November Offender

Let’s see how long this lasts.

Advice to posters: use Tor and/or EasyPrivacy. 

Just to clarify: people should know that WordPress tracks the IP addresses of commenters. I absolutely do not intend to use that information in any way; but I wouldn’t blame you if you didn’t give much credence to an assurance from an anonymous person on the internet. So some slightly less apocalyptic and more nuanced advice: go to to see what information is carried by your IP address. If you’re comfortable (in the worst case scenario) with that information being associated with your comment, then post away. If not, then consider using Tor.

Update: comments with 2 or more links were being automatically flagged as spam. That shouldn’t be an issue anymore.


140 thoughts on “November Offender

  1. What the hell is going on here? Are they actually getting shut down by court orders? If you’ve run a meta(meta[meta])blog recently, speak up.


    but all you fucks want to do is gossip about grad students in the most invasive way possible, legality be damned

  3. I doubt there was anything illegal posted. But it sounds like the owner was threatened with legal action, which is what led to the shutdown.
    I, for one, would really appreciate it if commenters would refrain from posting personal information about grad students (and ideally about any untenured member of the profession). Even if you don’t think it’s a sleazy thing to do, hold back anyway for the sake of the health of the metameta(meta)blog.

  4. The Pilos,

    Don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for The Pilos blog. It is an excellent resource for our students and a tremendous service to members of the profession, both major senior figures and non-major senior figures alike.

    But let’s be perfectly honest. The Pilos gets one heap of hits, at most. Not “heaps of hits.”

    I must say I’m disappointed. Such exaggeration is beneath the integrity of your blog, which has now been besmirched. I think an apology is in order. I also have a list of demands, but I haven’t completed it yet. I’ll keep you posted.

  5. My initial reaction to Leiter’s post was relief that someone was pointing out the obvious problems with S&M’s piece. My secondary reaction was deep sadness and despair over the fact that Leiter’s critique will surely be seen as not obvious, controversial, and possibly outrageous to a large number of academics, philosophers, and supposedly thoughtful people.

  6. If the ‘grad student’ you folks are talking about is the famous one, then she’s very powerful and we weren’t punching ‘down’ but ‘up’.

  7. 8:52, I had the same thought, too. But it’s worth some qualification and reflection. How “powerful” is this grad student, really?

    To be sure, she has the support of many powerful people in the profession. But she just as surely has powerful people in the profession who aren’t so supportive. Nor is it obvious that having the moral support of powerful people in the profession carries over to having power in the profession. It doesn’t guarantee a high powered job, for example.

    More importantly, at the end of the day, she is a young person at the beginning of her career who has undergone what is surely a painful and stressful process at such a difficult stage. So, while she might be in a structurally advantaged position, she may not be in a psychologically good place to take advantage of it.

    So, while I don’t know if this is an obvious case of punching down, I think it’s equally questionable to say it’s a case of punching up. I’d err on the side of caution and just not punch at all, here.

  8. Thank you your criticisms have been taken on board and you will find a new updated approach over at the Pilos. We have taken what you say very seriously and after a roundtable discussion have decided to keep posting the best tenure track philosophy whenever possible. I will bow out of this discussion, having done my little bit to help out. Now it’s time for you guys to keep talking without me.

  9. “Making sure professors accused of rape by multiple students get to keep their jobs? What a noble mission!”

    It’s called innocent until proven guilty, and yes it is a very noble idea that our civilization is built on.

  10. You don’t know shit about Northwestern’s investigation, so I have no idea what you think “innocent until proven guilty” means here.

  11. The matter was investigated by Patrica Bobb, who was hired by NU. She found no evidence to support the allegation made by Leydon-Hardy, while Ludlow proved he was elsewhere (a hotel).

  12. Nope. Get the facts straight. The matter was investigated by Patricia Bobb, who was hired by NU. She found no evidence to support the false allegation; Ludlow was elsewhere – at a hotel. It was a false allegation by Leydon-Hardy. Ludlow was forced to resign this year because he was invited on a date by a woman whose later testimony contradicted the evidence, and because he had a consensual relationship with a woman who slept in his bed, told him she was “in love”, who called him her “boyfriend”, because he was “charming” and “bought dinner” and whose testimony two years later contradicted the evidence, and also contradicted her own earlier testimony.

  13. Uum, just because there is no evidence to support it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. She was asked to supply a date presumably months after the actual incident, do you remember the dates of events you experienced months later? The fact that Ludlow happened to be in a hotel on that night doesn’t prove or disprove anything at all.

    The reason for his dismissal was not due to the sexual assault report, presumably, but rather due to the finding of sexual harassment as found by that same report. This was probably considered alongside the finding that Ludlow was also guilty of sexual harassment of an undergraduate. Your “facts” are not “straight.” You do not have enough information to know anything. Get over it dude.

  14. When you make an allegation, you must provide evidence. Or are you saying a mere allegation is truth? The law requires that person is innocent until proven guilty. So, provide evidence.

