What Is the 'Intellectual Dark Web'?
"What we're really watching is a breakdown in society's capacity to reason with itself," former Evergreen State College evolutionary biologist Bret Weinstein tells The Fifth Column.
Matt Welch|May. 3, 2018 12:30 pm
Kmele Foster, Heather Heying, Bret Weinstein, Matt Welch ||| Anthony L. FisherAnthony L. Fisher
What is the "Intellectual Dark Web"? The technical answer might be, "A phrase coined by mathematician and Thiel Capital Managing Director Eric Weinstein to describe a loose confederation of left-right intellectuals who share in common an open, occasionally career-altering defiance of the 'gated institutional narrative' enforced by media/academia/Hollywood, particularly as concerns identity politics."
Vanity Fair writer Tina Nguyen is getting criticized this week by IDW types for a piece connecting ideological traveler Kanye West to the movement, which she characterizes as being "comprised of right-wing pundits, agnostic comedian podcasters, self-help gurus, and disgruntled ex-liberals united by their desire to 'red pill' new adherents." More charitably, L.A. Times columnist Meghan Daum contends that dark-webbers "wish to foster a new discourse that can allow innovative thinkers to wrestle with the world's problems without having to tiptoe around subjects or questions deemed culturally or politically off-limits."
Whatever the adjectives, it's a group of people, many of them familiar to Reason readers, who are interested in free speech and free thought, sensitive to intellectual conformity, and adept at using new media to route around hostile gatekeepers. Their ranks are generally said to include Jonathan Haidt, Dave Rubin, Jordan Peterson, Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Claire Lehmann, and James Damore.
One of the foundational members of the Intellectual Dark Web is Eric Weinstein's brother Bret, most famous for being at the center of the gobsmacking Evergreen State College controversy last fall. ...wide-ranging Fifth Column conversation about the IDW, campus free speech, identity politics, the race/IQ minefield, and Weinstein's (questionable!) ideas about regulation in academia and media....
https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/03/what-is-the-intellectual-dark-web (https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/03/what-is-the-intellectual-dark-web)
FYI Jordan Peterson has toured for weeks with Dave Rubin, often appearing before sold out audiences of thousands.
Peterson's book has been a best seller, since Jan. He has also recorded a series of lectures about the Bible.
What the IDW have in common, is love of true freespeech, and dislike of what the left has become, trying to silence free expression.
Ben Shapiro is the sole member that identifies as conservative,, but others identify as "Classical Liberals," or libertarians.
They are podcasters and youtubers, and do "long format" discussions interviews, etc.
@Sanguine
:BangComp:
***suicide***
I'm pinging a couple of TBRers who I think might find this interesting.
Please include me on future pings of Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, et al., @Sanguine.
Thanks! happy77
This one is great: Men Cannot Fix Crazy Women
I have great respect for both of these thinkers, and they present some very powerful stuff here. "There's nothing more dangerous than a weak man."
Which part?
Men cannot fix women. Actually, I'm aware that it might be pretty good, but they talk so fast the CC resolves it into one loooooooooooooong sentence each. I'm sure if I pop a pair of headphones on I could follow it a lot better.
...
@Sanguine
I too have a great respect for Pedersen and Paglia - I have respected Paglia for a very long time, and regard her as one of the few deep thinkers on the liberal side. In large part, I can accept her classic liberalism, even though I don't always or fully agree.
And as an aside (not meaning to jack the thread, as this is a great thread in its own right), this particular bit addresses very eloquently the subject matter than you and I have bandied about: Men and women are not equal, and never can be, because they are different. Two fully and completely different hierarchies, absolutely different power dynamics, and etcetera.
This is a brilliant piece.
This is *SO* *MUCH* *FUN*!!!
Every single one of these offerings deserves its own thread.
This thread sucks in that we can't pointedly discuss each of these brilliant pieces in depth!
THIS is the heady stuff I miss so much from TOS in her youth.
All the mere Republican blah, blah, blah, and all the pearl-clutching, exasperating news-watch nonsense and feral gossiping, can't hold a candle to this meaty stuff...
This is thinking.
Pinging a few more, some of whom might come back for this sort of platter.
