Friday is a good day for what? You know what!
Speaking of student schtupping, anyone else heard that Stanley is on a one-semester leave next fall? Word is that he’ll be at Vancouver, or has been interviewing there. Word is that he’s no longer welcome at Yale because he’s been schtupping undergrads. (*Yawn* Can’t say we didn’t warn you, Tamar. Best distance yourself from yo’ Stan-bro if you want to occupy the president’s house.)
UBC or Vancouver Island University?
Much long time, very little see – and thus, very few ants!
Alamo! Wait no – The Ants!
I love the smell of formic acid in the morning!
Quick thought: do we have a myrmecology scandal? I think not!
violent trans greenday fans
Is this the beautiful face of the attacker at :08?
Where’s Flea? . . .
Science is the fruit of the poisonous Western Tree. Decolonize your mother fucking mind bro.
Amazing, this Tucker guy had something insightful to say:
“CARLSON: That’s just unbelievable, I don’t know where to begin. Kathy Griffin isn’t particularly talented or amusing, he does have a point, it’s a little disproportionate for all of us to keep so much attention on someone who probably shouldn’t be famous in the first place, so why are we doing this segment? Because whether she realizes it or not and I bet she has no idea, Griffin is an important figure in American life and that she’s the perfect embodiment of what the modern left beliefs.
Consider carefully what she said today. Griffin publicly fantasizes violently about murdering the President yet she holds a press conference to announce she’s the one who has been wronged. Trump and his family bullied her she says, so have unnamed older white guys who have oppressed her despite giving her a series of very high paying jobs. In other words, she is the real victim here. Of course she is, liberals are always the victims.
Being the victim is virtually what it means to be a member of the progressive America. It has more benefits it turns out than AAA and it’s free. It means never having to say you’re sorry, it also means being right even when you’re wrong. Victimhood is the modern equivalent of holiness, it excuses anything. That’s why liberals will say almost anything no matter how ludicrous to get it. Do you remember when President Obama the most powerful human being in history use to imply that he was somehow the victim of racial bias?
Did you catch Hillary Clinton the other day, a woman so rich and pampered, she hasn’t driven her own car in 30 years complain that sexism prevented her from becoming even richer and more pampered. Before you laugh, remember that overpaid sports figures make these kinds of claims all the time, entertainers — even TV anchors and now even third-rate unfunny comedians. We see a trend here because there is one.
Wait, if the most powerful and richest people on the planet can be victims, who can’t be a victim? Good question. The most remarkable thing about victimhood as that it allows the alleged victims to commit to the very offenses they are complaining about. They will punch you in the face and accuse you of assault. Or more specifically smash you in the head with the bike lock and then complain you’re making them feel unsafe.
They’ll crush a bible club at a school that never even been to and then tell you that other people’s beliefs oppressed them. They will take over a college campus forcing spineless administrators to enact every one of their demands and then claimed to be powerless victims of a climate of racism. And then they will conduct a nationwide witch-hunts for Christian small businesses trying to shut them down if they don’t violate their own faith.
They will throw illiterate refugees into cash-strapped public schools and call you a bigot for questioning it. Oh, well, they fled a $50,000 a year private schools for their own kinds. And then of course, they will fly private even as they berate you for destroying the world with your SUV. It used to be that the point of running a country was to make things better for the people who live there. That has changed. Now the goal, it’s almost explicit is to achieve moral superiority over the population often while making their lives worse. It’s quite a trick and victimhood makes it possible.”
Tucker Carlson says, “Wait, if the most powerful and richest people on the planet can be victims, who can’t be a victim?” Indeed, throughout the quoted remarks, he suggests that rich and powerful people cannot be victims of wrongdoing.
But this is clearly false. A rich and powerful person can be the victim of assault, of theft, of slander, etc. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Let’s consider Carlson’s particular cases.
(1) Obama. Carlson writes, “Do you remember when President Obama the most powerful human being in history use to imply that he was somehow the victim of racial bias?” As far as I can tell, the implicit argument is something like this:
Premise: Obama is rich and powerful.