  15. This wasn’t a trial in a court of law. There was an internal investigation about two instances of sexual harassment by the professor. NU found that both instances of sexual harassment were substantiated. They did not release their report, which was supposed to be held confidential. All information the public has about that report was given by the lawsuit filed by the professor. You do not have access to the evidence NU used to make that report, nor do you have any right to that evidence. All you have is what the professor chose to state as fact in his lawsuit. You do not have access to evidence which allows you to determine if the professor was speaking truly in that suit. You have no information about anything.

  16. Also, the idea that you are required to provide evidence in order to make an allegation is just ridiculous. That is not remotely true.

  17. I was really glad to see PMMB back, until I realized we were in for another 300 post thread of bickering between Femphiloons and Bronuts about Ludlow. I’m sick of Ludlow and his damn emails!

  18. 4:23 seconded. The Ludlow case is important and may well be a serious miscarriage of justice, but can we please talk about something else for a while? It’s not like there isn’t a ton of metablog-bait going on at the moment.

    Suggested topic of conversation/target of insults: Jason Stanley

  19. I think Leiter’s takedown of Stanley/Manne is on point, and I am continually surprised that Leiter has become the voice of reason.

  20. I’d like to discuss the idiotic, passive-aggressive backlash to Leiter’s critique of Stanley and Manne in the form of what DN calls “quite possibly the definitive article on the campus free speech controversies” and what FP calls “a glorious article”:

    “Excuse me? Why are we coddling Brian by not allowing his education to be disrupted for fifty minutes as I repeatedly yell “FUCK BRIAN” while standing on a table and waving my hands in the air?”

    I’m absolutely flabbergasted that people think this crap is witty or on point. Do they not see the irony that it is THE STUDENTS THEY”RE DEFENDING who want to go around yelling FUCK YOU? And that the people they’re criticizing, far from yelling FUCK BRIAN, sent out a painfully polite, self-effacing, and apologetic “allow me to disagree” email?

    I’ve actually read some defenses of the students that were reasonable, if misguided. But I cannot have any faith in a profession where people publicly announce that this unintentionally self-undermining, hypocritical piece of failed satire is brilliant, and get high fives for doing it.

  21. +1, nanon. To my friends on FB who have been sharing that: what the fuck are you thinking? (Perhaps it’s just more evidence that social media is nothing more than a tool for virtue signaling).

  22. Eh, 2:21? Not sure why you seem unable to understand points so simple they are understood by children. One is required to provide evidence in order to justify the claim one has made. The claims that one accepts should be based on evidence. This is elementary. If there are “philosophers” who don’t understand even the simplest ideas about justification, the profession is in very serious trouble. And this point – a point about intellectual incompetence – is true independently of the related moral point, namely the immoral feminist practice of distributing serious and damaging false claims about individuals, for which there is no evidence.

  23. I’d kind of hoped JW was beginning to come to his senses when the rhinos started charging him for a change in the McKinnon Twitter incident. But no, he’s turning back in to one of the rhinos.

    P.S., so relieved to have PMMMB back, if only to have the minute–but surprisingly comforting–reassurance their are at least a slight variety of different forms of crazy and group-think to choose from, not only one.

  24. No law exists, 6:38, in the United States against being charming or buying dinner for someone who calls you her “boyfriend”, says she is “in love” and sleeps in your bed. There is also no evidence for Leydon-Hardy’s allegation.

  25. 9:57,

    JW tweeted praise of a small quote from an article defending Germain Greer’s criticisms of the transgendered (a quote that wasn’t really about the Greer or transgender issue). McKinnon was morally indignant, and demanded an apology. JW didn’t apologize.

    You’ll find the Twitter exchange here, but I think some of it occurred on Facebook, too:

  26. In Barne’s interview and comments she keeps saying ‘we’ ought to do this, ‘we’ ought to do that, X has shaped ‘our’ ideas, what ‘we’ care about, ‘we’ need to expand our notion of what’s core. Just who does she think she is speaking for exactly?

  27. Access to DailyNous through anonymizing channels is currently limited. Is this intentional, perhaps to make tracking of visitors easier?

  28. Well, the Tor browser is pretty amazing. But I can’t seem to access Daily Nous. I was able to connect to Daily Nous through and through These hide your I.P. address. I do not know whether you can leave comments if you’re working with these online anonymizers. I did check the i.p. address that anonymouse gave me: it was in another continent.

  29. Well, here’s a priceless bit of “reasoning” on DN’s Leiter thread. Apparently, criticizing Ivy Leagues students for screaming, spitting, and threatening is analogous to calling Black welfare recipients lazy and ungrateful.

    A relatively less-privileged group among a group of young people who are, in terms of education and professional opportunity, literally the most privileged group of young people on the entire planet are comparable in terms of justice to poor minorities on welfare!

    Note, too, the shameless dishonesty in argumentation: who’s ever heard of tropes like “unruly college kids” or “unruly protestors”? No one, of course! Everyone knows the law-abiding and trouble-avoiding college kids and protestors stereotype so dominant in our culture.

    And: how do we criticize individuals who happen to fall under objectionable tropes without validating those tropes? Why, you can’t of course, they’re magically beyond criticism! So shut up and stop complaining about free speech!

    The contemporary left, ladies and gentleman. Let’s give them a round of applause as we start contemplating the fallout of Trump’s presidency.