@Smokin Joe
@DCPatriot
@don-o
@Mrs Don-o
@LonestarDream
@nathanbedford
Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro: Frontline of Free Speech (LIVE)
But, Youtube lets you slow it down or speed it up. I like listening at 1.25, just perfect for me. Unless they have a really high voice and then it sounds like they've been sniffing helium.
I wouldn't have figured you for a Paglia fan. But, then she is one of the most honest and clear thinking people I know of, so it makes sense.
And, yes, you and I are equal in the eyes of God and the law. We are not the same, we are not equivalent or interchangeable, but we are equal.
I know, right? I love the thinking going on! Makes me realize how intellectually dead things have been for a loooong time.
I do think it is why people don't understand Conservatism anymore. Why so many don't know what it even is, and why so much liberalism is creeping in...
When everything is down to 144 chars or less, all you really can do is rah-rah, or throw poo. WHY one is rah-rahing or throwing poo doesn't even matter after a while.
And, we have been deliberately and effectively dumbed down. Heck, people don't even recognize thinking when they see it now.
This is *SO* *MUCH* *FUN*!!!
Every single one of these offerings deserves its own thread.
This thread sucks in that we can't pointedly discuss each of these brilliant pieces in depth!
THIS is the heady stuff I miss so much from TOS in her youth.
All the mere Republican blah, blah, blah, and all the pearl-clutching, exasperating news-watch nonsense and feral gossiping, can't hold a candle to this meaty stuff...
This is thinking.
Pinging a few more, some of whom might come back for this sort of platter.
@Smokin Joe
@DCPatriot
@don-o
@Mrs Don-o
@LonestarDream
@nathanbedford
Actually the World View area of History/Archaeology wouldn't be a bad place to put them either. They fit in with those topics.
@HoustonSam ping
Thank you @roamer_1.
I have followed a few of these people off and on for the past year or so, since I discovered (late to the game) what varied content is available on Youtube. I no longer watch television in fact.
.............
How about making "The Intellectual Dark Web" a sub-board in Editorial/Opinion? This way each video could be posted separately and generate its own discussion.
@Sanguine
Bookmark.Yep, for later!
I do think it is why people don't understand Conservatism anymore. Why so many don't know what it even is, and why so much liberalism is creeping in...
When everything is down to 144 chars or less, all you really can do is rah-rah, or throw poo. WHY one is rah-rahing or throwing poo doesn't even matter after a while.
...
The very debates that exist on this forum indicate that there is no single, understood definition of "Conservative", even among a fairly small, self-selected group of contributors who live in the same culture.
At its root, what do we Conservatives believe?
How about making "The Intellectual Dark Web" a sub-board in Editorial/Opinion? This way each video could be posted separately and generate its own discussion.
@Sanguine
How about a broader Category "Videos? The list of IDW members is possibly 8-10 max, whereas there may be over 20 in a category of Live video podcasters, youtubers etc.
Dave Rubin
Jordan Peterson
Joe Rogan
Eric Weinstein
Bret Weinstein
Sam Harris
Brn Shapiro
Claire Lehmann-Quilette
Debra Soh
Heather Heying
Michael Shermer
Steven Pinker
Stefan Molyneux
Dougglas Murray
Majid Nawaz
Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Christina Hoff Summers
Lauren Southern
Tim Pool
Candace Owens
Tommy Sotomayor
Scott Adams
Larry Elder
Victor Davis Hanson
Prager Univ
+Sanquine for moderator?
The artificial constraints of social media certainly hamper effective thought, but frankly I think Conservatism has failed to articulate a coherent, overarching philosophy. What single principle unites pro-life, low tax, traditional marriage, RKBA, property rights, strong defense, etc? And if we could articulate this principle, how would we distinguish the American (more libertarian) version from the on-its-deathbed European (more statist) version?
The traditional definitions of Conservatism frequently hearken back to Edmund Burke's reaction to the French Revolution - established values are worth preserving precisely because they are established. Richard Weaver posited that Abraham Lincoln was the archetypal Conservative because his thought was principled; but there are principled versions of antithetical thought. More recent American incarnations tend toward a subsidiarity principle - smaller government is better - or a belief in the importance of religious faith or of social values rooted therein.