Conclusion: Obama could not be the victim of racial bias.
(2) Clinton. Carlson write, “Did you catch Hillary Clinton the other day, a woman so rich and pampered, she hasn’t driven her own car in 30 years complain that sexism prevented her from becoming even richer and more pampered.” As far as I can tell, the implicit argument is something like this:
Premise: Clinton is rich and pampered.
Conclusion: Sexism could not have prevented her from winning the election.
The point is that the putative victimization has virtually no negative impact. And it seems to be part of a larger trend where everyone is racing to become the biggest victim. Cathy Griffin claims to be victimized by Trump. Pleazzzz. The SJWs claim to be victims of whiteness in all its evil forms. Fools all over the country claim to be victimized by panchos, hook earrings, white people making burritos, microagressions etc. And now Clinton can’t accept that a good section of the country did not want to continue down the road the coastal elites in the Democratic party were taking the country. So she complains that she’s a victim of sexism. And that Trump won because of racism. Nonsense.
More evidence that the SJWs are racist fools.
“Did you catch Hillary Clinton the other day, a woman so rich and pampered, she hasn’t driven her own car in 30 years complain that sexism prevented her from becoming even richer and more pampered. Before you laugh, remember that overpaid sports figures make these kinds of claims all the time, entertainers — even TV anchors and now even third-rate unfunny comedians. We see a trend here because there is one.”
Um, yeah so this is EXACTLY the point of intersectional feminism.
Philippe Lemoine has balls the size of watermelons for posting this under his actual name:
What are his chances of obtaining a tenure track job? Does anyone have insight? I ask out of genuine curiousity given his commitment to going against the party line as a student.
Better than before. The more recognizable his name, the better. Especially as long as he avoids editorializing too much and just sticks to making statistical points.
Most publicity is good publicity.
Wow. That post is fantastic.
He’s gonna be the victim of the dogpiling than which none greater can be conceived.
What happened during the paleo-PC era (ca. 1985-1995) was that the advocates of political correctness got louder and shriller and crazier until finally liberals stopped defending them. I rather think that’s what’s beginning to happen now. There’s no way that the social “justice” reign of terror lasts in its current frenzied form…but the real question is: how much of it will survive the backlash / rennaissance of reasonableness? Paleo-PC managed to get a bunch of stuff ensconced in universities that survived their demise (the postmodernization / politicization of the humanities, the creation of explicitly politicized quasi-disciplines (“x studies”), anti-liberal attitudes about diversity and multiculturalism). (And actually, like Sauron, they just retreated to their safe spaces to plot their next push to take over the world…but we didn’t realize that at the time…) I expect the same from neo-PC. What will survive? Dunno. Title IX witch hunting? “Bias response teams”? A commitment to “deplatforming” wrongthinkers? Not sure I’d be willing to place any bets. I suppose the practical point is: saner folk can’t just expect to disperse the madding mobs and call it a day–not that even just that will be easy. We need to start thinking in terms of rolling back the (as Kipnis might say) unwanted advances they’ve pushed through. But I guess that’s largely putting the cart before the horse.
Very true, Stealthy.
It’s clear that, this time around, we need to push them much harder. If they won’t follow the methods of free inquiry, they cannot be permitted to destroy them. There’s a big world out there for them to live in. They don’t need to infest the university. We need to burn down all thee last hiding holes on campus: the x studies nonsense, which delegitimizes the university. If they have points to make, let them make them in the open and with clear arguments, like everyone else has to.
I think there are a lot of departments that want nothing to do with SJWs. Though SJWism is like cancer. It can take over entire departments. And more. They tend to seek out positions of authority in faculty senates and professional organizations, etc.. They want nothing more than to wiled institutional power to reshape the world according to their ridiculous ideology. . . . If you balk they send the screaming mobs after you and then give the most violent awards.
Would many people here be excited to get an offer from [insert place where horrible SJW works]? It would be better in many cases to simply leave the profession.
