MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The 'Intellectual Dark Web' Is Just Rehashing Old P.C. Controversies in New Media

The leading figures of the "Intellectual Dark Web" are incredibly popular. So why do they still feel so aggrieved?

@MaajidNawaz/Twitter@MaajidNawaz/TwitterThey can be found gracing high-profile cable-news shows, magazine opinion pages, and college speaking tours. They've racked up hundreds of thousands of followers. And yet the ragtag band of academics, journalists, and political pundits that make up the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW)—think of it as an Island of Misfit Ideologues—declare themselves, Trump-like, to be underdogs and outsiders.

Mathematician Eric Weinstein, managing director of Thiel Capital, coined the term Intellectual Dark Web some while back, but it only became a subject of mass controversy after Bari Weiss published a recent New York Times profile of the crew. Weiss lumps Weinstein, his evolutionary biologist brother Bret, and about a dozen other high-profile, often controversial folks in the IDW ranks, including "New Atheism" guru Sam Harris, American Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers, comedian Dave Rubin, conservative pundit Ben Shapiro, author and academic Jordan Peterson, and Quillette founder Claire Lehmann.

A diverse group in terms of work backgrounds and political leanings, what they share is a disdain for modern center-left orthodoxies—and a view of themselves as victims of unfortunate and intensifying forces: identity politics, feminist militancy, transgender activism, illiberalism around speech.

"A decade ago, they argue, when Donald Trump was still hosting The Apprentice, none of [their observations] would have been considered taboo," Weiss writes. They don't see this as a product of failing to keep up with cultural tastes, new research insights, or shifting ideas about identity but a sign of "political correctness" bordering on hysteria in mainstream media and academia, a confirmation that the "truths" they speak are more reviled—and necessary—than ever.

The IDW view of their evolving position seems, at minimum, like a selective remembering of recent history. Figures like Harris and Sommers have been controversial for most of their careers, and certainly no one was rolling out the mainstream political welcome wagon for them a decade ago. If anything, both are less fringy figures now than they were 10 years ago.

The last decade was also littered with battles about evolutionary biology and psychology, debates that built on gender wars started decades earlier. Just how physiologically different males and females are and how much this matters has long been a subject of intense and fraught debate; it is not some newfangled concern that millennial SJWs have suddenly seized. Similarly, partisans have been debating political correctness on college campuses for decades.

I don't buy the notion that IDW ideas are only now becoming beyond the pale. Nor am I convinced that they're actually so taboo these days.

As Weiss points out, this is a crowd that has built followings on new-media platforms like YouTube and Twitter rather than relying solely on legacy media, academic publishing, and other traditional routes to getting opinions heard. (There isn't much that's new about this except the media involved. Conservatives have long been building large audiences using outside-the-elite-media platforms such as talk radio, speaking tours, and blogs.) In doing so, they've amassed tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of followers. What they are saying might not be embraced, or even endured, by legacy media institutions or certain social media precincts, but it's certainly not out of tune with or heretical to many Americans.

The bottom line is there's no denying most of these people are very popular. Yet one of the few unifying threads among them is a feeling or posture of being marginalized, too taboo for liberal millennial snowflakes and the folks who cater to them. "The I.D.W. emerged as a response to a world where perfectly reasonable intellectuals were being regularly mislabeled by activists, institutions and mainstream journalists," Eric Weinstein told the Times.

The other thing the IDW crowd seems to share is their response to this perception.

Presenting themselves as brave and imperiled truth sayers facing down an increasingly "politically correct" populace, they offer their fans an immensely appealing proposition: It's not you, it's them, and liking us is a sign that you are not like them. We are rational, radical where it's called for, able to take a joke, and part of America's great intellectual tradition—everything the speech-policing, biology-denying left is not. And anything we say or share that angers the left is just proof of how insane they have become.

There are indeed a lot of loony people on the left, as there are in most ideological spheres. And college kids have indeed mounted some passionately stupid crusades in the past few years. Pushing back against these people, exposing their hypocrisies, and riling up outrage over their antics is sometimes necessary and often fun. It is always good for garnering attention. But it is also easy—and it is not enough.

The only way to produce lasting change is to use less shock and shame, more showing people on their terms why your way forward can help. It requires the empathy that allows for projecting the best intentions on your enemies, the patience to actually strive for common ground or conversion instead of simply writing people off as hopeless dummies, the ability to shed your ego enough not to need to "own" those who disagree with you, and the confidence to call out any entity—especially among one's "side" or allies—that stands athwart your version of good.

As a political and ideological minority, libertarians have long had to learn these skills to make any headway. We end up in a lot of coalitions with a lot of fair-weather friends. We know perhaps better than anyone else that there are authoritarians on both the right and the left who want to use state power to impose their versions of good and right on the rest of us; that for all they dress up this impulse in talk of religion or tolerance or tradition or anti-P.C., the bulk of both sides would sooner their side "win" than promote policies where someone, anywhere, isn't following their preferred rules; and that most people want easily categorizable heroes and villains, not to rethink any fundamental assumptions while thumbing through Twitter. That's precisely why this Intellectual Dark Web crowd is so perfectly tailored to these times: Their type of hereticism doesn't require much.

Blanket proclamations about those labeled IDW are of couse tricky, since the group is not only diverse in political affiliations and areas of expertise but also riddled with outliers. Quillette's Lehmann stands out as less inflammatory and condescending than others. Bret Weinstein also seems more willing than most IDWers to offer olive branches and exhibit a capacity for basic kindness. Lehmann, Weinstein, and a few others Weiss names (including author and academic Alice Dreger, who explains why she declined to be included in the New York Times article here) at least come across as more interested in truth and discourse than clicks and glory. On the other end of the tone spectrum, we have folks like Peterson, Rubin, and Shapiro, whose public personas are built around being deliberately provocative.

"Israelis like to build," reads one Ben Shapiro tweet*. "Arabs like to bomb crap and live in open sewage." Shapiro is also fond of pointing out on the regular that he thinks trans people shouldn't have the right to self-determination.

Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, skyrocketed to international renown for refusing to address transgender students by their preferred pronouns. His YouTube videos and recently published self-help book are full of sensible advice—interspersed with wisdom about how all feminists have "an unconscious wish for brutal male domination," rants against postmodernism (which has reached almost mythical megavillain status in Peterson's worldview), threats to hit other academics, and goofy parables about lobsters.

Basically, Peterson is like the ideological equivalent of a fad diet: The basic advice is sound—and it may even help you reach your goals—but you could skip the more esoteric elements, like eating for your bloodtype or believing that wearing lipstick in the workplace is asking to be sexually harassed, and wind up in the same place.

Rubin regularly makes absurdly reductionist statements about various groups he opposes ("The leftist media hates gamers" because "they don't like people who solve problems"), relies on bastardized evo-psych to make his points (today's gender norms are good because they've existed "from our hunter-gather days"), and makes videos that instruct people on how "trigger" progressives.

The "red meat" for IDW fans is undeniably tales of liberal lunacy and P.C. culture run amok. This is what unites the Republicans and Democrats, pundits and professors, etc., in their worlds. It's this, not tempered critiques and not substantive analysis, that leads to views, clicks, retweets, likes, fans, followers, and speaking invites.

There's nothing innately wrong with playing to what the crowd wants—all of us in media make that calculation in a hundred ways each week. But when "the reward structure is for precisely when you are out there transgressing" and engaging in taboo subjects, "it's hard not to become corrupted...in that process," as Matt Welch commented last week. When your fan base is predicated largely on serving up quickly digestible, dopamine-triggering outrage day after day, week after week, it's very easy to lose perspective, to pander to their (and your own) worst impulses, and to wind up engaging with only the most ridiculous of the other side's arguments. To spend less and less time on the things you want to change and more and more on how stupid the things that other people want to change are.

It is not a career model that encourages nuance, niceness, or introspection. This is also fine; plenty of people make media careers peddling what the market wants, not trying to reveal injustices, speak radical truths, or change the world. Where some of the IDW crowd can become insufferable is doing the former while insisting it's doing the latter.

Another annoying (and unproductive) tick I've found in my personal dealings with and observations of IDW types is their insistance on drawing strict lines around themselves and The Other Side that are based more on aesthetics than shared policy platforms. Criticize a racist joke (without calling for it to be censored)? You must be part of the regressive left! Think mainstream feminism is often misguided but probably not a "cancer"? SJW! Never mind if you're every bit the First Amendment absolutist that IDWers claim to be; a refusal to pantomime the right hate will get you booted from IDW esteem right quick.

It's a tribalistic tendency totally at odds with their professed reverence for individualism and hatred of "identity politics." It mars the best messages and tendencies of IDWs—respect for free speech, rejection of over-the-top wokeness, skepticism toward bureaucracies and big government—by framing support for these things as conditional on sharing other, more controversial IDW calling cards. Ultimately, this leaves as little room for winning new converts and starting new coalitions as with their scolding, screeching progressive counterparts.

The supposed ostracism they suffer because of their views ultimately comes down to a complaint not about censorship or exclusion but being attacked, challenged, or denied very particular opportunities. They want to say the things they are saying and have the marketplace of ideas and attention not only reward them with followers and freelance writing gigs but universal acceptance from those that matter in the academy and chattering classes.

They want not so much any particular policy platform, political idea, or candidate to catch on as for more people to acknowledge that they are right. And that will always be a proposition that winds up making one feel aggrieved, because it's an impossible one. To the extent that they are spouting marginalized or unpopular ideas, the only way to spread these into the mainstream is to put in the hard work of winning people over.

*CORRECTION: This piece previously said that Shapiro had deleted the tweet in question; he did not.

Photo Credit: @MaajidNawaz/Twitter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Who's responsible for the moniker "intellectual darkweb"? Is this chosen like the media chooses whom to call "controversial"?

  • Hail Rataxes||

    Paragraph two.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Thanks, I read the rest of it.

  • mtrueman||

    Thanks. And what does this diverse group share?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Little square mustaches.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Achtung, baby.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You know who else had a little square mustache?

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Charlie Chaplin.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It doesn't work when you answer your own question.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Scottish Hitler Cats?

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Michael Jordan?

  • ||

    Oliver Hardy?

  • BYODB||


    Mathematician Eric Weinstein, managing director of Thiel Capital, coined the term Intellectual Dark Web some while back, but it only became a subject of mass controversy after Bari Weiss published a recent New York Times profile of the crew.


    Well, apparently Eric Weinstein came up with the moniker.


    However, it seems to me that what these people are saying is that they're not allowed to state their views on open media platforms which seems...probable given that Spotify is now teaming up with SPLC.

    Platforms that are owned by individual businesses are themselves locking down speech on their platforms, and ENB doesn't seem to address the reason why these people are forced onto 'outside the box' platforms which seems to be a central point that isn't particularly acknowledged.

    Also, this bit:

    Shapiro is also fond of pointing out on the regular that he thinks trans people shouldn't have the right to self-determination.


    I can't watch the link at work, but is 'self-determination' in this context being able to force people to call you by a certain term, or that these people have no volition of their own at all? I only ask because I don't trust Reason to quote Shapiro, even when he's wrong.

  • damikesc||

    That's basically it. Trannyism should be treated, not humored. You want to legally change your NAME? I'll play along. I'm not going to call a man "she" or "her". I am not going to participate in a lie and fuck you slavers who are trying to FORCE others to do so.

  • damikesc||

    A quote of Ben's:

    You're not a man if you think you're a man…. As far as the actual psychological issues at play, it used to be called gender identity disorder; now they call it gender dysphoria. The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true. I'm not denying your humanity if you are a transgender person; I am saying that you are not the sex which you claim to be. [I]f you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend, I'm supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no. I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The trans debate is strange in how the most vociferous advocates on both sides are denying their own fundamental premises.

    The Left simultaneously claims that transgenders are born trapped in WrongBodies, that all gender is socially constructed, and that gender is a personal choice.

    The Right claims that the psychological differences between men and women are biologically based, but deny that the changes to create those differences in the brain can possibly proceed atypically, leaving a male typical brain in a female typical body, or vice versa.

  • Azathoth!!||

    The Right claims that the psychological differences between men and women are biologically based, but deny that the changes to create those differences in the brain can possibly proceed atypically, leaving a male typical brain in a female typical body, or vice versa

    FTFY

    Don't jump to conclusions.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Empirical observation

  • BYODB||

    That moment when you accidentally refer to 'girl brain' as a physiological state...