  30. 2:50pm (and others)

    I remember someone posting on the old metablog that you need to enable cookies in Tor in order to be able to post there. Maybe the same trick will help at DN.

  31. The same trick will not help at DN, 6:12, since *reading* Daily Nous through a Tor exit node (not just posting comments) is blocked. This is very disturbing to me.

  32. I tried to post over there the other day. I thought it was civil enough, but either JW disagreed or my use of a VPN got me filtered. (Doesn’t matter. I was just procrastinating.)

    Hiding info: Because of cynicism, potential for creepiness, and the wisdom of treating Internet use more like a 1am walk down a dark alley than an afternoon stroll through daisy fields.

  33. Well, this is weird: I’m using the Tor browser + anonymouse, and I’m able to view dailynous, which I’m not able to do with the Tor browser alone.

    Why hide I.P. addresses? It’s a bit paranoid, but consider the following possibility. Someone would like a good guess at who’s reading and posting to the metablogs. So that person sets up the next iteration, leaves comments open, and collects I.P. addresses. If you live in a big city and comment from a starbucks, then the best the IP collector can figure out is that you’re commenting from such and such a starbucks. But if you are connecting from your home in a smaller town, the I.P. collector can often figure out your zip code, and that might almost uniquely identify, say, a philosophy professor. Honestly, do you want anyone even suspecting that you comment here?

  34. Yeah, I don’t know… I don’t think I mind. I guess it depends heavily on what you want to say, which is fair enough – I don’t mean that in a pointed way.

  35. What do you mean, 4:08? Do you have some inside knowledge? Or are you trying to create a chilling effect by spreading paranoia?

  36. All of this discussion of anonymous browsing is kind of making me want to go back to talking about Ludlow’s damned emails. No. Not really.

    But could we talk about, I don’t know, philosophy?

  37. “… emails” – I suspect you mean Leydon-Hardy’s “I love you”, “boyfriend”, “I want to be on the balcony alone with you” text messages to Ludlow, when she was sleeping with him?

  38. The joke was a reference to a recent wellknown old man complaining about someone’s damn emails, with the dual implication that an old man wouldn’t know the difference between text messages and emails.


    How about we talk about this:

    “For this post I want to tackle the sex/gender distinction. I will argue that the distinction is pernicious both conceptually and politically and we should abandon it….

    On my view, there is nothing “male” about a trans woman – the term “male” is simply not appropriate as applied to trans women. They don’t have male body parts because only males have male body parts and on my view trans women are not males but females so any body part or physical characteristic they have is only appropriately described as female.”

  39. Williams argues that the sex/gender distinction facilitates writing bathroom bills (“No men in women’s bathrooms!”), and that this is one legitimate reason to erase the distinction. But it seems like “No penises in women’s bathrooms” would be just as effective a slogan, and presumably Williams is not going to argue that there are no penises, or that no trans women have penises. So I’m not sure that erasing the distinction would have the political payoffs Williams envisions, even if it were possible.

  40. The recent campus riots make me think that there is a certain important demographic among African Americans who are trying to provoke racism against them because they NEED racism. Historically these people used to blame their failures on racism (and often they were right). But now that racism has been at its lowest in US history for a couple of decades, they can no longer credibly blame racism for 100% of their failings. They can maybe blame it for 50%, but the other 50% is on them. This is something that they don’t want to accept – that it’s also their fault and not just white folks’ fault or Asians’ or Latinos’. That’s why they’re trying to bring racism back.

    A couple of days ago a few ten-year-old black kids wanted me to give them my pizza. I seriously can’t afford that so I said no. They started shouting at me that I ‘hate’ them. I don’t hate them, but whoever is teaching them to do that is trying to bring racism back.

  41. The reference was the Leydon-Hardy’s text messages to Ludlow, right? Where Leydon-Hardy declares she is “in love” with Ludlow, whom she calls her “boyfriend” and with whom she is sleeping?

  42. 11:06 You are so full of shit. Racism is alive and well in the US, as any thoughtful and moderately well informed person knows. Additionally, your claim that black people need to blame themselves for “their failings,” as you put it, has racist implications. Either you think that any racial group, if placed in the same historical/economic/social circumstances as black Americans find themselves in, would have roughly the same outcomes, or you think that white people (say) would have done much better if placed in those circumstances, because white people are just better. If you think any group would have had roughly the same outcomes if placed in the same circumstances, then it doesn’t make sense to say that black people should blame themselves for these outcomes. So it’s hard to make sense of your comment unless you think that black people are just inferior.

  43. Serious question 8:18. What’s wrong with thinking that any group in these circumstances (holding off on endorsing any particular characterisation) that did as 11:06 describes (holding off on endorsing that description as well) would be guilty of failing to accept their share of the responsibility for the situation they were in, even if other groups were likely to be guilty of the same failing in similar situations? Why does the fact that lots of groups might behave some way mean that we can’t condemn any one group for that behavior?

  44. I’m hoping 11:06 is a just New Infantile Consensus plant intended to make PMMB look bad and prevent its resurrection. Unfortunately, there were some authentic knuckle-draggers on the blog, so they might not be.

