Critics and the Intellectual Dark Web, Eric Weinstein (Sensemaking Series)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ค. 2024
- Over two years ago the New York Times reported on "a group of heretics, making an end run around the national conversation", the Intellectual Dark Web.
Since then the concept has been celebrated and criticised in equal measure. Rebel Wisdom talks to the man who came up with the name, mathematician Eric Weinstein, about the web and its critics. What has been learned since 2018?
This interview was conducted in April 2020.
This film is part of Rebel Wisdom's Sensemaking Series, see part 1, 'What the F*ck is Going On?' here: • What the F*ck is Going...
Part 2 is: My Journey with Jordan Peterson & the Intellectual Dark Web: • My Journey with Jordan...
And Part 3: The Death of Journalism? Jesse Singal & Katie Herzog: • The Death of Journalis...
You can listen to podcast versions of our films on Spotify or Apple Podcasts by searching 'Rebel Wisdom' or download episodes from our Podbean page: rebelwisdom.podbean.com/
To support Rebel Wisdom, and get member benefits including regular Q&As with the interviewees from our films for our members, check out: www.rebelwisdom.co.uk/plans
![fellow fellow - Proud [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9uZF7BlUQPE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[FULL EP.14] เซียนหรั่ง สอน มาร์ชจุ จับปูนา ฮากระจาย | เฮ็ดอย่างเซียนหรั่ง | One Playground](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M8mPjd_T2lo/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey all - this interview was done at the start of April - released now. One of the radio mics malfunctioned during the recording, so apologies for the quality on my questions - luckily Eric's worked fine.
Love your work, sir. The interview with JP about shadow work was especially captivating.
So, I wrote this two weeks ago. It's a reminder to myself, and hopefully to others, why we must oppose corruption and uphold free speech.
www.whyihatepolitics.com/2020/06/11/i-oppose-corruption/
Nice Onitsuka Tigers, by the way. Keep up the good work.
~ Cecil
Very good interview. These sort of questions I'd love to see posed to quite a few of the IDW characters. Personally, I think IDW was more a reflection of a struggle against orthodox and heterodox thinking, rather than a group of specific people. And so it shouldn't rely on these people. Shouldn't the nature of the IDW be that the group is constantly changing, morphing and new characters being loosely absorbed into the group frequently?
Every influential TH-cam political commentator has embraced the wild west nature of the platform. You're the only person posing questions challenging the TH-cam zeitgeist. And that's a very important and missing viewpoint. Well done!
@@jarletto Right? We ARE the IDW, lol
Seems a bit strange you did interviews in the US in the beginning of April?!? Were there even planes flying? If you don't mind, I'd be interested in the circumstances. Also the interview with Bret who was locked down quite sincerely, makes me wonder...
34:30 "fitness and truth diverging" what does he mean by that?
You gotta have him on as much as possible. Such a brilliant man.
This won't age well lol. Bright , clearly ... absolutely for the leftist agenda 100% 👌
@@idahoman325 more like the common sense, logic, and critical reasoning agenda.
God damn lefty
@@idahoman325 How is he for "the leftist agenda" ?
@Monotech2.0 Why should he debate the disingenuous grifter Sam Seder?
I’m doing my best to spread the ideas I learned from the IDW in my little world.
It’s certainly not dead. It’s opened the eyes of millions of people and helped them to implement first principles thinking.
The IDW has certainly helped pull me back from the brink of going tribal during these turbulent times. Sam Harris, Bret Weinstein, Eric Weinstein, JR, Peterson, Haidt etc. are my go to's for getting critical rational analysis on topics. MSM sows so much chaos and discord you have to have a place to go to get rational perspectives from both sides.
Gad Saad should be added to your list.
I think the IDW is its own tribe anyway. They have their own overton window of acceptable disagreements and acceptable ways of handling that disagreement. Ben Shapiro is allowed to be acerbic, mocking, etc but Sam Seder is not. Why? Because Shapiro doesn't aim his mocking comments towards the IDW. That's the only difference.
joe rogan is not an intellectual. And Sam harris isn't part of the idw, he just engages with them.
@@upthevilla4281 sam harris is in the IDW, he was photographed for the NYT article. he just doesn't talk about it nearly as much as the Weinstein's or Dave Rubin
MSM means Mainstream Social Media? I'm not familiar with that term ^^'
As one who leans conservative, I very much appreciate Andrew Yang. I disagree with him on a number of issues, but he thinks of issues in terms of problems and solutions. He would have the conversation and listen to ideas without immediately dismissing opposing views because they don't fit a certain ideology. He was one of two democrats I would have been comfortable with.
I genuinely enjoy listening to all of the "idw" people and agree with most of what they say. I just prefer when they discuss ideas instead of discussing the people in the "idw". The ideas drew me in but all this talk about the messengers instead of the message is dulling my interest.
This is the natural entropical development of online discourse. First it is about ideas, then it is all about the ones uttering them because their position in life or character might be important for why they are in favor of idea x, but not of idea y. There is a slogan which says that "small minds discuss people, big minds discuss ideas". If that's the case, then only discourse makes us all dumber.
Ditto.
Agreed
WHY DO WE NEED JEWS TO TELL US EVERYTHING ON BOTH SIDES WHY CAN'T WE HAVE OUR OWN CULTURE AND DESTINY???