    Could you break down what symptoms might one go by to determine if they have girl brain, and what characteristics go along with being girl brained?

  • BYODB||

    Also, bonus points if you can explain to me how a man can know, with such certainty that they're able to correctly know exactly what it is and means to 'feel' like a woman, could ever know such a thing?

    Are we now saying that it's possible, as a man, to not only fully understand women but also take their place with no one being the wiser?

    Hmm...interesting take. I suppose this means a little white girl can also know exactly what it means and feels like to be a giant black man? Inside and out?

    Interesting take, what school of philosophy makes it so easy to know the unknowable traits of a thing we are not because I'd like to take the shortcut to perfect understanding too.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Archaeology of Mind: Neuroevolutionary Origins of Human Emotions (Norton Series on Interpersonal Neurobiology)
    Jaak Panksepp and Lucy Biven

    pg. 282
    The male brain is created when testosterone is converted to estrogen and the male body is created when testosterone is converted to DHT.

    The female brain and mind, however, may be masculinized if the fetus is exposed to too much estrogen at crucial times in the second trimester.

    The whole chapter, dealing with Lust, gives abundant examples of brain sexual dymorphism.

  • Benitacanova||

    My friend worked for Panksepp for years. Total whack job, out of control 'laboratory'.

    Empirical evidence...

  • SIV||

    Why do all newborn babies get spanked?

    TO KNOCK THE DICKS OFF THE DUMB ONES...HAW...HAW..HAW..!!!

  • Juice||

    Well, the "dys" prefix means abnormal, so...

  • Juice||

    [I]f you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend, I'm supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no.

    It's really the dictating.

    If asked nicely, I'll call you whatever you want, but if you attempt to command me to think or do anything, you're going to get noncompliance.

  • Paloma||

    ^^^On board with Juice!

  • Tony||

    Nobody's going to have cops arrest you for misgendering. You're expressing a desire to have a right to have bad manners.

  • damikesc||

    Nobody's going to have cops arrest you for misgendering.

    CA and NY are starting the movement to provide civil penalties for doing so.

    Don't pay them and, well, cops will get involved.

    So, you're incorrect.

    As usual.

    You're expressing a desire to have a right to have bad manners.

    So, reality is bad manners. Gotcha.

    It's bad manners to mention that the US had legalized slavery. Yet, the reality dwarfs the rudeness.

  • Tony||

    Bad manners is making other people feel uncomfortable. So it's rude for you to lecture trans people about their genitals, and it would be rude for them to bang you over the head correcting you as well.

    It's what distinguishes us from the monkeys, you know.

  • damikesc||

    So, again, reality is rude to you. Got it.

  • Tony||

    Damn, if only I had thought to assert that my opinion was reality first.

  • BYODB||

    Know what makes me uncomfortable? A man with a Ulysses S. Grant style beard telling me they're a lady. How is one supposed to react to that? Kiss their proffered hand and compliment their dress?

    I treat them the same as I treat everyone else who has a clear delusion: I avoid them as they are unpredictable and could go off at a moments notice. It goes double for people who have untreated delusion disorders.

    Would you coddle someone in their belief that they are Napoleon Bonaparte in the flesh? I doubt it. You'd wonder when they plan on forcing you to invade Russia in winter.

    Also, how is transgenderism any more valid than someone that believes they're a cat? Once you toss subjective reality you open the door wide to every lunatic in the asylum.

    Still no word on how people can be for gay marriage yet still fight polygamy tooth and nail, though. I like how they skipped straight over the rest of marriage equality and went straight to delusion is reality.

  • Tony||

    You think a lot of trans women go around with lumberjack beards? My understanding, and I'm no expert, is that mostly they'd like to pass as the gender they feel. And lots of them do it every day, and maybe you've even used what you'd consider the wrong pronoun because you were ignorant that there was a trans person in your midst. I think most of them would like nothing more than for you not to be scrutinizing their genitals and adam's apples in order to figure out whether you can be an asshole to them.

  • MarkLastname||

    And yes, a decent number of them do indeed sport facial hair. I can't understabd why, but in the very 'progressive' community I live in I'll see one like that at least once a week at bars or coffee shops.

  • BYODB||


    You think a lot of trans women go around with lumberjack beards? My understanding, and I'm no expert, is that mostly they'd like to pass as the gender they feel

    And that's a delusion, thanks for playing.

    People like yourself like to pretend that all transsexuals are the .0001% of the .00001% who can actually pass as the other gender. Laughter ensues, because brosif that isn't what your typical transsexual actually is.

    Kind of like how plenty of women, if cost wasn't an issue, would probably consider getting bigger tits installed or men might get a dick implant. Good in theory, but practically limited by at least income if nothing else.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    Search Conchita Wurst. Ulysses Grant would be proud of her beard.

  • MarkLastname||

    So, if an atheist tells a Christian there is no God, and it makes the latter uncomfortable, that's bad manners, and you shouldn't do it?

  • Tony||

    Of course. There's a reason you're not supposed to discuss religion in polite society.

  • SIV||

    NO, Christians love that shit. You always lose arguing there is no God. You may be right(I have my doubts) but you always lose by arguing from that premise.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Your support of socialism gives me unpleasant feelz.

    You have bad manners.

  • Paloma||

    But Tony, that begs the question that trans people make some other people feel uncomfortable to begin with. Being forced to use certain pronouns does as well. I don't see it as rude. But I'll call you whatever you want to call yourself. My position is why should I give a shit. And I'm kind of puzzled by people who DO.

    If Distinguished Professor of Economics Deirdre McCloskey is giving a lecture, I'm going to listen, not tell her "Hey, you're REALLY Donald McCloskey". Her "sexual dysphoria" or whatever is not my problem, or anyone else's if she's happy.

  • Benitacanova||

    But she/he will never shut up about her/his tranniedom. I know an Italian econ prof and his wife who got stuck near her/him at a dinner following a conference in Sicily. She/he made them all lose their lunch, and no one had even asked!

    Autogynephiles are narcissistic bullies. The gays and lesbians I can have some compassion for.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    If there's one thing I never do, it's act rude.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm not acting.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "It's what distinguishes us from the monkeys, you know."

    You possess nothing that distinguishes you from a monkey, you know.

    Especially the poo-flinging part.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Typical modern left-wing tactic: Declare that refusing to comply with your demands is impolite, and pretend that the opposition is just exhibiting bad manners if they won't admit you're right.

    Sorry, I have no interest in humoring the delusions of somebody who thinks they're something other than what they are. And I'm not going to be bullied into denying reality by accusations that failing to do it is impolite.

  • UnrepentantCurmudgeon||

    I'm not lecturing anybody about anything on this so-called "topic". They are of course free to live their lives as they see fit and call themselves whatever they want, I'm just refusing to get caught up in their self-serving, unscientific ideology and terminology.

  • mtrueman||

    " I'm not going to call a man "she" or "her". I am not going to participate in a lie and fuck you slavers who are trying to FORCE others to do so."

    What if you were about to have sex with someone you thought was a women and turned out to be something else?

  • Paloma||

    Then I guess you'd put it back in your pants and stomp off.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Speaking of which: are you busy tonight?

  • BYODB||

    If they have the right to create special words to refer to themselves that must be used, I do too and I henceforth require all to use my selected term of 'Master of the Known Universe' whenever referring to me or I shall sue you into oblivion.

    That's how this works, right?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Trannyism should be treated, not humored.

    Or neither, at least universally. As far as I'm concerned, someone can call themselves whatever the hell they want. And it's no business of mine that they do. But, I have a right to my own perception of reality. And telling me that I'm obligated to deny that perception at their demand is totalitarianism in its simplest form. Their telling me that they have a claim on my mind.

  • JoeBlow123||

    ^^^ This ^^^

    "What they are saying might not be embraced, or even endured, by legacy media institutions or certain social media precincts, but it's certainly not out of tune with or heretical to many Americans."

    This is like saying the Russian state is not suppressing speech on Pravda or RT or Bolshevik Fatherland Today because Russians are saying what they want on Youtube and Facebook, never mind that Russians predominately rely on TV that for news. TV news that is transmitting only government approved messages.

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    They saw how successful victimhood was for various minority groups, and so they jumped on the bandwagon.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    Exactly

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Well it has certainly worked for minorities; no surprise everyone else with an "issue" wants to jump on that too. Nothing like a big ole victim cudgel to wield along your way through life.

  • Just Say'n||

    I'm not sure Ben Shapiro or Peterson would label themselves as 'victims', but it's cute how we pretend that these people don't get hounded with violence whenever they talk at a university.

  • MarkLastname||

    I think getting assaulted and nearly lynched by an angry mob (Charles Murray) does in fact make you a victim.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Left loves the false equivalencies.

    Claiming the right to prevent anyone from saying anything that gives you BadFeelz is not the same as claiming the right to speak without facing violence or censorship.

    Blasphemy laws have always been about "you said something that gives me BadFeelz ". The BadFeelz used to be anger or outrage. Now the badfeelz are sadness or fear.

  • Zeb||

    I really don't see many people in that group claiming victimhood. Even when they are actually threatened with violence and obnoxiously heckled at speaking engagements.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Claiming victimhood from violence and censorship is not the same thing as claiming victimhood from induced BadFeelz.

  • Zeb||

    Indeed. I'd also make a distinction between claiming that you have been victimized and claiming to be a victim in a more general sense. We're all victims of something at some point. But that isn't the same as people who go around as perpetual victims or the patriarchy (or the insane left or whatever).

  • damikesc||

    They don't see this as a product of failing to keep up with cultural tastes, new research insights, or shifting ideas about identity but a sign of "political correctness" bordering on hysteria in mainstream media and academia

    It is a new "cultural taste" to stifle speech?

    but it's certainly not out of tune with or heretical to many Americans.

    That is their ENTIRE point. Their views aren't even terribly controversial. Yet they get protestors on campus trying to shut down appearances. This ISN'T a problem?

    On the other end of the tone spectrum, we have folks like Peterson, Rubin, and Shapiro, whose public personas are built around being deliberately provocative.
  • Hail Rataxes||

    It is a new "cultural taste" to stifle speech?

    No, that's a traditional taste.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Are those people what gets defined as "deliberately provicative"?

    Blunter than most, maybe, but it seems that "provocative" is defined as not being apologetic and submissive to the Progressive zeitgeist for daring to disagree.

  • Paloma||

    They may be deliberately provocative because lefties have provoked them first. Why is it only one side gets to be offended and the other has to eat it?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Because Fuck You, That's Why.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    This is a complicated subject. Using the people in your picture, while you could call them "birds of a feather" they're not necessarily in agreement on everything and unfortunately it requires hours of listening to each of them to get a better picture of their views.

    Also, I suspect that their fans are the ones who feel marginalized, more than the celebrities themselves. I don't get the sense that Jordan Peterson feels marginalized (beyond the fact that he potentially faces actual prosecution from the Canadian State for his viewpoints) and in fact says that he really doesn't want his arguments for free speech to become "political". He answers this well to a student's rambling question-cum-speech in a very interesting video.

    Douglass Murray actually went out of his way in a lengthy interview with Dave Rubin (also pictured) that he DOESN'T feel marginalized. He specifically said that a lot of his readers come up to him and say in a low whisper "It must be very difficult for you to go out and [such-and-such]" to which he said, (paraphrased) "No, I go out, I have lots of friends, I spend time in public..."

    Yes, people are feeling marginalized which is WHY these guys have become popular.

  • John||

    Jordan Peterson has said in no uncertain terms he does not feeel oppressed or marginalized and resents any claim that he is.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Exactly, and this is while his neighborhood gets papered with posters warning of a "Nazi in the neighborhood" with his picture on it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Canadian Nazi. I'm having trouble conceptualizing that. In Hugo Boss-designed lumberjack clothes?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Pro Libertate||

    What? Dudley Do-Right? That's absurd.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Even I had forgotten just how "Hugo Boss" the RCMP uniform was. Take the hat away, and you've got red Waffen SS uniform right there.

  • Pro Libertate||

    This should be a movie.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Made by Troma.

  • DajjaI||

    Shapiro is also fond of pointing out on the regular that he thinks trans people shouldn't have the right to self-determination.

    Oh that is too delicious, thank you.

