I'm sure by now all of you have seen the NY Times article on The Intellectual Dark Web.
The article was a heavy lift, trying to define something that previously had been undefined,
but was a solid foray into the mainstream for this eclectic group of people.
For the record, I believe the Intellectual Dark Web is defined as a diverse group of
thinkers, interviewers, comedians and academics who have been thrust together due to intellectual
curiosity, a desire for truth, and an absolute respect for an audience's ability to make
up their minds on their own.
There's an old Groucho Marx line, 'I wouldn't want to belong to a club that would have me
as a member.'
At first, that was how I felt about this whole Intellectual Dark Web.
We've had a pretty good thing going with this loosely associated group of free thinkers,
so why muck it up with something more formal?
I've come to see though, is this alliance, whether we have membership cards and a clubhouse
or not, is now one of the most important forces for reason that exists.
This crew of people, from Harris to the Weinstein Brothers, and from Shapiro to Sommers, have
all come from different walks of life, from different academic and career backgrounds.
What I believe to be the one unifier in this group is we haven't been going for easy answers
that make good soundbites but offer little real world value.
We've all tried, with success and sometimes failure, to communicate ideas the mainstream
media has either ignored of misrepresented because they often go against mainstream orthodoxy.
For example, Sam Harris has tried to make a clear distinction between ideas and people,
and why we must be able to criticize ideas such as Islam without becoming bigoted toward
Muslim people.
Progressive Bret Weinstein tried to show a progressive university that fighting racism
through racist acts, a day of absence at school for white people, was actually itself racist
. Ben Shapiro has brought basic ideas of conservatism to a younger generation that is being indoctrinated
with postmodern viewpoints.
Christina has tried to show people the original intention of feminism, a true equality for
women, has morphed into something about authoritarianism rather than equality.
All of these conversations are important ones to have because without conversation on important
issues the only option left is violence.
It doesn't mean you have to agree with anyone or everyone in this group of people, and they
themselves disagree on many issues with each other, but the failure of the mainstream to
honestly and maturely talk about these topics is exactly what drove so many of you guys
to us in the first place.
Contrary to many of the think pieces written after the original Times piece, none of us
in this dark web view ourselves as victims -- actually, it's the total reverse.
We are empowered by our ideas, in my case belief in the individual, and want you to
be empowered fight for what you believe in as well... even when you disagree with us.
I do want to address a few questions related to my role in all of this discussion and how
I view myself, as well as The Rubin Report.
One of the criticisms by Bari Weiss in the Times article was in essence about the gatekeeping
responsibility she feels the members of The Intellectual Dark Web should have.
So where are the lines we draw as to who we talk to, and what are ideas which we won't
touch?
If a conversation we're having could lead you down a rabbit hole of unsavory people,
is it incumbent on us to guard against this journey, or is it on you as the viewer to
decide what ideas and which people cause you to draw your own line?
I think you know my position on this, but I'll say it again: I, as an individual, make
the choices which I think are intellectually honest, and I then believe it is on you, the
viewer, as an individual, to decide which people and ideas you like or dislike, and
then follow up on these people and ideas yourself.
I've always felt this was the right way to look at being an interviewer, but I know that
not everyone agrees with this premise, including some people I like and respect.
I also have said many times before, along the way of making these decisions, I may make
mistakes, but I'll always try to do what I think is right.
There's also an interesting guilt by association situation developing here.
My friend and mentor Larry King could spend a week in 1994 interviewing David Duke, Louis
Farakhan, the cast of Seinfeld, Michael Jordan and Frank Sinatra.
Nobody in their right mind felt that meant he was friends with, or endorsed all of those
people's views.
Somehow, and maybe this is just partly because of YouTube and social media, these days if
you even talk to someone, a certain segment of people think this automatically means you
stand by everything they've said and done.
I view this as patently absurd, and actually quite dangerous.
We have to be willing to push the sensible boundaries of people we are willing to talk
to, otherwise we're just talking to ourselves futhering the echo chamber mentality that
mainstream media fosters.
This brings me to a couple of people who I've had conversations with.
I seem to get most guff from having two specific people on The Rubin Report, as well as one
interview I did outside of the show.
I had Mike Cernovich on The Rubin Report in March of 2016, right when the Trump phenomenon
was breaking through.
At the time, I saw a lot of support for Trump online, but couldn't find any mainstream people
willing to talk about it.