The very debates that exist on this forum indicate that there is no single, understood definition of "Conservative", even among a fairly small, self-selected group of contributors who live in the same culture.
At its root, what do we Conservatives believe?
All true, but the basic concept is better expressed by IDW than Videos. Particularly since there is not an official IDW membership list. It can be whatever we decide it is. Whaddya think?
@HoustonSam
I saw this posted on, of all places, Facebook the other day and it's been playing in my head ever since so I'll throw it out as a possible answer to your question
"I want a government that fits inside the Constitution."
I have followed a few of these people off and on for the past year or so, since I discovered (late to the game) what varied content is available on Youtube. I no longer watch television in fact.
Jordan Peterson has to be the archetypal example right now, and since his thinking is all about hierarchies and archetypes I'll boldly identify my expression here as distinctly appropriate.
[...] on the question of Christ he is evasive.
In my mind that doesn't make him a distinctly bad person, but it does give me an important perspective on his thought. I think Peterson is doing the world a lot of good simply by bringing serious thought to an audience which has never experienced it.
Less noteworthy as a pure intellectual is Ben Shapiro, but I also like and respect what I've seen of him.
Dave Rubin is probably the figure who is now most challenging to the left, if we exclude Milo Yiannopoulos.
Back to Peterson : I wonder whether his ability to use Youtube and Patreon will pioneer a return of discourse to an earlier day, when scholars drew most of their income from "side gigs" of teaching as independent thinkers, based strictly on the reputation they had gained through publication and the skill they displayed in instruction.
Bookmark.
How about making "The Intellectual Dark Web" a sub-board in Editorial/Opinion? This way each video could be posted separately and generate its own discussion.
@Sanguine
@Right_in_Virginia
GAK. Howabout 'The Big Think' or 'The Pipe and Chair' or something and not lend credence to liberal tags. :shrug:
The artificial constraints of social media certainly hamper effective thought, but frankly I think Conservatism has failed to articulate a coherent, overarching philosophy. What single principle unites pro-life, low tax, traditional marriage, RKBA, property rights, strong defense, etc? And if we could articulate this principle, how would we distinguish the American (more libertarian) version from the on-its-deathbed European (more statist) version?
@Right_in_Virginia
GAK. Howabout 'The Big Think' or 'The Pipe and Chair' or something and not lend credence to liberal tags. :shrug:
I simply took the title of this thread @roamer_1 and suggested a format that would facilitate discussion --- which a sub-board would do because each video would be given its own thread.
@roamer_1, I am very disappointed by Yiannopoulos. He is very bright, articulate and quick witted, but he wastes it all on being provocative only.
I simply took the title of this thread @roamer_1 and suggested a format that would facilitate discussion --- which a sub-board would do because each video would be given its own thread.
I like the Big Think. Not too familiar with pipe smoking, so that does nothing for me.
Jump in @DB ... I'd love to hear what you have to say...
At its root, what do we Conservatives believe?
These people are not conservatives per se, but more so free speech advocates.
@roamer_1 Thank you for the kind invite. I'm buried on a work project that is going to take at least the next week to get working and it needed to be done yesterday... So I'm only popping in to try to stay current. Otherwise I'm trying to lay low and work... A number of people are depending on me to produce.
I bookmarked this thread so I could revisit it when I do have some time later.
That's another funny bit @truth_seekerI understand that. I think Reagan said that too.
We see this as separate things, they see themselves as separate things, but with a broad brush in mind, classic liberalism and libertarianism, by their principles, are found in Conservatism.
Ping to @Quix and @the_doc and @The_Reader_David
I understand that. I think Regan said that too.
@HoustonSamI think that is a great start, but there will be extensive debate on that.
I saw this posted on, of all places, Facebook the other day and it's been playing in my head ever since so I'll throw it out as a possible answer to your question
"I want a government that fits inside the Constitution."
I think that is a great start, but there will be extensive debate on that.
Even concepts so simple as being secure in your person, papers, and effects have been grossly distorted, the idea of "Due Process" warped beyond belief, the "Interstate Commerce Clause" and "Providing for the general Welfare" twisted beyond the imaginations of the founders.