    Another delicious irony of these fools is that they keep complaining about how they are being mysteriously unfollowed by their expansive fanbase on twitter and 'prove' it by retweeting similarly vague allegations by their followers. For a bunch of hyper-intelligent tech gurus it's pretty unimpressive.

  • damikesc||

    You're not a man if you think you're a man…. As far as the actual psychological issues at play, it used to be called gender identity disorder; now they call it gender dysphoria. The idea that sex or gender is malleable is not true. I'm not denying your humanity if you are a transgender person; I am saying that you are not the sex which you claim to be. [I]f you're going to dictate to me that I'm supposed to pretend, I'm supposed to pretend that men are women and women are men, no. My answer is no. I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what you are.

    This is his denial of self-determination.

    He isn't saying you cannot mutilate yourself if you want (now, no, you should not be able to do this to kids and those that do should be prosecuted)...just that he isn't going to enable a lie. Biology is science. You cannot overturn it with your feelings.

  • DajjaI||

    Great now do Zionism. Hint: 'Jews were given this land by G_d Almighty':

  • damikesc||

    Great now do Zionism. Hint: 'Jews were given this land by G_d Almighty':

    Why should I give a shit about Zionism? Is it any less valid a claim than "Well, Mohammad conquered folks and, well, yes the Jews have it now...but we should give it back to the Muslims because of Mohammad. And, yes, we know the Jews were here BEFORE Mohammad, but come on"

    NOBODY owned that land. It was a British mandate and they gave it to the Jews for a homeland since Jews have had a rather rough time of it...forever.

    Perhaps the "Palestinians" should return to their Jordanian homeland and resolve this issue...

  • DajjaI||

    Why should I give a shit about Zionism?

    Someone didn't get the memo.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's awesome how you are totally not an anti-semite yet you keep bringing up Zionism on a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with Zionism. You are totally not a bigot

  • DajjaI||

  • ||

    NOBODY owned that land. It was a British mandate

    What is it that you think you mean by this?

  • damikesc||

    That no person there and no country there did so. It was a basically empty desert that Britain didnt want.

  • ||

    It was a basically empty desert that Britain didnt want.

    So. . .

    2,000bc-66ad = Kingdom of Israel
    66ad-1948 = Sand
    1948-present = Kingdom of Isreal

    This is your understanding of Middle Eastern history?

  • damikesc||

    No. It was Ottoman, which ceased to exist, and then became British.

    The desert was basically empty.

    Britain gave it to the Jews. Their land, they had the right to do so.

    The "Palestinians" of today are simply Jordanians who Jordan does not want.

  • gormadoc||

    Jericho is 4000 years older than many people believe the world began and has almost continuously been inhabited. Mandatory Palestine had a population in 1945 almost as large as my state now. Only half of the region is desert.

    It wasn't even British land; they were granted management of the land for a period of time but they didn't own it. Britain didn't even like the decision made by the UN and tried to completely wash their hands of the situation.

  • Paloma||

    It was the United Nations that gave it (Trans Jordan) to the Jews.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Palestine was the breadbasket of the ancient world. That and Mesopotamia.

    Jews and Palestinians are pretty much the same people, which Jews following Judaism while Palestinians came to follow Islam.

    The British controlled the area after WWI and the Ottoman Empire fell apart. The French controlled the Levant area of the ME.

    The Jews considered buying territory in South America but chose to return to the Judah/Palestine area. They were allowed in mostly. Jews then committed terrorism to kick the British out and seize control. The UN caved to Jewish demands over protests by local Palestinians that had lived there for thousands of years. Israel became a state in 1948.

  • ||

    ^ lc1789 has pretty much the accurate take.

    Israel/Palestine continued to be heavily populated, and heavily urbanized, from the Roman conquest all the way through the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Individuals owned the property, like they always have. Those individuals didn't wink out of existence when the Ottoman Empire fell, when the British and French set up the mandate governments, or when those governments themselves disintegrated.

    There has literally never been a time in the history of human civilization when Israel/Palestine was a "basically empty" desert.

  • Nardz||

    Yea, but at least they got the Jews out of Europe - and didn't even have to do it Hitler style, though it was the same goal.
    F*** socialist UK, France, and Germany

  • ||

    Yea, but at least they got the Jews out of Europe - and didn't even have to do it Hitler style, though it was the same goal.

    ^ This. Many don't realize that it wasn't Jews who agitated for the creation of the modern state of Israel - it was English people exploring their own "Final Solution" to "The Jewish Problem." It was another variety of "the blacks should all go back to Africa so we don't have to deal with them anymore."

  • Paloma||

    Or maybe Palestinians could "identify" as Jews.

  • Tony||

    Pronouns are not biology. He's not talking about science, he's talking about his feelings. He is uncomfortable dealing with trans people, and he wants validation for that feeling.

    And what happens when a successfully passing trans person dares to appear in his personal space? He'd use their preferred pronoun until perhaps he learned of the person's status as trans and then change it just to be a dick?

  • damikesc||

    Pronouns are not biology.

    If you are male, you are not SHE. If you are female, you are not HE.

    It IS science. You, slaver, are trying to force others to actually lie that a person's preference is scientific reality when it is very much not that.

    He's not talking about science, he's talking about his feelings.

    He has genetics and biology to back up his claim. You have...?

    He is uncomfortable dealing with trans people, and he wants validation for that feeling.

    He does not. He feels that mutilating genitals is a poor way to handle a mental disorder, but they are free to do it if they wish. Nobody else should be under any obligation to perform a lie (calling them their "preferred pronoun") to make them feel better.

    He'd use their preferred pronoun until perhaps he learned of the person's status as trans and then change it just to be a dick?

    If he does not know, then he has no reason to do otherwise.

    Will I ever call Caitlyn Jenner she? No. Because HE is not a she. He might be mutilated...but he is still a male.

  • Tony||

    What you're not getting is that it's just words. Nature doesn't give a crap how or why we distinguish the sexes in our language. Imagine all our pronouns were neuter. What would be your objection? You already claimed you don't really care if people want to have elective surgery.

  • damikesc||

    What you're not getting is that it's just words.

    Then why the demand that I call Caitlyn "she" when HE is not one?

    Do words NOT have meanings?

    Nature doesn't give a crap how or why we distinguish the sexes in our language. Imagine all our pronouns were neuter. What would be your objection?

    Then bring forth your demand to CHANGE THE ENTIRE LANGUAGE TO SATISFY THE WHIMS OF SOME MENTALLY ILL FOLKS.

    Stop trying to bastardize the language we have that has definitions.

  • Tony||

    Caitlyn Jenner is a she if that's what she wants to be, according to modern social convention. I don't get how that even affects you, let alone harms you.

    I'm glad you got to a place where you can admit that the only violence you're complaining about is being done to language. As someone who is also a conservative when it comes to language usage, let me tell you, it's a long and disappointing road to go down.

  • damikesc||

    Ill stick with science. Caitlyn is a he. Down to the cellular level. Feelings dont trump science.

    Man, remember when the Left claimed to love science?

  • Brendan||

    I need you to refer to me as "Your Majesty Brendan" from now on. It's just words, and it's how I want to be addressed.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What you're not getting is that it's just words. Nature doesn't give a crap how or why we distinguish the sexes in our language.

    No it doesn't, funny that. So can I just use whatever word I want without being threatened with jail?

  • Tony||

    You've always been permitted to be a cunt without being jailed. If polite society ostracizes you for being a cunt, and then you whine about it, well I guess that's what the IDW is for.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Why all the fuss? Yes, for now, it's XX, XY, or, rarely, XYY. But I'm sure we'll be able to manipulate genes to screw that all up soon enough. Still, until then, it's pretty objective. Feelings are one thing, biological classifications are another.

  • damikesc||

    I'm opposed, also, to changing birth certificates. If they aren't there to report reality, then why even have them?

  • Finrod||

    People get thrown in jail all the time for "just words", fuckwit.

  • Paloma||

    I'm sure Caitlyn Jenner is outraged. But you DID call her Caitlyn and not Bruce.

  • Nardz||

    An important point.
    There is a difference between one's name, and the pronoun which references one.
    Caitlyn Jenner is Caitlyn, no longer Bruce, because that is the name HE chooses to use.

  • Nardz||

    And if one objects to the use of HE, IT is the most reasonable substitute... but i doubt that would be taken well by the slavers.
    Ironic

  • MarkLastname||

    And you'd refer to someone donning convincing blackface as a black person until you found out otherwise.

    Pronouns refer to sex, which is indeed biology.
    Now, you may be referring to the 'indeterminacybof language,' fine, but that makes all words meaningless, not just gendered pronouns. If I insist you call me a potato, it's just as valid a demand.

    But go back to burning that straw.

  • Paloma||

    But do people who put on blackface do it because they "identify" as black? Or are they just mocking black people. Or maybe they just want to pretend to be black for a couple hours but not really BE black?

  • Azathoth!!||

    "Blackface" is the same as "whiteface".

    It's not trying to be another race. It's a type of clown.

    People used to know that.

    There were even blackface clowns in with whiteface clowns and other clowns.

  • lafe.long||

    -1 Sgt. Lincoln Osiris.

  • Trumptard||

    Nope. He refuses to allow the law to dictate how he should address people,

  • Just Say'n||

    FYI- ENB is a noted idiot who urged violence against Shapiro, because he denied that transwomen were technically women

  • damikesc||

    Can you link to that? I'd love to see it. I know Dalmia advocated violence against Milo for talking at Berkeley, showing how damned Libertarian writers here are.

  • Just Say'n||

    It was Tweet that she deleted and then chastised people for attacking her for her asinine remark. Note that this was after she insisted that some college kid who cracked a stupid joke about sandwiches should never be employed.

    Self-reflection is clearly not her strong suit

  • buybuydandavis||

    The Great Sammich Thread was a wonder to behold.

    She just kept digging and digging and digging...

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Another Reason writer whine?!

    Shocking!

  • Just Say'n||

    It's the exact same whine as this morning. And this article proved my point to be correct.

  • John||

    Trans people can do whatever they want. Refusing to play along with their delusions is not denying them self determination. Nature has denied them self determination not the people who point that fact out.

  • Tony||

    Telling other people to their face that they're delusional is profoundly rude.

  • damikesc||

    Telling other people to their face that they're delusional is profoundly rude.

    If an anorexic tells you they are fat, you'd respond with "You are right"?

    Really?

    Rude seems better than cruel, but YMMV.

  • Tony||

    So people who have spent years agonizing over this fact of their own psychology and all of the facets and social anxieties that come with it are to be won over by you pointing out to them that male pronouns usually refer to people with dicks.

  • damikesc||

    So people who have spent years agonizing over this fact of their own psychology and all of the facets and social anxieties that come with it are to be won over by you pointing out to them that male pronouns usually refer to people with dicks.

    Nice sob story, bro.

    If YOU have a mental disorder, I'd hope you'd get it treated. I will not MAKE you do it because it is your life to live. But I am not going to HUMOR it, either. If that is rude, c'est la vie.

    You're aware that the suicide rates of post-op trannies isn't that different than pre-op. Both are insanely high. Perhaps genitals aren't the issue...nah, that's crazy talk!

  • Tony||

    There's no excuse for rudeness but I suppose this is a hangout of anarchists. Anarchists who get the vapors over the concept of transgenderism.

    Whether being trans is a mental illness is actually a scientific, or at least medical, question. Why don't you consult what mainstream medicine says on that, or are you the one just making shit up now?

  • damikesc||

    Feel free to explain the fundamental difference between trannyism and anorexia.

  • Tony||

    I'm no expert but I believe the difference between something that's a diagnosable problem and something that's not is whether (apart from social stigma) it has an effect on your living a normal life.

  • damikesc||

    Tony, they are the same thing.

    The afflicted sees something about their bodies that contradicted by reality.

    We do not humor anorexics, though. We try to treat them.

    When the inevitable lawsuits hit in 10 yrs over child abuse in this realm, it will be amusing to watch you change your views.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Okay, then:

    Suppose the anorexic chooses not to get treatment, and insists that you believe that he/she is fat. What are you going to do? Force the anorexic to get treatment against his/her will?

    Same deal with transgendered folks. Even if you believe they have a mental illness, unless your plan is to force them to get treatment against their will, they are free to live their lives as they see fit.