Maybe you shouldn't be watching a series of videos made with the purpose of capturing the impressions of members of the IDW about the IDW, then.
"If ridicule is the main course, you're doing it wrong!"
Christopher Hitchens is proof enough against that. Heaven is celestial North Korea.
WHY CAN'T WHITE PEOPLE HAVE CONVERSATIONS? WE'RE NOT EVIL!!! WE'RE BEING ABUSED!!!
@@MybridWonderful Ridicule was NEVER Hitchens main course. He ALWAYS had good arguments and substance. I dont think you understand whats going on here.
Eric, Bret and Heather are trying hard to lead their people from repeating history. Highly regarded. Much applause.
@Bichi Ranga Brets wife Heather they do the Darkhorse podcast together.
Thank you for pushing him a bit on certain issues like Rubin. You could tell that he got defensive but I think that was very appropriate, and showed a very real part of Eric we needed to see.
My the standards of marriage counselling when any kind of _real_ issue is confronted, Eric's response was 3% defensive and 97% forthright.
They all protect Rubin like he's their favorite student.
Why the heck does RW and the people in the comments here have such a problem with Dave?
@@niri2506 My problem with Rubin is that one minute he's interviewing Eric and Bret, and the next minute he's conducting interviews laced with a subtle form of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, in such a way to imply that the IDW on the whole is at least Objectivist-compatible, so as to better position the Rubin Report as a nesting ground for any and all manner of disgruntlement. List of people who actually do jive to Objectivism: Mark Cuban, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, Alan Greenspan, and at least the master bedroom of the weirdly heterodox Peter Thiel.
¶
From Alexander Sammon at the _New Republic_ (August 2019):
¶
_To this day, Objectivism continues to appeal to a certain kind of precocious youngster: contrarian, brash, frustrated with the status quo but uncertain of where to direct that frustration._
...
_Over the decades, the Objectivists’ full-court offensive bore fruit in the culture at large. Everyone from Peter Thiel to Jeff Bezos to the members of the Canadian power trio Rush got a taste of Rand’s philosophy. Even Hillary Clinton claimed to have had a Rand phase. ... Ronald Reagan was a professed “admirer” of Rand but embraced religion-a stark violation of Rand’s hardline atheism. Ted Cruz once read from "Atlas Shrugged" on the Senate floor during a filibuster, but there he was, just the other day, clamoring to break up Big Tech. George H.W. Bush raised taxes! Quislings, all of them._
...
_That wasn’t my only mistake. When I asked Michael how long he’d been into conservative politics, he clarified that he was not conservative-no objectivists were. This was an important source of indignation that also referenced the embattled identity of the movement._
...
_Objectivists insist that their predilections are derived from a highly logical, uncompromising framework. But there were moments when it felt like we were engaging in a lot of ex post facto justification of Rand’s personal tastes. Jazz, we were later told, sucked. Rock and roll sucked. Gilbert and Sullivan sucked. Bach sucked. Modern art sucked. But surely an exception should be made for the Objectivist members of Rush, one concerned attendee wondered aloud at a different panel. The speaker’s answer was a perfect study in measured circumlocution: “We just don’t have the vocabulary to really talk about music.”_
¶
You see, you can jive to Objectivism, but the soundtrack is confined the clink of hard coin pouring like a golden shower of awesomeness confetti into Scrooge McDuck's swimming pool.
¶
_The Objectivists’ blind appreciation for all things Ayn apparently did not extend to her drug of choice. Her most famous vice-beyond cigarettes, which she insisted were not carcinogenic-was Benzedrine, to which she became addicted._
...
_While we were on the topic of potentially troubling contradictions, I asked about Rand’s attitudes toward homosexuality, which she’d famously referred to as “immoral” and “disgusting.”_
...
_In fact, I was starting to realize that nearly everything at the conference was a sales pitch. Take a surprise visit from Brian Amerige, who was Facebook’s aspiring James Damore. ... Amerige authored a memo for Facebook managers titled “We Have A Problem With Political Diversity,” and he delivered very on-brand remarks to the Rand faithful about Silicon Valley’s left-wing slant. But before long, he proceeded to the main event: a pitch to support his new business-friendly tech platform. TH-cam stars Yaron Brook and Greg Salmieri, who were also selling their own books at the event, offered a suite of revenue-enhancing gestures of solidarity to their fellow ultra-libertarian rebels._
...
_There were also materials on how to write the Rand Institute into your will. The closing reception set attendees back an additional $130._
...
_These days, however, James Biller was considerably less excited about Rand and her capitalist vision. He said the conference had changed, pointing out that the financial generosity he had experienced as a newbie had dried up. He brought the cult question up before I could. “A lot of people think it’s like a cult,” he told me. “My mom thought it was a cult. It’s cult-like. It’s not a cult. It has elements of a cult. But it’s all about thinking for yourself. The cult of thinking for yourself.”_
¶
This entire kettle of fish is the political _Geography of Nowhere._ Not precisely on the left, not precisely on the right; variously prudish, debauched, libertarian, morally prescriptive; not entirely a cult, but also not entirely _not_ a cult.