    Let’s start at the beginning, 11:06. There are no “campus riots.” There’s some ugly behavior, but calling it that indicates you’re clearly bullshitting. Second, do you seriously consider your repugnant generalizations about an entire minority population gain support by your heart-rending story about THREE FUCKING TEN YEAR OLDS? You realize 10 year olds are fucking dumbasses, right?

    I’m truly sorry for the threatened loss of your pizza. I believe our streets should be Safe Spaces from unreasonable requests for our pizzas and traumatizing suggestions that we’re haters. These deeply irresponsible TEN YEAR OLDS owe you an apology.

    Do you really not see the fucking stupidity of the way you write about a complicated, diverse group of people as if they were some monolithic individual you call “They”? Do you not realize that those stupid TEN YEAR CHILDREN were doing the same thing to you? (“White people, they can all afford pizza, they just hate us.” Except they are stupid fucking children and have an excuse.


  45. 3:34

    “Why does the fact that lots of groups might behave some way mean that we can’t condemn any one group for that behavior?”

    I think the short answer is that in practice–i.e., ignoring the nitpicking of professional philosophers–ought implies can.

    When you condemn their behavior, you are (again, ignoring professional nitpickers) claiming they’re morally to blame because they didn’t have to act that way. But if any other group of people would have behaved the same way in the same situation, then it’s probably not true, practically speaking, that they didn’t have to act that way.

    While I think your question is interesting and legitimate in the abstract, I think in this particular, concrete case it’s a distraction from the main issue that 8:18 raises, namely, that reasoning like 11:06’s are really just indirect, sneaky, and extra assholey ways of claiming that minorities are in an essentialist way inferior. They’re not sincerely interested in the possibility you’ve raised that others would behave similarly.

  46. Some black kids ask for pizza. You say no. They complain. They’re wrong. This is trivial.
    Now please take the retarded SJW bullshit *elsewhere*. Fuck off.

  47. A lot of people are focusing on the pizza anecdote and missing the broader issues.

    Let’s ask this question: why are we still in this situation after fifty years?

    In the fifties civil rights protesters were fighting AGAINST the racist system. But today the campus protesters are fighting FOR the university system. They are asking for more of the same.

    There is racism in the US both ways, but on university campuses the institutional racism is anti-Asian and anti-white, not anti-black.

    “Some Asians allege that the Ivy Leagues have put an implicit limit on the number of Asians they will admit. They point to Asians’ soaring academic achievements and to the work of Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Walton Radford of Princeton, who looked at the data on admissions and concluded that Asian-Americans need 140 SAT points out of 1,600 more than whites to get a place at a private university, and that blacks need 310 fewer points. Yet in California, where public universities are allowed to use economic but not racial criteria in admissions, 41% of Berkeley’s enrolments in 2014 were Asian-Americans and at the California Institute of Technology 44% were (see chart).”

    Asian-Americans are the United States’ most successful minority, but they are complaining ever more vigorously about discrimination, especially in academia

    I’m not saying that African-Americans are ‘inferior’ (whatever that means). I’m saying that instead of blaming the universities which are actually on their side, they should work harder like the Jews and the Asians did.

  48. lol, anon@11:06. “50% of the hardships black people face are due to racism. 50% isn’t 100%, so why the fuck are they complaining about it?”

  49. Continued: But go ahead and stick your heads in the sand and call me ‘racist’ (a label that’s so abused that it’s losing all meaning), instead of thinking about the issues that confront us. That will sure work.

  50. 11:03, here’s the problem. First, we don’t know if it’s 50% or 20% or 10%. There is racial discrimination both ways and it’s a lot easier to get into college with an SAT of X if you’re black than if you’re Asian.

    What the rioters at the Dartmouth library were complaining about was that – in their words – they couldn’t study! They were students at one of the world’s most prestigious colleges, but they thought they couldn’t study and they thought that was the fault of their white and Asian classmates!

    Look at the American Jews in the thirties: they had it far worse in college admissions than African Americans have it today. There were explicit quotas against Jews!

    But there are different attitudes and they produce different results. If you blame 100% of your failures on other people when 50% or 70% is on you, then you’re never going to improve. The Jews and the Asians had the right attitude and they won.

  51. “why are we still in this situation after fifty years?”

    Because 50 years isn’t enough time to erase deeply embedded racism from a society? And 50 years isn’t enough time for an explicitly oppressed underclass to pull themselves out of the ghettos they were forced into?

    Asian and jewish people never faced anything like the situation faced by black americans, sorry.

  52. 11:11, I have no idea why you think black people blame 100% of their “failures” on other people. You should maybe try talking to some.

  53. 11:17, I never said ‘black people’. I talk to more black people than you think, including very poor ones. I know that they don’t all think the same.

    I am specifically talking about college protesters/rioters like the ones at Dartmouth library.

  54. “Asian and jewish people never faced anything like the situation faced by black americans, sorry.”

    Maybe you should read up on Jewish people in the thirties, not just in Europe but shockingly also in the USA. There were college admission quotas against them. There was an informal but very powerful anti-Jewish segregation system in neighborhoods, hotels, etc.

    FDR refused to attack the train lines leading to extermination camps because he feared the American public would turn against the war if they learned he was helping the Jews!