  • damikesc||

    Suppose the anorexic chooses not to get treatment, and insists that you believe that he/she is fat. What are you going to do? Force the anorexic to get treatment against his/her will?

    As I said elsewhere in this thread, I would hope they'd get treatment, but I have no desire to insist they do so.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    As I said elsewhere in this thread, I would hope they'd get treatment, but I have no desire to insist they do so.

    Then WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? A trans man thinks he/she's a man. You disagree. Guess what, the two of you DON'T HAVE to agree. I don't think the trans individual should FORCE you to use his/her preferred pronoun. And I don't think you should FORCE the trans individual to use a biologically-based pronoun. So beyond that, what's the big problem?

  • damikesc||

    Because there is a movement starting demanding penalties for "misgendering" people.

    That is why.

  • ||

    Why don't you consult what mainstream medicine says on that, or are you the one just making shit up now?

    Right or wrong, "mainstream medicine" says that "gender dysphoria" is a mental illness. This wasn't the best tack for you take if you wanted to make an effective argument.

  • damikesc||

    "Mainstream psychology" would likely now say that trannyism is the one kind of gender dysphoria you do not need to treat, mind you. But it is what it is.

    Johns Hopkins stopped doing genital mutilation...sorry, I mean "Reassignment" surgeries for a reason.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed, although notably it would be difficult to label 'gender dysphoria' as anything other than a mental illness when it quite certainly is a delusion.

    A delusion isn't necessarily harmful, and doesn't necessarily have negative impacts on one's life, but it is a delusion none-the-less. Many people have some aspect of their lives that they're delusional about, but this is a bit more fundamental of a delusion so it gets it's own name.

    Also, in the case of transsexual/transgender folks, there is no 'cure' so it's mostly academic although the fact that gender reassignment surgeries are allowable in a modern society is...disturbing...but not much more or less so than getting silicone implants into your tits and ass or getting a fake dick implanted. The lifelong hormones would be a bigger 'what the fuck' from me, personally, since it's almost certainly bad for you and we don't even let people smoke anymore.

    We don't generally humor people that believe the world is flat, for instance, even while it's a completely harmless belief to everyone except NASA because on the face of it it's such a drastic departure from reality. This is sort of the same thing, in that it's a delusion regarding something very, very basic.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Whether transgenderism is a mental illness or not is besides the point. Unless your plan is to force transgendered people to get the 'treatment' that you think they ought to get, against their will, then it doesn't matter if they are mentally ill or not, they ought to have the free liberty to live their lives as they see fit. You shouldn't be forced to approve of their choices.

  • damikesc||

    I don't care what they do.

    I care that I am expected to lie to make them feel better.

    I will not do so.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    I care that I am expected to lie to make them feel better.

    You care that you are expected to be polite when in polite company?

    I don't know about you, but I have been in plenty of social situations in which it would have been regarded as rude and boorish to give my frank honest opinion. Do these situations fill you with rage that you can't be as honest as you want to be?

  • Whahappan?||

    "You shouldn't be forced to approve of their choices."

    That's the source of the conflict. Jordan Peterson didn't even object to using transgender's preferred pronoun, just a law mandating it. Nobody as far as I know is advocating forcing transgendered people to get treatment.

  • Paloma||

    I disagree that it's a mental disorder. It may be a delusion, or it may just be that someone would like to prefer to go through life as the opposite sex from what they are born. I only worry about mental disorders that make people unhappy and/or are impediments to their own human flourishing.

    Some trans people flourish, some don't.

    It's an entirely different issue though, to force other people to "acknowledge" your gender switch with the proper pronoun, or worse some stupid made up pronoun like xe or @ or some other invention chosen at whim. Next thing you know there'll be a movement to declare people who won't use the new pronoun as having pronoun dysphoria or compulsion.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    If YOU have a mental disorder, I'd hope you'd get it treated. I will not MAKE you do it because it is your life to live. But I am not going to HUMOR it, either.

    By that standard, legitimate educational institutions should cease accreditation of "schools" that teach nonsense, such as just about every conservative-controlled college or university in America. Institutions that teach that the moon is made of green cheese, that the earth is a few thousand years old, and/or that Genesis is nonfiction, and every institution that rejects evolution to flatter creationism should be ineligible for accreditation.

    (The nonsense-based schools should be able to teach as they wish; their diplomas should not be accepted as educational credentials in mainstream society, however, any more than one would accept a degree from a school that taught that 2 plus 2 equals 9 or that storks deliver babies. Why should the legitimate educational system humor people who teach or believe nonsense?)

  • retiredfire||

    This is just too stupid to even deserve a response.

  • damikesc||

    Can you, for once, make a cogent point?

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Profoundly rude people should be jailed.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Too bad that pesky First Amendment allows people to be rude or have different opinions. Who voted for that, anyway?

    I, for one, am very polite and accommodating in person (and professionally) to all sorts of people who have objectively wrong stances or stances I personally view as dubious. Even so, if I hurt feelings here or elsewhere, beyond mere politeness, so what? What gives people any right to veto my opinions or, for that matter, actual facts?

  • Paloma||

    It's profoundly rude to threaten someone with a gun if they don't hand over their wallet.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Maybe, but playing along with someone's delusion is not productive and may be dangerous. At that it dies not matter if it is rude or not.

  • MarkLastname||

    You routinely call religious people delusional; and call people cousin fuckers for what region they come from. Or is it ok as long as your doing it behind their back.

    That aside, it's hilarious that you are trying to lecture others on manners. You're the rudest douche bag on this site.

  • Tony||

    Commenting here is not the world's best pastime, for sure. But I merely attempt to give as good as I get. It's fun.

    And people are way more offended by the cousinfucking thing than you'd think for people who would purport not to fuck their cousins.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Tony thinks he defends himself intellectually here.

    That...is...cute.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    You routinely call religious people delusional

    What would you have us call people who believe -- or at least claim to believe -- nonsense, that fairy tales are true?

    People are entitled to be delusional, but only the most egregious political correctness calls delusion by another name.

  • Finrod||

    Your second sentence is the only truth you've ever posted here, and I'm certain it was accidental. Your leftist delusions are terminal.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Telling other people to their face that they're delusional is profoundly rude."

    If you don't humor my delusions, you're rude!

  • lap83||

    Telling other people to their face that they're delusional is profoundly rude.

    You are delusional (not rude, I can't even see his face)

  • lap83||

    but seriously, I've known a few trans people and I wouldn't tell them they are delusional to their face. I'm too midwestern for that. However, how else would you describe the mentality that they believe they need an operation to change into their true form: which is always a fucking cartoonish caricature of the opposite gender. Yeah, they aren't hurting anyone but it's a bit offensive to a woman when a man thinks he needs to mutilate his junk to look more like a vagina just because he wants to wear pink and collect teddy bears.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Tony:

    "Telling other people to their face that they're delusional is profoundly rude."

    If there's one thing I never, ever do, it's tell people that I don't like what they're thinking.

  • damikesc||

    That's one of the my bigger annoyances. Their claim that doctors "assign" their genders which justifies their mental issue.

    I've always said, if an accountant says your company is broke, it was not the accountant who made you broke. The accountant just reported the reality. The doctor does not make a child male/female...the doctor just reports what is there.

    For a group who FUCKING LOVES SCIENCE, Progs seem to believe in magic and feelings way more than science.

  • Mickey Rat||

    All the government has done is note a fact about the newborn. It does not assign babies a sex, anymore than it assigns a birth length, weight, hair color or biological mother.

  • damikesc||

    Oooh, never even thought of that. If doctors, according to tranny activists, assign a gender...why don't they also assign a height? I say I was 12 feet tall when born and I'm 48 feet tall now.

    Don't be rude and say I'm really 6'.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That's your first mistake: believing lefties when they say they love science. They used science against anyone to the political right of Stalin.

    Same thing when lefties say they are socially liberal. They are not. They have been using that lie for decades to try and get other lefty policies progressed. The attack on the 1st amendment is clear evidence that lefties don't like freedoms and just use our Democracy to control and destroy us.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    One of the great things about Trump is the left has just come out into the daylight and exposed their hatred of science and freedoms.

    This allows more and more people to see the lefties for what they are- authoritarian statists.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

    The doctor does not make a child male/female...the doctor just reports what is there.

    This is how uninformed, backward, dumb people speak and believe.

    "Conservatives" for short.

  • FusterCluck||

    You are an actual retard. It's so nice your mom let's you comment here.

  • VinniUSMC||

    That's the type of "reason" and "logic" that we've come to expect from Artie.

  • damikesc||

    So, when an accountant says you are broke, did the accountant just ASSIGN a lack of funds or simply report what is there.

    Doctors do not assign anything, you mouth-breathing troglodyte.

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, reality-denying slaver.

  • Azathoth!!||

    I think the most amazing thing is that Artie thinks he's smart.

  • earthandweather||

    This was a horrible opinion piece made even more horrible by being rediculously long winded. But, I imagine, making it much shorter would have made you intent to malign much too obvious. I'm disappointed in the editors for even allowing this to be published here.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I would be disappointed if I hadn't read Reason for the last couple of nears. Now I expect this.

    Progressitarian Moment!

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Well I've got some bad news for you....

  • DajjaI||

    The IDW is all about Zionism and if you don't believe it and before you cry 'antisemite!' just wait in 3... 2....

  • Just Say'n||

    Absolutely. There is nothing bigoted about labeling a bunch of Jewish dissidents as being solely motivated by Zionism. You are definitely not a bigot, even though you are reciting bigoted talking points

  • VinniUSMC||

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

  • Finrod||

    Fuck off, bigot slaver.

  • EscherEnigma||

    And Republican voters, despite being in control of the majority of state houses, both branches of the legislature and the presidency, continue to claim that they're being oppressed.

    Some folks have a persecution complex that borders on paranoia.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's called politics. All wars are defensive.

  • BYODB||

    The irony of that situation is that it's the Republican party oppressing them at this point. Of course, some number of Republicans peeled off into the Tea Party I suppose but...what remains of the Republican establishment are indeed just about as bad as the Democrats.

    I'm not sure what's worse, a party that tells you they're going to fuck you over or a party that says they'll fuck you over less than the other guys but doesn't deliver on that promise.

    Sophie's choice?

  • MarkLastname||

    What does this have to do with Republican voters?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Some folks have a persecution complex that borders on paranoia.
  • loveconstitution1789||

    EscherEnigma|5.14.18 @ 3:05PM|#
    And Republican voters, despite being in control of the majority of state houses, both branches of the legislature and the presidency, continue to claim that they're being oppressed.
    Some folks have a persecution complex that borders on paranoia.


    To be fair, the left would absolutely put every last Libertarian and Republican in a concentration camp if they could.

    For some reason, Republicans are not advocating the same thing for lefties.

    That might be where the defensiveness comes from.

  • gormadoc||

    To be fair, the left would absolutely put every last Libertarian and Republican in a concentration camp if they could.

    If you actually believe this you're completely insane. Does the left hold some secret meetings where thousands of them have voted to put other people in camps? Before I believe that 'the left' wants this you're going to actually have to substantiate your claim.

    For some reason, Republicans are not advocating the same thing for lefties.

    That reason is that nobody is doing so, left or right.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Lefties have already done it.

    FDR put Americans in concentration camps and Lefty Nazis put all sorts of people in concentration camps.

    You lefties are delusional that nobody remembers and will call you on your lies.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... right...

    To quote myself:

    Some folks have a persecution complex that borders on paranoia.
  • loveconstitution1789||

    See above. The lefties already have put dissenters in concentration camps.

  • Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland||

  • VinniUSMC||

    The most intelligent comment Artie has ever mustered.

  • VinniUSMC||

    The most intelligent comment Artie has ever mustered.

  • VinniUSMC||

    So true, it had to be double posted...

  • Just Say'n||

    It's amazing how fast ostensibly libertarian commentators have become the biggest defenders of political correctness.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""why do they still feel so aggrieved?"

    actually, the only people particularly aggrieved are the idiotic, hyperbolic reactons to Bari Weiss' article in the NYT.

    Isn't this "my opponent is the emotionally unbalanced one" what the kids call "gaslighting"?

    Its like you never listened to a word they said

    most of them make very simple and clear points which idiots ignore and handwave around

    e.g.