Now they have bats.
Credible reports protestors w/ bats roaming campus for 2 days. People hit, won't report. @heathereheying students & I warned @GovInslee 5/25 pic.twitter.com/soH4djQigc
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) June 5, 2017
Credible reports protestors w/ bats roaming campus for 2 days. People hit, won't report. @heathereheying students & I warned @GovInslee 5/25 pic.twitter.com/soH4djQigc
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) June 5, 2017
They could have chainsaws and AK-47s and still wouldn’t be intimidating.
What ever happened to the unreliable boyfriend in the Coursier case? Did the lynch mob go after him?
Not sure what you mean by unreliable, but as far as I know he is fine. Why would a ‘lynch mob’ go after him anyway?
Because jizzy jeff is posting here asking them to.
this is about Charlotte Coursier, the rapist and stalker who stalked the Oxford academic and his wife?
Not only that; Benjamin Fardell coerced Coursier into having an abortion, which in turn caused her to commit suicide.
The public record supports none of these extraordinary assertions, and you have no evidence to bring forward to support them. Whoever you are, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself and consider the choices you’ve made in life.
Its ketland, the guy who fucked a girl crazy.
Jeff must have a lethal penis
Which Jeff? Jeff Sessions?
The public record (Sunday Times) supports that Coursier assaulted Ketland. The public record supports that she stalked him (Sunday Times). The public record shows that Fardell persuaded Coursier to have an abortion and she felt she had “murdered her child (Daily Mail), The public record show that he dumped her and ignored her suicide threats (Daily Mail).
You take a hard look at yourself.
The public record supports that Ketland is a student shtupper. You take a hard look at yourself.
The public record shows that Charlotte Coursier was rapist and stalker. It doesn’t say what you said and no he isn’t. He was sexually assaulted by a stalker, Charlotte Coursier.
The assault allegations are irrelevant, and merely muddy the issue. The poor woman is dead, having suffered a great deal. Show some respect.
The public record shows that the abortion was discussed and she agreed; it does show that she felt regret, and that she was highly distressed, but again, that is irrelevant.
It is a matter of public record that he ended the relationship. It does not show he ignored any suicide threats, only that he did not answer his phone immediately prior to her committing suicide, which is completely different.
I am completely fine looking at myself. I am not the one making vicious attacks on a young member of the profession behind an anonymous veil. Have some decency, and if you can’t manage that, have some shame.
It is a matter of public record that Charlotte Coursier was a rapist and stalker. That is the only relevant matter. She sexually assaulted and stalked a member of the philosophy profession and she stalked and harassed his wife. That member of the philosophy profession was then vigilante witch hunted with lies and fabrications and he and his family were driven out of their home, in what the Sunday Times called a “campaign of intimidation”. Harassing, abusing and intimidating victims of rape and stalking is disgraceful behavior.
Take a look at yourself. Take your vicious abuse and lying about rape and stalking victims somewhere else. And show some shame and contrition.
You smeared a young member of the profession as unreliable, as someone who coerced a young woman into having a abortion, and as someone who brought about that woman’s suicide. Anyone can read what is in the public record and reach their own conclusions; I know they will conclude, like me, that these accusations are baseless.
Coursier is dead. What you have to gain from smearing her, one can only guess at. If you think dying at her own hand is not punishment enough, then you are cruel. I would guess you are aggrieved about something. Find a healthier way of dealing with this.
I am not defending the actions of anyone who intimidates or takes the law into their own hands. Bringing up the vindictive actions of others by way of defending your own vindictive attacks is simply indicates to anyone reading your posts that you are moved either by a personal agenda or some other misguided and quite troubling motivations.
I am not trying to convince you, but putting forward the other side for the benefit of those who might read your posts and come to unwarranted conclusions. Using my form of words in a childish attempt to deflect from your own viciousness is childish. Actually, it’s pitiable.
No one could possibly conclude that my responses to you are vicious, abusive, or mendacious. I have nothing to be sorry about. I have nothing to be ashamed of.
