Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now…

Check out the new merch! — Donate…

Sign up for our email list… stay on the bleeding edge… 

We regret to inform you that once again, the Intellectual Dark Web is having a meltdown, and it’s over the same old tired topic: anonymous speech.

Anonymous online speech isn’t some outdated relic. It still matters, and in today’s clown world, it’s more important than ever. But IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) guys like Jordan Peterson and Eric Weinstein don’t seem to grasp that. Instead of addressing the actual substance of an argument, they zero in on who’s delivering the message. It’s a strange and insecure way to react to free speech.

READ MORE: Is Jim Jordan the biggest disappointment in Congress?

Because keep in mind, these are the same people who built their brands on supposedly pushing back against mainstream narratives, and yet they can’t handle a strong opinion or criticism from someone without a verified checkmark and a LinkedIn bio. Imagine being so rattled by an anonymous reply on X that you dedicate entire diatribes to why it shouldn’t be allowed.

But before we go any further, let’s break down who we’re talking about and what and who an IDW actually is.

The Intellectual Dark Web (IDW), or as some deridingly call it, the Intellectual Dork Web, is a label that’s been used to describe a group of self-proclaimed intellectuals who claimed to challenge the status quo. They claimed they were anti-woke, pro-free speech, and outside the establishment bubble. Think of guys like Jordan Peterson, Eric and Bret Weinstein, James Lindssy, etc., who were all rightfully perturbed that they could be punished for “misgendering” a transsexual. But somewhere along the way, many of these guys started sounding more like the establishment, mainstream institutions they were supposed to be pushing back against.

And that brings us to this clip of Eric Weinstein bellyaching about how the “marketplace of ideas” doesn’t work anymore because anonymous people say mean things online.

Watch:

One takeaway from that clip is that there’s a strange emotional pattern that keeps playing out every time anonymous accounts challenge the IDW types. Instead of debating the point or even ignoring it, they spiral. It’s a feminine, almost performative response, with no masculine logic. And it keeps happening. Whether it’s Jordan Peterson obsessing over anonymity like it’s some kind of moral failing or Eric Weinstein feverishly wringing his hands over market failures in the so-called marketplace of ideas, all of it reeks of the same thing: feminine insecurity dressed up as intellectualism.

READ MORE: They’re hiding something: All of Europe was ‘seconds’ away from total blackout…

Some say Jordan’s real problem with anonymous accounts is that he can’t punish what he can’t name.

Look:

Plenty of people believe that Jordan and other IDW types are controlled opposition, quietly doing the bidding of the censorship crowd. Without anonymous accounts, guys like him and a lot of politicians would face far less criticism, pushback, and well-deserved mockery.

Watch Jordan’s rambling plea to end online anonymity:

Jordan Peterson even went as far as messaging Elon Musk directly, urging him to get rid of online anonymity altogether:

Image

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1811918905582985273

Thankfully, Elon Musk had made it clear: X will protect anon accounts.

Look:

And right on cue, Jordan Peterson piped up with the same overly dramatic argument about how anonymous accounts will destroy the world:

This type of neurotic behavior from IDW doesn’t project strength or confidence. It reads like wounded pride. And it feels more like a social-emotional performance than a serious attempt to engage ideas.

Filmmaker and independent journalist Mike Cernovich picked up on this too. In response to a recent clip of Eric Weinstein discussing anonymous speech, Mike didn’t hold back:

Mike makes a solid point. These so-called intellectuals spend more time whining about anonymous accounts than addressing the actual criticism being raised; whether it’s from a real name or not should be beside the point. However, in their bubble, it’s the only point.

READ MORE: 100 former feds just accidentally proved exactly why Ed Martin must be confirmed…

That’s exactly why anonymity still matters. It gives people the freedom to speak up in a digital world that’s ruled by a mob mentality. Say something as simple as “secure the border” under your legal name, and the next thing you know, you’re labeled a racist, a Nazi, or whatever the cancel culture buzzword of the week is, and your whole livelihood could go up in smoke.

Perhaps Jordan B. Peterson (PhD) doesn’t understand the value of anonymous speech because he’s Canadian, not American. Anonymous speech is as American as apple pie, as we wrote a few years back in 2021.

Revolver:

The past year has shown that no celebrity or official is so powerful they are beyond the reach of the tech ban hammer.

Yet with all the focus on censorship of big names, conservatives risk forgetting about an all-important right in today’s tech-dominated age: The right to anonymous speech. Revolver readers don’t need to be told that it’s more dangerous than ever in America and the West more broadly to voice an opinion at odds with the official, regime-sanctioned one mandated in Washington.  A wrong word, or any word mentioned to the wrong person or in the wrong venue can destroy a career, a reputation, a livelihood. As America becomes an increasingly unfree society under the reign of the Globalist American Empire, the right to speak anonymously, as Revolver itself does on most articles, is crucial.

[…]

Anonymity has played a crucial role in advancing liberty from the earliest days of the American experiment.

The United States was essentially founded by the 1700s equivalent of an online shitposting cabal. John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,” uniting the colonies against the Townshend Acts, were published anonymously. Common Sense? Published anonymously. The Federalist Papers? An anonymous collaboration of John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton. The anti-federalists “Brutus,” “Cato,” and the “Federal Farmer,” whose arguments were crucial in bringing about the Bill of Rights, weren’t just anonymous at the time; their identities remain uncertain and speculative to this day.

Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has affirmed a right to anonymous speech, and with good reason. As the Court wrote in McIntyre vs. Ohio Election Commission:

Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation.

You can read the entire piece here:

Big Tech Unleashes a Sophisticated New Weapon in Their War on Online Anonymity

https://twitter.com/DarrenJBeattie/status/1586904550937600001

Funny how the so-called defenders of free speech and media contrarians sound a lot like the people they claim to oppose. Turns out, what they really want is full control over the narrative, and maybe a fainting couch too, because the lady vibes are off the charts.

Annual Ad-Free Subscription… Join the Fight and Support Revolver Now…

Check out the new merch! — Donate…

Sign up for our email list… stay on the bleeding edge… 

NEWSFEED — FOLLOW ON X — GAB — GETTR — TRUTH SOCIAL — BLUESKY