    Haidt: Lack of viewpoint diversity is a serious problem

    Peterson: the wage gap is a myth

    Pinker: the world is getting better, enlightenment ideas/values deserve credit

    Harris: Contra Ezra Klein, talking to Charles Murray isn't a hate crime

    etc.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    most of them make very simple and clear points which idiots ignore and handwave around

    +1 BBC 4 interview with Jordan Peterson.

  • Just Say'n||

    The NYT opinion page is more nuanced than Reason. At this point Reason is a parody of what a libertarian publication would be.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    lol

  • Just Say'n||

    How can you deny that?

  • ThomasD||

    Maybe he was laughing at the realization that it's true.

    Libertarianism at this publication is somewhere between hive minds and managed markets, and kinder gentler statism.

  • Just Say'n||

    Nah, Crusty is a pathetic groupie at Reason. That's about it. If they endorsed socialism he'd attack anyone who criticized them for that position. And judging by the fact that ENB is writing this tripe, I'd say an endorsement of socialism isn't that far off

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    I don't feel bad for Crusty, I just feel bad. Loyalty isn't a virtue but it is respectable, I used to be very loyal to Reason; only thing keeping me here is the community.

  • GILMORE™||

    notice the internal contradictions of:

    - "Nothing they say is new or interesting"

    meets

    - "They just purposely stoke progressive outrage"

    What exactly is it that the progressive left is so outraged about? = "boring truths", for the most part.

    The real story is less about these specific people or the very simple, essentially-liberal arguments they propose... and more about the hysteria they provoke from an increasingly-narrow media-orthodoxy

    The real story is about media outlets shrieking that "Sam Harris is a racist" and "Jordan Peterson: Jew Hatred Enabler"...or that anyone anywhere thinks the opinion of the "Feminist Glaciologist" matters re: Stephen Pinker's new book (he was one of a panel gathered to offer a 'rebuttal' to pinker by the TED organization)

    Looking at these people and going, "But they don't say anything particularly remarkable" misses the entire point. Its not that the IDW types have crossed any lines - its that the media, in its desperate pandering to a goofy anti-intellectual progressive populace, needs to turn them into bad guys in order to stay in the good-graces of the twitter-SJW mob

  • Just Say'n||

    "No one is attacking these people, now allow me to smear them with spurious accusations."

    - ENB

  • Crusty Juggler||

    lol

  • Rich Dobbs||

    lol

  • JuanQPublic||

    A diverse group in terms of work backgrounds and political leanings, what they share is a disdain for modern center-left orthodoxies—and a view of themselves as victims of unfortunate and intensifying forces: identity politics, feminist militancy, transgender activism, illiberalism around speech.

    "...victims of... transgender activism" is overgeneralized. Some of them have been outspoken against certain kinds of transgender activism, essentially the kind that goes beyond demanding equal opportunity. For example, Jordan Peterson vocally opposed regulation of gender pronouns. It's fair game to pick his argument apart, to test its merits, but many writers haven't done that. Instead, they've blatantly mischaracterized his position altogether.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Just how physiologically different males and females are and how much this matters has long been a subject of intense and fraught debate; it is not some newfangled concern that millennial SJWs have suddenly seized.

    Sure, some is up for debate. But we do have established knowledge about physiological and psychological differences that really isn't up for debate, aside from any questionable data or conclusions from said data. Wholesale denial of that body of evidence, however, seems to be what many are opposed to.

    The "red meat" for IDW fans is undeniably tales of liberal lunacy and P.C. culture run amok.

    Not really. First off, IDW "fans" (not really an accurate word) are essentially rallying 3 major ideas: that ideology should be secondary to ideas, discussions of those ideas should not be infringed, and that the expression of one's "identity" is not expression of one's ideas.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Criticize a racist joke (without calling for it to be censored)? You must be part of the regressive left! Think mainstream feminism is often misguided but probably not a "cancer"? SJW! Never mind if you're every bit the First Amendment absolutist that IDWers claim to be; a refusal to pantomime the right hate will get you booted from IDW esteem right quick.

    The above is nothing more than ENB's wholesale interpretation of varied opinions under one label ("IDW"). There's simply nothing to argue with here, because it isn't an argument.

  • Just Say'n||

    "For example, Jordan Peterson vocally opposed regulation of gender pronouns."

    That's the amazing thing. This guy is attacked because that's how he became known: he opposed compelled speech. And, yet, an ostensibly libertarian publication has now run two hit pieces on him. Think about that.

    Conservatives have really become better on speech than ostensibly libertarian commentators.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    lol

  • Just Say'n||

    Do you ever think for yourself, Crusty?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Presenting themselves as brave and imperiled truth sayers facing down an increasingly "politically correct" populace, they offer their fans an immensely appealing proposition: It's not you, it's them, and liking us is a sign that you are not like them. We are rational, radical where it's called for, able to take a joke, and part of America's great intellectual tradition—everything the speech-policing, biology-denying left is not. And anything we say or share that angers the left is just proof of how insane they have become.
  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What's funny is this paragraph can essentially be pasted onto pretty much any public official, any time for any thing.

    Say what you will about the various and sundry opinions of the culprits here (for the record, I love listening to Douglass Murray and there's much I agree with him on, but there are a few significant things I absolutely disagree with him on) but even by listening to them, I've been told that I'm not rational, full of hate, racist, "gender-ist", and that my defense of free speech (1st amendment) is really a dog-whistle for a racist ideology that has no place in the public discourse.

    It's no wonder these guys have become so immensely popular. People are routinely feeling squeezed by the State, and we're watching the state (which includes Western Europe) demand that the major social media and tech companies exorcise anyone with an unpopular view. And yet, these guys are the problem. Please ignore cops arresting a guy for making a joke with a dog on youtube. Please ignore the establishment media's treatment of said guy. When you can't get the Fourth Estate to challenge the power of the state, people are going to find another outlet, and yes, there's going to be some grousing of feeling "marginalized".

  • damikesc||

    The UK and their Gestapo threatening folks for jokes or mocking miniscule drug busts is why we NEED the Second Amendment. Once you lose guns, speech quickly follows.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""The "red meat" for IDW fans is undeniably tales of liberal lunacy and P.C. culture run amok.""

    I recall Welch saying that Robby's stories of liberal lunacy/PC culture run-amok was the #1 source of clicks for this website.

    Glass houses, yo.
  • Just Say'n||

    I don't get what this is, Gilmore

  • buybuydandavis||

    "What they are saying might not be embraced, or even endured, by legacy media institutions or certain social media precincts, but it's certainly not out of tune with or heretical to many Americans.

    The bottom line is there's no denying most of these people are very popular. Yet one of the few unifying threads among them is a feeling or posture of being marginalized, too taboo for liberal millennial snowflakes and the folks who cater to them. "

    ENB fails to notice that she grants their premise two sentences before denying it. All the rest is just snippy characterization.

    Their ideas, while "not out of tune with or heretical to many Americans", are not "even endured" by the institutional gatekeepers of The Narrative.

    That's the whole point.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""All the rest is just snippy characterization.""

    It would be nice if they ever actually quoted someone when trying to "explain" them to the public

    You notice the only time the author bothers to link to any source-material, its only for the purpose of citing the most-shock-value, taken-out-of-context quotes?

  • Microaggressor||

    I noticed the frequent jabs at Peterson in this piece are all out of context. He likes to ask questions, testing hypothetical boundaries, without necessarily taking that position. ENB interprets him as taking that position, e.g. makeup in the workplace, and writes as if that were a fact. Is this what you'd call a smear?

    It's a tried-and-true tactic of the Blue Church gatekeepers to quote their detractors out of context to make it seem like they said something more sinister than they really did. The purpose is to keep the proles away, making it seem like their views can be safely discarded, because you know all you need to know. Take it as a sign that Reason is becoming indistinguishable from the MSM.

  • buybuydandavis||

    When your goal is to silence WrongThink, you're naturally reticent to repeat the WrongThink.

    But likely silencing WrongThink isn't really the goal, it's simply domination, the thrill of trampling on an enemy.

    When they aren't physically there to be trampled upon, one has to make due with vilification.

  • Brendan||

    "The only way to produce lasting change is to use less shock and shame, more showing people on their terms why your way forward can help."

    Best of luck with that.

    The people getting all the attention, and the ones driving far too much policy, are the same ones who will not listen to their opponents, people they've deem as homophobes, misogynists, racists, transphobes, and/or Nazis.

    If you pay attention to a lot of these people, you will see that once they've decided you're any of those things above, they will not hear anything you have to say, and many will tell you that you should be denied a platform by any means necessary. Even a person interviewing you will be called the same/supporter your ideology under the theory that interviewing you legitimizes your position and/or beliefs.

    When some group of lefties decides to protest your business or website because you serve "Nazis" like Ben Shapiro, Carl Benjamin (Sargon Of Akaad), Jordan Peterson, NRA members, etc., you are not going to get anywhere trying to rationalize or empathize with them. The mere attempt to discuss it with them will be labelled as "defending Nazis". They have to be bluntly told "No" and you have to be prepared to weather a short social media firestorm. With very few exceptions, it'll be over soon - their attention span and fortitude are sorely lacking and they will move on to some other target soon.

  • Just Say'n||

    I don't even know what "shock" Peterson is employing. He's an extremely boring guy

  • Zeb||

    I feel like most people criticizing him have never even bothered to see what he actually has to say. Or just watched the videos where he comes off kind of tired and angry (of which a fair number exist).

  • Microaggressor||

    You can spend some time in lefty-media-land and see all sorts of headlines misrepresenting Peterson's views. That is ENB's habitat. It's painfully obvious she's not familiar with his work, but feels the need to comment her received wisdom anyway.

  • Zeb||

    You can spend some time in lefty-media-land

    I can, but I'd rather not.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""the only way to spread these [ideas] into the mainstream is to put in the hard work of winning people over"

    Somehow the fact their audience is growing like gangbusters isn't actually evidence of this.

    Reason...

    ...an explicitly ideological political magazine that has likely LOST more audience in the last ~4 years than its gained...

    ... lecturing a completely disparate amateur cluster of academics who don't even share any single view on politics and have no coordinated media at all...

    ..that they're doing *politics wrong*.

    There is not enough popcorn for how shitty this take is.

  • Just Say'n||

    FYI- No one is attacking Jordan Peterson

    www.pbs.twimg.com/media/DdA9GYVX0AAG9Lr.jpg:large

  • Just Say'n||

    twitter.com/RubinReport/status/995362702955614208

  • Crusty Juggler||

    The only way to produce lasting change is to use less shock and shame, more showing people on their terms why your way forward can help. It requires the empathy that allows for projecting the best intentions on your enemies, the patience to actually strive for common ground or conversion instead of simply writing people off as hopeless dummies, the ability to shed your ego enough not to need to "own" those who disagree with you, and the confidence to call out any entity—especially among one's "side" or allies—that stands athwart your version of good.

    Meme and gif trolling > this malarkey.

  • Just Say'n||

    Explain what "shock value" Peterson and Rubin employ? Is it shocking just to disagree with progressives now?

  • Just Say'n||

    Yeah, you have about as much evidence of their "shock value" as ENB has in the whole article. My God, you are profoundly dumb

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Just Say'n||

    I'd hate to be as stupid as you

  • Crusty Juggler||

  • Just Say'n||

    Hihn looks stable in comparison to you

  • Zeb||

    Seems to me that for the most part Peterson and Rubin both try to avoid "shock value" as part of what they do as much as possible. Both are quite adamant that what is needed most right now is for people who disagree to talk openly and try to understand each other.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The people who oppose, say Jordan Peterson, are the sorts who will surround a lecture hall and bang on the windows for an entire speech trying to drown the man out because the do not want him to even say his peace. They will resort to insults trying to shut down any idea or fact that contradicts their worldview. But of course, it is Peterson and company who are not putting the hard work of winning people over.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    That photo looks like an album cover for a Portland-area jazz fusion band named Frado.

  • Zeb||

    It seems a little odd to me that people at Reason are reacting somewhat negatively to this phenomenon. Seems like a pretty similar niche to where Reason lives.

    Some of these people are saying things that you don't really get much of through mainstream channels. I think it's a fine thing. I don't get why people feel the need to bitch about the platform they use or how they frame it. I tend to think they are right that PC, postmodern bullshit is creeping into mainstream culture, and has taken over large swathes of academia, and that that is dangerous and undesirable.