We have to be able to define the Constitution using the intent of those who wrote it, including the definitions and boundaries they would have found to be common sense, or at least something they could agree upon. Between the perversion of the language and the decades of "progressive' thought injected into the very essence of our culture, first we have to drag the Constitution from the semantic morass and clean up the fundamental concepts of our Liberty in simple language--ironically, concepts many today who are dependent on Federal largess or programs, either for sustenance or employment, would heartily object to.
@Smokin JoeYep. One of a multitude of phrases which have been given meaning distorted by cultural reeducation.
You mean like this for example:
"With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
Constitutional architect James Madison in a letter to James Robertson
Hey @verga , over here...Thank you for the ping, I will have to get to this later, back to real life this week.
Yoohoo @RoosGirl
And, we have been deliberately and effectively dumbed down. Heck, people don't even recognize thinking when they see it now.I have been watching a lot of Tucker Carlson on you tube lately. I wish I could say I am amazed at the intellectual dishonesty of the left, but I am less and less surprised every single day. They refuse to answer straight forward questions. And not just on one subject, but a wide array, every thing from gun control to illegal immigration.
I have been watching a lot of Tucker Carlson on you tube lately. I wish I could say I am amazed at the intellectual dishonesty of the left, but I am less and less surprised every single day. They refuse to answer straight forward questions. And not just on one subject, but a wide array, every thing from gun control to illegal immigration.I have been enjoying the cognitive disconnects which permeate television programming. One recent one whined about an annual whale hunt in the Faroes like it was the holucast (visit a slaughterhouse sometime, where land mammals are harvested), limited now to a catch of 800 and regulated, but maintained that the hunt which had been going on as a way of life since the Vikings "wasn't sustainable".... 9999hair out0000
I have been watching a lot of Tucker Carlson on you tube lately. I wish I could say I am amazed at the intellectual dishonesty of the left, but I am less and less surprised every single day. They refuse to answer straight forward questions. And not just on one subject, but a wide array, every thing from gun control to illegal immigration.
I like Tucker and watch him regularly, but he doesn't go after them like he should. There's many times when he should have the facts at his fingertips and be able to destroy their arguments, but he pulls his punches. Assuming he has those punches.Right now my two favorites are Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. Here is the thing I can't understand how does anyone in their right mind debate Shapiro. He always bring a Howitzer to a knife fight. He is armed to the teeth with facts and reason. And Crowdr is just drop dead funny. I love his "Change my mind" segments.
Right now my two favorites are Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. Here is the thing I can't understand how does anyone in their right mind debate Shapiro. He always bring a Howitzer to a knife fight. He is armed to the teeth with facts and reason. And Crowdr is just drop dead funny. I love his "Change my mind" segments.
We have our own sub-board now. If you want to post a specific video/article for discussion, you can make a new topic under this sub-board.
@Sanguine @Smokin Joe @roamer_1
I have been thinking about this a lot over the last 24 hours and, although I have no objection to the creation of this sub-board, I think I won't be spending a lot of my time listening to/watching people who already see things the way I do. I think I will spend my time trying to convert those who don't instead.
There is no better place to do it, @Bigun! I hope to see a lot of guests from Twitter viewing it. Please linger!
@Cyber Liberty
I'll definitely be checking in from time to time but likely won't be spending a lot of time watching youtube videos.
@Sanguine @Smokin Joe @roamer_1
I have been thinking about this a lot over the last 24 hours and, although I have no objection to the creation of this sub-board, I think I won't be spending a lot of my time listening to/watching people who already see things the way I do. I think I will spend my time trying to convert those who don't instead.
@Bigun, I can see how you might think that way, but some of the thoughts and/or combination of thoughts are quite unique and edifying. Some fascinating stuff in there.
I like Tucker and watch him regularly, but he doesn't go after them like he should. There's many times when he should have the facts at his fingertips and be able to destroy their arguments, but he pulls his punches. Assuming he has those punches.
Tucker Carlson's technique is to let them bring themselves down.
@Cyber LibertyI have a bit too much going on to spend much time on videos--I'd already have to have 48 hour days to take care of it all and get a nap.
I'll definitely be checking in from time to time but likely won't be spending a lot of time watching youtube videos.
I have a bit too much going on to spend much time on videos--I'd already have to have 48 hour days to take care of it all and get a nap.
