There were so many things to enjoy about the Andrew Neil interview.

I liked how Shapiro seemed genuinely incapable of figuring out the connection between being asked about his string of inflammatory comments and his book's content about how anger is a problem in American politics.

Yea I thought that was a funny part of the interview.

Any relationship with the “autistic dark web”- who are purportedly on a mission to “overpower” the nuerodiversity movement? Or totally different X dark web?

I read the NYT article. Sounds like a bunch of cults of personality. These never thrive in the mainstream, it's hard to cull dissent there.

Good for them that they occasionally meet up with competing views so their followers can get the impression that the battle is real and relevant.

But hey, at least it isn't just one of them. That's always a bad omen.

He was probably thinking of the "Dark Enlightenment".

And thinking about it again just now, I gotta say I'd prefer those guys. They openly state that they're racists and white supremacist and don't hide behinid the bull****. They'll get mad if you don't notice their defining characteristics.

Or maybe that's the wrong metric. Maybe it's not that they're not bull**** peddlers or cowards but rather simply they're just smarter and have figured out the natural definition for their beliefs.

"OK, I believe x, y and z... Hm... Well, I suppose that means I'm a white supremacist. Makes sense."

And we're all just waiting for the rest to figure it out. They're like,

"Hey wait a minute! Just because I believe x, y and z doesn't mean I'm a racist and white supremacist,'

and we're like, dude, those other white supremacists figured this out in like 5 seconds, it's not hard.

i was gonna start with this gif and go from there

What's the minimum amount of words I'd need to type to convince you this is the dumbest **** I've ever read?

Will just clowning this analogy work?

I've gotta assume nobody actively decided to put the dumbest **** at the beginning. That'd be way too risky of a maneuver.

One of the more annoying things about the online left is how so many of them seemed to have adopted a version of the one-drop rule in political taxonomy.

Fair assessment but my actual flaw is being a habitual gruncher. I made that post before I saw your much longer follow-up post.

In fact 3 of those 4 posts were obvious bad grunches considering the Dark Enlightenment also was thoroughly covered.

"An Open Letter to Progressives"

"Chapter 1 of 14."

I think one trait that you and (mostly hypothetical) white supremacists have in common is supreme willingness to dishonestly mischaracterize someone else's beliefs to fit your own narrative.

I think if what you said was true in any sense, you should be able to state a belief a member of the so-called IDW has that is shared by white supremacists. I seriously doubt you will be able to do this without misrepresenting said persons belief.

I love how this guy got explained the "we call antifa the real fascists because they use violence" bit and thought that he could scale that down to "mischaracterizing beliefs". Aw yeah, you know the Nazis, they ****ing LOVE to uncharitably describe beliefs!

What the hell are you even talking about?

Also, your question is easy, "black people are dumber than white people due to genetic differences". Sam Harris believes that, as do probably ~90% of the rest of the IDW, as do you. You guys cloister yourself away from the left and only argue with strawmen so much you're just completely unprepared for contact with actual people who don't already agree with you.

But that's not even the end of it, because you've got it backwards. White supremacists and the IDW also both agree 2+2 is 4, and so forth. The more interesting question is where, in the arena of race and politics, does the typical IDW member DIFFER from a Klansman? Affirmative action, both oppose it. Black Lives Matter, neither a fan. AOC and Ilhan Omar not getting donations from either. Immigration? IDW members generally don't get that into the weeds with policy but I don't think any of them have really drawn a line over the child separation stuff or whatever.

This is the new Politics, son, you can fly the flag openly. Like you kinda popped back in here but did you see that the guy who took over for you in the battle against the regressive left did so by posting a link to Moldbug's blog? Not very hypothetical from where I'm sitting.

Their most fundamental difference with a klansman is similar to their most fundamental difference with the radical left. They would take issue with the view that political ideas should be viewed through the lens of group identity (whether racial, sexual, religious, or otherwise).

Is web status determinative here or can radio peeps also be in the Intellectual Dark Web? How does Paul Harvey fit into all of this?

Well, Shapiro does a radio show, so I do think radio personalities could theoretically be. But to answer your question, no, no one that died 10 years ago would make the cut.

I dont even know who Moldbug is, and I doubt I agree with him on a whole lot. But I am sure in your "reality" he and I are part of some abstract group of "you guys" and you will assign me made-up beliefs accordingly.