  • GILMORE™||

    ""Seems like a pretty similar niche to where Reason lives."

    It makes more sense when you start to think of Reason.com as controlled opposition, whose purpose is mainly to defang and water-down libertarian criticisms rather than promote them.

    I know, it sounds silly. But then you start to notice that Bill Weld looks like a very-very old, alcoholic Robby Soave.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    That hair gives him away every time.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Bill Weld looks like a very-very old, alcoholic Robby Soave.

    He actually is Robbie Soave. He time traveled back from the future in order to prevent Vermin Supreme from winning the LP nomination and the 2016 general election. He miscalculated though and got Trump elected instead (he was hoping to get Hillary elected - oops).

  • ThomasD||

    "whose purpose is mainly to defang and water-down libertarian criticisms rather than promote them."

    Richman's 'critique' of the UBI seems to fit this description to a T.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Seems like a pretty similar niche to where Reason lives.

    Maybe they don't appreciate the competition?

  • Colossal Douchebag||

    Is there an echo in here?

  • sold2u||

    Jordan Peterson's gripe was with a law mandating that you address people with their preferred pronoun, not with actually using them - he was fine with using them, just not a mandate.

    You would think a Reason writer would notice that distinction.

  • GILMORE™||

    The error is not an error

  • Microaggressor||

    This is wonderful. You can bookmark this page in case you ever need to remind yourself that ENB takes headlines written by social justice cultists as gospel. I lost count of the factual errors. But they only seem to point a single direction. Really makes you think.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The kindest thing that can be said is rhat ENB did not do any real research herself into what Peterson and Shapiro are actually saying.

    The unkindest thing is the suspicion that she is being deliberately dishonest.

  • Microaggressor||

    Simplest explanation is that shes' a True Believer in religious intersectionalism. Her assumptions are ripped straight from the dishonest headlines I've seen thrown around the lefty media landscape. One thing's for sure, she didn't come to this conclusion by evaluating these folks' material on an individual basis. It's all received wisdom, required knowledge for in-group acceptance.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    It's a tribalistic tendency totally at odds with their professed reverence for individualism and hatred of "identity politics."

    But enough about H&R's commentariat... *ducks*

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It's a "tribe" when you don't like it, it's a "community" when you do.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Oh, and addressing your joke... for a "tribe", we sure don't agree on much.

  • ||

    The supposed ostracism they suffer because of their views ultimately comes down to a complaint not about censorship or exclusion but being attacked, challenged, or denied very particular opportunities. They want to say the things they are saying and have the marketplace of ideas and attention not only reward them with followers and freelance writing gigs but universal acceptance from those that matter in the academy and chattering classes.

    That is so completely missing the point, it's shocking. ENB, please listen to The Fifth Column session with Bret Weinstein and his wife, Heather Heying. They were completely socially ostracized from their former social network on account of their views. They are absolutely NOT looking for universal acceptance. That's simply a gross characterization that's unfounded. They were simply shocked that the presentation of their views didn't simply lead to conflict but to active efforts to silence them and remove them completely from their prior social sphere.

    You really should read Bari's piece again. It is once of the best, most balanced, most nuanced pieces about a rather undefined topic I've seen in a long long time.

  • Rigelsen||

    Yes, ENB seems to believe it is perfectly fine to have anyone with heterodox opinions in any of our expanding array of "controversial" topics to be run out of academia, jobs, and major platforms.

    This is a dishonest treatment one would expect on The NY Times editorial page, not on Reason.com.

  • ThomasD||

    "This is a dishonest treatment one would expect on The NY Times editorial page, not on Reason.com."

    Been gone a while, have you?

  • Detroit Linguist||

    I'm amused that those attacking Elizabeth here believe they are defending 'science', but I'd be willing to bet that none of them are actual scientists who study either biology (of any of the creatures that exhibit sexual dimorphism) or psychologists who study how human beings perceive their own or others' sexuality.

    If you read actual science you learn that the so-called binary characterizations of sex are not as binary as conservatives want them to be, even in things like mice and other mammals. And the amount of our gender identity that is not biologically-determined is considerable, given that there are cultures where every single supposed gendered characteristic is reversed--not all at once, but for each supposed innate gendered psychological feature there is some culture in which gender roles are reversed. I'd be glad to provide real references if you'd like. You can start with the work of Sharon Presley, a libertarian psychologist who's been doing this kind of research for at least forty years (and has been a libertarian that long too).

  • Just Say'n||

    What "science" is involved in mandating pronoun usage? Peterson gets tarred by the Left, because he opposed a law mandating pronoun usage.

    Can you science that one for me, knuckle head?

  • Just Say'n||

    And this is how conservatives became better defenders of free speech than the ostensibly libertarian

  • Rigelsen||

    Highly unlikely that Detroit Linguist is a libertarian. Unless "ostensible libertarian" is to actual libertarian as "modern liberal" is to actual/classical liberal, i.e., progressives/socialists who are too embarrassed to label their views accurately.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    I have been in the libertarian movement since 1967. I actually knew Ed Clark and met Nathaniel Branden. Roy Childs was a friend of mine. I own every issue of Reason since Volume 1, Number 1. The fact that some conservatives have taken over this comment board is sad, but doesn't give them the right to remove me from the movement.

    In answer to the question about pronoun usage it's not "science" but elementary manners. Just as Jews don't like to be called "kikes" (and I'm sure many on this board can think of equivalents) transgendered folks don't like to be called by the wrong pronoun. And, since gender is almost totally a cultural phenomenon, not a biological one (that's science too, folks), getting all het up because someone doesn't conform to your prejudices is not a rational, nor a humanistic response.

  • Just Say'n||

    So the state should impose manners? If that's the libertarian position then clearly the conservatives are actually for liberty and not libertarians.

    And you do realize that Peterson himself said that he would use someone's preferred pronoun, but he opposed the state mandating pronoun usage.

  • Just Say'n||

    Who would have thought that all those years raging against social conservatives never had anything to do with imposing values through state authority- it was always about imposing the "right" values through state authority.

  • Tony||

    I don't think anybody here supports the state enforcing correct pronoun usage.

  • Just Say'n||

    I know that's a lie coming from you, Tony. But, that is the only thing that Peterson has ever said about transgenderism. And that is the Left's main complaint against him.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    I never brought up the state imposing anything. I'm a libertarian and am against the state imposing the time of day. I will admit I haven't read all of Peterson's writings, and he may well have been misreported. I'm just saying that 'preferred pronouns' are common courtesy, like looking at someone when you talk to them or not calling someone derogatory names. I also oppose the state mandating pronoun usage, or even mandating English, for that matter.

  • Tyler Durden||

    Nobody gets to choose their pronouns, they are impersonal by definition and usage ("personal pronoun" is a contradiction in terms). You have every right to change your name, but you have no right to force everybody else to use your made-up words.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    "personal pronoun" is a pronoun referring to a "person". Words like 'I, you, he, she, it' as opposed to 'this, those, some, all, which, that', which are demonstrative, indefinite and interrogative etc. pronouns. This is elementary grammar, and the terminology has been in use since the nineteenth century. You no more get to make up meanings of grammatical terms than any other word.

    It's true that you have no right to 'force' anyone to use words you don't like. All words are 'made-up' in that sense. 'Libertarian' is also a 'made-up word', but I find it very useful, even though I don't force people to use it. Either the new pronouns will catch on or they won't--we'll have to wait a hundred years or so to see, but nothing will come of getting mad about it.

  • Tyler Durden||

    You side-step the point. Pronouns are not particular to an individual person, they are impersonal. Their use linguistically strips the subject of personality, placing them in an undifferentiated blob of humanity. Pronouns exist to limit the need for cognition and identification through simple categorization, which is the exact opposite effect of customized pronouns.

  • ||

    So, these "gender" pronouns entail claims about gender? Why would you have to endorse them? Would it be rational to just confirm whatever it is the person claims?

  • buybuydandavis||

    Bimodal distributions don't cease to exist because there are outliers from them.

  • Detroit Linguist||

    True, but there is a difference between a bimodal distribution and a category contrast. A bimodal distribution may contain a significant amount of overlap or none. The evidence on sexual dimorphism is not as clear-cut as some on this board believe it is, even for 'lower' animals.

  • buybuydandavis||

    A distribution doesn't overlap itself.

    Characterizing a bimodal distribution according to it's two main modes is not to claim that those modes completely describe the distribution.

    Most people think everything is more clear cut than it is. It's not an improvement to the situation to deny that a bimodal approximation can convey most of the useful information in a population.

    A girl friend of long ago edited an orthopedic text book. It gave her the heebie jeebies. There are no end to biological exceptions. But we don't list them all every time we talk about people. Two arms. Two legs. Two heads. And yes, there are exceptions.

    All abstraction throws out detail. That doesn't mean we stop using them.

  • ThomasD||

    You sure seem an expert on the science of straw.

  • Zeb||

    I'd be glad to provide real references if you'd like.

    It's probably too late, but I'm interested. I'm certainly not expert on the subject, but I am interested. It seems like a subject where there is still considerable scientific debate and disagreement. It's hard to decide how to know who to believe (assuming you can manage not to go for the view that most aligns with your preexisting political views).

    One thing I'm pretty sure about is that we shouldn't start legislating things based on the assumption either that gender is socially constructed or that sex differences are inherent and immutable. Especially while the scientific debate continues.

  • ||

    Child care: reversed?

    Warfare/combat/direct competition: reversed?

    Political dominance (patriarchy versus matriarchy): reversed?

    Hunting/gathering: reversed?

    Social (self-)segregation: "reversed"?

    Presley is unreliable. Provide references. (Note that Mead ended up endorsing Why Men Rule.)

  • JuanQPublic||

    I'm amused that those attacking Elizabeth here believe they are defending 'science', but I'd be willing to bet that none of them are actual scientists who study either biology (of any of the creatures that exhibit sexual dimorphism) or psychologists who study how human beings perceive their own or others' sexuality.

    - Many are not attacking ENB, but attacking the misrepresentations in the article.

    - Hardly anyone is claiming to "defend science".

    What many are defending is an open space for dialogue, where ideology has no weight, but rather, ideas do. Based on this, do you support that? If not, why?

  • thorsmjollnir||

    Uhm well Bret Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist and Jordan Peterson is a clinical psychologist and taught psychology at Harvard.

  • Rigelsen||

    ELB is anti-heterodoxy. Got it.

    Look, they are not complaining about how people are not subscribing their ideas. Their complaint is about being forced out of jobs, "de-monetized" if not kicked off platforms, being literally banned, shouted down or rioted against in college campuses, having hit pieces like this in mainstream media that only seems to quote them out of context.

    Yes, they have created their own platforms and found an audience, out of necessity, but ELB's contention seems to be that they should relax and enjoy the crumbs and stop complaining about the vapidity and homogeneity of mainstream intellectual discourse. ELB indeed seems to think that all of this is just fine as it is.

    Is ELB actually a libertarian who believes libertarian values should be promoted? Or is "libertarianism" something she just affects for her job? This article suggests the latter.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    ELO > ELB

  • buybuydandavis||

    Don't Bring Me Down Evil Woman

  • Finrod||

    At least we're not reading articles written by Horace Wimp.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Objecting to having your feelings hurt and being attacked by riots is exactly the same thing"

  • buybuydandavis||

    "*Correction: This piece previously said that Shapiro had deleted the tweet in question; he did not."

    Journalism means never having to use before making accusations.

  • buybuydandavis||

    use search

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • lap83||

    +1 every man's right

  • Tony||

    I thought we settled on "We, as a couple, are pregnant."

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    That's only in birthing class. Trust me, once I left that cauldron of organic-tofu hades I went back to saying "My wife is pregnant".

  • Tony||

    That seems to be giving credit where it's due.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    I assume he contributed, as well.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Are white majority countries too stupid to live?

    Looking more and more likely every day.

  • Sam Grove||

    The issue is that outrage can be induced in people...which is exactly what the PM Left is doing on campuses in order to shut down any defense of Western Civilization. People can claim to be offended by anything to shut up people who disagree with them.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    To be fair, petty outrage seems to be a modern human trait. It isn't exclusive to a particular ideology. (although I would say that it's slightly more prevalent on the left-- possibly due to a culture of perpetual 'activism") Everyone is subject to it some of the time. I've begun to try to make a point to not be sucked in by it. If I can, I tend to avoid the petty outrage threads (which someone pointed out above get the most clicks on Reason).

