This whole idea of Malinformation is interesting, this is defined as true information that is dangerous, and the tactic for dealing with it is to use disinformation to prebunk it. But who decides what true information is dangerous? A very interesting clip of Eric Weinstein hypothesizing about this:
Link: https://youtu.be/PbAVTEbGF3c?si=DMP4DlDZhp6K7ZoY
"excitement" in their lives ;-)...from the attached article on the IDW...
-----------------
Internal disagreement
Some writers, including Cathy Young, have expressed uncertainty over whether they belong in the intellectual dark web.[30] Historian of medicine and science Alice Dreger expressed surprise in being told she was a member of the IDW at all. After she was invited to be profiled in the New York Times article, she stated that she "had no idea who half the people in this special network were. The few Intellectual Dark Web folks I had met I didn't know very well. How could I be part of a powerful intellectual alliance when I didn't even know these people?"[31]
In November 2020, Harris distanced himself from the movement, saying that he was "turn[ing] in [his] imaginary membership card to this imaginary organization", because some unidentified members of the group were propagating President Donald Trump's false claims that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen through voter fraud.[32] He later described the focus on COVID-19 vaccines by Bret Weinstein as being "completely crazy".[33]
In 2021, Dave Rubin described a growing ideological split among the early IDW. According to Freddie Sayers, Rubin includes Bari Weiss, Sam Harris, and Bret Weinstein among "those who believe the tools of liberalism can still be deployed to persuade the Woke Left to change their mind", while Rubin believes that isn't possible, and that he is "better off building bridges with the Right".[34]
----------------
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_dark_web
Which, if not obvious to you, means they are different people.
But yes, the so-called IDW, is a place for open debate, which means disagreement. That is what you, err check that, I want. Discuss ideas in an open public forum.
I'm all for it...but I follow the guideline of "In God we trust...all others bring DATA"...sadly, too many of these IDW folks don't place any trust in data...they'd rather splash around in free-thinking theories and hypotheses...take for instance COVID-19 vaccines...literally Billions of doses have been given out around the world, with extremely close monitoring for adverse effects (e.g. "VAERS" in the U.S.)...and the net results show phenomenally safe drugs...yet, IDW 'members' among others theorize that they aren't.
Basically, very intelligent people who lack the fundamentals of WISDOM...what a waste.
Wikipedia is not even accepted as a source in my daughter's high school freshman history course.
works...it's expected that users will avail themselves of those references to get a full perspective...mine is that hypotheses are fine, but without testing to confirm or deny, they are 'etherial' and good for conversation, but not action.
We saw suppression of accurate information, and we were told that accurate information was misinformation...in the election, during covid...it goes on today.
As that guy says, experts are saying things within their own field that even "normals" can tell are lies. We see it here.
In another forum, and here, I see healthy reflexive skepticism and irrational reflexive skepticism. Problem is, the "experts" say that all skepticism is bad (when applied to Leftist policies), not just the irrational reflexive skepticism. So, they fan the flames of the irrational right.
I also see us stealing from our children every year. That is what deficit spending is. I can't take people seriously on a long term issue such as climate change when they are willing to take long term positions which steal from their children to such an extent that they are willing to destroy the best nation that has ever existed...to the detriment of future generations around the entire world.
Jordan Peterson, while talking about hierarchies stated something to the effect of: There are only two types of hierarchies, ones based on competence and ones based on narcissism. This statement seems to be related to hierarchies based off of narcissism.
Oh, by the way, the rest of the quote was: If you're competent and not a narcissist and you find yourself in a narcissistic hierarchy, get the hell out, because they'll eat you alive. Not a direct quote.
the masses. How on earth can one be offering anything insightful or even profound if the masses understand it?
We simply can't be talking about the same person.
I once read of a symposium for historians. One of their own was the featured speaker. He was disinvited because his latest monograph was selling thousands of copies and non-academics were enjoying it. I'm speaking of that mindset.
(no message)
Link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jordan-Peterson-9
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)