Site Suggestions Thread

We seem to have an ant problem. Thoughts?

Advertisements

140 thoughts on “Site Suggestions Thread

  1. Your ant problem is that when people hear about ants, they freak out. They freak out because they want to be able to anonymously gossip and speculate about their colleagues’ sex lives, among other things, in peace. Solution: delete the blog.

    1. Love your use of code words. They freak out because you’re trying to segregate the niggers within larger philosophy departments.

  2. 2 possibilities. 1. Block the idiot, or delete his comments when they appear. 2. Everyone else just ignore him. He will have to go back to his work at some point.

    1. Can’t he avoid being blocked simply by using Tor? Moreover, why would the owner of this blog block the one person staying on topic? The ant problem is how crazy is drives people when someone is talking about them.

  3. There’s a pretty simple solution. WordPress allows you to filter comments that contain certain keywords. Just use that and delete all the Blanchard comments. After a while they’ll get bored and fuck off.

  4. Who cares? It’s pretty funny what a total ass he’s making of himself despite his cringey attempts at humor. If his purpose in life is to become the “I was only pretending to be retarded” meme, I say let him live his dream.

    1. Short answer: yes, it is absolutely worth every cringe comment as he digs himself deeper on behalf of future colleagues and employers.

      1. Huh? The (lighthearted and innocuous) ant comments are making a fool of everyone here, because some people here cannot control themselves. We need a blog owner who can at least delete the relevant comments before things get completely out of hand, and a few bad apples confirm everything people say about us.

          1. “Hey guys. I’m part of a community obsessed with making open blogs that don’t collect info so we can have free discussion. Now let me capitalize on a controversy where some adults can’t handle silly ant comments, and incompetently set up a blog on a fool-proof platform.”

              1. So right now, two people are arguing with each other about who is creepy, or who has anger issues. But here is what they both want to do: They both want to host a blog where people anonymously but publicly gossip and speculate about their colleagues’ sex lives, job prospects, and personalities. You guys are made for each other!

      1. Because it takes a stable and normal person to host a blog where people anonymously gossip and speculate about their colleagues’ sex lives, rape accusations, hiring prospects, and other things. Right.

          1. Because it takes a strong and robust person to host a blog where people anonymously gossip and speculate about their colleagues’ sex lives, rape accusations, hiring prospects, and other things. Right.

              1. Does that blog have people anonymously gossiping and speculating about their colleagues’ sex lives, rape accusations, hiring prospects, and other things? And (just to move the goalposts slightly, but in a way that I meant to imply earlier) – can you tell who they are talking about? Do they either name the people, or give sufficient information to figure it out?

                Insofar as the answer is “yes,” then yes, the criticism would apply there as well!

                Someone should write an academic paper defending the claim that two wrongs do not make a right.

                1. The “anonymous gossiping and speculating about one’s colleagues’ sex lives, rape accusations” occurs at the “What is it like to be a woman in philosophy?” blog. Was that set up by a “strong and robust person”?

                  1. I explicitly moved the goalposts very slightly to accommodate something I meant to imply: that known persons are being gossiped about. So if that blog does this, then the same criticisms apply. I actually do not read that blog, and so I don’t know if it does this. But again: it sure is bad if it does do this! See the point above about the promising academic paper.

                    1. Honestly, I don’t understand your point. People gossip. No reason for you to REE. Nobody discussed here is a colleague of mine (do you understand the word?). Also curious why you fixate on rape. What difference does it make what the nature of the accusation is?

                    2. “Honestly, I don’t understand your point. People gossip. No reason for you to REE. Nobody discussed here is a colleague of mine (do you understand the word?). Also curious why you fixate on rape. What difference does it make what the nature of the accusation is?”

                      Good points and questions. Here are some replies: Anonymously gossiping about people in a public forum is very bad – both because it harms people when they are gossiped about, and because it is cowardly, and it is bad for people to be cowards. It’s even bad when that person is not a colleague. It’s even bad when the accusation in question isn’t as bad as rape (or when it doesn’t involve the other things I mentioned).

                    3. The WIL blog started the “anonymous gossiping, about one’s colleagues sex lives, rape accusations”. Was that slander blog set up by a “strong and robust person”?

                    4. “The WIL blog started the “anonymous gossiping, about one’s colleagues sex lives, rape accusations”. Was that slander blog set up by a “strong and robust person”?”
                      As stated clearly an unequivocally above: the exact same criticisms apply, if the features described (including the goalpost shift) apply.

                    5. WIL, set up by a “strong and robust person”, engages in “anonymous gossiping and speculating about one’s colleagues’ sex lives, rape accusations”. WIL is a witch hunting blog.

          2. Oh wait, my bad. What you were implying was that it takes a strong and robust person to actually do the anonymous gossiping and speculating about one’s colleagues’ sex lives, rape accusations, hiring prospects, and other things. Right.

            1. Honestly, I don’t understand your point. People gossip. No reason for you to REE. Nobody discussed here is a colleague of mine (do you understand the word?). Also curious why you fixate on rape. What difference does it make what the nature of the accusation is?

              1. “Honestly, I don’t understand your point. People gossip. No reason for you to REE. Nobody discussed here is a colleague of mine (do you understand the word?). Also curious why you fixate on rape. What difference does it make what the nature of the accusation is?”

                Good points and questions. Here are some replies: Anonymously gossiping about people in a public forum is very bad – both because it harms people when they are gossiped about, and because it is cowardly, and it is bad for people to be cowards. It’s even bad when that person is not a colleague. It’s even bad when the accusation in question isn’t as bad as rape (or when it doesn’t involve the other things I mentioned).

              2. It’s not just the incidence of rape, it’s the pattern of niggers raping white philosophers. That’s what drives the ant people crazy.

            2. Why is it possible for one subspecies of humans to rape another? Wouldn’t ecology take care of that problem?

      1. It’s about time we deleted some of that ant DNA. If we feed the ants, the Jews will starve.

  5. You had a Ketland problem, and did nothing. You have a right-wing women-and-feminism-are-evil-and-stole-my-job-so-let’s-try-to-belittle-their-accomplishments problem, and do nothing. You have a problem with people posting illegal information, and do nothing.

    Surely the answer here is to do nothing.

    Besides, the ant stuff is pretty clever parody.

    1. Honestly, I don’t understand your point. People gossip. No reason for you to REE. Nobody discussed here is a colleague of mine (do you understand the word?). Also curious why you fixate on rape. What difference does it make what the nature of the accusation is?

      1. “Honestly, I don’t understand your point. People gossip. No reason for you to REE. Nobody discussed here is a colleague of mine (do you understand the word?). Also curious why you fixate on rape. What difference does it make what the nature of the accusation is?”

        Good points and questions. Here are some replies: Anonymously gossiping about people in a public forum is very bad – both because it harms people when they are gossiped about, and because it is cowardly, and it is bad for people to be cowards. It’s even bad when that person is not a colleague. It’s even bad when the accusation in question isn’t as bad as rape (or when it doesn’t involve the other things I mentioned).

        1. Let’s accept for a moment that serious harm is done by this blog (absurd, but let’s continue). You lecture us about cost/benefit tradeoffs (and elevate this to a moral dictum, for some reason known only to you) yet you fail over and over because you have no grasp of the benefits in either case, and so cannot make the comparison. Brotevi-tier thinking, anon.

          1. The comment you’re responding to never lectured about cost/benefit tradeoffs…

            Is this comment supposed to be a metabro parody or a genuine criticism?

    2. It’s not really that clever (Proverbs aside). But the obvious difference is that these Blanchard morons are being disruptive to the blog. I get that the point of the blog is to provide an uncensored forum for discussion, but that doesn’t entail e.g. allowing spam messages through; nor should it entail allowing this kind of disruptive behavior.

    3. Yes, a clever parody of gassing Jews at Auschwitz. I’ll bet he giggles every time he thinks about it.

    4. Ketland was sexually assaulted and stalked by a violent psycho, who also stalked his wife. He was then witch hunted by vigilantes – Brooke Berndtson and Paula Boddington – who lied about him and chased his family out of their home.

      1. And then he thought “I’m a bit horny, I might as well leave my wife to have sex with this violent psycho. What could possibly go wrong?”

  6. The nasty gossip is fallout, a foreseen, undesirable side effect of having an open forum. My own preference is to regard the ant infestation the same way, but I can see the owner’s point too.
    It really is making Ben Blanchard look like a childish douche bag, but for me that’s the only problem – it’s just mildly annoying.
    I’m not seeing the problem with the new philmetablog. I posted a comment there without registering and using Tor. But hey, why not have two? Maybe they will develop interestingly different characters.

    1. i thought blanchard’s comments were winsome and funny. and it’s pretty incredible what they bring out of supposed adults on this forum. think about it. winsome and funny comments about ants made some adults sit at their computers somewhere and, protected by anonymity:

      1 – mock his teeth
      2 – question his brother’s job prospects
      3 – issue racial slurs of various kinds
      4 – complain about being literally unable to carry on discussion around the comments
      5 – speculate that he is autistic
      6 – what am i missing? (i’m sure “banshee blanchard” will have some ideas)

      1. i definitely remember 7! though i don’t remember 8… maybe i haven’t been reading closely enough. anyway thank you for these contributions. these are other things that adults have sat at their computers and typed out anonymously, because the literally cannot handle some winsome ant comments that don’t even say anything about anything.

          1. huh, don’t remember that one either. but we can add it to the list of things that grownups sit at their computers and anonymously type out about actual people in public!

              1. yes, when you sit back and contemplate it in its totality, it’s pretty morally humiliating for the participants.

                  1. i agree that grown men and women who spend a lot of time doing what i describe may have mental illness, but i doubt that that is fully exonerating in these cases – plus, i think that approach stigmatizes people with mental illness, most of whom don’t engage in these humiliating behaviors.

      2. To be fair, most of these were likely either comments made by people trolling the blog, or consisted of arguably true claims.

        Also 4 is ableist. Apologize!

  7. I don’t know why, but I have been blocked from the Site Suggestions thread! Why can’t this freest of blogs accept the ants – who, I might add, have inherited the Earth?

    Benjamin Blanchard

  8. Ant man has done some world class trolling. I’m impressed! Better then “Ketland was stalked guy” and even “Nussbaum fucked a student” guy. Take a bow.

    1. Aren’t you ignoring that his wife described being stalked by Coursier and other eyewitnesses described Coursier’s violence and stalking?

      1. You yourself are ignoring the fact that despite all these terrible crimes against him, Ketland still left his wife to fuck Coursier on the side when he needed a bit of strange. Jeff Any Hole’s A Goal Ketland there, not exacerbating his stalker’s mental health problems in the least. Classy guy.

        1. His stalker was in love with him and repeatedly thanked him for a year after he fled from her violence and threats. She herself said this. You need to stop making things up, as it makes you sound like a total jerk.

          Your comment only makes sense if you think sexual violence, stalking and vigilantism are acceptable.

          1. He knew she was in love with him and violently self-charmingly mentally ill. So naturally, when the chance came up for a quick fuck, he took it. What could go wrong?

            1. Your comments only make sense if you think sexual violence, stalking and vigilantism are acceptable.

              Obviously, Coursier wanted a “quick fuck”. When “the chance came up for a quick fuck”, Coursier invited herself over to his friend’s flat and sexually assaulted him.

              Why do you think Coursier wanted a “quick fuck”?

              1. Nope.

                A) stalking and sexual violence are bad.
                B) Skeevy Wetlands is a creep, who even though he had been sexually assaulted and stalked by a woman he considered insane, still decided to have sex with her later when she offered it, fully cognizant of the likely effect on her psyche, and leaving his wife for the opportunity (what could go wrong?).

                For a logician, you do a pretty poor job if you can’t see that A and B are compatible.

                1. You now seem to agree that Coursier wanted a “quick fuck” and when “the chance for a quick fuck came up”, Coursier went over to someone’s flat and sexually assaulted her victim.

                  But what we don’t agree about is your thinking sexual assault, stalking and vigilantism are acceptable. Why are sexual assault, stalking and vigilantism acceptable?

                2. Women with borderline personality disorder are no more vulnerable than psychopaths. They are both dangerous to other people and are morally responsible for their manipulative lying.

                3. Oh god. Broodingson is back with her creepy stalking of Ketland. He doesn’t want you ,dear. You’re just going to have to get over it.

    1. well, this is a blog where grown men and women sit at their computers and anonymously gossip and speculate about named individuals’ sex lives, job prospects, harassment and rape accusations, the quality of their work, and so on. at least one, but probably more, blanchards came by, ignored this material, and basically just talked about ants – plus some other humorous absurdist pomo twaddle. unsurprisingly, this caused many people here to completely flip out. this is unsurprising, because we’re talking about the kinds of men and women who do what i describe in the first sentence. they couldn’t handle it. one of them even started associating the name “blanchard” with a bunch of racial slurs. others made mental health jokes. and the pathetic, humiliating saga continues.

      1. Making light of serious mental health issues is very problematic, but could you please not use the expression “flip out” in light of its ableism? Thank you.

  9. Jezebels got exposed and they’re embarrassed, so now they’re trying to sow confusion here and anywhere else to shut down any discussion of their shame.

    Predictable behavior.

    It won’t work, and everyone knows that’s exactly what’s going on, so it’s simply counter-productive on their part. But they’re too blind to realize it.

    What else could we come to expect from a bunch of reprobates?

    1. Now that Hypatia is BTFO, what is your publishing strategy going t– whoops, I meant your supervisor’s strategy going to be, anon?