¶
[continued]
@@niri2506 As I read between the lines, Rubin was straying into consistently subliminal Randianism not out of any specific attraction or moral principle, but merely because the _Joy of Rand_ is that Rand gets to have her political cake, to eat her political cake, to jump out of her political cake, and to throw political cake at the unwashed with never any risk of the cake running out-the ultimate expression of One Cake Fits All.
¶
Asked directly, I'm pretty sure that Bret Weinstein would have answered that Objectivism is startlingly immature. Sam Harris would barf into his own mouth. Sam actually wrote a post-mortem on the "pendulum of human affection" going ape-shit about the Randians because Sam had the audacity to suggest raising taxes on billionaires. See _How to Lose Readers (Without Even Trying)_ from August 2011. Peterson says he enjoys the romance of Rand's fiction, but doesn't regard her depiction of the struggle between good and evil as sufficiently sophisticated to cross into philsophy. Here's the deal from his own mouth. There's a 3:00 clip at ManOfAllCreation on TH-cam where Rubin asks a direction question of Peterson (via audience call-in) concerning Ayn Rand and Peterson gives a classic answer (the clip is titled _Ayn Rand, a Good Philosopher?_ and dated November 2017).
¶
Rubin: Do you have any thoughts on Objectivism generally or the greater philosophical part of it?
¶
Peterson: I like the emphasis on individual responsibility. You know I think that's very important. I also like-though this is more the fiction element, you know I think she was more powerful as a fiction writer than as a philosopher-that's not a denigrating comment because I don't believe that philosophy is a higher calling; they both have their own domains. [completion of main verb "like" abandoned]. I don't regard Ayn Rand as a great mind; I don't think her take on things was sufficiently differentiated or sophisticated. [more hunting stutter] She had reasons to be anti-communist, so I can certainly [phrase abandoned]-and I resonate with her critiques of that collectivism. And I like the romanticism of the books. I enjoyed reading _Atlas Shrugged_ and I read it again recently. But I also don't think it's great literature. And the reason for that is that she doesn't place the struggle between good and evil insider her characters. And that's a mistake. Because even your most radical left-wing revolutionary is mostly not a radical left-wing revolutionary.
¶
Rubin: Right, right. It's home watching _Seinfeld_ and doing noth-
¶
Peterson: -Exactly! So you have to show the struggle within more. And I don't think she does a very good job of that. Her most noble people are too noble. And her ignoble people are too ignoble. It divides the world too much into the bad guys and the good guys. It's like, that's comforting, and there's an archetypal element to it, but it's not sufficiently differentiated enough or sophisticated enough.
¶
Rubin: That's interesting because I know that if any of the ARI people are watching they'd be happy to continue that conversation with you publically-that's what it's all about, so that's ... that's nice.
¶
Here Rubin ducks heads down again to fetch the next audience question from his iPad, because there's no GD way on God's green Earth he's getting dragged into further discussion or Jordan's sharp answer if in doing so he risks placing more of his own cards directly on the table.
¶
[continued]
Some good positions:
1. More tolerant, rational debate and less trophy hunting.
2. We're human, and our personal friendships are more important than publicly berating people for their views or behaviour.
3. The IDW is an amorphous, unfunded, disparate group; don't expect too much from it.
4. Maybe people's positions can't be changed, but our discussion has lead to better appreciation of alternative views.
What a great moral sense displayed by ERIC refusing to critique Dave's position and "throw him under the bus", and rather defending it and making a great point against Dave accepting Sam Seder as a challenger for a debate. A great conversation. Thank you for the upload!
*EDIT: Wrote Brett instead of Eric. Corrected!
Eric ***
@@alexnoman1498 Dgkana Thanks for the correction guys.
He did critique Dave's approach re: two-faced guests such as Tommy Robinson.
I once told a friend that he reminded me of Eric Weinstein. He took it as an insult. I really don't know which one of us is confused.
I'd be insulted too
@@ntskl why would you be insulted?
@@ntskl ERIC IS A BEAUTIFUL MAN
Maybe your friend was getting him confused with Harvey Weinstein or Jeffrey Epstein? Or perhaps he thought you meant he looked like Eric. Eric is a marvelous mind, but he isn't going to get confused with Brad Pitt visually, is he? He can be quite abrasive, but only in a refreshing 'not suffering fools gladly' style.
WHY CAN'T WHITE PEOPLE HAVE CONVERSATIONS? WE'RE NOT EVIL!!! WE'RE BEING ABUSED!!!
Anytime the camera is on Eric when someone is asking him a question idk how they aren't shitting their pants trying to not make a mistake in front of that stare lmao
I have that stare. I got it by life experience. When we experience such harsh life experiences we get the 1000 yard stare like the 19 year old conscript in the Vietnam War
Every human life contains a potential, if that potential is not fulfilled, then that life was wasted...it's your duty to fullfill your own potential....no one else.... ”Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darknesses of other people....
a lie doesn't
become truth
wrong doesn't
become right
and evil doesn't
become good
just because
it's accepted
by a majority
All these atheists sure do talk like there's a universal moral constant.
@@kentfink9509 You're right they do. I think it is the default position to think of our own views as an expression of the moral constant. I often laugh at myself when I catch myself doing it. But in the end I don't think there is a moral constant, there is just power. It doesn't matter to the universe if "good" or "evil" triumphs... after all both are just as much a part of the universe as the other, why should the universe play favorites? People who get too fixated on "morality" rather than practicality end up making themselves vulnerable to those unencumbered by such dalliances. That's not to say that morality isn't important in a practical sense for social cohesion, it definitely is... but you have to recognize that it is subservient to power... not the other way around.
