2 Corinthians 4:17
hahaha this is very well played
Hi, Anonymous! I see you are very close to achieving enlightenmant. Keep it up!
Robert Brandom is a philosopher!
Hypatia. There was a helluva shitshow going down on their facebook page but it’s been deleted. Thoughts?
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.
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.”
Who is SS? We all know Rage Machine.
Timothy Williamson is a philosopher.
“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.”
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:
Keith DeRose is a philosopher named “Keith”!
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?
Josh, quit pretending to be me. Let’s give it up already.
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.
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!
The Hypatia fiasco on Leiter Reports: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2017/05/thought-crimes-watch-comparing-trans-racialism-to-transgenderism-verboten.html
Leiter is a well-known pro-vert personality that is aggressively opposed to myrmecological progress. But, I hold out hope for him!
1:07 is Josh Blanchard, yes. I told him to stop posting under my name.
Any low-level forensic entomologist could see that you are posing under my name. I never use the time to reference other people. So simple!
Nice try. You’re the one posting under my name, Josh, and you know it.
A Majority of the Hypatia’s Board of Associate Editors”
Wonder who the minority is/are.
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!
Sounds like they were just covering their bases after not checking with everyone.
I bet they will all fall into line now that Rage Machine has threatened them.
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…
Hopefully, this dream is of the formicid future!!!!
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.
Is it naive to hope that one of these episodes will lead the usual suspects to see how idiotic they look?
“Not checking with everyone”? We’re talking about 80% of ALL described species here…
Um, everyone? Hopefully?
Even Justice Whineberg is not on the side of the censors for a change. Maybe because it violates his rule about criticizing the untenured?
Can’t wait till Rage Machine shows up in the comments: http://dailynous.com/2017/05/01/philosophers-article-transracialism-sparks-controversy/
Already a classic comment from some guy at Toledo, explaining that he defers to “expertise”!
Is he an entomologist? If not, yeah, wow. Pretty embarrassing.
Who is an expert in transracialism?
Exactly, there’s no “expertise” because there’s nothing there to be expert about.
Justice Whineberg has been attacked by Rage Machine and her band of transgroupies once, so he holds a grudge. Payback time!
David Enoch is a philosopher. His first name is “David.”
Love what the merry pranksters are doing with Joshua Blanchard and Benjamin Blanchard. Carry on!
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!
Josh, if you keep posting under my name, I’ll tell them about that thing.
Trust me, the whole world already knows about all of Josh’s things. Sorry
Josh, you are skating on thin ice buddy.
How come you haven’t changed your name to BlANTchard by now?
“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.
wasn’t leiter a 20th cent. marxist himself? I still dont understand the guy. a commie but too old to be pro-trans?
Your an idiot if you think objecting to the mobbing here necessarily implies being anti trans.
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
It’s times like these that make the metablogs obviously relevant, and their detractors look like sulking fifth graders.
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!
Josh! Enough! You are making me look like a loon!
Lol “loon”. Also, you forgot to link to The Daily Ant. Unfortunate for you, but kind of irrelevant to ants!
This is a useful list of people never to hire: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1efp9C0MHch_6Kfgtlm0PZ76nirWtcEsqWHcvgidl2mU/viewform?ts=59066d20&edit_requested=true
Well, that clearly depends on their prior expertise in field collections and taxonomy.
The people in the link. I’d hire them, if they have relevant prior expertise in field collections and taxonomy.
Absolutely. We really need lists like this one. Don’t hire these people or your dept will turn into another Colorado.
And yet, you no doubt see yourself as being opposed to nasty shunning and power plays and biased hiring by the other ‘side’.
Plus, many of the people here have a complete inability to see the relevance of ants to philosophy. Let’s be honest – it’s a real shame!
From the abstract of the thought crime:
“Considerations that support transgenderism seem to apply equally to transracialism.”
Is there any question this is true?
Well, I imagine there probably is any question. But, I’m not sure it really matters? Like, do you think Pheidole care?
My point is, if this topic doesn’t relate to the most speciose ant genus (1,000+ species), does it really matter?
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.
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.
New rule. Everyone must ensure that every third post is attributed to one of the Blanchards.
Peter Unger is a philosopher.
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.
Really, bees aren’t so bad. They basically just wish they were ants but like, don’t we all?
The Bees basically just want to fuck Ants but like, don’t we all?
Hm, maybe not? I haven’t studied the subject.
Are you a celibatibee? Non-cis-homobee?
Can someone ban these ant obsessed weirdos already
Hi, Anonymous! This is the freest blog on the internet, so I certainly hope that the Queen doesn’t shut down myrmecological discourse just because it’s seen as “weird”.
Fine, Josh. If you insist on posting under my name, I’ll post under your name.
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.
I’m not sure about “irrelevance”, but I could get behind irrelevants!
Oh you are indeed irrelevant in a place like this.
That explains how much ant-tension is coming his way!
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.)
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!
Tuvel wrote the article knowing what that entailed.
The associate editors responded to said article. The end.
Allen Wood is a philosopher. His first name is “Allen,” but it is not “Alan”!
Wait, where are the ‘Becky with the good hair’ comments?
“(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.
The concentration of people who think that racial identity confers moral superiority is higher in most US humanities departments than at most Klan rallies.
What about an ants thread and an everything else thread?
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.
Now Tuzel has apologized, in part, for “deadnaming.”
Tuvel wrote the article. She knew the risk. The end.
Daniel Dennett is a philosopher. Both his first and last name begin with “D”.
Where did she post her apology?
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.
>sees cv with pubs from Hypatia
>into the trash it goes
Daniel Bonevac is a philosopher. His last name is “Bonevac.”
On the whole that Hypatia petition is a real who’s who of total fucking nobodies
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.
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!
Footage of Peter Ludlow, LLH, and the Northwestern Title IX apparatus
Ludders fucked LLH. He knew the risk. The end.
Your storytelling skills need work.
tbh, it looks like mockery directed at metablog’s resident femtroll.
Elizabeth Anderson is a philosopher. Her first name is “Elizabeth,” and her last name is “Anderson”!
Footage of Polyrhachis sokolova swimming!
Pogon and Scratchy nude mud wrestling?
Hartry Field is a philosopher. His first name is not “Richard” or “Phillip.”
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.)
Facebook Cheliomyrmexae, attack! A Rhodes College assistant professor won’t feed the horde for long. We march on Georgetown!
I fear for your safety!
Now I’m getting death threats! That pseudonym was right to be concerned!
It’s a dangerous world for your kind, my friend.
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.
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.
Well, it’s freakiness is nothing compared to the freakiness of everyone trying to ignore the true, myrmecological topic at hand! But, thanks for the support, Pink Panther!
LOL, now Kukla is blasting Hypatia and the article/author 24/7 on her FB
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?
Does Mark Lance know?
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).
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!
Mark? Mark Moffett, the famous myrmecologist? If so, yes, I agree! Be more like Mark.
Lance does not come off well in that conversation.
Judith Butler is a philosopher. Her first name is “Judith,” not “Joseph.” But Joseph Butler is ALSO a philosopher!
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.
Um, wrong and wronger! You’re looking for these:
Honestly I don’t see why referring to someone’s pre-transition identity is so “problematic.” Bruce Jenner performed at the olympics, not Caitlyn.
It’s a made-up taboo, a law for the sake of having something to police. Basic industry widget.
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!
/ \ /=-._ “-.
|=-./~\___/~\ / `-._\
| \o/ \o/ / /
\_ `~~~;/ | HY |
`~,._,-‘ / PA /
| | =-._ TIA /
_,-=/ \=-._ /|`-._/
// \\ )\
//| |\_.” _.-\
(| \ / _.`= \
|| “:_ _.;”_.-;” _.-=.:
_-.”/ / `-.”\_.” =-_.;\
`-_./ / _.-=. / \\
| =-_.;\ .” \\
\ \\/ \\
/\_ .’\\ \\
// `=_ _.-” \\ \\
// `~-.=`”`’ || ||
BEN || _.-_/| || |\_.-_
_.-_/| /_.-._/ |\_.-_ \_.-._\
New Hypatia diversity initiative
Sweet, now you’re getting somewhere!
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.
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.
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?
When was the last time you could refresh the metablog and get something new to read each time? These are golden days.
And I think we all know the hilarious academic crime family we have to thank for that – the Brothers Blanchard!
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.
Lance Bush. Think about it for a second.
Tyler Burge is a human philosopher named “Tyler.”
Is the Hypatia thread ALREADY gone from Daily Nous?
Looks like it’s still up to me…
Well, you’re still not me, but, at least the link in the name is noble! Bullet ants are pretty baller.
