May Open Thread


244 thoughts on “May Open Thread

  1. Hypatia. There was a helluva shitshow going down on their facebook page but it’s been deleted. Thoughts?

    1. I’m not an expert on the relevant issues. Yet I can’t help but appreciate how juicy this shitshow is. What’s particularly fun is how reasonable the “cis white feminists” are trying to be in the face of such vitriol. It reminds me of how reasonable others were trying to be when those same “cis white feminists” were the ones throwing vitriol.

    2. From facebook (reacting to the fact that the apology didn’t indicate specifically which editors did and did not support the statement):

      RvM “Can y’all at least sign your names? Which AEs support this? Which didn’t? Names matter. Accountability.”

      SS: “I think we all support this but some people have been offline over the weekend so that’s why we had to sign it like that.”

      RvM: “OK, if there are holdouts, I suggest considering editing it. People shouldn’t be afforded cover from the statement by the ambiguity in ‘the majority’ if they don’t support the statement.”


  2. “For Gramsci, hegemonic dominance ultimately relied on a “consented” coercion, and in a “crisis of authority” the “masks of consent” slip away, revealing the fist of force.”


  3. I have posted two times at Buzzfeed, based on two (count them) of my proofs. The first proof is about bowling balls and gravity. It is here:

    The second proof is about the FACT that 0.999…≠1. It is here:

    Notice most of all the comments. I seem to have struck a nerve, much? And this was while Bush was president!

    But where is the Buzz, you ask? These are the two places:

  4. Ok, so I looked up Kipnis, and her arguments are seriously flawed. She fails to incorporate any of the several relevant myrmecological perspectives, which pretty much means the entire house falls down into rubble. Thoughts?

      1. In real life, I’m less interested in ants than I am in propounding my idea that transgenderism and transracialism are not the two most different things on earth. I hope this will endear me to philosophers who reject my ant-ics.

        1. Ant-ics is one of the most basic ant puns out there. It is not likely that I would stoop that low (those who know me can confirm), though if I did, it would still be for a good cause!

    1. “………..
      A Majority of the Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors”

      Wonder who the minority is/are.

      1. Um, the mainstream vertebrate media would have you believe the insects, yet an estimated 80% of described species are insects. Pretty toxic propaganda from alleged “news” sources!

        1. Yeah, Anonymoose at 1:15 pm clears it up. But I am still hoping for some juicy drama and infighting and not just some outsiders poking fun at them. A metabro can dream…

            1. Formicid? That’s a code word for gassing kikes, isn’t it?

              I can’t get over how funny and clever the ant guys are.

          1. Is it naive to hope that one of these episodes will lead the usual suspects to see how idiotic they look?

  5. Even Justice Whineberg is not on the side of the censors for a change. Maybe because it violates his rule about criticizing the untenured?

    1. Justice Whineberg has been attacked by Rage Machine and her band of transgroupies once, so he holds a grudge. Payback time!

    1. That is good, but remember: Ants First! Always Ants First. It does not matter what is done to you or me or “Joshua Blanchard”, as long as the ideal formicid future is attained. Never forget that!

  6. “Addendum:  no thought crime is complete without a public letter of protest.  What is chilling about this is that instead of this campaign of vilification of a junior faculty member and demand for “retraction” of her article, someone could have written a response piece and sent it to the same journal.  But this is obviously not a scholarly community, but a political one.  Those familiar with the history of 20th-century Marxist movements will recognize what’s going on here, and it isn’t a happy sight.”

    Leiter nails it.

      1. wasn’t leiter a 20th cent. marxist himself? I still dont understand the guy. a commie but too old to be pro-trans?

  7. Dear Philosophymetametametablog,

    We congratulate you on the progress you have already made in increasing attention to the little gal. Our sisters-in-arms, our friends, the most noble of insects – that is, the ants – require great solidarity if we are to achieve mainstream status. We trust that this most free of blogs will make the collective choice to pursue the way of the ant. Good luck!

    With great hope,

    The Daily Ant

    1. It’s times like these that make the metablogs obviously relevant, and their detractors look like sulking fifth graders.

      1. Hi, Anonymous! Thanks for stopping by. You know, sometimes you just have to sulk, which is ok. Really, most emotions are valid according to some particular context. The goal is to always remember that we are just one species, and there are 13,000+ ant species out there to learn about. Pretty exciting!

    1. Absolutely. We really need lists like this one. Don’t hire these people or your dept will turn into another Colorado.

      1. And yet, you no doubt see yourself as being opposed to nasty shunning and power plays and biased hiring by the other ‘side’.

  8. From the abstract of the thought crime:

    “Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism.”

    Is there any question this is true?

    1. It seems true to me. There might be counterarguments, about fairness, for example, or circumstances. I would like to read a sober treatment of these issues. I find Hypatia’s attitude really wrong-headed.

    2. It’s patently obvious, and has *been* patently obvious since the two ideas entered the public consciousness with Jenner and Dolezal. It’s rare for two such similar *types* of cases appear almost simultaneously. Though articles cropped up immediately at Salon and such places proclaiming that the cases were different, and so obviously different that their difference didn’t even need to be explained, and also so obviously different that anyone who denied the difference was a hatecriminal, and also so obviously different that if you even needed to have the obvious and extraordinary differences *explained* to you then, again, you were a hatecriminal.

      That no philosopher made a peep on the sane side of this madness illustrates how corrupted and craven the discipline now is. If the right had come up with something half so absurd, philosophers would have been climbing all over each other to ridicule it.

  9. What’s telling about the Blanchards’ behavior is the reflexive defense of a deeply suspect cause, with zero effort to justify doing so. It’s a sad statement of their intellectual mettle, and a worrying indication of their political methods.

    1. No, it’s one of the strengths of this place that it’s an open forum. Look at what goes on elsewhere. We can talk around the Blanchards. There are ways to flag their irrelevance without distraction.

  10. It’s a shame these concerned citizens attacking Tuvel for her thought crimes haven’t read the scholarly literature on online bullying. (Also, reading a lot of ‘Becky with good hair’ comments which isn’t cool.)

    1. Yeah, I have to agree that online bullying is very bad. This is one reason why maintaining a solid stream of ant-based discussions is preferable – a much lower chance of cyberbullying!

    2. Tuvel wrote the article knowing what that entailed.
      The associate editors responded to said article. The end.

    3. “(Also, reading a lot of ‘Becky with good hair’ comments which isn’t cool.)”

      Right. Even if you buy the Nora Berenstain line and think that moral and intellectual progress requires that things like the Tuvel paper not be tolerated, it doesn’t follow that there’s any reason for the outright mockery and punching down that I see a lot of people in positions of power going in for. It’s super depressing.

      1. The concentration of people who think that racial identity confers moral superiority is higher in most US humanities departments than at most Klan rallies.

    1. Ants: Pogon, Lady Hardon, Rage Machine, Kuck, Scratchy and co.
      Bees: Whiney, the Blanchards, Itchy, The Balloon and co.
      Verts: Leiter, Kipnis, Jessica and co.

      1. Well, of course it will be clear to readers that this is not the real me – I mean, outside of the linked name, why would I care about an apology by Tuvel? I do not see the relationship between that topic and Aphaenogaster, Formica, and so on and so forth.

      1. You have mis-placed priorities. The fact that you haven’t heard of most of the signANTories (nor have I) doesn’t mean that they are any less competANT at the ANTctual important work of philosophy – undergraduate education in self-critical reasoning – than you or I or some hypothetical petition signed by Kit, Brian, John, Jason, and all the Big Somebody Gang. Most philosophical research is faddish and trANTsitory. History won’t distinguish between the Hypatia signatories and the Big Names on that basis.

        What you should have said is that it’s a who’s who of total fucking idiots: we know this because they have put their names to a profoundly stupid document. History’s not going to be ambivalANT aboANT thANT.

        1. Well, you started out with some so-so ant puns, but then sadly it kind of went downhill from there. And it got a little crass, too. So, you still have quite a bit of work to do to try and mimic me. That’s ok though, maybe you’ll get there someday. The key is a healthy mix of cheerfulness and premier ant content!

            1. Elizabeth Anderson is a philosopher. Her first name is “Elizabeth,” and her last name is “Anderson”!

  11. Note Rebecca Kukla on Dolezal, about two years ago (italics added:

    “I am disappointed in how quickly almost everyone, including friends of mine who are strong anti-racist and trans allies, have been willing to engage in (1) ridicule and body-shaming – unabashedly mocking her hair and skin tone for instance; (2) confident descriptions of her as a liar who is choosing to pretend to be something she is not; and (3) fast and confident claims that she can’t claim black identity because she is appropriating a culture, hasn’t grown up with the black experience, can opt out at any time, etc. My main reaction to all this is that it’s surprisingly historically short-sighted and lacking in epistemic humility. So many times, ‘we’ (those of us with a recognizable and reasonably well-established embodied, socially positioned identity) have encountered a new way of being, and have responded with ridicule, shaming, and charges of lying. So often we think that forms of identity that have no clear social place are hilarious and clearly a pretense and that their bearers are fair game for humiliation. Honestly, I don’t know if Dolezal experienced herself as lying, or as making a voluntary choice to deceive, and more generally I don’t know whether or how there might be a legitimate place for transracial identities, as opposed to, in effect, race ‘drag,’ which is what almost everyone seems to assume is going on in Dolezal’s case. But I have learned from experience that body shaming and ridicule are always unhelpful and problematic, and that what we shame and dismiss one year we often come to understand and defend ten years later. I also know that people are driven to lie and deceive in seemingly incomprehensible ways when they find themselves without any socially recognizable way of being. As for the confident claims that Dolezal, or people like her, have no right to black identities because they didn’t have a lifetime of black experience, or because they are being appropriative of the experience and identity markers of an oppressed group, or because they want access to a community that their bodies preclude them from properly joining, or that their presence in black spaces threatens the integrity of those spaces for ‘real’ black people: well, I feel the pull of those arguments for sure, and I don’t want to dismiss them. But boy do they sound exactly analogous to ‘feminist’ arguments that were used to vilify and undercut the entire reality of trans women back in the not-too-long-ago day. I just don’t have the confidence that would allow me to proclaim immediately that this time the critique fits, that there is no real phenomenon here, no human need or way of being that requires understanding and a reconfiguration of my settled concepts. Can’t we learn from the past and proceed a little more slowly?

    It’s hard to believe that in tentatively linking transracial and transgender identity, Rebecca Tuvel was saying something totally beyond the pale but Rebecca Kukla wasn’t.

    (Sure, (1) smaybehe shouldn’t have “deadnamed,” and (2) maybe her paper would’ve been better if she’d explicitly engaged important work outside the boundaries of orthodox analytic philosophy. But re: (1): righteous anger on behalf of Caitlin Jenner of all people? come on; re: (2): so would a zillion other applied ethics papers.)

    1. Facebook Cheliomyrmexae, attack! A Rhodes College assistant professor won’t feed the horde for long. We march on Georgetown!

            1. Although that person is pretending to be me (which again, is ultimately fine with me because Bayesian mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery), I’m glad it brought out a reference to Sim Ant! A noble, early effort to bring ants into every home.

              1. For every cloud there’s a silver lining, I guess.

                Sorry about people posting under your name, though. It’d freak me out if someone did that to me.

      1. Good spot, Pink Panther! Doesn’t RK have to spend some kind of minimum time in sackcloth and ashes before she gets all ‘This is a fantastic statement, thank you. Why hasn’t the editor signed onto it?’ on the Hypatia FB page?

      1. Heh.

        Wow, Mark’s comment. Sure, (1) through (4), if true, would make Tuvel’s paper a bad paper. Maybe they would even make it a bad-to-the-point-of-moral-irresponsibility paper. But good journals publish bad papers all the time. Sometimes they even publish bad-to-the-point-of-moral-irresponsibility papers; everyone has their favorite examples. But what he seems–bizarrely–to COMPLETELY miss is that

        (1) no sane set of editorial practices could universally ensure that no bad paper–even no bad-to-the-point-of-moral-irresponsibility paper–was never accepted, and
        (2) no sane set of professional norms could call for anyone who published a bad-to-the-point-of-moral-irresponsibility paper to be publicly excoriated on social media to the point of putting her career in jeopardy and causing what might realistically be supposed to be serious and lasting psychological harm.

        None of his opponents are mainly objecting to (1) through (4); they’re objecting to what they see as the the anti-Tuvel crowd’s dangerously disproportionate response to (1) through (4).

        1. Quite so, and more specifically to the absolutely disgraceful hanging-out-to-dry by Hypatia of an untenured academic whose work they had freely consented to publish.

          Does Lance even think he’s doing anything more than carrying water for his mob at this point? Seriously, he might as well allege that Tuvel had tried to tapp Hypatia‘s phones during the very sacred editorial process, for all this has to do with what people are actually outraged about.


          The vitriol and absurdity of the folks denouncing [this unprecedented and defamatory assault on free speech in philosophy] here is more than a tad ironic.

          Yeah guys! When are you going to get upset about something actually worth worrying about? Don’t be ironic! Be like Mark!

    2. Judith Butler is a philosopher. Her first name is “Judith,” not “Joseph.” But Joseph Butler is ALSO a philosopher!

  12. Too many reprobate minds in this profession. It is terrifying to see how depraved some people can become after years of wrongdoing. They’re in complete bondage to their lusts.

    If we lived in a world where people loved truth, these Jezebels and Herodians who signed the Hypatia letter would be kindergarten teachers, not university professors.

    Truly, we are in the last days.

    This type of vile behavior would have been unthinkable thirty, twenty, or even just five years ago. The descent into the abyss is only accelerating.

    Put on the whole armor of God and endure to the end.

  13. Honestly I don’t see why referring to someone’s pre-transition identity is so “problematic.” Bruce Jenner performed at the olympics, not Caitlyn.

    1. It’s a made-up taboo, a law for the sake of having something to police. Basic industry widget.

      1. Glad ya like my name, but I also have to say – a shocking lack of enjoyable ant content! Instead, this necessary content seems to have been replaced with #basic mischaracterization. Huh!

        1. “=.
          “=. \
          \ \
          _,-=\/=._ _.-,_
          / \ /=-._ “-.
          |=-./~\___/~\ / `-._\
          | \o/ \o/ / /
          \_ `~~~;/ | HY |
          `~,._,-‘ / PA /
          | | =-._ TIA /
          _,-=/ \=-._ /|`-._/
          // \\ )\
          /| |)_.’/
          //| |\_.” _.-\
          (| \ / _.`= \
          || “:_ _.;”_.-;” _.-=.:
          _-.”/ / `-.”\_.” =-_.;\
          `-_./ / _.-=. / \\
          | =-_.;\ .” \\
          \ \\/ \\
          /\_ .’\\ \\
          // `=_ _.-” \\ \\
          // `~-.=`”`’ || ||
          BEN || _.-_/| || |\_.-_
          _.-_/| /_.-._/ |\_.-_ \_.-._\
          /_.-._/ \_.-._\

    2. Oh, please. Must we do this?

      1. Muhammad Ali was stripped of his boxing license in 1966, two years after he won the heavyweight championship in February 1964.
      2. So, Muhammad Ali won the heavyweight championship in February 1964.
      3. So, it is not the case that Muhammad Ali did not win the heavyweight championship in February 1964.
      4. So, it is not the case that Cassius Clay won the heavyweight championship in February 1964, and Muhammad Ali did not.

      There is no non-idiotic basis for rejecting the parallel argument in Caitlyn Jenner’s case.

      1. or, if that one’s not metaphysical enough for you.

        1. Muhammad Ali was born sometime.
        2. If Muhammad Ali was born sometime, he was born on January 17, 1942.
        3. So, Muhammad Ali was born on January 17, 1942.
        4. So, it is not the case that Cassius Clay was born January 17, 1942, and Muhammad Ali was not.

  14. Hey – someone is apparently trolling the Blanchards by posting comments with their names linked to nasty sites. Love them or hate them (no other option), this isn’t cool. Can the owner stop this sort of thing?