Congrats David for challenging “idw“ to avoid becoming an ideological echo chamber. And congrats Eric for articulating the autonomy of the individuals involved. IDW is not truly a group, but it was inevitable that these people would be lumped together. Even then, guys like Jon Haidt strive to avoid being lumped.
This is unbelievably important work, please keep it up. The culture needs this quality of discourse. I need this quality of discourse. Thank you
Brilliant response from Eric at the beginning! Yes we are carrying the message around the word, I am not even in the US, time to stop or at least try to stop the madness!
I , in NewZealand , attempt.
I’m obsessed with this nagging question: how do we best take the ideals of and framework of the IDW and potentially bite size it for the more common individual?
P00
I try to present the case and translate some of this information to my family, they seem to understand what is going on. With some of my coworkers I try to lay out good arguments and be a better listener. You cannot win all the battles but I have open the perspective of some people, everyone of us can help even with small chat convesations.
I've suddenly realized why I find these discussions so soothing - they remind me of the evenings spent years ago with a theologian friend and his philosophical gespreksgenote. The life of the mind, and all that. As exemplified by men talking. Thanks!
Thanks you both! As a European and non-follower of Twitter it's sometimes hard to get a grasp of the development of the IDW. This clarified the picture for me. It's always such a pleasure to listen to a sensible, calm and respectful conversation between intelligent people about important issues.
I like the humour he shows at the beginning when asked about the IDW members. I love listening to this guy. Great mind with lots of insight to what is going on.
Dave Rubin also comes from the legacy and friendship of Larry King. Look at that comparison and I think you'll find a closer similarity to his style. You can't critique someone for being themselves. You may do it differently, but Dave is being Dave.
ChurchOfNotNothing Dave is not doing Dave. Dave is doing exactly what he thinks will get the most views. Out of everyone in the IDW, he lacks substance the most and is grifting off the IDW actual intellectuals.
Larry King didn't perform long monologues giving his opinion. His interviews were also not extreme in their tendentiousness. Dave has a clear agenda ('the left has gone man') which he frames everything around.
@@jonathancopeland1014 Does doing something for views, and doing something because your genuinely believe in it, need to be mutually exclusive? Viewers generally appreciate content when creators are being authentic. I don't think Rubin is coming from a bad place. I think using the term "grifting" here is out of place.
I hope this type of program is kept going I really love these very clever people, makes me feel less down hearted knowing these people are out there.
Didn't anybody find it creepy that Yang went right to CNN? It made me wonder if his candidacy was just a short stint to put a human face on the AI/UBI era that is now here.
P McGuinness AI = Artificial Intelligence and UBI = Universal Basic Income
Dan M I also don’t think so. He’s doing it to keep his face in peoples minds. Love the move so that he and his very smart, very needed ideas and way of thinking, don’t all fade of into the sunset like others who “ran for president once”. For instance he’s definitely running again in 2024, I’m inclined to believe that should *something* to happen, where the Democratic Party needed a Biden replacement, even the DNC would consider Yang, but that
may just be wishful thinking.
Totally agree
No Eric ...
The IDW stopped making sense the moment some of the "members" started promoting it as a "group" instead of just pointing out that we need conversations.
A lot of us have great respect for some of the "members", but find others not honest actors.
Personally I saw it more of a slander to begin with, a way of the main stream media to try n turn people away, 'the dark side'.
I never really looked into it as I have been watching a few of them before the term was used.
Peter Mogensen there is no complete sense from any one source 🙌 or group or channel .... Eric has some good points to bring as does joe rogan as do you I’m sure as do I 🙌 open minds are hard to maintain in a time of such mass information and misinformation .... but as the human kind can we find a good place in our minds to agree and disagree and not place judgment ??? ✌️💚☯️🔱
you're getting it... IDW was a brand, packaged up in an attempt to control a few dangerous narratives. The presence of Ben Shapiro is a very clear hint at the point of IDW.
The mixing of serious thinkers interested in fostering dialogue (i.e. Sam Harris) with paid provocateurs (i.e. Ben Shapiro) was a death blow. Also, I found most of the members rather charmless and a bit too full of themselves. Peter Thiel and the Weinstein brothers are no Alan Watts.
steven james Eric Weistein is credited as coining the term IDW
I have watched a lot of Eric's stuff and have come to a conclusion. He is so much smarter than most people and we don't see things the same way he does. It's almost like he sees us as children. He seems frustrated that we don't all want to go where he thinks we should.
I agree that he’s ridiculously smart, and yes I can see that as well. The Portal episode with David S. about the potential end of civilization was amazing for me. Thank
Eric is very eloquent, but I think he has a chip on his shoulder and a very narrow idealistic agenda. Therefore, it's like talking to a vice - he squashes everything into his agenda. But I still enjoy a lot of what he has to say.
worldwidehappiness yes, cautious optimism and critical thinking. you are appreciated.
@@roas2 don't get me wrong I don't agree with any of his politics. He makes the same mistake many intellectuals make of wanting to impart control instead of guidance. They also tend to put on blinders when it comes to opposing views.