Ah - sort of like the GWB method of maintaining the high ground?
@Smokin JoeUnfortunately, it is far more time consuming looking for suitable work (at suitable pay rates) than just working 14 hour days, and then there are the honey-do s that come with being home....
I hope at least some of that relates to making a living!
Unfortunately, it is far more time consuming looking for suitable work (at suitable pay rates) than just working 14 hour days, and then there are the honey-do s that come with being home....
One important distinction: Tucker snaps the trap shut when they hang themselves, W thought that was in poor form, so he let them escape. Half the time I wasn't convinced W thought he was correct.
As for Rubin and Crowder:
Steven Crowder and Dave Rubin Talk Trump, Cruz, Abortion, and Climate Change (Full Interview)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FfdhzYJPJA#)
Dave Rubin Fights #SJWs With Crowder | Louder With Crowder
StevenCrowder
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LR0XgUFKMR4#)
@Sanguine
I just listened to about 20 minutes of that and found it to be unbearably boring.
There is no better place to do it, @Bigun! I hope to see a lot of guests from Twitter viewing it. Please linger!
BAIXIN on twitter has been having fun tweaking the liberal hidiots.
Right now my two favorites are Ben Shapiro and Steven Crowder. Here is the thing I can't understand how does anyone in their right mind debate Shapiro. He always bring a Howitzer to a knife fight. He is armed to the teeth with facts and reason. And Crowdr is just drop dead funny. I love his "Change my mind" segments.
Yep. Shapiro is nigh on bulletproof. In debates, there is no wondering who will win. But I actually like him even better among friends... When he expounds upon Conservatism rather than destroying liberalism. Therein he shows his depth. That Rubin/ Pederson v Shapiro vid up near the top of the post is a good example.
I too enjoy Crowder, and his 'Change my Mind' series.
Interesting.
However, I would have started with this one: http://youtu.be/s6Ku_3wBsNg (http://youtu.be/s6Ku_3wBsNg)
Crowder can be an acquired taste.
There is an important difference, between "Winning college Debates," and "Persuading"
Shapiro is hyper-intelligent, but his gattling gun delivery pace is too much for some folks.
@roamer_1, I am very disappointed by Yiannopoulos. He is very bright, articulate and quick witted, but he wastes it all on being provocative only.
OK, what is BAIXIN? I don't find a twitter account like that.
Interesting.@Sanguine
However, I would have started with this one: http://youtu.be/s6Ku_3wBsNg (http://youtu.be/s6Ku_3wBsNg)
Crowder can be an acquired taste.
@Sanguine
Looks like that link got shot down.
From the perspective that you were created in spirit form BEFORE you became a "human being" isn't evolution. It is devolution.
So what is the task? What is the reason?
And WHY there is SO much resistance to the answer to those questions?
Thanks for the ping @Sanguine :smokin: :laugh: :tongue2:
Got this off of fox news:
Programming Alert
Steve Hilton's one-on-one interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson on 'The Next Revolution,' 9 pm ET
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5614615980001/ (http://video.foxnews.com/v/5614615980001/)
So, I'll try to watch it.
(https://i.redd.it/xnuil42m0gl11.jpg)
(https://i.redd.it/xnuil42m0gl11.jpg)
@Sanguine
Didn't have a chance to go through all of the many posts and videos that are here, but thought that this 24 minute video may be of interest to those following this topic.Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgReurGebJg#)
Description:
Nations survive and thrive when they're able to communicate clearly and honestly, and they can just as easily fall to pieces when dishonest actors pollute or confuse language as a means of obtaining their ends.
We're swiftly reaching a point in which the two sides of the ideological fence can hold nearly polar opposite definitions of the exact same words or concepts... a point in which true communication becomes impossible, and the prospect of very real violence looms on the horizon.
The men who built this nation took great pains to establish order and structure, institutions and codes of conduct that allow for harmony and balance. Many take it for granted that peaceful civilization is simply how things are, forgetting the courage, devotion, and intellectual energy required to create and maintain such a state of being. The more we turn our backs on their collective wisdom and rush to embrace a modernist viewpoint that stands at odds with the entirety of human history, the closer we stumble to a complete societal breakdown, and the law of the jungle.
