This past week Bari Weiss published yet another opinion piece advocating for, according to the left, “right wing” viewpoints.
Her piece mentioned the workings of the Intellectual Dark Web. This Dark Web provides a space for commentators, journalists and other “intellectuals” to share a spectrum of ideologies that society might deem as offensive. The whole purpose of the article is to promote anti-identity politics and provide a space for a diversity of ideas.
Seems pretty harmless right? Well, just like every Bari Weiss piece, left-wing pundits were not sold on the I.D.W. idea. Twitter blew up with the disapproval of Weiss’s piece and criticism flooded her Twitter account.
Writing for the New York Times Op-Ed, Weiss is expected to publish pieces that are going to fit into her viewers’ ideologies. How dare she mention some of the “intellectuals” represented in the piece. More specifically Ben Shapiro, Sam Harris, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, and Jordan Peterson. I can guarantee if these names did not participate in the I.D.W. this piece would not have gotten the backlash that it did. Just proving the point further that left-wing pundits are not open to right-wing -or for that matter semi right-wing- discussion.
I would be naive to think right-wing pundits embrace left-wing ideologies, but the concept of the piece is to encourage all sides- left, right or center- to have thicker skin when listening to opposing views. Of course, not everyone is going to walk away from a conversation with their minds changed. But regardless, it encourages different viewpoints to be heard in a highly polarized America. It also breaks down the importance of individual thought, instead of identifying with specific identities.
So why is this bad?
Well, many left-wing pundits missed the point of Weiss’ piece. In particular Editor in Chief of Current Affairs, Nathan Robinson with his spin doctoring and inaccurate criticism. Nathan attempted to manipulate Weiss’s piece with his counter piece“Pretty loud for being so silent.”
Before I proceed, Nathan J Robinson is a brilliant individual who has produced amazing work. From his piece on Death Row Inmate Robert Pruett to other cultural and political articles; every fanatic of the I.D.W. should undoubtedly read Current Affairs.
With that being said, my critique is not on him personally but on his piece “Pretty Loud For Being So Silent” and his uncanny obsession with Jordan Peterson and in particular Ben Shapiro. Yes, Robinson read a Shapiro op-ed, and got upset that The New York Times publishing something outside his ideology, spent a few days studying Shapiro, wrote a hit piece on Shapiro and now considered himself Shapiro’s kryptonite.
Robinson also spoke at UConn the same day Shapiro did. God forbid a conservative speaks at a college. This bitterness towards Shapiro drove Robinson to schedule his speech the same day and time as Shapiro to “prove” to the students that Shapiro’s information is wrong. I guess it is safe to say Nathan has an obsession with Ben.
I caught wind of Robinson’s piece when Current Affairs dropped the link to the article on one of Shapiro’s tweets, so I checked it out. The piece starts by encapsulating Nathans views of the I.D.W. and touches on Bari’s piece by writing,
“The “intellectual dark web” is neither on the dark web nor comprised of intellectuals. It is a phrase coined by one of Peter Thiel’s deputies to describe a group of people who share the following traits in common: (1) they are bitter about and feel persecuted by Leftist Social Justice Identity Politics, which they think is silencing important truths and (2) they inhabit the internet, disseminating their opinions through podcasts, YouTube, Patreon, etc”
Observing this, it’s clear Nathan is missing the point of Bari’s piece. I.D.W. is not a cult of different ideas coming together to complain about the persecutions they receive from Leftist Social Justice Identity Politics. Remember, Sam Harris supported Hillary, Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist, Bret, and Eric Weinstein are Bernie supporters and yes, Shapiro and Rubin are right wing. Regardless of their popularity or profit, Step back and take a look at the big picture and tell me where else you find this clash of different ideas being shared. This is a rare sighting of individuals with different ideologies. The website wasn’t created to voice the suppressed journalist and commentators, but rather the expressing of different viewpoints that should not be deemed offensive or attempted to be silenced.
Robinson is remarkable with advocating for diversity or race and cultures but when it comes to different ideas he finds it necessary to put on his “thought police hat” and fabricate. But anything that mentions Ben Shapiro needs to be criticized in Robinsons’ eyes. Only if he had the ability to put political biases aside and embrace different viewpoints.
Nathan then goes on to write:
“Are they being “purged” as part of a “siege” on free speech by the illiberal left? It’s interesting that Weiss chooses to use the formulation “feeling locked out of legacy outlets,” since I seem to remember a great philosopher once saying that Facts Don’t Care About Your Feelings. These people may feel as if they are persecuted renegades, suppressed at every turn by Postmodern Neo-Marxists. But there are a lot of facts to say otherwise.”
Then goes on to mention the astonishing viewership and profit Peterson, Shapiro, Rubin, Rogan, and Harris receive. Yet again, Nathan is missing the point being made. Obviously, these journalists and commentators are not the ones being “Purged” or “sieged” but rather their viewers who have to stay silent because of their political ideologies.
Tolerant, accepting, white men and women who have built up frustrations reading New York Times’ pieces that continuously lump all white people into the racist category. The individuals who think there is a difference between men and women. Those who don’t believe women make 75 cents to every man’s dollar. People who have to keep silence because they question acts of racism on the news and are unable to express their doubt due to the fear of being deemed a racist. These are the people being sieged and purged. These are the ones supporting the I.D.W.
These are the angry people who breed from the notion of identity politics, leading to the uprise of popularity to the I.D.W.