I am in awe of him, but I can only follow him so far down the roads of thought he travels. I'm standing there, watching him disappear around the bend, unable to follow.
As Theremintrees always says, "People who don't want you to think are never your friend." People who want to censor Dave Rubin or want him to censor others are no friend of free thought, civility, or the desire to understand someone else's perspective. And the great strength of The Rubin Report is its courage in openly discussing topics that so many other outlets shy away from in fear because of the vocal minorities that want to shout them down.
Joe Rogan is very good too, for much the same reason, though Joe and Dave's personal interests and styles are very different from one another.
36 minutes in, I am genuinely surprised how deeply I disagree with most of what Eric was saying so far. I listen to his podcast, and I never felt I had any major difference of perspective. But the way he weasels around the question of responsibility here, that's seriously puzzling to me. What goddamn difference does it make if one builds or inherits their platform? Responsibility comes from the size of the audience, not the way it has been acquired. And what is that bullshit conflating of authenticity and irresponsibility? And the way he becomes defensive and starts to pull tired panels the second the IDW gets criticized is another red flag. Is it really that freakin hard to admit a failure? Bad people called you names, that's your excuse, really? It saddens me that this came from one of my favorite intellectuals.
Szintézis I think what he is saying is that he can “agree with” the somethings about people and not other things and still be able to talk to them and maybe like them. We should be able to have discussions with people and hear different perspectives!
If responsibility came from the size of the audience, the integrity at the bottom of the journalism industry would be it's weakest area, but the integrity at the bottom of journalism as an industry is very strong, I would argue the strongest. Nonetheless responsibility is adopted by journals to allow decisive voices to have a wide bandwidth in times where changes and details are crucial to contextualizing news to the public. None of this applies to JRE and The Portal because that's not they're not participating in the delivery of current events for the sake of public knowledge. They're excluded in a new medium that has individuals talking on behalf of themselves for the sake of education and discourse.
@Szintezis, Perfectly put. Sadly, it seems that few people noticed the things you noticed. I don't know what to make of it. Maybe people are distracted by Eric's eloquence?
@@worldwidehappiness and I didn't even mention the fact that Eric's entire podcast has been built around the idea that the elites refuse to take respontibility for their failures, therefore they should go away. Which is *exactly* what he himself is doing here. He just failed his own standards in a major way.
Szintézis . This is the faculty lounge talk. I too am waiting for the "Brilliant" minds to take Some responsibility for their offspring in the streets raging their hate filled inane slogans. Instead they blame everyone else for their own mental dissatisfactions, just as their overly emotional spawn do. Men of the Left, may be Rational, but they really lack seriousness. And now the hot sauce radical's on their Left are, First, coming for them, as they will not fight! They complain.....
I appreciate the line of question on Ruben. However, when the line of conversation moved to Dave, the interview took on a new, more personal character. Put this perhaps be an issue of conversation versus interview? What are the differences between these types of communication?
Oh no Sam Seder is too smart to argue with :(
"I care about the market place of ideas but if someone is too mean I can't listen to them. Definitely not because theyre smarter than me and can show I'm a fraud (or just dumb) but because theyre too mean."
The issue is... you can say anything you want as long as you don't hurt my feelings. My feelings are much more important than your facts.
@@Youboremenow Trolls aren't worth listening to, no matter how smart or stupid they may be, and they definitely aren't worth feeding. If someone is mean, then they are a bad actor, regardless of whatever qualities they may have.
@@IamBHM plus what is all this trolling Sam supposedly does?
I've seen trolling and I've seen discussing people's terrible takes/actions (with some jokes thrown in). Sam does the latter. Just because someone is funny it doesn't make them a troll. Talk about snowflakes.
And in debates I've seen he's super civil, especially as he's gotten older.
Power from the chair ?
Blue book method. I E.. post ww 2 mass media ' 's " top down " approach to information.
When eric speaks I listen.
You and thousands of others, like me. 👍🏼
I find myself agreeing more when listening to Bret.
He's brilliant beyond compare.
lol
You mean Whiner McWartz
Eric is much less belligerent in this interview, much more in the wayfinding/sensemaking paradigm I'd say. More please!
That opening speech by Eric was so A-teamesque. I love it. )
I'd like to see JP back in the fold too.
I hope he has not fried too much
He wrote something very recently for the national post
Tophan, imagine reading your comment after having gone through something that was incredibly painful and traumatic. Muster up some empathy perhaps?
Sarah Loffler: I am a big fan of JP and I sincerely said I hope he [is ok].
@ I both love and hate what you said. 🙄
Even when I considered myself firmly on the left, I found The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder to be absolute hate-filled, vile propaganda. I couldn't stomach listening to more than a few minutes.
Sam Seder is disingenuous and plays games constantly. Michael Brooks is a tad better from what I’ve seen but he does engage in similar shenanigans. Kyle Kulinski is the best commentator I’ve come across so far. Krystal Ball is good too. I also have a soft spot for Jimmy Dore though admittedly he is a little unhinged.
Artificial Sweetener i mean
David Pakman is goat
Lol dude
37:25 - Eric talks about Jordan's point re: the only explanation for human beings going to war is the way in which myth and archetype are inextricably woven into our being...
Anyone know what lecture that's from (or if it's in a lecture)?