This video explains why clarity of thought and speech may be the key to diffusing this time bomb, and how accurate communication is the best means of countering those forces seeking to destroy the foundational concepts behind western civilization.
@Sanguine
Oh, I don't know, whatever you think is best.
(I thought that we were supposed to be adding on to the existing thread...)
Asha Logos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU7JpgUNUdapn8d8b0zMg3g (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU7JpgUNUdapn8d8b0zMg3g)
One of my Youtube channels. Weird. I thought I posted this vid. Maybe I thought I posted it on the robot thread that Machine Gun Sanguine wants to kill.
@Sanguine @EdJames
Asha Logos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU7JpgUNUdapn8d8b0zMg3g (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/channel/UCU7JpgUNUdapn8d8b0zMg3g)
One of my Youtube channels. Weird. I thought I posted this vid. Maybe I thought I posted it on the robot thread that Machine Gun Sanguine wants to kill.
@Sanguine @EdJames
:tongue2:
:MiniGun: (https://i.imgur.com/6fUmqjq.gif) (https://i.imgur.com/qmOlHgc.gif)
Could very well be, Fred, I may have missed it. I haven't been able to go through the whole thread yet, it is chock full.
I just came across this video in the past couple of days, old chum emailed me the link.
@Sanguine
Didn't have a chance to go through all of the many posts and videos that are here, but thought that this 24 minute video may be of interest to those following this topic.Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgReurGebJg#)
Description:
Nations survive and thrive when they're able to communicate clearly and honestly, and they can just as easily fall to pieces when dishonest actors pollute or confuse language as a means of obtaining their ends.
We're swiftly reaching a point in which the two sides of the ideological fence can hold nearly polar opposite definitions of the exact same words or concepts... a point in which true communication becomes impossible, and the prospect of very real violence looms on the horizon.
The men who built this nation took great pains to establish order and structure, institutions and codes of conduct that allow for harmony and balance. Many take it for granted that peaceful civilization is simply how things are, forgetting the courage, devotion, and intellectual energy required to create and maintain such a state of being. The more we turn our backs on their collective wisdom and rush to embrace a modernist viewpoint that stands at odds with the entirety of human history, the closer we stumble to a complete societal breakdown, and the law of the jungle.
This video explains why clarity of thought and speech may be the key to diffusing this time bomb, and how accurate communication is the best means of countering those forces seeking to destroy the foundational concepts behind western civilization.
The artificial constraints of social media certainly hamper effective thought, but frankly I think Conservatism has failed to articulate a coherent, overarching philosophy. What single principle unites pro-life, low tax, traditional marriage, RKBA, property rights, strong defense, etc? And if we could articulate this principle, how would we distinguish the American (more libertarian) version from the on-its-deathbed European (more statist) version?
The traditional definitions of Conservatism frequently hearken back to Edmund Burke's reaction to the French Revolution - established values are worth preserving precisely because they are established. Richard Weaver posited that Abraham Lincoln was the archetypal Conservative because his thought was principled; but there are principled versions of antithetical thought. More recent American incarnations tend toward a subsidiarity principle - smaller government is better - or a belief in the importance of religious faith or of social values rooted therein.
The very debates that exist on this forum indicate that there is no single, understood definition of "Conservative", even among a fairly small, self-selected group of contributors who live in the same culture.
At its root, what do we Conservatives believe?
Wow, I just stumbled on to this, and a lot of the people you are all mentioning are people I read and follow.
At the very least, I follow on Twitter.
The artificial constraints of social media certainly hamper effective thought, but frankly I think Conservatism has failed to articulate a coherent, overarching philosophy. What single principle unites pro-life, low tax, traditional marriage, RKBA, property rights, strong defense, etc? And if we could articulate this principle, how would we distinguish the American (more libertarian) version from the on-its-deathbed European (more statist) version?
The traditional definitions of Conservatism frequently hearken back to Edmund Burke's reaction to the French Revolution [...]
The very debates that exist on this forum indicate that there is no single, understood definition of "Conservative", even among a fairly small, self-selected group of contributors who live in the same culture.
This is where it's at, @GrouchoTex!Where the cool kids hang out @Sanguine!
Where the cool kids hang out @Sanguine!