  15. When was the last time you could refresh the metablog and get something new to read each time? These are golden days.

    1. And I think we all know the hilarious academic crime family we have to thank for that – the Brothers Blanchard!

      1. You’re welcome! Of course, I don’t see this as a crime, given that the effort to avoid embracing this blog as the formicid forum it was meant to be is not only the true crime, but the Original Sin.

        1. He’s using ants as a metaphor for colonies of parasitic Jews tunneling into America.

          People got really upset when he called them pigs, dogs, rats, and cockroaches. I think the ant thing is really funny and clever.

    1. It’s still there. Notable fuckwit Mark Lance has now become involved, bringing his usual standards of generosity and clarity of interpretation.

      1. Is there any ridiculous identitarian idiocy that Lance The Boil won’t defend? Now waiting for Brotevi and the Balloon to weigh in. The latter has been quiet lately. Maybe he realized people only know of him because of his blog and wants us to forget that.

  16. new evidence that philosophy of race and other nonsense is killing the profession.
    we should keep as far as we can SJWs from the profession. it is some sort of moral duty

  17. can anyone explain Leiter’s behaviour in this madness? isn’t he a Marxist himself? why does he stand in the anti-commies front this time? the old age has brought wisdom, perhaps?

    1. Leiter has, as far as I know, been consistent in his support for values like academic freedom, free speech, and due process. His reaction to this case is unsurprising. You’d have to ask him about how he squares those values with his Marxism.

      1. Marxists and whining liberal identitarians are hardly natural allies (and the fact that anybody would be puzzled by that is just a symptom of how few actual Marxists there are in academia).

          1. Identity politics also has nothing to do with liberalism, which is universalist, individualist, promotes free speech, and rejects identitarianism..

            1. 7:22 here. You are missing the point. (Perhaps you didn’t read Leiter’s post). He compares today’s SJWs’ madness to the history of 20th cent. marxism (where there was no philosophy, just politics). He is damn right in drawing the comparison. so what about Leiter himself? does he consider himself a Marxist who follows Marx, but not Marx’s 20th cent. minions?

  18. Bravo as usual to Professor Leiter for being the one fucking adult in the profession who’s willing to stand up to these ranting nobodies.

    Also notable, and also per usual, is the complete silence of most so-called moral and political philosophers who are (one hopes) smart enough to see through this bullshit. Seriously, are these tenured cowards just sitting pretty, hoping this all blows over? Or are they genuinely afraid of the clowns who signed that petition? These are, I’d bet, the same people who think tenure is necessary if one is to “speak truth to power.” What a fucking joke.

    At any rate, any scholarly reputation Hypatia had acquired is now toast, and barring the resignation of the current editorial board, I do not see that changing.

    1. Uh, did you not notice the post on Daily Nous that’s a takedown of the points made against the article?

          1. Myrmecology is just a fancy word for exterminating niggers.

            Personally i disagree, but others have their obsessive fetishes.

  19. Related to Leiter’s post today on the defamation against Rebecca Tuvel.

    “I mean, the list is getting rather long. Tim Hunt, Brendan Eich, Justine Sacco, remember them? Remember when Clementine Ford got a bloke sacked because he called her a slut? Remember when legions of whingers reduced Matt Taylor to tears for committing the heinous crime of wearing a paint shirt gone terribly, terribly wrong in public? It’s well known the offendotron phenomenon started on the left. I experienced an early version 20 years ago. Nonetheless, social media mobbing has become thoroughly bipartisan — even Donald Trump has joined in with glee, lining up union leaders and Twitter interlocutors from what is surely the world’s biggest bully pulpit. Yes, being called a slut or exposed to uncontrolled experiments in dreadful fashion is unpleasant, but by the same token if I had a buck for every rude word I’ve been called since turning 18 (since everyone is roundly abused at school I’ll leave that out), I’d have bought my own Caribbean island by now. Sane people get over it.