    But American Jews today are probably the most academically successful demographic in the world. Even if you think they had it better than Blacks in the thirties, keep in mind how much further they got.

  55. “Because 50 years isn’t enough time to erase deeply embedded racism from a society?”

    I call bull on that. Look at all the things that happened in 50 years. Look at Jewish people in the Western world. Look at Asian Americans. Look at France and Germany. 50 years are enough to overcome enormous hatred and prejudice.

  56. Hi 7:13, thanks for the reply. You write:

    “I think the short answer is that in practice–i.e., ignoring the nitpicking of professional philosophers–ought implies can.

    When you condemn their behavior, you are (again, ignoring professional nitpickers) claiming they’re morally to blame because they didn’t have to act that way. But if any other group of people would have behaved the same way in the same situation, then it’s probably not true, practically speaking, that they didn’t have to act that way.”

    It doesn’t follow from the fact that every group WOULD behave in some way that any group MUST (a consequence of the fact that the subjunctive conditional is not a strict conditional). Suppose it’s plausible that any group that dominated the world in the way northern Europeans have over the last few centuries would have created institutions that promoted racist treatments of other groups. If so, it in no way follows that we can’t condemn northern Europeans for racist institutions. I take it the aim in holding people responsible for what they do is precisely to treat them as agents.

    You go on to say:

    “While I think your question is interesting and legitimate in the abstract, I think in this particular, concrete case it’s a distraction from the main issue that 8:18 raises, namely, that reasoning like 11:06’s are really just indirect, sneaky, and extra assholey ways of claiming that minorities are in an essentialist way inferior. They’re not sincerely interested in the possibility you’ve raised that others would behave similarly.”

    I hope you see now that your accusations of racist essentialism are way off the mark. If the behaviour would be widespread among different races, and yet that behaviour is optional, the position in question is neither racist nor essentialist.

  57. Agreed 3:34. There is such a thing as moral luck. Many countries would have done the same as Nazi Germany under the same circumstances, but that doesn’t take the Nazis off the hook.

    Maybe many people would do similar things to ISIS under similar circumstances, but that’s no reason not to criticize ISIS and to expect better of them.

  58. Re: philpercs; I wouldn’t bother. Puerile, superficial piece at the end of which the author renounces all originality and links the source of her ideas to a youtube video. sigh.

  59. The reason there aren’t enough jobs in the richest country in the world is that Brown University is spending $100,000,000 on jobs?
    I never could get the hang of economics.

  60. philpercs commenter #7 is right about one thing, though: Coffee Cartel is awesome. If I had a Coffee Cartel where I am now I would be a much happier, and more productive, person. (It’s open 24/7, serves decent food and great coffee, and alcohol until 1 or 2am, and has plenty of tables to go around.)

    …Thanks commenter #7 for making me sad.

  61. DN has a thread on “honoring” public figures. Curiously, Simone de Beauvoir, who groomed teenage girls for sex, who passed them on to Sartre, and who was permanently banned from high school teaching in France because she kidnapped a teenage schoolgirl, will no longer be “honored” by philosophers?

  62. It remains unclear to me why a philosopher who groomed teenage girls for sex, who passed them on to an older man, and who was banned from teaching for kidnapping a schoolgirl should be “honored”.

  63. As you know, the cesspool is the blog FP, that defends raping a disabled man, the sexual grooming of teenage girls by one of their feminist heroes, and much else that is morally outrageous. Happy thanksgiving.

  64. I for one will not be giving thanks until the black matriarchy is ended and white men once again rule philosophy. Until most jobs go to white men our fight is not yet over friends.

  65. Of course this is a cesspool and I’m embarrassed to comment on a place where despicable filth appears regularly, but what can we do if the alternatives are just echo chambers of the FP/NC narrative? Make no mistake: even if DN seems more open lately, it’s clear that one can make the NC argument forcefully there, whereas one has to walk on eggshells to counter it.

  66. The disabled man repeatedly raped by feminist philosopher Anna Stubblefield was a black man. These rapes were declared “incredibly complicated” by feminist philosopher Jennifer Saul. The victims of sexual grooming and kidnapping by feminist philosopher Simone de Beauvoir were teenage girls. Beauvoir was banned from teaching in 1943 for corrupting a minor, Natalie Sorokin.

  67. There’s the all text message conversations revealing the private sex life of a graduate student and professor for one, 4:48. And the racism in this thread. But to be fair, Daily Nous is a circlejerk. I honestly don’t know if a cesspool is worse than a circlejerk.

  68. I don’t know what you mean by ‘all the racism’ 4:57. Can you be more specific? Someone upthread accused someone else of racism, but that accusation fell apart. It’s a pretty serious charge. To avoid cheapening it, we better be able to back it up.

  69. But surely social justice warriors wouldn’t make stuff up? Would they really just “go ahead and lie” if they had a “felt need to deceive”? Would a social justice warrior jump into a professor’s bed and then make stuff up two years later? Surely no one behaves so badly?

  70. Oh my god this is a downward spiral. I liked the old PMMB, since there were some sane people in the mix, and a few people capable of holding views that didn’t tow either the New Consensus line or the knee-jerk anti-New Consensus line.

    But in the new incarnation, PMMB seems to be all Bronuts now, people who think rejecting the bullshit of DN and FP entails being paranoid about vast conspiracies against white men.

    And of course, that’s why there’s so few posts, so little conversation, and so little interest in the new PMMMB. All the thoughtful people are being scared away. Sane posters need to start evening out the conversation, or this blog is going to fade away entirely, leaving us only with the New Consensus as the only voice of the profession.

  71. 10:49, “vast conspiracies against white men” – this sounds a bit unhinged.

    In any case, the disabled man raped by feminist philosopher Anna Stubblefield was a black man.

  72. 10:49, don’t worry, the PMMMB will get popular as soon as some juicy gossip comes up. The other versions also took a while to get going.

  73. So in my weariness of and despair over what passes for progressive politics today, I decided to revisit an old lefty classic that I hadn’t read in many, many years: Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth.

    And I couldn’t help noticing how well Fanon’s descriptions of the psychology of colonizers fits the psychology of the New Consensus left: “egoism, arrogant recrimination, and the idiotic, childish need to have the last word.”

    He contrasts to this a kind of self-criticism that couldn’t be further from the ersatz kind on display by our ivy league social justice warriors, both student and especially faculty:

    “I mean collective self-criticism with a touch of humor because everyone is relaxed, because in the end we all want the same thing….

    But when decolonization occurs in regions where the liberation struggle has not yet made its impact sufficiently felt, here are the same smart alecks, the sly, shrewd intellectuals whose behavior and ways of thinking, picked up from their rubbing shoulders with the colonialist bourgeoisie, have remained in-tact. Spoiled children of yesterday’s colonialism and today’s governing powers, they oversee the looting of the few national resources….

    This is apparent in the colonized intellectual’s inaptitude to engage in dialogue. For he is unable to make himself inessential when confronted with a purpose or idea. On the other hand, when he operates among the people he is constantly awestruck. He is literally disarmed by their good faith and integrity. He is then constantly at risk of becoming a demagogue. He turns into a kind of mimic man who nods his assent to every word by the people, transformed by him into an arbiter of truth. But the fellah, the unemployed and the starving do not lay claim to truth. They do not say they represent the truth because they are the truth in their very being.”

    Or how much does this description of the colonizer’s attitude toward the colonized remind you of SJWs attitudes to those who disagree with them, their puritanism, their need to purge names and words and language, their deep hostility toward any hint of moral complexity or ambiguity in our heroes, forefathers, and histories, a hostility not so much toward evil but toward the recognition of an evil of which we are a product and part, and so a recognition of our own fallibility?

    “The colonial world is a Manichaeanism world….the colonist turns the colonized into a kind of quintessence of evil. Colonized society is not merely portrayed as a society without values. The colonist is not content with stating that the colonized world has lost its values or worst never possessed any. The “native” is declared impervious to ethics, representing not only the absence of values but also the negation of values. He is, dare we say it, the enemy of values. In other words, absolute evil. A corrosive element, destroying everything within his reach, a corrupting element, distorting everything which involves aesthetics or morals, an agent of malevolent powers, an unconscious and incurable instrument of blind forces.”

    Fanon also gives an excellent definition–more of a test, really–for the concept of “decolonization”: “the last shall be first.” That’s also a pretty good test for any claim to social and political justice, in general. So, for any SJW claim that they are doing the work of justice, we can ask, are they really making the last first? Are Yale students the last? Is being allowed to the names of buildings or choose to fire college presidents really being made “first” in any substantial sense? Who among the real “last” in both our educational system and our society is actually affected at all by these debates?

  74. The SJW/cry-bullies are ridiculous, but that stuff should be distinguished from a reasonable debate about who your campus honors, and students ought to be participating. And characterizing justice as making the first last-what does that even mean? It sounds like little more than a call to line up for the Oppression Olympics. No thanks, I’ll stick with Rawls.

  75. There are two denizens of the PMMMB that I suggest we give names to: Brovoir, who repeated posts more or less the same remark about Simone de Beauvoir; and Stubbly, who won’t let go about Anna Stubblefield.


    There seems to be almost zero research on the prevalence, patterns, and causes of hoax hate crimes, despite the regularity with which one type of overly-spectacular campus-based “bias incident” turns out to have been perpetrated by the alleged victim. In the absence of that research, it seems like internet people either believe that all such incidents are “false,” or all such incidents are “true.” But that’s no use to campus administrators who actually have to deal with each incident as it arises.

    What is to be done? Some research, perhaps?

  77. 11:34, I’m 4:53. I agree that it’s a reasonable issue for debate, and I agree with the protestors that the building should be renamed, as well as many of the other demands, such as increasing minority faculty (but not the mandatory diversity training nonsense). I’m complaining about their methods and priorities, not with the protests as such.

    At a moment when planned parenthood clinics and protestors against police murders are being SHOT, directing this much time, energy, and outrage against individual faculty and presidents and prioritizing symbolic gestures is a deeply misguided use of activist time and energy. And doing it in a vicious, hateful, vilifying way when the individuals targeted are not any more responsible for the problem than any other person is just immoral.