Cernovich was one of the few vocal supporters of Trump, was a published author, and was
catching fire on social media.
My conversation with Mike was totally civil and actually quite interesting to me, as I
hadn't heard anyone articulate sensible support for Trump before then.
As the next two years unfolded, Cernovich was a central figure in conspiracies such
as Pizza Gate, while also being at the front of Hillary's health issues, which the media
ignored until she passed out in front of her SUV on that fall day in 2016.
Let's not forget that Donna Brazille actually confirmed Cenrovich's reporting when she said
the DNC was actually thinking about replacing Hillary at once point during the campaign.
I didn't know about some of Mike's distatesful blog posts which were written before I sat
down with him, and I certainly can't be held accountable for what anyone does after they've
been on the show.
What I CAN be held accountable for is the way I conduct myself in an interview with
a controversial person, which thus far I'm absolutely proud of.
One of the reasons I wasn't surprised by the election of Trump was because of that very
conversation with Cenrovich.
So, while mainstream media ignored figures which were deemed deplorable and felt Hillary
was a shoe-in, I dared have the conversations which allowed me (and hopefully you?) to see
the future more clearly.
The other interview which people were upset by was my chat with Stefan Molyneaux.
Stefan is heavily focused on Race and IQ, which not a discussion I'm a pro at, nor one
that I care to focus on at all.
Actually, I asked him this very question during the interview: what is it about race and IQ
that he feels the need to talk about it so much.
His answer, in essence, was that he talks about it because he finds it so troubling.
His answer is for you the viewer to either accept or reject.
Perhaps I could've poked or prodded in another way, but I felt trying to figure out why he
thinks as he does is what my job was.
The other important one to address is that I did Alex Jones show back in February of
last year.
This was right after my "Why I Left the Left" video came out from Prager U., and I was getting
a ton of press requests.
That week I also did Tucker Carlson on Fox News, and would've been just as happy to do
MSNBC or CNN had they invited me.
My feeling as I've said in a couple livestreames since, was that if I went on Jones' show and
it was aired live and unedited, I might be able to bring my message of conversation and
classical liberalism to Jones' audience.
I know it worked by the way, because I've received dozens of messages from Jones' fans
who said how nice to was to hear a different perspective, and since then they've been challenged
by other interviews we do right here.
The criticism of course, is that I somehow legitimized Jones by doing his show in the
first place.
I don't see it that way myself, but I'm sympathetic to the argument, and as Uncle Ben said to
Peter Parker, with great power comes great responsibility.
I don't think a year ago I had great power, but as things have ramped up around here,
it appears these days I do.
I should also remind you that there are plenty of people who wouldn't want me to sit down
with Jordan Peterson because they say he's alt right, or Sam Harris because they say
he's anti Muslim... charges that I, and you, know not to be true.
This is the dangerous place we are in when we all act like the gatekeepers of others
capacity to make decisions for themselves.
With all this in mind, I'd like to offer up three Rubin Report Rules going forward.
1.
I will keep the focus more on ideas, than people.
This won't always be totally possible, but I'll always do my best to honor the principle.
2.
I will continue to interview potentially controversial people, but will increase my efforts to shed
light on ideas they have that I am concerned are unsavory.
I will give them a chance to explain themselves, as I believe sunlight is often the best disinfectant.
If I'm cordial to someone it doesn't mean I endorse them.
I think we're in danger of eliminating conversations that are necessary to understanding the big
picture because some of us, including myself, may feel compromised by listening.
Trump's election and and Brexit we're only surprises if you turned up your nose to listening
to half the electorate.
3 . I'll keep trying to build bridges in some places where others would reflexively burn
them down.
This is always tricky because I naturally don't want to legitimize bad actors, but I'll
always try to see if there's room to make inroads with someone where I may have been
trained to think they were a sworn enemy.
My bridges won't be built everywhere though, we've got to have some standards of decency
to make sure that the ideas we want to build upon here aren't sitting on a mound of quicksand.
As what we do here gets put more into the spotlight, I have more of a responsibility
to live up to the ideals that I've laid out here.
I'm never going to make everyone happy and its why at the end of the day I can only answer
to my own conscience.
I believe we are starting to win in the public square and this will now bring all sorts of
new people our way.
2018 is undoubtedly the year of Unusual Alliances.
The invites have been sent out, so now let's see who shows up to the party.
For more infomation >> 20 Years Later: A dark day in the history of the Tampa Police Department - Duration: 1:48. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét