November Open Thread


212 thoughts on “November Open Thread

  1. Chavez/Maduro fan boy Leiter questioning other people’s political judgment. If Leiter had his way, we would be eating cat food for dinner. But everybody else is insane, Leiter is the sane one.

  2. Leiter has hit the nail on the head, and framed those NC idiots who fell foul of their own faction’s witchunt-enabling document. Schliesser has his reasons for not wanting a statement on civility to be approved (ask those who know him).

    1. And I won’t let students take all the heat. Any number of articles blame millennials for being sensitive, coddled and illiberal. But they’ve been enabled by faculty and staff who know better, but see political correctness as a means of asserting administrative control.

  3. all u can do is tell me ur philos ideas and then i will email u my philosophical criticisms

    my own ideas are as follows. they can be quite difficult so please be with me.

    nothing is real and both epistemologically known. u can know p but then it isn’t at all real or you can not know it and let it be real. this is an idea i am developing at smith college. i would be lying if i did not say i wasn’t proud.

  4. I have a theory about why it’s so quiet here all of a sudden. Trump’s election has created a context in which metabloggers and new infantilists are on the same side, and in which disputes between the MBs and the NIs look like petty internal conflicts.

  5. What will Trump’s election do to the regressive academic left, such as SJWs, PC callout culture, new infantilists etc?

    One option is that Trump will prove the SJWs correct. #allmen #allwhites, etc. He’ll say and do things beyond the pale, and this will support the view that all white man are the devil.

    Another option is that Trump will break the SJWs. They’ll be shaking and can’t-evening and too triggered to do their regressive censoring thing.

    What are the other possibilities? Which is most likely?

    1. You don’t think he’s already said and done things beyond the pale? (Not that one man doing anything would give support for the view that ‘all white men are the devil’).

      Maybe Trump voters intended their vote as a fuck you to SJWs. But it just looks like a big fuck you to Muslims, and African Americans, etc.

  6. All of this anger against Trump has unleashed a lot of class-based garbage, a lot of righteous indignation. White, liberal people of gentle birth are especially excited to tell other people how to vote, and to condemn other voters for not voting what is clearly in their best interests. I’m seem a lot of very patronizing things being said. (I’m thinking of the Latinx and women voters that turned out surprisingly high for Trump.)

    I am freaked out by a Trump presidency and majority Republican rule in all houses of government. But I am also freaked out by how much hatred people in the academy — especially people of very high social standing — have for the uneducated. I just saw someone make the argument that uneducated people — people who don’t go to university — are just worth less (or should that be worthless? not sure exactly where the argument was going) as people. They are slaves to stupidity, or something like that. These are people that claim to be structuralists, for God’s sake.

    A question for all these well-bred folks: Do you think you’re educated because you’re morally better? Or is it that you’re morally better because you’re educated? I’m genuinely curious.

    1. Doesn’t complaining about classism make you a SJW like the people you’re criticizing? Except for plebs rather than non-whites/women.

  7. Is it beyond the pale that education contributes to moral virtue, and that morally vicious people below a certain threshold need not be given equal consideration? I reck most of the cases in point were not ones of mere stupidity.

    1. Now you’ve got me all curious as to just what people are learning in the university that provides them with special insights into morality that the dumb rubes can’t see for themselves. Identifying moral knowledge with stuff learned in humanities classes sounds like a snake eating it’s own tail, frankly.

      1. Do you know the #1 grammar error for 3rd graders?
        Hint: The word involved is small and it’s contained in this sentence.
        That’s right: its vs. it’s
        Yet the two rules are actually quite easy to remember.
        Rule 1: When you mean “it is” or “it has,” use an apostrophe. (An apostrophe is a type of punctuation.)
        It’s been great chatting with you on the World Wide Web.
        Rule 2: When you are using “its” as a possessive, don’t use the apostrophe.
        The cow hurt its paw.

    1. That is hilarious. It must have been a prank somebody played on the reporters. Or maybe it was something like “He likes to read stuff in the original, not the popularizations” which turned into “He likes to read Adam Smith in the original English.”

      1. This is going to happen, believe me. The SJW tears will be tremendous, but we’re going to make academia safe again and we’re going to make academia great again!

    1. We need to coordinate efforts. I’m trying to find racing people to work with. If they get together with metabros anything is possible!

    1. I do feminist philosophy. I once championed an ill-thought cause in graduate school! Plus, I organised a feminism reading group the summer of my second year, and I gave a paper about epistemic injustice. Totally got my feminist bona fides.

      1. Christ, you’re thick. I was complaining about people who were not previously interested in X suddenly becoming interested in X, in a very public way, in order to ingratiate themselves to search committees. That is obviously consistent with the existence of people who had been interested, and qualified, in X all along.

    1. Honest question: was it news to anyone that some of these reports of Trump-inspired violence would be bogus? No, I hope not. What conclusion should be drawn from this concerning the epistemology of believing the reports? That some but not all are bogus and that’s something we all know.

      Thanks, Reason, really important work you’ve done here.

        1. Hi Anon @ 9:06

          I think it’s pretty silly to act as if Trump supporters aren’t committing acts of violence against protesters. It’s also silly to act as if violence hasn’t been directed the other direction. It has. It’s all terrible. Like the Reason article Leiter linked to. (But I’m a big Leiter fan, fwiw. Generally a force for the good on the internets.)

        2. Anon 9:06,

          Are you okay? I’m starting to worry about you. I hope you haven’t fallen off a bridge or stabbed yourself with a fork while trying to eat your dinner.

  8. The latest from Stormfront for Philosophers might have been written by two women but it reads like it was written by a bitter dude who has hit a dead end in life. Sad!

  9. Post-Election Changes To Philosophy Blogging

    The shock of the 2016 presidential election is being felt keenly by bloggers, many of whom already operate at close to 10 on the sanctimometer. Many readers worry that these bloggers have no strategic reserves of smug, condescending, thin-skinned, self-righteous, new consensus douchehattery to draw on when it’s most needed.

    Good news: Daily Nous now goes to 11! (with plans to expand to the low-teens)

    These bloggers can only tolerate so much, so just be warned that comments that question the wisdom of a post or contain condescending lines directed at the blogger like “I know you’re fired up” will from here on in be deleted. End of conversation. Because “I know you’re fired up” really crosses a line.

    1. What is really going on:
      >Be a philosopher
      >”Mainstream media is a propaganda system a la Chomsky & Herman etc”
      >now 2016
      >propaganda systems? Delete this comment Drumpfkin. This is your last warning. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE Im with her REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

    1. Probably the first time Brian feels united with the common man as part of the resistance against a fascist dictatorship. Almost 40 years living the life of a salon socialist and finally some street cred!

      1. It’s OK, he’s still available in Venezuela. They don’t have any food or toilet paper, but they’ve got

        1. I know! Unlike neighboring Colombia and Guyana, Venezuela is short of food!*

          *Except in Factworld, where Venezuelans have much more to eat than their neighbors in capitalist havens.

          1. According to Leiter’s latest post, only capitalism is capable of producing wealth, so take it up with him. In other news, it turns out that Castro’s big mistake was not immediately instituting “social democracy.” Wot a moron. Who can see the problem with this argument? What part of “social democracy” and “brutal dictatorship” don’t go together? Leiter is just another of Weber’s “big babies” wasting space in a university.

  10. Philip Lemoine keeps on rocking the blogosphere. Wish him luck when it comes to the hiring process. Robert Paul Wolff on the other hand behaves just like the old senile crank that he is. Faux lefties that couldn’t get their asses out of their chairs when Bush invaded Iraq are now crying that an certified clown is elected.

  11. Post Election Changes to Philosophy Curriculum: Professional Development

    Appear to read something by Chomsky, then pull off the cardigan, with your pit stained shirt, balled up under your head as a pillow. The angst together with the shirt will wake you. Rise up and then collapse to wallow in post-electoral doubt at either (1) your postdoc (2) your TT job in the philosopher’s diaspora (3) your fatuous dissertation (4) your fetid, neglected dissertation, then place ingredients together in a pot, with your CV sprinkled in generously, not forgetting to stir yourself up occasionally. When these are brought to a boil, you will have a career, and that’s the end of it. Best served cold, as a passing mention in the comments section of Leiter, by a placement director distractedly aware of something, possibly your name.

  12. Itchy at the Snooze:

    I am not disputing your claim that conservatives face discrimination and oppression in academia because, as I said above, I am granting it for the purpose of argument.

    Unfortunately, he just doesn’t have time to refute this right now.

  13. “the chair of a search committee asked if I could produce (in a short time span) more strong letters of rec from well-known medievalists – I did my best in the time given but was not equipped to adequately fulfill the request.”

    This strikes me as as unfair request. First, the dissertation was directed by a medievalist whose extensive publication record and scholarship is impeccable. Second, the expression “well-known” smacks of an old-boy’s-network. Search committee chairs: be better!

    1. Who is Manners?

      And why does Haslanger complain about philosophy not being a meritocracy? She would nowhere near her position if spousal hires were illegal and only quality of work was taken into account.

  14. This blog is truly dead. I think we are philosophy-blogged out. I mean, what more is there to say about the blog’s favorite topics? There aren’t any new sex scandals (McGinn, Ludlow, etc.). And even if there were a new sex scandal, it’d be déjà vu all over again. The new puritans continue to be new puritans, but they’re no longer so new and not so interesting: the entertainment value of yet another absurdly smug and tone-deaf FB outburst decreases with each absurdly smug and tone-deaf FB outburst.

    I think that, if this blog is to revive, someone has to come up with some more topics. Maybe it’s time to start digging a little deeper into something — I’m really not sure.

      1. We won! The Tranleys of the world are not fit to fight the evil of fascism, they have to retreat to their safe spaces.

    1. That’s very funny! Truly, he has reached the level of self-satire. He’s an embarrassment to LSE, sure, but what possessed Psychology Today to publish something so badly argued?

    2. First, modern feminism is illogical because, as Pinker points out, it is based on the vanilla assumption that, but for lifelong gender socialization and pernicious patriarchy, men and women are on the whole identical.  An insurmountable body of evidence by now conclusively demonstrates that the vanilla assumption is false; men and women are inherently, fundamentally, and irreconcilably different.  Any political movement based on such a spectacularly incorrect assumption about human nature – that men and women are and should be identical – is doomed to failure.

      1. Omg- there may be correlations between gender and various personality traits. Even if so, there will be outliers in both groups. The patriarchal norms suck for the outliers- and in the long run- suck for everyone else too. Get a new hobby.

        1. Finally, modern feminism is evil because it ultimately makes women (and men) unhappy.  In a forthcoming article in the American Economic Journal:  Economic Policy, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers of the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania show that American women over the last 35 years have steadily become less and less happy, as they have made more and more money relative to men.  Women used to be a lot happier than men despite the fact that they made much less money than men.  The sex gap in happiness (in women’s favor) has declined in the past 35 years as the sex gap in pay (in men’s favor) narrowed.  Now women make as much as, sometimes even more than, men do.  As a result, today women are just as unhappy, or even more unhappy than, men are.  As I explain in a previous post, money does not make women happy.

          1. They’re unhappy because they’re still marrying men despite it no longer benefiting them. In the past women provided domestic labour in return for financial support, now they don’t need financial support it’s a shit deal. Women do the majority of housework/childcare even when they work the same hours as their husbands.

            Married women are less happy than single women and less happy than their husbands, and are happier as divorcees than while married (the opposite is true for men).

            The solution to women’s unhappiness is to get divorced/stop marrying men.

      2. Indeed. No amount of political correctness will change fact that males are by nature more emotional and hormone-driven. Testosterone impairs their ability to think clearly and objectively. Women are more rational, have better judgment and are deeper/more inventive thinkers. It is unfortunate that the inferior gender has the advantage in brute strength. Males would be much happier if they accepted their natural roles as manual laborers, house husbands and gigolos.

    1. Yeah, but Murray State:
      >beautifully located in the backwoods of Kentucky
      >joining an english dept. with 1-2 philosophers; what could possibly go wrong?
      >Actual tag line for their faculty page: “Can you peg the face of an adventurer?”
      >Answer: I prefer anal, but ok.
      >Die of diabetes induced by alcoholism and chronic pork rinds in your 50s

    1. If you are in a state that through electors to Trump, especially if the popular vote for him was not overwhelming, please write them and explain why they have an opportunity and a duty to put their vote to the candidate who won the overall popular vote.

      If you have any analytic skills offer them to organizations who will do the legal legwork to support the impeachment of trump.

        1. Didn’t mean to double post. The first correction didn’t show up at first so then I posted again to correct myself, and it looks like I was correcting the correction, but I wasn’t.

      1. “… any analytic skills …”

        Donald Trump won the election by winning the electoral college. This is how a representative democracy works. If you don’t understand how a democracy works, you lack analytic skills and need to return to kindergarten.

        1. OK I see the Breitbart folks are in here too. Too bad. Decent thoughtful normal people don’t talk that way to each other, nor do professional philosophers.

          1. Yes it is. It is how the leading representative democracies work. The popular vote does not map onto the number of electoral representatives (and this is a good thing). This is how voting and electoral representation works in the main liberal democracies in the world – United States, Canada, United Kingdom, India and many other countries. A government with a majority of representatives may be formed with only 40%, or smaller, of the popular vote.

            1. “you have an opportunity and a duty to put their vote to the candidate who won the overall popular vote.”

              Would you have written that if Trump had won the popular vote, and Clinton had been elected, or are you just a hypocrite who uses pseudo-intellectual bullshit to push your agenda come what may? P.s. I despise Trump but I reject the pathetic attempt to play #everyoneIdisagreewithishitler

              1. 7:42, do I have only two alternatives:(a) write the same if Trump had won the popular vote and Clinton presumptively the electoral college or (b) be a pseudo-intellectural bullshitting hypocrite?

                What a harsh society we have become. For no good reason. Peace out bros. Try to learn how to argue clearly while at the same time being kind and compassionate. Otherwise there’s no fucking point in anything you’re doing.

                  1. Well, I’ve never liked the electoral college, but basically you’re right. I wouldn’t have bothered to speak up about it, but that I think that the U.S. has been taken over by a band of people who know how to exploit Trump’s narcissistic vulnerabilities. Fixing things through the electoral college is a hope, though a small one. This is not politics as usual. This is dangerous as it can be. Perhaps there are some out there who are eagerly awaiting amegeddon, who are experience-collectors, and think this would really be a cool cutting edge adventure, to have a dictatorship. I’m not one of those people. Which is not to say that I liked the way things were going before. There are times though, when all good people must take a stand against evil. What is happening in and around Trump is evil, not a positive change. Every means short of violence must be used to reverse this.

                    Haughtiness is not in my nature. You assume too much.

            2. What does that have to do with anything?
              Our president isn’t elected by representatives. Were you seriously not aware of that?

              The electoral college is the most undemocratic institution in the United States. It means Californians get fewer votes than Montanans, city-dwellers get fewer votes than rural citizens, black people get fewer votes than white people. It’s indefensible.

              1. Wrong. It means a handful of urban centers can’t dominate and the candidates are forced to campaign in disparate regions. You also can’t count on Trump losing if there was only a popular vote, since he might have adjusted his strategy.

                1. I know that a couple analysts in the newspapers think it’s a urban vs rural thing, but I think that’s lopsided and true only from an East Coast perspective. In the West it’s true we’ve got our cowboys, but the rural areas I know about tend to be in favor of tolerance and against racism.

                  1. How did you get racism and intolerance out of that? I’m east coast rural, and we tend to be in favor of tolerance, too. The urban/rural divide isn’t about racism (though you’d never know that listening to how some urbanistas talk–it’s almost like they’re intolerant of different points of view).

                    1. @2:34 p.m.Fair enough. I guess I think the claim
                      –Trump is the presumptive winner of the electoral college because of the “urban/rural divide”–
                      has become a coded way of saying
                      –Trump is the presumptive winner because racists voted for him —

                      The presumption behind this explanation is that in ALL rural areas of the country people tend to be racists. This presumption in turn is based on the presumption that in certain REGIONS of the country, distinctive in that they are mostly constituted of rural areas, people tend to be racists. I think the tendency to conflate these latter two claims is a very East Coasty kind of thing to do, because of limited perspectives/experience. I think the first presumption is false while the second presumption is true.

                    2. I see. I don’t get that coded meaning. I think we might otherwise agree, though my sense is the problem with presumption occurs in urban centers generally (Denver, Phoenix, and Houston being three big exceptions).

      1. Well I wondered whether this was an American blog or based somewhere else. Now it’s obvious. Americans are the only ones divided into two camps, “the Repugs” and “the nasty Liberals” the right hand of which doesn’t have a clue what liberalism is.

          1. “American liberalism” is not any kind of “liberalism” by even the most twisted of redefinitions. For liberalism, by definition, is about individual rights, freedoms, freedom of speech, and limitations on state power. American “liberalism” is more like the Stalinism of the Soviet nomenklatura – a privileged managerial elite who use their power to protect their own status and interests, and typically against the socio-economically deprived. This is why Bernie Sanders (a democratic socialist) is a political moderate, compared to American “liberals”, who are an illiberal, authoritarian, privileged elite.

      1. He’s not a sane choice. Anyone who voted for him because they wanted the revolution to come needs to learn something about timing. You show no sophistication in your choice if you voted for Trump.

        1. Bullshit. People had their reasons and the left better stop doubling down on these arrogant attempts to pathologize and figure out how to communicate a message with stronger appeal or else embrace the political wilderness.

          1. Breitbart guy, go away. “the left” hahahahahahha. Normal citizens, right leaning or left leaning don’t talk that way. Nor do philosophers. You are juvenile and hypnotized by the language on the airwaves, or your are old and corrupt.

          2. “Communicating messages with broader appeal” is irrelevant to whether Trump is a sane choice. Even if you love his message, no sane person can actually look at his record and think he is remotely competent for the job.Voting for an ignoramous who has a history of serving only his own interests is not rational.

  15. Hate Breitbart, but pathologizing the people who voted for Trump is what’s beyond stupid. But sure, double-down and help give the fucker 8 years.

    1. Who is pathologizing anyone (other than pathologizing Trump himself, who does have extreme vulnerabilities making him unsuitable for the job, in fact)? I mean, with what words from above make you think such a thing? I don’t see anyone above pathologizing the poor misguided Trump voters. That’s in your head, you who rightly had serious concerns with the reigning miltiaristic imperialistic hyper capitalistic orthodoxy in Washington. Trump is not your man, never was.

        1. I am peering into a deep dark hole, tunneling miles and miles into the earth and beyond. A whole nation has just fallen down it, and I hear one last call. ^^^

      1. “Who is pathologizing anyone?”

        >”Voting for an ignoramous who has a history of serving only his own interests is not rational.”
        >”the only sane choice”

        lol, wut?

  16. Chavez/Maduro supporter Brian Leiter is still offering his judgments on politics. You would think that supporting Chavez and Maduro might have given the faculty lounge socialist some second thoughts, but this site’s diabetic hero is dauntless. Meanwhile, Maduro is stealing Christmas toys from children.

        1. You sure you’re not talking to Karmakazy? From my link:
          “The government announced it would give those toys to local committees in impoverished neighborhoods to sell at below-market prices, so poor families can afford gifts for their children. But given the propensity of US corporate media to distort Venezuelan government policies, it’s unsurprising that CNN discounted this explanation.”

          1. Stealing from one group of people to give to another group of people is not exactly the spirit of Christmas. It’s stealing toys. The reason the country has virtually no toys and no food is precisely because of these Chavez/Maduro policies. Leiter may enjoy blasting some poor grad student who happened to write a dissertation on Heidegger, but he himself supports the policies of Chavez and Maduro that have driven the people of Venezuela to the brink of state sponsored starvation. Of course Leiter will continue to blast people who happen to disagree with him while at the same time supporting policies that are indefensible. No matter, he doesn’t have to live in Venezuela.

              1. Go back to May PMMMB. Leiter is too cowardly a salon socialist to actually announce “I support Chavez ” but for a few years there, long after all the evidence was in, he was quite enthusiastic about the revolution.

                  1. Maduro and Chavez are the same, sort of like Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. There are dozens of approving posts from Leiter on Chavez and VZ, you can find them at There is no shortage of embarrassing, fawning posts, always carefully hedged in somebody else’s words in Leiter’s typically cowardly way. If a conservative professor did the same for Erdogan or Putin, I guarantee Leiter would not be fooled by the hedging.

                    1. No, Leiter was citing the success of Chavismo as late as 2013, after Chavez died. Maduro is simply continuing the Chavez policies of expropriation. Nothing has changed between Chavez and Maduro. The only way Maduro can change course is by acknowledging the total failure of Chavismo. Leiter has applauded Chavismo and expropriation from the beginning and there is no reason to believe that he has changed his mind. Remember, this is a man who regularly blasts poor graduate students as “monstrous fools” as his beloved Venezuela has descended into state sponsored starvation.

                    2. I’ve been over this before but here is Leiter, after Chavez died.


                      The “hatchet job on Venezuela” (Leiter’s words) amounts to the claim that VZ was as unequal as ever. Well, guess what, VZ was and is as unequal as ever. The rich have left and the poor are left to eat their pets. Leiter could not have been more wrong, and that was just three years ago, when the facts had long been established. “Monstrous fool” indeed.

                    1. I’d love to see Leiter defend Venezuela against the New Yorker “hatchet job” now. The situation has only gotten worse, which was the utterly predictable and widely predicted outcome of state expropriation of private assets, otherwise known as Chavismo.

  17. Currently undergoing reeducation courses. It’s informally called the White Heterosexual Institute for Male Philosophers. Luckily, however, at my distinguished institution we have faculty who are manning the towers while the Forces of Trump besiege our land:

    “Dear Colleagues,

    Coalitions of students, faculty and staff are being formed on campuses across the country to counter the anticipated consequences of the Trump election. (Columbia is an example.) The events of the last 48 hours—first the neo-Nazi posters hung on campus buildings, and then the appallingly slow and muted response from our administration—underscore the need for some such formation here at the U of C. Pulling this together will require a campus-wide meeting in which all interested people can participate. Because of the holidays, such a meeting cannot be held until the beginning of the winter term. It would be good to do it as soon as possible, ideally in the first week or two of the term—before the inauguration. Anyone interested in helping to organize the winter meeting is invited to meet this Thursday, December 8, at 4pm, at the CSRPC. At Thursday’s meeting we will need to divide the labor of reaching out to different parts of the campus community and doing other publicity work.

    Anton Ford”

    1. There’s word on the street that there ARE MORE THAN 40 MEMBERS IN THE U.S.! We’re all done for! And Trump caused it!

      “The Atomwaffen Division is a small group of neo-Nazis that has taken responsibility for similar posters at other universities. The group announced its creation on the neo-Nazi forum Iron March. A post on the forum last October claimed that the group had more than 40 members, including some in Chicago.”

