This story resonated with me. I've been very dismayed by the direction political discourse has taken in the past few years. There is relatively little persuasion attempted. Instead, it's mostly personal attacks, shaming, namecalling, internet rage-mobbing and censorship.
It's not like these members of the inaccurately titled "Intellectual Dark Web" are actually interested in changing anyone's mind. The people on the left that they argue "refuse to acknowledge good-natured disagreement" also have no interest in this. They are both the evolution of the talking heads on cable news 24/7 and have a vested interest in controversy and uncompromising views so they can sell more books and podcasts. Each side feeds the other, victimizing themselves and vilifying the others to their base.
Like you, I also wish that more persuasion and compromise was attempted but these provocateurs have no interest in that and benefit from fanning the flames.
>Like you, I also wish that more persuasion and compromise was attempted but these provocateurs have no interest in that and benefit from fanning the flames.
Is there a particular passage spoken by one of these people that led you to that conclusion? Because that's not my takeaway at all. But if I'm wrong, I want to know.
Again, no substance. Just aggression. Showboating to his base.
I've listened to Jordan Peterson interviews and 90% of what he says doesn't make any sense. He speaks like any other self help author because that's what he is. He has generic platitudes that he speaks as gospel. He simply uses the far right to make money because they respond to his message more than anyone else (although he himself is not alt-right).
Shapiro has an extremely aggressive debating style (as that book title should tell you) and his primary focus at all times is winning an argument, not persuasion. In my opinion, he is smarter than Peterson and supports his views better but that's a pretty low bar to cross.
These are the only two I am familiar enough with to talk about off the top of my head. I plan on looking into other members of this movement later to see if they have any more merit than these two.
> It's not like these members of the inaccurately titled "Intellectual Dark Web" are actually interested in changing anyone's mind.
This is incredibly disingenous. That is exactly what they're trying to do, and quite successfully. Peterson's book sales are skyrocketing, and not among convinced rightists. Browse any conservative forum and you'll find that the vast majority of the new wave of conservatives are former liberals who were convinced by these people.
I browse conservative forums regularly and the only former liberals I see are rather obviously so young that they only reason they were liberals before is because they hadn't given it much thought. The number of actual liberal to actual conservative conversions, and vice versa, is incredibly small.
In my opinion, the best way to describe what you call conversion of liberals is radicalization of the youth. This is happening both on the right and the left, to varyi g degrees, probably because the two sides are more divided at the moment than they have been in the past.
Anyways, Peterson's popular book doesn't really have anything to do with his political stances. It's a typical self help book.
To your first point, all I can say is that I doubt it. I see a lot of moderate liberals becoming more conservative. It's anecdotal, of course, but it's everywhere.
> the best way to describe what you call conversion of liberals is radicalization of the youth
That might be accurate if Shapiro or Peterson were radical conservatives. Both fall squarely into the "social liberal" category.
> Peterson's book sales are skyrocketing, and not among convinced rightists.
That's because Peterson is a leftist. He has contrarian viewpoints on exactly two topics: pronouns and communism. Other than that, he's as left wing as they come. He's a great example of how bad the political discourse has gotten. The left won't even allow dissenting opinions among their own people.
