Talk:Intellectual dark web

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intellectual dark web article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2: 3 months

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 3 June 2019, see discussion.
Delete, May 29, 2018, see discussion.
~~Merge~~ to Eric Weinstein, April 17, 2018, see discussion.

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Finlayson, Alan (2021). "Neoliberalism, the Alt-Right and the Intellectual Dark Web". Theory, Culture & Society. 38 (6): 167–190. doi:10.1177/02632764211036731. ISSN 1460-3616. S2CID 239690708.
Roberts, Jamie Q. (2024). The Way of the Intellectual Dark Web: What Joe Rogan and His Associates Can Teach Us about Political Dialogue. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-003-31803-3.
Kelsey, Darren (2020). "Archetypal Populism: The 'Intellectual Dark Web' and the 'Peterson Paradox'" (PDF). In Kranert, Michael (ed.). Discursive Approaches to Populism Across Disciplines: The Return of Populists and the People. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 171–198. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-55038-7_7. ISBN 978-3-030-55038-7 – via The Wikipedia Library.

First line of the article

Hi, this is my first ever post on Wikipedia after decades of use, I have just heard this term "intellectual dark web" and came here looking for explanation. The first line says this "is a term used by some commentators who oppose". This is problematic because they could be describing themselves or others. I am genuinely confused. I have done some research (as someone who has JUST heard this term) and it seems (but I could be mistaken) that either of the above terms are generally wrong? Because it seems (again I could be wrong) that this term isn't generally used by people to describe themselves as the I.D.W. For example Shapiro doesn't call himself this as far as I can tell. So it seems that the first line is very misleading... should it say this instead "is a term used to describe some commentators who oppose"? If it did say this then people would look at the names on the list like Shapiros and come to the conclusion that others describe him as this, which if I understand this term correctly... would be the correct interpretation? Thanks, Matt. MatthewMachinist (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am very sorry to reply to my post but I have just read this in the talk "The term was coined by Eric Weinstein to describe himself and a set of others including both liberals and conservatives, with whom he had a friendly intellectual alliance of sorts. It was not intended to be derogatory."

Ok... so this does clear up my misunderstanding to a large degree, however I have done a lot of reading on this and it seems lately that more and more people who are using this term are not IDW, but others describing them.

So for that reason alone I think my suggested edit "is a term used to describe some commentators who oppose" is still valid and better than what was written. Normally I oppose an ambiguous term like describe but in this instance it could mean self description or description by others and is therefore suitable. I am open to better suggestions if anyone has one?

Thanks, Matt. 124.197.13.4 (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Rubin as quoted in Unherd

@GreenMeansGo: I see you added some content sourced to Unherd in 2001 with a quote from David Rubin, but you ended the quote in strange place that could leave the reader either dumbfounded as to the meaning of the quote or give the false impression that Rubin think that merely employing tools of liberalism in general is a fatal mistake. The fuller quote is "They've made what to me seems to be a very obvious fatal mistake, that you can use any of the tools of Liberalism — of open inquiry, freedom of speech, respect for your fellow human beings, individual rights — that you can use any of these things to rationalise with the monster that is coming to burn your house down. And that's why we've seen in effect the liberals have no defence over this, which is why all the liberal institutions are crumbling." His point is about dealing with those that everyone in the IDW would agree are left of liberal. Jweiss11 (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per the context in the previous paragraph, it's supposed to be a criticism of Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, and Bret Weinstein. In the context of the discussion above, basically that "if you think you can be on the left and criticize the left, then you're a big dummy. You should have followed me and allied with the right instead." (obviously paraphrasing) GMG ^talk 14:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your paraphrasing makes sense, but the snippet of the quote you chose to include doesn't convey that sentiment. We should include the fuller quote and/or find a better way to articulate this. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By all means... BEBOLD. I just did a scrub this morning for more recent sourcing and this is one of the things that came up. GMG ^talk 14:36, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this material since the only source was an opinion piece by the site's editor. See § Internal disagreements below for more explanation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

term no longer applicable (2023-2024)

hello,

what does it take in Feb 2024 to demonstrate that none of those who were in this grouping identifies with this grouping any more, if they ever did? do we trust outside sources? (There are probably none insisting on grouping these people together under this name since 2021.) Do we trust the identified members themselves? If so, how can we find a source that says that none of these people identify with this label now? Do we have to find a source for each member, do demonstrate that they don't belong?