    1. Well, the authors know Chomsky’s work really really really well but I think nevertheless there is a mistake. Perhaps it’s only that they had to state ideas simply for the kind of publication in question. In the midst of emphasizing that Chomsky is interested in what is common among languages rather than what is different, they say “But if you want to understand the properties that are common to all human beings, it’s precisely the “social and cultural dimensions” that you don’t want to look at.”. That’s not quite right: it can be common to all languages/language-users that there are certain essential kinds of social dimensions to the use of language the same across language, even if within the kind languages vary. So it is a mistake to say that if you are only interested in what is common to all languages/language-users you would ignore social dimensions.

  18. The nazi youthgroup. Just like in Sound of Music, where the daughter falls in love with a guy but then realizes he’s gone bananas, so will we all soon realize that the plan is to get children to tattle on their parents and the basis for it has been under development for three or four years, and is ready to flower. Another early case was the case in Milwaukee of the guy trying to force his instructor to run a debate about gay marriage defined in terms not that he invented but which he counted as his own: the terms of political power mongering political people, the Breitbart gang!

  19. Chavist Leiter is now threatening to destroy careers of people he happens to disagree with. Meanwhile, Leiter still has a boner for the socialist revolution in Venezuela, which is now in the state sponsored demicide phase of the revolution. It’s not quite at North Korean or Great Leap Forward or Holodomor levels of famine, but it’s getting there. Is Leiter really in any position to destroy careers considering that his own political judgment is indefensible? Leiter hasn’t said anything about Venezuela since 2013, so I assume he still supports the revolution he so ardently celebrated for more than a decade.

  20. Now that the Chavist Leiter is organizing a posse to destroy lives, it’s curious that he is making a stand on the well-refuted principle of a blank slate. Aren’t philosophy professors expected to have at least a modest scientific education? Leiter writes in his latest manifesto of personal and professional destruction, “Did you miss the scientific literature on “biological preferences for members of their racial in group”? Me too!” Does Leiter read any scientific journals? That might be why he missed it.

    But if Leiter is so exercised by this modest statement of scientific racism, maybe he is overlooking some crimethinkers at his own university. Here is a tip, this is where to find them:

    Leiter should take a trip across the Midway and ask them about racial homophily, I’m sure they would be glad to oblige.

  21. Skepticism about evidence that racial homophily is biological is not blank-slatism and he is correct that no sources were cited (linking to a genetics dept. isn’t either). In fact it is hard to see how there could be (you would have to show, somehow, that the variance in “racial homophily” — not sure how that’s measured — is due more to genetic effects rather than other sources. By the way I don’t think his tirade was worth reading nor do I support doxing people just because you strongly disagree with them.

          1. It’s Dec. 23 and we’re posting on the November thread, and haven’t even cracked 200 comments. Most of debate is between an expatriate Venezuelan fixated on turning BL into a Chavez acolyte. We’re not doing so great around here.

    1. Yes, very witty, a recluse leftist academic screaming at the sky. This is the in depth philosophy blogging I have come to expect from Brian Leiter. Then again, it is better than shoving fecal matter into envelopes, which he now apparently does twice a year, in addition to letters of recommendation season.

  22. Why do white academics think the 1804 Haiti massacre is fodder for comedy? What kind of demented mind finds raping then killing women hilarious? Or is 1804 fake news? I’m genuinely puzzled.

    1. Is that the book where he presents his partisan political views as arising from reason, and the views of other philosophers as due to irrational partisanship?

  23. No, it is that book that lays out in detail that some of the most esteemed contemporary philosophers are totally clueless when it comes to politics and support Mao and Stalin. A bit like salon socialists like Leiter.

      1. You’re curious about which of the most esteemed contemporary philosophers are Stalinists? Or you’re curious about what ARG is going to say next?

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