What does anyone gain from smearing and destroying an innocent family’s life? The person smeared was the rape- and stalking victim, Ketland. The victims of Coursier’s rape, sexual violence and stalking were Ketland and his family. The victims of a vigilante witch hunt were Ketland and his family. It is not a “smear” to say that Coursier was a rapist and a stalker. It is public record, and eyewitnessed by multiple eyewitnesses, that Coursier was a rapist and stalker. Coursier’s victims were Ketland and his family. The victims of the harassment and vigilante campaign were Ketland and his family. It is centrally relevant that Coursier was a rapist, harasser and a stalker. That is why Ketland told her to leave him alone. She was a rapist and a stalker.
Why don’t you show some basic moral concern for victims of rape, stalking and vigilantism?
Allegations are not evidence. Allegations made in the public record are do not establish facts in that record. You are claiming as established in public record something that has only been asserted by an aggrieved party with an agenda. Nothing in the public record supports your assertion that the young woman in question raped or sexually assaulted the man with whom she was having affair. It is a matter of public record that he made allegations of assault, not sexual assault/ That is the basis of saying that it is a smear. And anyone reading your posts would concur.
The only other mention of Coursier sexually assaulting Ketlandt is a series of posts made by someone using the handle ‘Jeff Ketland’ on this website in February (https://philosophymetametametablog.wordpress.com/2017/02/16/mid-february-open-thread/). Again, that is an allegation, made in an unreliable forum, not evidence.
The woman against whom these allegations were made, and are now again being made by you, cannot defend herself, because she is dead. So I ask you again, have some decency.
Aside from all of this, nothing that you said is relevant to your smearing a young member of the profession. You have completely misunderstood the issue where relevance is concerned. Which is hardly surprising, as your grip on what follows from what seems shaky at best.
You know nothing about my moral concerns, basic or otherwise. What I post here is not the full extent of my expression. My concern here is that a young member of the profession is being attacked in a cowardly and frankly despicable manner.
All this should go without saying, but where someone has benighted as you is concerned, they need to be said.
This is the public record:
“It ended after a few weeks when he called police, saying she had assaulted him. In November 2011 he applied for a job at Oxford University; Coursier subsequently applied to study there. He said he was so concerned she was stalking him that he became ill and needed treatment for stress.”
Charlotte Coursier assaulted him and he called the police. She stalked him and it made him ill. That is the public record. And it is an open secret she stalked others too, and that there are multiple eyewitnesses of Coursier’s stalking and violence. You need to reflect more carefully on your motivations for smearing victims of sexual violence and stalking.
If you refuse to stop, perhaps you can explain why you keep smearing victims of rape, stalking and vigilantism?
I cannot reply to your post of June 11 2917 at 12.18am, so I am replying here.
I am not disputing the facts as set out in the quotation. Nothing I have said brings them into question. You do not seem to have a grasp on what I am saying.
“Open secrets” are not facts. Saying that there are multiple eyewitnesses is not the same as evidence. The reports of these eyewitnesses are not in the public record. You are essentially acknowledging that the public record does not support your claims. So you should withdraw them.
I am asking you to have some decency, and not to attack a woman who committed suicide, and so cannot defend herself, on an anonymous forum. If you have the courage of your convictions, make them publicly.
If you think I am smearing you, then quote my words and explain why and how they are smears. Then others can judge.
I am not smearing victims. I haven’t even mentioned the victims. I am defending a young member of the professions from your smears. You have changed the subject so completely that, again, you are essentially acknowledging that you have no support for your claims. So you should withdraw them.
As for my motivations, I am explaining this not so you will change your mind, as you show evidence of being unable, or unwilling, to engage honestly with what I am saying. I am doing it so that others who read your posts will not reach unwarranted conclusions. Frankly, your posts are so bizarre that I can only imagine others share my feeling that you are simply to be pitied. You seem to be in some distress, and I hope you can get some help.