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.
Yes, you’re the leader we need to establish a judenrein Amerika.
It’s still there. Notable fuckwit Mark Lance has now become involved, bringing his usual standards of generosity and clarity of interpretation.
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.
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
SJWs already run the philosophy profession. Game over.
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?
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.
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).
Marxism has nothing to do with identity politics. It is about universal material conditions.
Identity politics also has nothing to do with liberalism, which is universalist, individualist, promotes free speech, and rejects identitarianism..
Mark Johnston is a philosopher named “Mark.”
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?
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.
Uh, did you not notice the post on Daily Nous that’s a takedown of the points made against the article?
Or, uh, the many myrmecological points made elsewhere that for some reason this freest of blogs will not discuss?
Myrmecology is just a fancy word for exterminating niggers.
Personally i disagree, but others have their obsessive fetishes.
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.”
Why are the New Scolds so hung up on identity?
Many fail to identify properly with the concerns of the ant – a plight that is quite troubling!
Let me guess, you’re using ants as a code word for niggers.
And: why do they seem to think that ‘identity’ only means things like race and “gender”?
I checked out this link, expecting to find ants, but instead I only found words about various vertebrate affairs. Well, a gyne can dream!
Elliott Sober is a philosopher. His first name is “Elliott.”
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher. His name is not “John Locke.”
Soren Kierkegaard is a philosopher. His name is not “Rene Descartes.”
Quit posting here, you filthy Jew.
Aristotle is a philosopher. His name is “Aristotle.”
Plato is a philosopher. He is not named “David Chalmers,” but David Chalmers is also a philosopher. His name is “David.”
My name is “Fred.” But I am not Fred Dretske.” Only Fred Dretske is Fred Dretske, although his name is also “Fred.”
I don’t get it. Is this some more dumb Blanchard shit?
Hi there! I can’t know for sure what that is, but it is noticeably lacking in ant content, just like the youtube link in your faux-me name. No worries!
I chose that clip because I, the true Benjamin Blanchard, am taking the DMT. Why do you think I post so much dumb ant shit?
Actually, there is also swamp-Dretske who’s name is also “Fred Dretske.”
Or at least sounds like “Fred Dretske”
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.
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.
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.
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?
I really hate niggers. That’s why I study insects instead.
This thread has taken an interesting turn…
Careful, Blanchard boys, you might cut yourself with that edge.
Knock it off.
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.
I think I’m funny!
That must be why I heard you giggling when you gassed those Jews.
i though it was a bit peculiar at the time.
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.
Fuck yes. More Glaucon, less Blanchards.
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.
I want to see politicalsciencerumors but for philosophy
would be good
scientia > sophia
No Reddit, please.
Why not reddit? Do you know of a better alternative?
Reddit is to open dialogue what Mark Lance is to philosophy. Try Voat.
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).
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).
Ants are the price you pay for freedom from censorship.
Ants are just a code word for niggers. Racist.
Fuck it, I went ahead and set one up. Don’t know if it will catch on but it was worth a try. Can’t let Blanchard and his ilk ruin the metablog: https://philmetablog.wordpress.com/
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!
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?
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.
Why do you assume that it is the same person who is posting the Banshee Blanchard shit as the Benjamin Blanchard shit?
You write as if this blog has an editorial board and substantial barriers to commenting.
Shut up, kike lover.
My Auschwitz jokes are really funny. Where’s your sense of humor?
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.
For all we know the Banshee Blanchard poster is someone also aiming to destroy this forum.
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.
if i recall right, scatofem did drive glaucon away.
Just ignore all the jokes about gassing Jews. Or develop a sense of humor, I don’t care.
derp derp ants derp derp six million
“someone.” Fuck you, there’s two of us.
Actually, there are at least three.
1, 2, 4, 5, 6…
Someone…with a German Shepherd?
Someone…whose mother was killed by a Jew?
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.
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.
NEW METABLOG. It will be exactly like this one except without Blanchards and pseudo-Nazis:
What, you have to give an email address? Thanks, but I don’t think so.
Whoops, let me fix that.
“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.
Off to a little bit of a rocky start, but I got the commenting system figured out. Now it doesn’t require registration: https://philmetablog.wordpress.com/
I refuse to comment on a blog set up in Swedish.
German is the language of the new Aryan community.
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.
Isn’t that true of this site as well?
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.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s