The main reasons people go to war is they are lied to, brainwashed with propaganda and or conscripted/ drafted.
Other reasons are for opportunity to advance their personal career and some even join in order to kill people and destroy. I would argue it has little to do with archetypes though the propaganda may use them.
*Eric and his crowd need to get over this obsession with 'The New York Times', and 'The Atlantic', and 'people in chairs', etc. Do they realize that most people on the internet don't read or care about those publications, people, or any status associated with them?*
If you've been paying attention to Eric, you'd know he realizes that many people don't read or care about those publications--but those institutions, despite lacking popular legitimacy, nevertheless have their hands on levers of power (and that fact alone makes them necessary to address).
@@sterlingveil BooM Truth Bomb lol
I don’t see them bringing them up unless they are asked about as in this interview
@ I don't read any of those publications, and I'm not on Twitter or Facebook, and I don't seem to have any issues making sense of the world. The 'commentariat' is a bubble. Get outside of it and you'll see.
Ty
(Hand clapping). Well done. No killing these ideas NOW. Im surprised they have been suppressed THIS long.
I always understood the IDW to be something more like it's namesake than a club or frat... A place to find the information that doesn't come up in the initial Google search.
Great interview. Tough questions I have wanted Eric to address. Rebel Wisdom A+ here. Eric B+.
Good job Eric. I've been listening very carefully to David critique the IDW and his general critique of "alternative media". There will always be an audience which will feed, respond and even guide where someone with an audience goes. This isn't a bad thing. In fact it's a necessity. Its a feature not a bug when finding truth in the world. I think Eric did a great job in challenging some of David's presuppositions.
And good job to you too David. You very clearly are committed to having open conversations. You have interviewed many individuals who are part of the IDW and have shared your own critiques with them. I would suggest you talk with Ben and Jordan. I would also give Rubin another shot. Particularly after talking with Jordan. I think some of your critiques of Rubin have been somewhat unfair (as I believe Eric has tried to point out here). I do hope Jordan comes back to engage in these discussions again.
There is one major defense of Rubin that was not mentioned here. Rubin would treat anyone across the entire political spectrum the same. So if someone from the far left wanted to be on his show, he would let them speak (he had Yang on for example), without challenging their views, assuming they weren't simply interested in bashing Rubin for doing the same from someone on the far right. But of course the left, for whatever reason, is simply not capable of doing that at this point in time. I think Mr. Fuller's (using last name since both are named David ;-)) "sophisticated" critique of Rubin doesn't hold a lot of sway with me for this reason.
Thanks. And great interview to the both of you.
I fully agree. I think Dave actually wants more people from the left to talk to but they have declared him too radioactive to touch. The few that claim to want to talk to him (people like Vaush) just want a chance to try and make him look worse. Rubins agreeable nature is often his downfall.
I find many of Rubins shows uninteresting because he just nods along with whatever his guest says and doesn't ask questions. He also makes a lot of bad jokes and self agrandising comments lately.
@@soulfuzz368 That's not true at all - David Pakman for instance is willing to go on the show, and he's quite reasonable.
@@PhilosophyLines I would say that isn't cut and dry. I don't believe Pakman would come on Rubin's show and NOT attack him. His primary purpose to go on his show would be to beat him in some sort of debate. Which I have little doubt his audience would find extremely entertaining. If he would come onto his show and simply talk about his ideas, I believe Rubin would be much more open to have him on. This I believe speaks to the primary point that Eric was trying to make in this interview.
Now if Rubin shuts out David Fuller completely (the founder of Rebel Wisdom), I think your point will have much more merit. But I am willing to bet that if Fuller approaches Rubin with some of the thinking that Eric has outlined here, I suspect that the conversation would go much differently. I believe they will have stark disagreements, but there is a lot of space for a healthy conversation. And that conversation may not even need to be publicized. The whole point of the IDW, that Eric was trying to make here, is that it isn't about the members of the IDW, but rather how the core ideas of the IDW have resonated with the wider culture. And hopefully changing it for the better.
The anti Dave stuff is pathetic..he is a decent genuine guy...
Excellent interview. I take advantage of every opportunity to hear from Eric.
An uncomfortable listen at times. I need to reflect on why. My concern was the deflection of responsibility to main stream media and general defensiveness.
Thank you for your stance on Dave Rubin. Love you both!!! I discovered you through him. I find you both amazing and relevant. Thank you for that.
Are you all in front of Douglas Murray's bookshelves?!? Great convo!
Love Rebel Wisdom. Why is his audio always so bad? He always sounds like he’s standing at the end of a long hallway.
The flame imperishable of Tolkien
An understated reference point for this discussion.
"And I will send forth into the Void the Flame Imperishable, and it shall be at the heart of the World, and the World shall Be; and those of you that will may go down into it."
WHY CAN'T WHITE PEOPLE HAVE CONVERSATIONS? WE'RE NOT EVIL!!! WE'RE BEING ABUSED!!!
@@goprojoe7449 Why can't people who always use multiple exclamation points realise that they don't need to hold down CAPSLOCK all day?
Eric nails this topic. I can't fault or expand on any of his answers.
I might need to stop waiting for his youtube uploads and listen to his podcasts directly, to get my fill of his content.