Just an incredible coincidence how overwhelming white, male, and wealthy the members are, huh?

This is something that Harris always faceplants on, there's no introspection by any of these people, they'll see a intersectional academic write about how white is the default race and they get mad, but their entire output is devoted to that exact concept.

But you see how, in your response, you never actually got to where the IDW and the Klansman disagree about the end product? Like actual real world policy, there's no daylight on any controversy.

The "IDW" is just a bunch of people doing their own thing. Eric Weinstein found some things they all had in common and came up with a label to describe it/them as a group. It's kind of nerdy but he does make a valid point in distinguishing what they are doing and why it's important

Here's what they actually believe

https://danielmiessler.com/blog/a-vi...cal-positions/


I think this is true but i think its just a tool in a larger tactic

Male aggression is obvious and well understood. Feminine aggression is different. They actually rely more on character assassination and gossip. This is a common tactic of the far left. Nobody is totally immune to this but they absolutely love it. Instead of actually arguing an idea, point, etc on its merits, you can just dismiss and avoid all of it by discrediting the source. The one drop tactic is a great tool for this. You don't have to actually defend or justify your position if the person you disagree with was on an interview show that once talked to alex jones. It's obviously an alt-right platform that can be deleted from discourse.
You don't even think IQ tests are valid

Does anyone have actual evidence of actual racism?

Kelhus- I don't think saying black people AREN'T genetically inferior to white people is off limits to this forum, buddy.

We literally just did this song and dance about Harris in the old forum, man, you guys can't think "I can't tell you what his views are, but I assure you, his critics are wrong" is persuasive rhetoric. Not when he's putting his views out on his own podcast.

Wow I'm shocked, who could've predicted a reactionary would disagree with his political opponents?

LOL what? Man you can't even work the quote tags

As far as I can tell, you seem to be basically acknowledging that you dont have a clue what you are talking about. Every time I point out that you are completely wrong in specific statements you have made, you have pulled a Trump and refused to even acknowledge it and just moved on. It seems pretty clear, you have not every listened/read anything actually said by the people in question that we are talking about, which is fine. However, given this maybe you shouldn't be making up stuff that you are claiming other people said that they didn't.

If % of members who are privileged white males is a metric for determining an organization is racist, than the old politics subform (currently exiledpoliticsforum) should be on the SPLC hate list.

Everything you highlighted that they have in common relates to their mutual dislike of the radical left. Regarding policy differences, a klansmen presumably would be in favor of affirmative action if it benefited whites. The IDW obviously would not.

I think ascribing this to male or female differences or thinking that this is a unusually characteristic of the far left is inaccurate. First, rightwing conservatives are at least as likely in my experience to dismiss an idea or claim by discrediting the source. Trump is of course the most prominent current example of this, with his constant claims that we shouldn't accept something as true because it is "fake news." But this isn't new, conservatives have for years rejected mainstream sources in both science and the press because they think they are biased against them or their views.

Second, the actual left in the US - eg people like Bernie Sanders, and especially the far left, are more likely to engage with people on ideas than people in or closer to the center. People in the center have more interest in policing the boundaries of discourse, since they are the ones who benefit the most from making some ideas too extreme to be considered. You'll notice that Sam Harris, who puts himself forward as a champion of open discourse, struggles to have conversations with people who are actually on the far left because their worldview has too little in common with his, and he isn't willing to bracket so much of his own beliefs in a conversation.

This is different than what I meant fwiw. The guilt by association stuff is often wrong and driven by a stultified perspective on the world. Many left people online have become habituated to assuming that most people who disagree with them are dishonest about their views unless they are stating that they hate minorities, women, poor people, etc and want to start the Fourth Reich. Since they think these people aren't being honest, they don't really care about the surface meaning of what is being said, and instead look for clues to their true underlying pathologies. Obviously, in this way of doing conversation, a focus on statistical correlations can be useful for sussing out your "true" beliefs and political attitudes. And, obviously, who you associate with will generally correlate with your political beliefs.

What I meant with the one-drop analogy was different. People's views usually don't fit into a neat left-right binary. For instance, someone might hold mostly leftwing views on a topic, but be okay with gun rights. Or maybe they are very conservative, but favor single-payer. The approach above leads people to take the actual complexity in people's views as a clue to their secretly held rightwing views (at least, when it is useful to do so). So if you have a single right wing view, that is a sign that you are right wing, whatever else you might say.