    Let’s see that outrage directed at legacy and sports student recruitment, or at weak economic diversity recruitment, or a tuition raises and non-academic spending administrative bloat, or at economic segregation of and unequal federal and state funding in high schools, or against private education period, or against drug incarceration laws or drug prohibition period.

    Better yet, mobilize and organize this extraordinary reserve of young energy, emotional passion, and political will into viciously attacking the democratic establishment, demanding real alternatives in democratic politics. Black Lives Matter has already done this with some success, making a real change in the discourse. These protest could do well to model themselves more after the original BLM.

    Rawls would be a step up, though in the long term he’s the very definition of putting the first first. What does putting the last first mean? I think it’s rather obvious: when spending money, time, resources, energy, and good will, we should give priority to those most in need and most harmed. For example, black kids murdered in the street by police should get more time and attention and protests and media coverage and money than black kids attending Princeton. And seriously economically disadvantaged kids of all races, sexes, and genders should have priority over all ivy league kids. That doesn’t mean we don’t support them all when we can, but we still give priority to the worst off.

  78. 7:35, I agree it’s sad if students feel it’s necessary to discuss unpopular ideas secretly. But I’m a bit skeptical of how typically libertarian the group sounds–they even named it “reason”, which everyone knows is code for libertarian. I’m all for them being about to fruitfully and fully debate their ideas, but they don’t strike me as truly diverse bunch. (I mean, jesus, one unhappy libertarian from scandinavia, where voters continually choose their social-democracy in election after election, is supposed to be evidence that they find their country oppressively conformist?)

    I found this critical article a bit more thoughtful and careful:

  79. Interesting, 7:57.
    I don’t know much about Brown University in general, but their political theory program has a distinctly libertarian bent:

    Is it really true that at their events and in their classes libertarians are afraid to voice their views?

    (I’ve never been to one of their events, but I’m a political philosopher and do know something about the people who work there.)

  80. Honest question @7:21- Do you actually know there is little research, or is that just your impression? The reason I’m asking is actually kind of embarrassing: in reading your post, my first reaction was, “oh yeah, I thought that the person reporting just about any crime was one of the first suspects” , and that would probably at least stem from some aggregate data, if not research.

    But then I realized my reaction stemmed from a lifetime of watching police procedural on TV. Not exactly scientific. Hence the embarrassment.

    So I’m wondering if your comment was also a casual impression, or whether you actually know the field well enough to know that it is under researched.

  81. 7:50 here. I’ve already said I support some of the protestors demands, but oh my god, this is getting ridiculous:

    Demands include what adding prof evaluation questions that pretty much amount to “how racist is this professor on a scale of 1 to 5?” and a demand that a college remove the following offensive statement from their diversity webpage: “‘A student at Hamilton can be grungy, geeky, athletic, gay, black, white, fashionable, artsy, nerdy, preppy, conservative … it doesn’t really matter. At Hamilton you can be yourself — and be respected for who you are.”

  82. List of demands from the White Student Union at UCSB:

    We, students of Europe@n descent at UCSB, refuse to accept the negative social climate created towards our peers of Europe@n descent and other marginalized groups. We have begun this movement, UCSB White Student Union, in an effort to change the status quo for a more just and inclusive environment within our campus. We demand that UCSB become a leader in the fight to promote a better social climate towards individuals who have been systematically oppressed. Student leaders acknowledge and support the demands previously stated and currently being presented. Furthermore, we demand that UCSB acknowledge its ethical and moral responsibilities as an institution and community of our world. UCSB should not be complicit in oppressive organizations and systems, no less.

    We as a compassionate student body have gathered to address the legacy of oppression against persons of Europe@n descent (PED) on campus. If these goals are not initiated within the next quarter, and completed by the second week of Winter Quarter, we will organize and respond by respectfully complaining.

    WE DEMAND the designation of four white-student only rooms at UCSB in the Anacapa Dorms that will be used by Cultural Affinity groups to provide a safe space for those who wish to learn about and celebrate Europe@n heritages and traditions, to be called the Hernan Cortes housing commons. UCSB White Student Union (WSU) members will be involved in a working group with the staff of the Residency department to begin discussions on the viability of the formation of Affinity Housing for those interested in European culture.

    WE DEMAND the creation of an White Student Development Resource Center, to be named the Napoleon Bonaparte Resource Center, with a designated office space as well as safe space for hosting events, at a central campus location. This center is to be under the purview of the White Student Development Office, which is to be formed immediately. A shocking 67% of students of Europe@n descent report being othered and marginalized because of their white identity and Europe@n heritage. Some reasons for this are lack of adequate academic, financial and organizational support, and feelings of isolation from other students proud of their Europe@n heritage throughout the university. The resource center will serve as a space on campus for white students to gather, host programming, and to offer support to white student organizations, all contributing to community building, increased stability, and a greater feeling of belonging at the university.