I think the term IDW is fine as term that had some salience for a few years. And we can state who belonged to the group for that period. (I guess from 2018-2021.)

skak E L 14:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sauces plz. GMG ^talk 14:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internal disagreements

Internal disagreements
Writer Cathy Young has expressed uncertainty over whether she belongs in the intellectual dark web.^[1] Historian of medicine and science Alice Dreger expressed surprise in being told she was a member of the IDW at all. After she was invited to be profiled in the New York Times article, she stated that she "had no idea who half the people in this special network were. The few Intellectual Dark Web folks I had met I didn't know very well. How could I be part of a powerful intellectual alliance when I didn't even know these people?"^[2]
In a 2020 episode of his podcast, Harris distanced himself from the movement, saying that he was "turn[ing] in [his] imaginary membership card to this imaginary organization", because some unidentified members of the group were propagating President Donald Trump's false claims that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen through voter fraud.^[3] He later described the focus on COVID-19 vaccines by Bret Weinstein as being "completely crazy".^[4]
In 2021, Dave Rubin described a growing ideological split among the early IDW. According to Freddie Sayers, Rubin includes Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, and Bret Weinstein among "those who believe the tools of liberalism can still be deployed to persuade the Woke Left to change their mind", while Rubin believes that is not possible, and that he is "better off building bridges with the Right".^[5]

Sources

^ Young, Cathy (2018-05-20). "Who's afraid of the 'Intellectual Dark Web'?". Arc Digital Media. Archived from the original on December 15, 2020. Retrieved 2019-09-10.

^ Dreger, Alice (May 11, 2018). "Why I Escaped the 'Intellectual Dark Web'". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on June 25, 2019. Retrieved 25 June 2019.

^ Harris, Sam (19 November 2020). "Republic of Lies". Making Sense (Podcast). Event occurs at 0:03:48. Retrieved 23 September 2024 – via Samharris.org. Insofar as I've noticed what others in the so called Intellectual Dark Web have been saying, it's generally not something I want to be associated with. I don't want to single anyone out in particular, but allow me to take this moment to turn in my imaginary membership card to this imaginary organization. I mean, the IDW was always tongue-in-cheek from my point of view. It was the name for a group of people who were willing to discuss difficult topics in public mostly on podcasts, but it never made sense for us to be grouped together as though we shared a common worldview. I never saw much downside to it, and I didn't much think about it, but in the aftermath of this election with some members of this fictional group sounding fairly bonkers, I just want to make it clear that I'm not part of any group.

^ Fisher, Anthony L. (January 19, 2023). "Opinion | The Intellectual Dark Web's Descent Into Paranoia and Trumpism". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 12 July 2023.

^ Sayers, Freddie (April 6, 2021). "Dave Rubin: why the 'Intellectual Dark Web' split up". UnHerd. Retrieved 12 July 2023.

I removed these three paragraphs as unduly weighted since every source cited is either a blog, podcast, or opinion piece (op-ed or editorial). All are primary sources that shouldn't be used as the basis of an article (or section). Why do we care whether Person X feels like they belong to Group Y, especially given the polarizing nature of said group? Sam Harris's disavowal of the IDW especially smacks of damage control. A truly balanced presentation would instead rely on secondary sources that put these statements in their proper context. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a new criticism heading

I think a criticism heading should be added with the POV of those who are against the movement including the points made by progressives and centrist authors incl points made by zero book and the guardian Nohorizonss (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf Nohorizonss (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's already a § Reception section for this. I specifically removed the citation to Michael Brooks because his book is a polemic rather than a work of scholarship. Criticism sections are a bad idea in general, especially for polarizing topics like this one. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Young, Cathy (2018-05-20). "Who's afraid of the 'Intellectual Dark Web'?". Arc Digital Media. Archived from the original on December 15, 2020. Retrieved 2019-09-10.

[2] Dreger, Alice (May 11, 2018). "Why I Escaped the 'Intellectual Dark Web'". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on June 25, 2019. Retrieved 25 June 2019.

[3] Harris, Sam (19 November 2020). "Republic of Lies". Making Sense (Podcast). Event occurs at 0:03:48. Retrieved 23 September 2024 – via Samharris.org. Insofar as I've noticed what others in the so called Intellectual Dark Web have been saying, it's generally not something I want to be associated with. I don't want to single anyone out in particular, but allow me to take this moment to turn in my imaginary membership card to this imaginary organization. I mean, the IDW was always tongue-in-cheek from my point of view. It was the name for a group of people who were willing to discuss difficult topics in public mostly on podcasts, but it never made sense for us to be grouped together as though we shared a common worldview. I never saw much downside to it, and I didn't much think about it, but in the aftermath of this election with some members of this fictional group sounding fairly bonkers, I just want to make it clear that I'm not part of any group.

[Fisher_2023-4] Fisher, Anthony L. (January 19, 2023). "Opinion | The Intellectual Dark Web's Descent Into Paranoia and Trumpism". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 12 July 2023.

[5] Sayers, Freddie (April 6, 2021). "Dave Rubin: why the 'Intellectual Dark Web' split up". UnHerd. Retrieved 12 July 2023.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]