    I still have my own hobby horses, but I've been working harder to stay as objective as possible. The election of Trump has been a major factor in this. The hysteria in the media and continuous outrage mill on Twitter combined with the shocking acts of purposefully taking things out of context has made me wary of immediately condemning a 160 character tweet before I understand the larger point.

    I don't know all of these guys in the "Intellectual Darkweb", I'm mainly familiar with Murray, Peterson and O'Neill (strangly not mentioned here), but you really have to listen to hours of their discourse. Most of the condemnations have been from people who've listened to minutes of it, and spend more time following their followers.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    what they share is a disdain for modern center-left orthodoxies

    I guess if we agree that the 'center-left orthodoxy' has now moved left of Stalin, I'm good with it.

    I like how Brendan O'Neill, (certified member of the Intellectual Darkweb) puts it, "I didn't leave the left, the left left me."

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Oh let's be honest here. The Right has suddenly fallen in love with Prof. Peterson not because they are fans of psychology now, but because they now perceive him to be a member of their tribe when he fights against transgender pronoun usage rules. They'll excuse everything else Peterson does because they think he is "one of theirs", a secret agent behind the front lines of Liberal Academia. Same reason they have fallen in love with Kanye now - because they think he's now one of their secret agents in Liberal Hollywood. It's all just base tribalism.

  • Just Say'n||

    No doubt about that. But, who would have guessed that an ostensibly libertarian publication is trashing the guy for opposing mandated speech. I mean, Peterson is right on that matter and this soft progressivism that Reason is pimping here is undoubtedly wrong and not really libertarian in any way whatsoever.

  • The Iconoclast||

    ^ this. I think ENB and other of the young reasonoids are endeavoring to thread the needle between writing ostensibly semi-libertarian pieces and creating a corpus that will serve as their career building blocks to eventually get better and more mainstream gigs elsewhere.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Progressitarians

    The Left infiltrates an org, then exerts relentless in group preference and out group attack to take it over or destroy.

    It's good either way. No opposition is left standing.

  • damikesc||

    Or, in other words, they take over something, kill it, wear its carcass and demand respect.

  • GILMORE™||

    - ""The Right has suddenly fallen in love with Prof. Peterson"

    please show me where you get the data about the population of his audience?

    he's cited figures from his publisher showing that his book sales are across the political spectrum.

    The idea that his audience is particularly right-wing is media claim based on the super-scientific "leftist reading comments @ his youtube videos"

    - "They'll excuse everything else Peterson does"

    what specifically has he done that needs excusing?

  • Just Say'n||

    "what specifically has he done that needs excusing?"

    That's the thing. ENB is trying to make Peterson and Rubin look like Milo or something. These are the most boring uncontroversial people in political discourse and yet they are being attacked for not accepting progressive talking points

  • damikesc||

    And, bluntly. Milo is worlds better than the collegiate fascists who tried to shut him down repeatedly.

  • ThomasD||

    "what specifically has he done that needs excusing?"

    He has made the leftists look bad.

    Ergo, anyone who sides with him must be doing so out of tribal identity.

  • ThomasD||

    It would have nothing to do with wanting everyone to do the proper thing....

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Peterson not because they are fans of psychology now, but because they now perceive him to be a member of their tribe when he fights against transgender pronoun usage rules.

    He was fighting against compelled speech, the transgender issue was tangential to that, and he's gone to great pains to explain that.

    Like anyone who becomes explosively popular, he probably has a lot of unsavory followers because they're guilty of the same thing the establishment (old) media is: they listen to minutes or tidbits of what he says, and they hang on to that lone aspect of it.

    I have no doubt that many of Peterson's followers are just pissed off about transgender people, and so his testimony against bill C16 was a clarion call for them.

    Peterson has even called on segments of his own followers to not threaten or spit bile via Twitter on the web-- that was then immediately used against him as "proof" by the media that all of his followers threaten and spit bile on Twitter. That was the moment he realized he literally couldn't win.

  • GILMORE™||

    -He's also gotten into direct confrontations with "Alt-Right", identitarian types on twitter, and said "You're just as bad as the SJW-left", and "don't use me for your bloody cause"

    yet the splutting you hear from the left is, "He never criticizes the right"!

    The fact that he and haidt and pinker and harris are primarily criticizing the academic and media environments -where the ratio of left-to-right is over 10:1 - is completely ignored.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    He rarely (if ever) criticizes the right because he sees the biggest threats coming from the left. And right now, right here in this current time, he's absolutely right. Which is why the left now screams about free speech being a dog whistle. It's why the term "alt-right" was invented in the first place.

  • buybuydandavis||

    JBP:
    "It's time to get the hell organized and push back and get that 5% of hyper educated resentful utopian dreamers who would like to bring the whole goddamn civilization to its knees out of the systems of power"

    https://youtu.be/_MyduTaCh18

    Unfortunately, neither he nor the rest of the IDW really seem to take this seriously. They're still playing by civilized rules against an uncivilized opponent. "Muh Principles!"

    One way ceasefire is surrender
    One way rule of law is subjection
    One way civility is subservience

  • Mickey Rat||

    It is a transgender pronoun usage law, not merely a rule. It is an illiberal, totalitarian piece of legislation that should be the shame of any Western democratic republic.

  • ThomasD||

    "Oh let's be honest here."

    Honest?

    You mean projecting. But we get that.

  • GILMORE™||

    A sane take:


    Helen Pluckrose
    ‏@HPluckrose
    10h10 hours ago

    I suppose 1 good thing about lumping a lot highly intellectually & ideologically diverse people under the label of 'intellectual dark web' is that you can be fairly sure that anyone who rejects all of them thinks there's no acceptable way to criticise authoritarian SocJus leftism

    Something you see in a lot of these media-roundups is the Julian Sanchez-branded "Weak Man" argument, where they'll cite them as a group....

    ...but then offer as the only tangible examples of "Stuff they say", things like Ben Shapiro's "Arabs live in trash"... as tho that's the most important commentary any of them have ever made.

    See: above

  • ||

    Well done.

  • damikesc||

    And they have to slice down a string of tweets to hit that. Shapiro went into some depth on what he meant.

    Meanwhile, it is racist to call Hank Johnson a moron about his capsizing of Guam fears,

  • tlitb||

    >> interspersed with wisdom about how all feminists have "an unconscious wish for brutal male domination,"

    I thought this *all* feminists act the same claim seemed a bit dodgy, and then seeing it's sourced to some guy who seems to be a performance artist at cobbling together worst case snippets to paint people in a bad light I looked for the source https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV4iXfjonqI - It seems clear he wasn't making anything like that generalization as he led in with 6:20

    "I cannot for the life of me understand, except in a psychoanalytic manner, why the radical feminists tolerate ... the fact that America is allied with the Saudi's"

    I get annoyed by these little spins, but meh, the I.D.W can look after itself I'm sure ;)

  • GILMORE™||

    another common trope is that, when these people are criticized, and people respond, the critics go, "OMG LOOK YOURE SO SENSITIVE TO CRITICISM"

    the issue isn't the criticism. by all means - debate. Pick them apart! QUOTE THEM. Cite their flaws, highlight their errors.

    The problem isn't anyone reacting badly to "criticism". its reaction to the inherent intellectual dishonesty of media critics, who simply can't make a single claim about any of these people without wild distortions, cherry picking, or - like the above - barely quoting the subjects at all, except for the least interesting and most-sensational aspects.

    e.g.

    "reasonable intellectuals were being regularly mislabeled by activists, institutions and mainstream journalists"
    - Eric Weinstein

    and what's the hot-take on this from our resident scholar?

    - "They want to say the things they are saying and have the marketplace of ideas and attention not only reward them with followers and freelance writing gigs but universal acceptance"

    ...(eyeroll)...

  • ||

    "The supposed ostracism they suffer because of their views ultimately comes down to a complaint not about censorship or exclusion but being attacked, challenged, or denied very particular opportunities. They want to say the things they are saying and have the marketplace of ideas and attention not only reward them with followers and freelance writing gigs but universal acceptance from those that matter in the academy and chattering classes.

    They want not so much any particular policy platform, political idea, or candidate to catch on as for more people to acknowledge that they are right."

    Have you tracked academia's reactions to Weinstein and Peterson, respectively? (Peterson, by the way, didn't refuse to use gender pronouns of choice on an individual basis; he refused to use them when it's under government mandate. He made the distinction explicit. - I'd point to New York's policy.)
    Further, are you aware of the ideological composition of universities? What about the arc of Yale and esp. Harvard (freedom of association). How does Title IX fit in? Have we really been there before? How about the crusade against sex workers? And what does it mean for you to be "right" there?

  • ||

    You try to avoid blanket statements, but land in the one quoted above. At that, it's not very convincing. Delineating ego and cause is not so easy. Apart from caricature, you have done precious little to engage with substantial claims and causes of theirs. (It wasn't "all feminists", by the way. Going by that snippet, it was those who champion "radical" Islam.)

    I agree that an open way of engaging, perhaps with more charm and less investment could be good. Yet it seems there are strong taboos, see the Google memo, and the discussions regarding sex and power. And I haven't seen these taboos broken under timid objections. Have you?

  • ||

    Isn't the prevailing line the religious bulwark: everyone declared survivor (of an elevator joke, or sexism), brave, "trauma-informed", and to be "believed", while predators - evil by nature - abound. And if these controversies are so old, how come the mild-mannered people's modes haven't resolved them? Don't pluralistic ignorance (see eg voting behavior) and dissonance (eg celebration of Shades and rape fantasies amidst the incantations of female weakness) abound? It's rather impressive when those, who claim media "socially constructs" women, point out that it's full of women's desired submission, and then frequently violate these assumptions. It seems an open clash would be rather useful. If you don't want it done by people whose monetary interest may corrupt, or whose (genuine) ideological fervor misleads them, why haven't you establishment people settled these matters? Is it just in reaction to "renegades" that you discuss controversial matters? Do the archives hold a symposium on submissive feminists? Why weren't other clashes settled in the wake of Larry Summers?

    By the way, look up "Lipstick Effect".

  • GILMORE™||

    lol

    ""Dead Agent
    @Recursion_Agent
    2m2 minutes ago

    "Why are they so aggrieved", asks the woman who tried to have someone ruined for making a sandwich joke.

  • gormadoc||

    You fucked up the HTML for everybody now.

  • GILMORE™||

    I AM BECOME DEATH, DESTROYER OF THREADS

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    nice

  • Emotional Opposition Animal||

    nice

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Why are they so aggrieved", asks the woman who tried to have someone ruined for making a sandwich joke.

    SJWs Always Project

  • Tyler Durden||

    There are many legitimate criticisms of the members of the IDW, particularly Dr Peterson, but you will not find any in this stupid article; just lies, misstatements, and strawmen.

    Cathy Newman: "I just ruined my career by showing the worst lack of English comprehension."
    Elizabeth Nolan Brown: "Hold my beer!"

  • buybuydandavis||

    Boom!

    I'm posting this with attribution on The Twitter.

  • JuanQPublic||

    And this is the main problem. Not criticisms of their actual positions, because that has rarely happened, including this disappointing article, but rather wholesale misrepresentations of these people's positions from the left, and unfortunately, from ENB as well.

  • hoptygopty||

    That's what I got out of it.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Good Lord there's a lot of triggered Republicans here.

  • GILMORE™||

    ^speaking of deeply-retarded takes....

    ...one of the utter failures of journalists on this topic - and i think ENB is as guilty as all of them, if not unique in being so - is failing to recognize that the debate these IDW types are making is primarily one *entirely within the left*

    - Its not really a right vs. left-issue, its a Liberal left vs. Progressive left-issue.

    The majority of these folks like Haidt, Pinker, Harris, and the Weinstein bros...are all 100% democrats, and have expressed no intention of changing their votes despite mistreatment by their own side.

    Their concern is that 'identity politics', progressive witch-hunts etc are hurting the left. They want to help the left develop a more-coherent argument than "That's Racist!", which amounts to 99% of the current political rhetoric. as academics, they see problems w/ the 'safe spaces' and trigger-warnings mentality.

