I'd say this is a more intelligent and balanced article about the IDW. But then again, you'd expect me to say that.
In other words, it's a leftist hit-piece. Let's go through the things it gets wrong, shall we??
https://forward.com/opinion/400698/no-dark-web-intellectuals-like-sam-harris-and-jordan-peterson-are-not/Reading the New York Times’ op-ed page, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the most dangerous threat to free speech is leftist totalitarians who criticize or protest against the right. Bret Stephens chastises leftists for criticizing right wing commentator Kevin Williamson; David Brooks bemoans leftist campus protests, and Bari Weiss often does the same. The Times seems obsessed with finding victims of so called silencing.
The latest foray into this redefinition of free speech can be found in Weiss’ most recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, about a self-styled group of pseudo-intellectuals dubbed the “Intellectual Dark Web.”
The I.D.W., as it is referred to throughout the piece, is a loose affiliation of very successful left-hating pundits who strenuously claim to be oppressed. Among those Weiss cites as members are the conservative writer and speaker Ben Shapiro, whose podcast gets 15 million downloads a month; the Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson, whose self-help book is a bestseller and whose youtube videos get millions of views; New Atheist Sam Harris, who also has a very successful podcast; and critic of feminism, Christina Hoff Sommers, who has a sinecure at AEI.
These are people with large platforms, successful careers, and scads of cash. They are also people who, Weiss claims, are frequently and harshly criticized. For expressing beliefs such as “the existence of fundamental biological differences between men and women” or believing that “identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart,” these authors “have met with outrage and derision — even, or perhaps especially, from people who pride themselves on openness.”
Weiss presents the criticism of this counter-cultural vanguard as unfair, stifling, and obviously hysterical.
And yet, there’s an internal paradox in her criticism. Surely if you believe in free speech, then you should believe in the right of people to freely deride viewpoints they disagree with and find harmful, even when the derision is misguided.
The I.D.W., as it is referred to throughout the piece, is a loose affiliation of very successful left-hating pundits
Bret Weinstein, his wife Heather Heying, his brother Eric Weinstein and Lindsay Shepard are all self professed liberals and only Eric is particularly wealthy. This line is a lie.
These are people with large platforms, successful careers, and scads of cash.
Again this only applies to some of them. The problem comes when these people attempt to speak on college campuses when they are invited by student groups. ANTIFA and their dipshit acolytes consistently try to shut these events down so no one can hear an alternative viewpoint.
For expressing beliefs such as “the existence of fundamental biological differences between men and women”
This isn't a belief, it's scientific consensus. Heather Heying pointed this out at a speech at Portland State University and the snowflakes in the audience went balistic. They called her a Nazi then wrecked the sound equipment. So tolerant, so open minded.
believing that “identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart,”
Another fundamentaly true statement.
these authors “have met with outrage and derision — even, or perhaps especially, from people who pride themselves on openness.”
Yeah, we've all seen their definition of "openness". Physically attacking people they disagree with, shouting down speakers they don't like. So tolerant, so open minded.