    WE DEMAND the hiring of two permanent full-time admissions staff members of non self-hating Europe@n descent and a series of enhanced recruitment strategies, with a budget of $300,371, to recruit students of Europe@n descent to UCSB. We maintain that this funding comes from the Chancellor’s office and not from the division of Student Affairs. These funds will be managed through the office of Admissions & Enrollment. This funding will be used to bolster efforts in the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and bridges Multicultural Resource Center. The recruitment of additional students of Europe@n descent is imperative to create a student body that is representative of the California population. A critical mass of students of Europe@n descent will surely help to alleviate the incredibly hostile campus climate white students have had to endure for decades as consistently evidenced by campus climate surveys. While there are already staff of Europe@n descent, many of them are self-hating PED who do not effectively promote the interests of students of Europe@n descent.

    WE DEMAND that UCSB provide an additional stipend to campus police officers to patrol campus grounds and the Isla Vista community in an effort to more effectively discover and subsequently root out and punish any and all forms of speech that are deemed offensive to students of Europe@n descent, including but not limited to: “Cracker,” “Stupid white people”; “OMG, you are so white”; “Where are you from?”; “No, I mean like what part of Europe?”; “Wow, I bet you get sunburned really easily!”; “you wouldn’t understand because you’re white”; “don’t eat this; it’s too spicy for you”; “honky” (and any variants thereof); “Surrendering like a Frenchman!”; and so forth. Currently, campus police officers are simply not equipped to provide UCSB white students a safe space. Saying any of the things listed above should merit immediate expulsion and arrest in order to effectively maintain a s@fe space.

    WE DEMAND that UCSB and campus police immediately prohibit on pain of expulsion and imprisonment any future parties and other festivities at UCSB or in Isla Vista that have the following (non-exhaustive list of) themes that may further marginalize and trigger white identities and white-identified students: Charlie Sheen Theme; a France Theme; a Britain Theme; a St. Patrick’s Day Theme; an Irish Theme; a Scotland Theme; a Spain Theme; an Andorra Theme; a Switzerland Theme; a Swiss Theme; a Belgium Theme; a German Theme; an Austria Theme; an Italy Theme; a ‘King and Queen’ Theme; a Catholics vs. Protestants Theme; a George Washington Theme; a Colonial Theme; a Pirate Theme; a Denmark Theme; a Finland Theme; an Iceland Theme; a Portugal Theme; an Oktoberfest Theme; a Ukraine Theme; a Belarus Theme; a Hungary Theme; a Slovakia Theme; a Czech Republic Theme; a Norway Theme; a Croatia Theme; a Bulgaria Theme; a Russia Theme; a Serbia Theme; a Greece Theme; a Netherlands Theme; a Luxembourg Theme; an Albania Theme (especially as relates to the movie ‘Taken’); and so forth.

    WE DEMAND the creation and implementation of a mandatory White Cultural Competency Training and a Diversity Requirement, which all students and all faculty must go through to enter UCSB to foster a more diverse and inclusive environment. The requirement and training will teach participants how to appreciate and uphold Europe@n cultures on campus and will also outline what phrases and words (earlier mentioned) to avoid saying to prevent triggering white-identified students and to avoid the further marginalization of white identities at UCSB.

    Lastly, WE DEMAND that all UCSB administrators and faculty issue a statement of apology to faculty, staff and administrators of Europe@n descent as well as their allies, neither of whom were provided a safe space for them to thrive while at UCSB.

  83. Where did everyone go? I looked around the old MockingBirds site and a bunch of accounts have been suspended. What happened, AtticusFi? Was the previous iteration of the PMMB at indeed what many suspected it was, a ruse to collect identifying information?

  84. I’d also like to know what happened to the Mockingbirds page on Reddit.

    Also, I seriously doubt the PMMB was a false flag operation. 4:48, do you have any evidence for that at all?

  85. 7:06, tl;dr.

    Yeah, where is everyone?

    My hypothesis: a huge percentage of the commenting load was contributed by a very small number of commenters — two, perhaps. It just so happens that both are busy with other things now.

    I’ve noticed, by the way, that Feminist Philosophers looks like it’s headed in the NewAPPS direction. The postings have become tepid and bland, and nobody is commenting.

  86. I got suspended from Mockingbirds just for talking about the Pilos! And I was just trying to help out the present PMMMB!!! They’re just meanies.

  87. I think it might be partly that people are too scared not to use Tor (given what the Reddit link says) but can’t be arsed to do so. I know I can’t.

  88. Another Tor user here. It’s easy and not even that slow.

    I agree with newton’s hypothesis. I wonder whether AtticusFi=ARG, and got doxxed. That would explain both the account suspension on Reddit and subsequent silence.

  89. The phrase “Femtroll” has probably been applied to more than 5, probably more than 10, different people. The phrase “ARG” has similarly been applied to probably more than 5, indeed probably more than 10, different people. Since there is no unique referent, it is not possible for AtticusFi to be multiple people. So, bye bye to your conspiracy theory.

  90. Personally, I just find this design too awkward. It was bad before, but this is worse. This “recent comments” widget is pointless, and the lack of threading in the comments works against conversations developing.

  91. “The phrase “Femtroll” has probably been applied to more than 5, probably more than 10, different people. The phrase “ARG” has similarly been applied to probably more than 5, indeed probably more than 10, different people.”

    Yeah, I guess I just don’t believe that, and frankly I suspect you’re talking out of your ass.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s