What a great closing analogy ✨❤️💫
Imagine you go to school for 4 years to be a journalist. Then I just post a video of cat and gain the powers of a journalist.
IDW Jedi apprentice (Padawan), reporting in. Recommend people check out JBP's latest blog article on his page. Cheers.
whaaaat? is he back?
@@fenristhewolfslair3993 In the written form yes.
Thanks for alerting me to Jordan Peterson’s post. It was well worth reading, and, I was happy to see him rejoining the commentariat. Here’s a link to the blog entry, for other Rebel Wisdom fans www.jordanbpeterson.com/political-correctness/the-missive/
how amazing is this Eric, how true the essence of conversation is lost when provocation to perform, enables a privilege on the microphone. Lost in translation is a rich theme, the individual success model is based on looking good, sounding good, and marketing our only known pattern of success, regardless of the new knowledge discussed. This is the ‘jerk’ muscle memory when put on the spot to perform. Likewise, many politicians can not afford the public encounter in the commons, when we hear their ‘commonality’ and chastising with the lapel mic still turned on and recording, their deceitful true life and ‘the bully’ v ‘convivial’ humility, is an acting career nearing its conclusion .’
Also, I'm playing Minecraft while I listen - every time Eric moves around in the chair, he makes a sound like a Creeper's hiss just before it explodes... my nerves are going to be shot soon.
Greetings from Sweden!! Great podcast!! Thank you for your work!!
Gonna need 30 more hours of this.
"Anyone who is trying to insert themselves into a conversation which is supposed to be gated"
** Twenty minutes later **
"it's very important to exclude people from the conversation"
Sheesh. Have a public exchange with Sam Seder already so we finally get this thing over with.
Yeah, he should.
He's right. Sam Seder resorts to ridicule when it comes to Rubin, but that is because... wait for it... Rubin is ridiculous! You have to be a non-ridiculous person to avoid being ridiculed.
The IDW won't talk to Sam Seder because they have nothing gain and everything to lose. They aren't going to pick up any subscribers from Sam's audience, like they did from Rubin's. Now they're all dumping Rubin because there are no new viewers they can capture from his show, and it turns out Seder successfully revealed how empty the man's head is. So, they aren't going to gain anything from Seder's audience and they'd risk getting ripped apart by a man who knows what he's talking about.
"If you ask if humans will be around in 1000 years I would say no, OUR POWER IS TO GREAT AND OUR WISDOM TO SLIGHT"....Amazing and well said
I think it was also Weinstein who said something like, "We've become gods, but for the wisdom." Loved that quote.
@@jcdrx83 agreed dude. I disagree with weinstein a lot politically. However there is no doubt that he is a brilliant mind and hes right. These conversations are essential. I just wish there was a way for him to communicate these ideas in a way that your average american with average intellectual competency can understand. Thats why i fck with Dave rubin a lot because he isnt like these other guys, hes not a brilliant mind and he can connect with the average person in a way that these dudes cant.
Please discuss Ecological Destruction and even Monopolization of resources such as water (Nestle). Hard to have a conversation without a suitable planet. And that's happening.
There is a good argument that a monopoly is the best way to preserve a scarce resource
WHY CAN'T WHITE PEOPLE HAVE CONVERSATIONS? WE'RE NOT EVIL!!! WE'RE BEING ABUSED!!!
Great work, both of you in my eyes.
where can we find the content with sam and eric? It says "member exclusive" -- is that for sam or eric?
Wow, amazing conversation! The Weinsteins brothers are truly my favorite intellectual duo on the web!
I think a discussion with Sam Seder and David packman shouldn’t be so hard to accomplish
Lovely interview!
The IDW is not dead if WE all continue to be interested in having and/or following honest dialogue. Some old rules can go a long way, such as not treating people as objects, even when you think that they may be accustomed to thinking that it is ok to do so.
Isn't there a bit of a danger getting bogged down in the discussions of what Intellectual Dark Web is, instead of looking at organising and coordinating more solid conversations about matters that really ... matter? Sending big hugs, respect and appreciation to Rebel Wisdom team.
Thanks for doing this work.
This has been greatly helpful since I had been seriously considering starting my own podcast. After watching this I think I'll put it off for awhile and see if the atmosphere clears up or if it gets more dangerous. I'm not interested in talking politics as I am no expert and find surprising things every day from people and pod-casters what are way smarter in that realm than I. I do like to talk about engineering and physics, and the "what if", and the thought of alternate dimensions, and exceeding the speed of light - for which Eric has some compelling arguments. I have spent my career doing what others say can't be done. It's served me well, and the world has benefited with my inventions.
Today the most radical commitment one can make is to assume responsibility for your own adult life, from as early as possible to the final end of it.
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears...
Yum!
Great interview Rebel Wisdom. Cheers
The Weinstein bros starting to make their rounds. Only good will come of this.
Phenomenal interview.
This guy is smart, I was a far-right troll back in the day and honestly, this guy made some arguments that helped me shape my ideology better. Today, I don't agree with everything he says, and I don''t like that he never challenges people such a Ben Shapiro on his bullshit, but I must admit that he was one of the few center-right people who made sense.
When was this interview completed?
Start of April
He is accurate, the IDW is alive and well, spark started a few flames, now I see truth tellers and realists popping up everyday. Not woke, but rational and logical beings with curious souls and the overwhelming need to better the human race. Breaking down complex processes to their roots and guiding the listener to understand each part. Assigning responsibilities to those in power while still holding the individual accountable for self.