    Conservatives like Sommers, Shapiro, and Doug Murray (UK) might agree w/ them on these points, but that's basically it. They're not adding any additional particular partisan spin behind 'free speech' arguments.

    If the right has an interest in popularizing these people, its simply because - while they disagree w/ them on politics, they're at least people you can TALK to. Which seems something people should encourage.

    Speaking of which: Jeff, what did Peterson do that needed 'excusing'? (from above)

  • JuanQPublic||

    I wouldn't consider Christina Sommers a conservative, but that's really a matter of opinion and interpretation of her positions.

    I find Shapiro highly problematic. Not because he's a self-described conservative, but because he has made some ridiculous statements before. Many of those statements were made before his open dialogue with the likes of Bret Weinstein, so its possible that he has shifted on said positions and evolved.

    Overall, its particularly disappointing that the creation of a "movement" for open, honest debate and dialogue across ideas has rattled so many, particularly on the political left, where many have responded not by bringing their voice to the dialogue, but rather misrepresenting that movement altogether. This says far more about the reactionaries than the IDW.

  • ThomasD||

    His individualism is so radical it cannot imagine anyone thinking otherwise.

  • ||

    This author endorsed punching Ben Shapiro in the face. She promotes political violence. She is not a libertarian.

  • ||

    79% not seriously.

  • intolerantape||

    Maybe the editors at reason should reconsider posting articles from this author. This thing reeks.

  • Doug Huffman||

    I like Hillary's deplorable epithet better than the constant proliferation of memes hiding unpleasant truths. Alternative Right, Alt-Right, is better than IDW, particularly considering the anti-intellectual bent in contemporary culture.

    Culturism: A Word, A Value, Our Future (Press, 2007) by John Kenneth Press.

    '12 Rules' is a great book!

  • TGGeko||

    Sounds like someone is jealous that they weren't invited.

  • martino||

    peterson didnt refuse to use gender pronouns. he says he would, to be polite.

    very importantly, he refused to let the government force him to use the pronoun.

    his case for persecution does seem strong if in canada the government is forcing him to speak the way they choose.

  • JuanQPublic||

    Tony said:

    Pronouns are not biology. He's not talking about science, he's talking about his feelings. He is uncomfortable dealing with trans people, and he wants validation for that feeling.

    Nobody, including Peterson, said that pronouns are biology, so it's baffling as to how and why you placed that in there.

    As for being "uncomfortable" dealing with trans people, Peterson never said that either, but he did say he had no problem referring to trans people by the preferred "he/she" pronoun. Like many other critics of IDW, you appear to be misrepresenting Peterson. Go back and watch the TVO interview again. He clearly says he has no problem with this.

    Peterson clearly expressed he does not want coercive enforcement of pronouns. As I stated to ENB, the merits of that argument about that threat are fair game to criticize or debate.

    Tony said:

    And what happens when a successfully passing trans person dares to appear in his personal space? He'd use their preferred pronoun until perhaps he learned of the person's status as trans and then change it just to be a dick?

    He already expressed what he'd do in the TVO interview. It certainly differs from your conjecture here. That's a problem, Tony.

  • mad_kalak||

    Did I just read an Alternet or Jezebel article, or a Reason.com article? I wouldn't be able to tell, except of the header at the top of my browser.

  • ||

    Lol. Another hit piece passing off as being 'reasoned'. Love the little shtick of describing the group of people listed as the 'IDW crowd' and 'IDW types'. Talk about misplaced condescension. Worse, they call people who enjoy their opinions as 'fans'.

    Fuck. You. I'm not a fan but see them as an inevitable push back against the progressive left who, in case you have not noticed, DO in fact take up quite a bit of space to the point of threatening free speech.

    Again. Like with Hinkle and Welch, this one shows a ridiculously shallow take on Peterson.

    As far as I'm concerned, Peterson did us a major favor in Canada in hitting back at a government that governs the country along identity politics lines. It's disgusting and divisive.

    He takes a hard stance against 'the radical left'. Big shit. They deserve it.

  • ||

    "...And yet the ragtag band of academics, journalists, and political pundits that make up the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW)—think of it as an Island of Misfit Ideologues—declare themselves, Trump-like, to be underdogs and outsiders."

    Awesome. Ragtag. Nice.

    And they are underdogs. What's the ratio of professors who consider themselves Democrats in universities again? It's the same in Canada.

    "and a view of themselves as victims of unfortunate and intensifying forces: identity politics, feminist militancy, transgender activism, illiberalism around speech."

    They don't view themselves as victims AT ALL. If you'd bother to pay closer attention, they're saying DON'T be a victim. Rather, they're responding and bringing to light issues of the left running rampant without a single push back.

    "Presenting themselves as brave and imperiled truth sayers facing down an increasingly "politically correct" populace, they offer their fans an immensely appealing proposition:"

    They do? Nobody says that, like, literally. It's his detractors saying this nonsense. Oh, look at those snowflakes who think he's Jesus. That's the media saying that.

    I listen out of interest (and maybe you should too) to most of these guys and it's really not that fricken hard to see what they're saying. And it certainly doesn't deserve these, what I perceive to be, condescending pieces.

  • ||

    (cont'd)

    "Blanket proclamations about those labeled IDW are of couse tricky, since the group is not only diverse in political affiliations and areas of expertise but also riddled with outliers. Quillette's Lehmann stands out as less inflammatory and condescending than others. Bret Weinstein also seems more willing than most IDWers to offer olive branches and exhibit a capacity for basic kindness. Lehmann, Weinstein, and a few others Weiss names (including author and academic Alice Dreger, who explains why she declined to be included in the New York Times article here) at least come across as more interested in truth and discourse than clicks and glory. On the other end of the tone spectrum, we have folks like Peterson, Rubin, and Shapiro, whose public personas are built around being deliberately provocative."

    /face palm.

    "...exhibit a capacity for basic kindness...."

    Are you for real?

    Didn't you call for someone to lose his job over a damn sandwich? Or how about Dalmia and her screeds on Twitter?

    I don't even know how to unpack this. Reason should be embarrassed at this sort of puerile emotional crap.

    In case you haven't noticed, but the left kinda breaks the olive branches. They've made clear they're not interested in 'diversity of ideas'. So not sure why this was brought up.

  • ||

    (cont'd)

    "Peterson, a psychology professor at the University of Toronto, skyrocketed to international renown for refusing to address transgender students by their preferred pronouns. His YouTube videos and recently published self-help book are full of sensible advice—interspersed with wisdom about how all feminists have "an unconscious wish for brutal male domination," rants against postmodernism (which has reached almost mythical megavillain status in Peterson's worldview), threats to hit other academics, and goofy parables about lobsters.

    Basically, Peterson is like the ideological equivalent of a fad diet: The basic advice is sound—and it may even help you reach your goals—but you could skip the more esoteric elements, like eating for your bloodtype or believing that wearing lipstick in the workplace is asking to be sexually harassed, and wind up in the same place."

    Thanks for the advice ENB. But I'll make that call.

    He did right to chastise the idiotic Liberal government for doing so. I have yet to see Reason investigate Bill C-16 and its potential for free speech abuse.

    Nah. Let's be lazy and pretend we understand these people because we've all seen these 'types' before.

    'Rants'. 'Goofy'. Peterson is a 'fad diet'. For pete's sake.

    Look, I don't agree with all of his takes. But I hardly view them as 'rants'. He's far more on the ball than not when it comes to the radical left. And the lobsters analogy is an interesting one - if not self-deprecating.

  • ||

    How's about you, Hinkle and Welch (and take Soave along) skip one cocktail party and actually put your noggins together and actually come up with a relevant and thoughtful response to his assertions. You've all mangled it in my opinion. You kinda get it but then go off the rails a little bit.

    Maybe Reason TV can do us all a favor and interview Peterson straight out?

    Ok. I'm done.

  • ||

    Edited: How's about you, Hinkle and Welch (and take Soave along) skip one cocktail party and put your collective noggins together and actually come up with a relevant and thoughtful response to his assertions?

  • ThomasD||

    "Maybe Reason TV can do us all a favor and interview Peterson straight out?"

    That would be enlightening. Although I doubt they would cover any new ground. Which is about the worst indictment I can imagine.

    Although there is nothing about 'free minds' that says they cannot stay hidebound.

  • Benitacanova||

    What a whiny piece of whining.

  • RockLibertyWarrior||

    Fucking "Reason" I am about done with this fucking publication that used to be "libertarian" they really aren't anymore, their water carriers for the regressive left. I am sick of this shit, the PC left are dangerous, they want to get rid of free speech and they wouldn't mind lining up libertarians and conservatives in front of a firing squad. Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin etc. are way braver than any of the fake libertarians that now run "Reason" and their right, the PC left is out for control and blood. I will read "Reason" a little longer to see if they get back on track. I am not holding my breath.

  • Hochmeister||

    Good grief Reason What is your beef with this guys? Especially Peterson which you can't seem to give an honest reading of and he is about as libertarian as they come.

    You just printed an entire article on the marginalization of political viewpoints and did not even mention Youtube demonetization of 'controversial' views. Unscrew yourselves.

  • ThomasD||

    ENB is just following the latest directive from her Journolist kommissar.

  • Trumptard||

    Should I read this?

  • Trumptard||

    Should I read this?

  • Azathoth!!||

    The maggots have turned into flies. The meat is mostly gone or liquefied. The bones jut from putrefying puddles of what was reason. Soon there will be nothing left but the single celled scavengers, slowly composting the odiferous remnants that occasionally ooze forth back into the muck from which they were raked.

  • john donkey||

    "what they share is a disdain for modern center-left orthodoxies"

    So the "Intellectual Dark Web" is pretty much every American living more than 200 miles from either coast?

  • jos3||

    ok

  • jos3||

    ok

  • hoptygopty||

    Does this piece represent the view of the majority at Reason?

  • ejpoleii||

    You are quite wrong about the folks in the IDW. I've been a radical libertarian for over 40 years. Each of the people in the IDW have very interesting and informative things to say and they are responding to a wave of radicalism in academia and other areas that is very dangerous. I am familiar with many of their work. Rubin is an excellent interviewer and covers a number of subject very well. He has a fundamentally libertarian viewpoint. Peterson has a unique viewpoint relating religion and myths to psychological issues. He is not libertarian but has some excellent points with an evolutionary twist. Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying were run out of Evergreen by a confluence of radical students, faculty, and administration. I live in the area and have followed them for a while. While they are not libertarian, they are good teachers and scientists. Much of the fame that has come to the IDW folks has not been sought but is the result of circumstances to which they have been forced to react. I'm surprised that you have bought into the narrative of the opposition like you have.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Nice piece, Brown, and generous of the commenters to prove your point.

  • JLF1200||

    And what point is this?

    This article presents such a skewed view of these individuals it's almost like she wanted to parody the lazy coverage that brought about their popularity in the first place. *THE* reason their popular is because idiots with megaphones (literal and figurative) screeched a bunch of nonsense and unfairly labeled them all. And it continues at Reason, of all places.

  • GILMORE™||

    Scott Alexander dismantles some of the dumber-arguments being recycled re: the IDW

    (including a focus on some in this piece, but also Nathan Robinson @ Current Affairs, and others)

    Can things be both popular and silenced?

    the core complaint i've found so disingenuous about this: "But they're so popular! duh? they arent' being silenced!"-line...

    ... that this very magazine has *itself covered 100s of cases of campus speech-repression*, via Title IX, via SJW-mob, via Antifa mob, ... and similar examples of people in the business and media world getting careers destroyed because of PC-outrage (Brendan Eich? Kevin Williamson?)...

    the fact that the IDW is popular is that they're the only ones *able* to speak up on many of these topics without further risk to themselves. Others aren't so lucky.

    pretending that their popularity debunks their claims is ludicrous; they're popular for the very fact that they're so few people doing so. And they're only able to do so because *most* of them hew to particularly moderate, liberal positions in most other areas. (as i noted above).

  • GILMORE™||

    or, as scott put it:

    "" All else being equal, if an ideology is taboo, it should have fewer loud open activists per covert believer than an orthodox ideology. But that means the field is less crowded. If feminism has 1 loud activist per 10 believers, and the IDW has 1 loud activist per 1000 believers, then the feminist activist will generally be speaking to a college club, and the IDW activist to a crowded lecture hall. This will catapult the IDW activists to greater celebrity."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online