off the island” and was no longer welcome at Mr. Epstein’s gatherings.

Doesn’t sound like a “very, very close friend” to me.

Moreover, Pinker himself has never been personally accused of any sexual misconduct, as you go on to insinuate.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Pinker doesn’t really fit with the rest at all.

This, and he's definitely the least bad.

It's a shame what happened to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who used to provide a credible and intellectually challenging counterweight to the post-9/11 left's reflexive defensiveness about Islamic societies, but who's since slid into tedious single-issue bigotry.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Rogan, Peterson, and Christina Hoff Sommers. I have not read anything by any of them, and I only occasionally listen to Joe Rohan. So I'm basing this off C-SPAN appearances basically.

[Horus]

Not really a fan of any but none of them bother me a whole lot besides Shapiro. I will say that New Atheism is just as, if not more obnoxious than a good portion of organized religion.

[afleitch]

Those that I can comment on:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - Aung San Suu Kyi-ed her way into horror.

Sam Harris - Blind spot for white supremacy, now more interested in 'wellness'. One positive is that he's not decamped to Trump for money or clicks.

Maajid Nawaz - Having Twitter moments.

Jordan Peterson - Incapacitated/under influence of Beef Girl.

Joe Rogan - Was never in the IDW; but people did use him for exposure. I don't like him generally but will at least have people like David Pakman on.

Dave Rubin - The Planet's Most Obvious Grifter and probably the dumbest person on this list without any sense of awareness at how f-cking stupid he is.

Ben Shapiro - Not really IDW; pre 2010 run of the mill GOP who might have a place post Trump.

Christina Hoff Sommers - Irrelevant.

Bret Weinstein - Ask Peter Thiel.

Claire Lehmann - Calipers.

Douglas Murray - One of the weirdest people I think I've ever read into.

Steven Pinker - Has already got his coat and left.

Lindsay Shepherd - 'Leftheleft' grifter.

Eric Weinstein - Ask Peter Thiel.

[Mr. Morden]

Glenn Loury and John McWhorter don't count?

[Kingpoleon]

My best friend from high school is a devout follower of Peterson. And I just don't get the hype.

We live in a world where this deadly idea - that life has no meaning - has permeated our society. We live in a world where ideas have a hold on people, instead of people having a hold on ideas. We live in a world where men suppress emotions as unmanly. Peterson gets this. He criticizes it sharply and distinctly, and his life work in psychology reflects that.

His message is appealing because he tells people to be responsible; to reject a world dominated by ideologues; and he speaks very frankly and very emotionally, and he says, “I care about you. Your life matters.” People want to hear that, and to hear it from someone as charismatic as Peterson objectively is? It’s even better.

[SWE]

"Intellectual" is a stretch

[Person Man]

Do you think Trump could get these people into his campaign?

[PSOL]

Isn’t this a year or so too late to be talking about them? Most of these public figures have fallen off the radar and have been for months now. Might as well talk about the people taking up their mantle in the public consciousness.

[Kingpoleon]

Peterson's ideas themselves are far more absurd than those he spends his time attacking. If what he opposes is Marxism, then his stuff on gender and hierarchy is fascism.

Calling Peterson, who is really not even a conservative, a fascist is laughable. He’s spent a huge portion of his career going after religious, fundamentalist ideas, which is a very odd beginning for a fascist.