Listened to this today on the podcast. Thought you interviewed really well , think Eric came across good too
Eric seems pissed off. Good!
love the show, but please fix the audio
Truly brilliant! Bravo. Great stock taking moment for the IDW.
I think what happened with Rubin is that he was getting so many bad faith attacks from the Left, and so many charitable interactions from the Right, that it kinda broke his ability to distinguish between good and bad faith, and he just stopped really listening to criticism about himself, and stopped looking for problems with the Right.
That's because the core cleavage is the culture war. So naturally those on his side will be more sympathetic and less critical than those opposing him. Rubin cannot handle good faith critiques such as Uri Harris' (which he spat the dummy at) or David Pakman's (who he won't have on the show).
I get the sense that you're dealing with people who you really look up to and you have taken responsibility to try push them in to being the best versions of themselves.
Talking about critiques, it was fascinating to hear Jordan Hall call Eric out in a fairly recent video. Calling him to go into action-taking mode, I think. I wonder if Eric saw that.
The Portal is a half answer to action taking, but not as concrete as many would like. Though, what is concrete...
@ Dgkana which video is that?
@@alexnoman1498 Yeah definitely! Haha. It was quite jovial and talking about Gen X-ers in general. But Hall's point, however, was Eric has been accurately saying this stuff for over two decades. I personally don't quite agree with Hall's implication that Eric hasn't done as much as he perhaps should have by now, largely due to the GIN and DISC as Eric has described.
@@melindabar th-cam.com/video/cmQ-TRj1jF0/w-d-xo.html
The question (re: Dave Rubin's interviewing style) asked by David Fuller at the 47:36 mark struck me as only half-formed. I'm not saying it was unfair, but the same topic had been discussed earlier in the interview (around the 11 and 12-minute mark) - when Eric Weinstein was talking about the "chair" at the Atlantic and the New York Times. That seems like it would have been a natural time to bring up Dave Rubin. Perhaps if you'd referenced (at 47 minutes) what Eric had said previously, that might have helped. But in response to the awkward question, Weinstein took your premise and forged a much better delineated question. The weakness of Rubin's strategy, as explained by Eric, made a lot of sense to me, when I hadn't previously understood the problem with the ol' "Larry King style of interviewing." Weinstein, just like his brother, is a true gem.
For the first time, Eric is not in uniform (black jacket and blue shirt).
On, "bad attacks" - When I teach Brazilian Jui-Jitsu, I'll just kind of relax on my students and encourage them to attack me. When they attack, I just use slow, deliberate technical counters to what they do. Essentially, I do this until they make a mistake, and almost put themselves in submissions, and I just lock it up and make them tap. Then explain why. Bad attacks eventually set themselves up for failure.
While true, it requires that the defender be a proficient combatant. Otherwise, an inexperienced person could fall victim to bad attacks. Applies to martial arts, chess, and conversation.
I envy you. I'm 58 years old. Too late to start? Jui-Jitsu is powerful.
Fantastic great job by both host and Eric!
Anyone else keep reading the name of this channel as "Rebel Wilson"?
I'm a nobody and I had a run in with Malice on Twitter. He gets off on trolling.
a1b1c184 He blocked me immediately when I disagreed with his take on people with Autism. No big deal yet blocking people who have a different opinion isn’t tolerant. I’m a Mum with a son on the spectrum and trained Autism therapist so know my stuff on the subject he just threw out there.
I just watched a talk by Malcom Nance. What do you guys think about him?
Strength through *intellectual* diversity would have been a good slogan for IDW.
I'd like to hear a conversation between Sam and Eric on Eric's Theory of Everything.
A great interview. Very thoughtful questions. Eric Weinstein is one of the most important intellectuals of our time.
Don't lose Faith.... We r with you!!!! Lets keep striving to get us all to the last level.... Is pentum physics here???
Is there a discord for Rebel Wisdom, or the Intellectual Dark Web?
I feel like I have no one in my life who is able to communicate in this manner.
Me when my batteries are running out 7:53
There are many people on the progressive side that talk openly about problems, I don't know how these guys want to corner the market on open discussion while despising anything contrary to what they say. Shapiro and Harris especially.
I think Eric means 'self censoring' ie not saying certain things to avoid controversy or offending others. Censorious means highly critical. 'Self censorious' would mean being highly critical of oneself.
Omg 10:00 ... the chair and the person! this guy blows my mind. The
Anyone else bothered by what's on Eric's lip? You can see it stretch between his lips when he talks.
Planktons Voice: Don’t let the flame die out!
Who fact checks the fact checkers?
The snipers.
kudos to the CORBETT REPORT
It becomes an endless regress: Who checks the checkers of the fact checkers.
@@MarkKap I watch that too. It's been fascinating & enlightening watching TH-cam from USA, before they take some of the videos down. Very few people seem to make such interesting videos from the UK.
@@domwren right. but then: truth trumps facts. and the main problem is that the less we trust in our innate intuition the more we rely on facts and the more we rely on facts the less we are capable of accessing our intuition. (at least, speaking from a different level of analysis)
20:00 phone's ringing dude
Connor Bavedas Cool rhythm