Nathan continues with mentioning I.D.W appearing on mainstream news outlets and the success of Milo by saying: “ A major publisher offered Milo Yiannopoulos a $250,000 advance for his book on how dangerous his opinions were to the establishment. The book instantly ascended to #1 on Amazon” Let’s now step back and talk about who helped create the massive following of this monster, bigot, conservative known as Milo Yiannopoulos.
That’s an easy answer, the ultrasensitive left, that has created a counterculture of angry conservatives thrusting for anti-political correctness. Far right racism, sexism, and xenophobia actions are never justified, but the way the left has been handling those they assume to be bigoted (strictly by word of mouth) is also unacceptable. This unnecessary amplified anger towards the other side fuels only adds fuel to the fire.
Nathan continues by mentioning the huge influx of public hunger for anti-political-correctness and anti-identity politics with his statement about Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and Sam Harris, writing: “It’s a strange kind of oppression in which silenced dissidents keep getting book deals, op-eds, sold-out speaking tours, lucrative Patreons, millions of YouTube views, and sympathetic profiles in the world’s leading newspaper” Again, the counterculture of people fighting political correction and identity politics has resulted in the masses tuning in to these individuals.
Nathan cherry picks Weisse’s words when she mentions the members of the I.D.W who have been purged from College Institutions, by stating “Weiss says members of the Intellectual Dark Web have been “purged” from institutions. It’s not clear, though, which institutions she means.” And then goes on to mention the members she’s not talking about.
I think Nathan forgot about the time Ben Shapiro’s speech was literally silenced at the University of Wisconsin by angry protesters. Or when Jordan Peterson was “Shamed” for trying to preach the dangers of political correctness. Or recently when Dave Rubin had an individual play a damn tambourine when he was trying to give a speech at the University of New Hampshire.
To provide more examples let’s bring up the time Atifa rioted atUC Berkeleybecause Milo was scheduled to speak. Let’s not forget about longtime Christian critic and longtime friend of the left, atheist, Richard Dawkins, when his speech was canceled because he criticized Muslims.
So yes, some colleges are literally not allowing different viewpoints to be heard on campus. I can also mention social media suppressing conservative views, but that’s a different topic.
Nathan continues by ragging on Shapiro and Peterson by writing, “The members of the Intellectual Dark Web are attacked, supposedly, for their “ideas,” which they are eager to discuss “civilly” but which the left will not debate because it hates rational discourse. It’s a strange definition of civility, though. Shapiro’s speeches contain such civil remarks as “you can all go to hell, you pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses.” And his attack on Peterson stating “Peterson, when criticized in the New York Review of Books, did not respond with an extended rebuttal, but by calling the writer a “son of a bitch” and a “sanctimonious prick” on Twitter, and threatening to slap him in the face.”
I think it is justified to call Antifa “pathetic, lying, stupid jackasses” when they destroy millions of dollars worth of property and fight political adversaries. Let’s be honest, name-calling is one thing, shaking a tambourine or shouting RACIST, RACIST, RACIST when someone is trying to talk, is another.
Nathan hungers for a debate from the right wing prominent talk show hosts and journalist writing.
“Here’s another reason why I’m skeptical that our national Martyrs for Free Speech and Rational Debate are interested in actually debating ideas: I’ve tried to get them to do it. I wrote a long explanation of why I thought Ben Shapiro’s logic was poor and his moral principles heinous. Shapiro mentioned me when we both gave speeches at the University of Connecticut. Did he rebut my case? “
And.
“And yet I’m so eager to discuss ideas! A while back, a student group at a large public university contacted me asking me if I’d be willing to debate Dave Rubin on their campus. I said I’d do it for the price of a plane ticket, and if they couldn’t afford a plane ticket, I’d go anyway. They called me back the next day informing me that the debate wouldn’t be happening because Rubin’s representatives had asked for $15,000. So perhaps some of these guys are theoretically willing to engage the left. They just make it prohibitively expensive for anybody to actually make it happen.”
Shapiro, Rubin, and Peterson are at the top of the hierarchy concerning the conservative movement. It’s unfortunate, but these pundits are trying to make a buck off of their commentary and ideas. Let’s be real, they’re going after the most popular not, most logical.
I say logical because I personally believe Nathan is brilliant and I would love nothing more than to see him debate one of the Intellectual Dark Web members, but he first needs to build his fan base.
Nathan winds his piece down by stating. “illiberal leftism” emerges out of an anger at the sorts of people who love to talk but refuse to listen. They cannot see the hypocrisy in demanding that activists empathize with their perspectives without doing any empathizing of their own. ” I.D.W. members are not trying to deny the voice of their adversaries nor are they trying to prove they are right. Shapiro makes it a point to hear the voices of every college student who disapproves of his views and discusses the topic with them. He has his opinions and they have theirs.
The motivation behind the I.D.W. is to hear opposing viewpoints without criticizing the individuals because of their personal identity. The left, especially on college campuses, has created a hierarchy of victimhood and the members at the top (the most victimized) have the most credible opinion.
It is understandable why Nathan J. Robinson dislikes the I.D.W., more specifically Ben Shapiro. They don’t line up with their political beliefs and that’s fair. Shapiro is not your typical blunt, “troll-like” conservative, compared to others like Milo, Gavin Mcinnes, and Alex Jones. Shapiro comes off more sophisticated and rational, and this is why the left despises him.
What some left-wing “philosophers” need to realize is their lack of receptiveness, ultrasensitive, aggressive tactics towards those they oppose is fueling the conservative movement. So, if you are going complain about the Shapiros of the world you are going to get the Milos, Mcguinness, Jones, and Spencers. Lack of open ideas and opposing views fuel the support behind these beasts.