    Mobs are historically salient. It’s not so long ago that ‘lynch mob’ was more than metaphor. Righteousness — the belief that moral correctness of belief and action is so pressing and important that it transcends law and custom — is dangerous even in isolated individuals. When it infects a mob, it threatens everyone and everything in its path. This, at least, has been known for a while, partly because it’s psychologically satisfying for those who indulge. Aldous Huxley observed that the surest way to work up a crusade in favour of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behaviour “righteous indignation” — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.

    We need to pull the offendotrons up short. They’re undermining civil society, wrecking lives, and making it impossible for people to maintain any distinction between public and private life. That said, it’s worth investigating why long-established principles — like not mistaking employees for their employer unless they are directly engaged in the performance of duties for their employer — are under threat. Oxford philosopher Jeffrey Ketland points out mobs amplify their power or strength in three ways. First, they use social media to increase their number, a form of proxy recruitment; second, they deliberately seek institutional power in universities, corporate HR departments, and unions; and third, they generate emotional and moralistic outrage about trivialities because humans are prone to instantaneous, furious responses. The individual who says ‘ask me what I think tomorrow’ is rare. Combined, Dr Ketland’s three elements strengthen mobbers’ ability to punish their target. Ordinary liberal constraints that have long protected individuals against mobs — accuracy or evidence, or notions of individual justice and procedural fairness — are rendered irrelevant. This makes mobbing near impossible to resist, as huge asymmetries of power mean the victim can almost never escape or fight back. An individual may defend himself from a single person, or perhaps three or four. No individual can defend himself from a mob of 1000 or more. Small wonder companies, universities, political parties, and associations buckle.”

        1. And: why do they seem to think that ‘identity’ only means things like race and “gender”?

  20. Plato is a philosopher. He is not named “David Chalmers,” but David Chalmers is also a philosopher. His name is “David.”

  21. My name is “Fred.” But I am not Fred Dretske.” Only Fred Dretske is Fred Dretske, although his name is also “Fred.”

  22. One of the Blanchards is a philosopher. He and his brother started posting ant nonsense at Ichikawa’s blog a couple days ago in support of the Kipnis debacle and in response to people rejecting the party line. Now they are here.

    Feel free to repost.

  23. Lance:

    Yes, that [ie ‘maintaining a space for even the most ludicrous seeming ideas to be brought forward, just in case a revolution in thought is eventually called for’] is a norm in some parts of the academic world. The suggestion, obviously, is that it is a bad one in cases where real harm is the predictable result of bantering about ‘the most ludicrous seeming ideas’ in a cavalier manner.

    No, Mark, the suggestion, obviously, is not that. The suggestion, obviously, is that this ‘norm in some parts of the academic world’ (he’s referring to a prohibition on censoring academic work for content, by the way — and not even for hate speech, but merely for ‘bantering about’ ‘harmful’ ideas in too ‘cavalier’ a way) should be ruthlessly opposed by subjecting those deemed guilty of such overly cavalier bantering-about of harmful ideas to public vilification, agitating for the retraction by journals of their work for content-related reasons having nothing whatever to do with the journals’ official policy on retraction (see D Wallace’s characteristically excellent comment on this at DN) and, if you are on the editorial board of a journal negligent enough to publish said harmfully cavalier banterings-about, totally selling your author out by joining up with the baying mob in a pantomime of self-flagellating appeasement.

    That’s the suggestion, Mark. Obviously.

    1. Mark Lance disgraces himself yet again. There’s the mindless hyperbole [Really, Lance? The MOST ludicrous seeming ideas? Are you sure, Lance? Did you do an experiment?]. Then there’s the schoolmarmish whinging about harm–REAL harm! You mean like demolishing norms of scholarly debate or sabotaging a junior woman’s prospects for tenure because her elbow slipped out of your echochamber? There is no exaggeration in saying he is literally 10 Hitlers and 1 small Goebbels.

    2. Hey, who do you imagine Lance envisages as always being in charge of deciding who counts as bantering ideas about in a harmfully cavalier way?

      Do you think it might be… people like him?

  24. My brother is too shy to ask, but could you please get rid of all these niggers and their monkey talk about free speech? I’m way too smart for that nigger shit.

    1. That must be why I heard you giggling when you gassed those Jews.

      i though it was a bit peculiar at the time.