    2. No, the same forces behind the ants also dropped the racial epitaphs. They did that so people like you could claim that regulars at the blog did so. Again, this is so obvious to everyone that’s it’s probably not even worth pointing out, but since you and your crew are desperate enough to do what you have, I figured I’d make this all explicit.

      The more you try, the deeper you guys only dig your own hole.

      Have a nice day and come clean with God. It’s obvious that you need to.

      1. Man, you really don’t understand the metablog, do you? The whole point of it is that there are no ‘crews’. The whole point of having an anonymous blog with no moderation is that the blog itself doesn’t have a point of view, and you have to focus on the comments themselves, rather than lumping individual comments in with ‘crews’ or into ‘forces.’ There is, deliberately, no way of telling who the ‘regulars’ are and no way of ascribing any set of behavior to ‘regular’ or ‘non-regular’ comments. If you don’t like this, go find another blog.

  10. The solution is probably for a moderator to pay close attention to comments in the short run, deleting spam until the spammers get tired of it. It seems to be working at philmetablog.

    1. Yes! More active moderation, making sure only the Right Kinds of comments are approved. That’s what the metablog has always stood for

  11. Wow. I had no idea the metablog was so fragile. Someone should have destroyed it years ago. Good job Ben!

    1. Ditto. The reaction to him was astonishingly, may I say, meta… as outlined very well by Anonymous @ 3:03pm above.

      What this whole thing amounted to was: “The very unfunny and failing Blanchards (or at least Ben – still confused about Josh’s role) seem to think this is a cesspool that should be deleted. Let’s show them in like ten different ways why that’s exactly right!”

  12. “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. Benjamin and Joshua Blanchard have been doing some pretty disruptive things, and comments on Ichikawa’s blog make it clear they don’t want people to deviate from the party line about the Kipnis Affair. It’s a pretty ugly attempt to disrupt a conversation and impugn the people having it.

    But you are a fool if you think the Blanchards are going to be successful. This place has sprung to life, even ignoring all the Blanchards’ racist antics.

    1. Yep, totally agree.
      This is an annoying thing that’s happening, but I think it’s a very good sign.
      With just a little practice I’m not able to read the metametametablog mentally filtering out the noise (including the loony Ketland shit too), and it’s looking good.

      1. Ketland got witch hunted out of his job by a smear campaign of false accusations from vigilantes and they even harassed him and his family from their home.

    2. Yes, those ant jokes were a “pretty ugly attempt to disrupt a conversation.” I mean, think about it. They kept… posting jokes about ants. On a blog! Very ugly indeed. It’s so much uglier than anonymously and publicly naming people and then speculating about their job prospects, sex lives, sexual assault allegations, quality as a scholar, and the rest. It sure would be nice if we could do that in peace, without all of those ant jokes getting in the way. (Though, to be fair, there was also a lot of just straight ant info too. I learned a lot!)

      1. Right, I’m sure all of the moderated blogs would let dozens of ant comments get posted. Feminist Philosophers wouldn’t every say it was an attempt to disrupt a conversation, for example.

        Anyone with a brain knows that it was. But, I agree with the principle here at the metametametablog: no moderation, even of obvious attempts to disrupt. We’re different.

  13. It’s amazing how principles seem to go out the window as soon as things stop going exactly the way some people want it to. This blog is unmoderated, and it is unmoderated for a reason. I guess some people need their safe spaces without all those terribly triggering comments about ants.

  14. Hate speech guy: if you want to prove you’re not one of the Blanchards or their troll friends, why don’t you post some hate speech using their names? As it stands it seems pretty obvious that you’re just trying to smear the blog. Also interesting (though hardly dispositive proof of anything) that BB and antonymous disappeared after these shenanigans started.

  15. Maybe this blog, the freest blog on the internet (but not the anternet), just can’t handle ant discussions. Kind of sad!

    1. Make sure you put this on your c.v. Benjamin. Especially in the context of the discipline-wide conversations you were spamming, people will be interested in how you behaved.

      1. Hi, Anonymous! I think more people appreciate Social Insect Justice Warriors than you realize!

  16. Here’s something the moderator can do–let BB and his brother do their thing, and once or twice a day cull their comments from the blog. I predict that a week or two of that will discourage the guys, perhaps with occasional tending afterwards. That’s a modicum of moderation, but it cannot reasonably be interpreted as censorship as no views are being suppressed by the Blanchards. (And I take for granted that we do not need a theory of when a view is really being expressed to see that the Blanchards do not meet it.) So this solution does not transgress the spirit of the blog, and it solves the problem. Less than ideal, I admit, but we are not dealing with ideal thinkers here.

    You should leave the comments from the earlier threads, however. Given the way the Kipnis and Hypatia malfeasances are coming into wider discussion, it will be good to have a record of how the Blanchards behaved.

    1. You are exactly right when you say that “no views are being suppressed by the Blanchards.” That’s (partly) why the reaction to them is so embarrassing and humiliating for the people here!

      1. Sorry, no views of theirs are being suppressed. They’re just spamming, so it’s only a gain to remove the comments in question.

        1. Didn’t Josh just comment twice… to ask why someone said this would affect him on the job market?

    2. “it will be good to have a record of how the Blanchards behaved.”

      I can see the stories now. During a time when there were wide-ranging public discussions of the Kipnis and Hypatia controversies in multiple venues, there was also a blog where people (no one knows how many, could be 100, could be 10) discussed these issues anonymously, along with gossip and speculation about named people’s sex lives, assaults and assault allegations, job prospects, physical appearance, quality as scholars, etc. And do you know what the Blanchard Bros had the /gall/ to do in this anonymous forum? They came in and posted jokes about ants. Can you believe it? What kinds of monsters are these people?

      1. “gossip and speculation about named people’s sex lives”

        as opposed to unnamed people’s sex lives?

        1. isn’t the point: it’s worse to specify who you are gossiping about, rather than gossip about someone but in a way that doesn’t reveal who they are. both are bad presumably… but isn’t one much, much worse?

      2. Riiiigggghht. No one will ever care that Benjamin and Joshua Blanchard behaved as they did. Go back to your echo chamber.

        1. Sorry, Blanchards. Anonymous @3:20pm is correct. The metablog, and this iteration in particular, is taken very seriously by a wide range of people across philosophy and even academia more widely. And among that wide range of people, ~100% are not only influential in their fields but are the sorts of people who would find ant jokes among anonymous commenters very worrisome.

  17. People keep saying of the Blanchards things like “comments on Ichikawa’s blog make it clear they don’t want people to deviate from the party line about the Kipnis Affair”.

    I finally went and looked. BB just gives his boilerplate ant stuff – which unless you live under a rock, you’ve seen him do all over the place in philosophy mostly where it has nothing to do with Kipnis. As for JB, he mocked one person who very stupidly mocked Ichikawa for not being popular. And aside from that he left a serious but very mild comment that even suggested that Kipnis makes many good and important points.

    1. “unless you live under a rock, you’ve seen him do all over the place in philosophy mostly where it has nothing to do with Kipnis”

      I’ve never seen them do this other than here and at Itchy’s blog. Can you give an example?

      1. Sorry, didn’t put this in the right place earlier:
        He constantly posts on people’s Facebook posts, and it’s pretty funny. Also in the “Academic Philosophers” Facebook group. And remember, the “Philosophy Phriday” series actually has several posts by actual philosophers, some of them prominent. So it’s not like completely random that he would show up here. If you don’t believe me, do a Facebook search for “Philosophy Phriday” or “The Daily Ant.”

  18. He constantly posts on people’s Facebook posts, and it’s pretty funny. Also in the “Academic Philosophers” Facebook group. And remember, the “Philosophy Phriday” series actually has several posts by actual philosophers, some of them prominent. So it’s not like completely random that he would show up here. If you don’t believe me, do a Facebook search for “Philosophy Phriday” or “The Daily Ant.”

      1. Unfortunately this cannot be true, because it is an axiom of logic that if he mailed stuff to philosophers, it would be ants.

  19. 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.

  20. Here’s something the moderator can do–let BB and his brother do their thing, and once or twice a day cull their comments from the blog. I predict that a week or two of that will discourage the guys, perhaps with occasional tending afterwards. That’s a modicum of moderation, but it cannot reasonably be interpreted as censorship as no views are being expressed by the Blanchards. (And I take for granted that we do not need a theory of when a view is really being expressed to see that the Blanchards do not meet it.) So this solution does not transgress the spirit of the blog, and it solves the problem. Less than ideal, I admit, but we are not dealing with ideal thinkers here.

    You should leave the comments from the earlier threads, however. Given the way the Kipnis and Hypatia malfeasances are coming into wider discussion, it will be good to have a record of how the Blanchards behaved.

  21. I think the ant comments a kinda amusing actually, so I don’t mind them so much except when they obnoxiously flood the threads.

    One suggestion would be to have an off-topic thread (or off-topic ant thread) and shove all those comments over there…though since they’re not serious, I don’t think it would be a sin against free expression to just delete them, either.

    Basically a general principle against flooding the thread seems to make sense no matter who’s doing it nor what they’re saying.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s