  25. Congratulations asshole, you’re making the metablog unreadable. I’m about to set up an alternative, no ant-talk allowed. Who is with me?

    I miss Glaucon so much.

    1. Please consider trying a forum with better tools. Reddit is not perfect, as you have to register, but doing so does not require an email account. Stupid comments can be downvoted/reported. Users can create their own separate threads. It’s a major improvement over this.

    2. Yeah, that would be great. Doens’t have to be Reddit, just needs a way to ban very obvious trolls (although I think it’s important that only obvious trolls should be banned).

      1. Ideally the place would be as non-partisan as possible. It’s bad for this place that so few people come to defend unpopular views (relative to the average commenter here).

    3. Aww. Thanks, Old-Timer. For what it’s worth, I posted this earlier today at DN:

      Quick! Someone sound the alarm:
      This article’s doing great harm.
      The violence of the vocabulary!
      Better call the constabulary,
      The thought police, the gender gendarmes.

      Leaving lived experience unengaged,
      Has a mob of scholactivists enraged.
      They demand a retraction
      Of so great an infraction
      Of the norms by which their game is played.

      They question her scholarly fitness,
      To philosophize – nay, to bear witness.
      Her style of reason
      They regard as great treason.
      This Tuvel may be worse than Kipnis!

  26. So… someone is so obsessed with being able to gossip and speculate about sexual assault anonymously, and without discussion of ants, that they are now not only linking the Blanchards’ names to nasty websites, but posting hate speech about Jews and people of color. All because they can’t take jokes that are easy to ignore. What was that about this blog being a serious philosophical forum for the stifled majority?

    1. There are a lot of different voices here. You seem to assume that one person is doing all of the above, which is far from clear.

    2. Why do you assume that it is the same person who is posting the Banshee Blanchard shit as the Benjamin Blanchard shit?

    3. Shut up, kike lover.

      My Auschwitz jokes are really funny. Where’s your sense of humor?


    4. Couple things. First, who said “this blog [is] a serious philosophical forum”? Second, how does the existence of (in your estimation) a single troll disprove that? Did the real Benjamin Blanchard disprove that? He was a troll. If not, why does Banshee Blanchard somehow show the intellectual bankrupcy of this forum? For all you know, he’s a Benjamin Blanchard supporter who just found a more effective way to disrupt discussion.

      1. This is almost certainly the case. It’s been tried before (the poo/fem-troll, recall). Whatever, they’ll get bored and move along, and then business as usual will resume.

    5. Just ignore all the jokes about gassing Jews. Or develop a sense of humor, I don’t care.

    6. Someone…from Obersalzburg?
      Someone…with a German Shepherd?
      Someone…whose mother was killed by a Jew?

  27. I have a friend who’s obsessed with ants. He sprays them with neurotoxins and then screams “Heil Hitler.” He thinks it’s funny, but I think it’s just tacky and low-class. Heinrich Himmler could teach him a thing or two about extermination etiquette.

  28. One can only divine so much from erratic behavior, but if my target were the Blanchards rather than the blog, I’d be posting under their names rather than a variant like Banshee.

  29. “why does Banshee Blanchard somehow show the intellectual bankrupcy of this forum? For all you know, he’s a Benjamin Blanchard supporter who just found a more effective way to disrupt discussion.”

    I’m going with this one. The Blanchards have been doing some pretty disruptive things, and comments on Itchikawa’s blog make it clear they don’t want people to deviate from the party line. It’s a pretty ugly attempt to disrupt a conversation and impugn the people having it.

    1. I refuse to comment on a blog set up in Swedish.
      German is the language of the new Aryan community.

    2. Worth mentioning, even if obvious: use Tor or a VPN if you go to this site to hide your IP, and thus your location and possibly your university. You have no idea who this person is.

  30. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly apologize to Justin Weinberg (formerly WINEberg, for drunkenness on powerplay) for my public attacks on him. I am apologizing because he has now caved to my attacks, as appropriate, with including The Daily Ant on the Heap of Links. All y’all metal bros thought you were pathetic fringes on the disciplinary boundaries – very true but it is now also true that Justin listens and he listens well.

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