The public record shows that Ketland saved this woman’s life in 2009 and then tried again in 2013:
“In February 2009 she overdosed on paracetamol and he took her to A&E. The next month she sent him a birthday card saying: “Thank you for everything you’ve done for me, I wouldn’t be here today if it wasn’t for you. You have been a wonderful friend. … [the Senior Coroner] also confirmed that Ketland tried to alert the police to his fears for her wellbeing.”
And what did you do to protect this woman?
Why don’t you stop smearing people? Ketland and his family had their lives destroyed by vigilantes. They are innocent. They were victims of Charlotte Coursier – a woman who assaulted one of them and who stalked both of them. Now back down. Show some basic human decency. You need to stop defending rape, stalking and vigilantism. You don’t destroy innocent people’s lives with vigilante campaigns. This is basic human decency.
Back down. And take a long hard look at yourself.
Ketland’s actions in 2009 are irrelevant to the attacks on the young member of the profession.
My actions or lack of actions are irrelevant, and your asking that is bizarre, or else a cowardly attempt at misdirection. I wonder if you think you know who I am, but I can assure you, you do not.
Again, I have smeared no one. I have said nothing about Ketland or his family. I am asking you to withdraw your smears. If you think I am smearing anyone, quote my words and explain why so that others can judge. If you think I am defending criminal actions, quote my words and explain why so that others can judge.
Your posts are becoming increasingly desperate. Again, I suggest you seek help, as you are clearly in some distress.
I am showing decency. You are not. I will not back down. I am more than happy to look at myself.
Back down. Ketland was smeared and lied about by vigilantes, who ruined his and his family’s life. Show some decency and respect for these victims. It is directly relevant that he saved her life in 2009; it is directly relevant that she assaulted him much later; it is directly relevant that she stalked him and stalked his wife; it is directly relevant that he tried again to save her life again in 2013 and alerted others about his concerns for her well being; it is directly relevant her suicide occurred because her boyfriend, who had gotten her pregnant months earlier, then ended their relationship and ignored her suicide threats; it is directly relevant that it had nothing whatsoever to with Ketland, who had not spoken to her for years and who had tried again to save her again by alerting others. It is directly relevant that he was then smeared, harassed and witch hunted by vigilantes.
Take a long, long look at yourself. You don’t destroy innocent people’s lives with smears, lies, harassment and fabrications. Particularly when those innocent people are victims of a rapist and stalker like Charlotte Coursier. All of this is completely obvious to anyone with basic human decency. That’s why I’m defending Ketland, and is based on what I’ve read in the public record and what others, including his students and some of the many eyewitnesses, have said to me.
It is your comments which are increasingly desperate. They are not based on evidence and amount to little more than innuendo, speculation and gaslighting. Show some decency towards innocent victims of a stalker and innocent victims of vigilante witch hunt, which the Sunday Times says, and other eyewitnesses confirm, drove them from their homes.
And with that, I leave you to your viciousness and smearing of innocent victims of both a stalker, and of a vigilante witch hunt.
Again, nothing I have said contradicts your claims about the actions of others towards Ketland. That is irrelevant to your smearing a young member of the profession. You claim otherwise, but your grip on what is relevant or not is demonstrably very poor. None of your first paragraph bears on the attacks on a young member of the profession, as anyone who reads your post can see.
I haven’t smeared anyone, so your second paragraph is simply odd. I haven’t defended anyone engaging in vigilantism, so it is really strange that you are bringing that in.
I haven’t engaged in any innuendo, or speculation, and you cannot quote any words of mine that show otherwise. ‘Gaslighting’, that word du jour, is completely absent from my posts. I have engaged directly in what you have written every time. You, on the other hand, have skewed the topic and consistently brought in irrelevant and unsupported accusations.
I have a great deal of sympathy for everyone in this terrible, terrible case. I only wish you did too. These poor people. That poor girl.
You have no sympathy for the victims of a stalker and no sympathy for those innocent victims whose lives were destroyed by an appalling vigilante witch hunt of smears, lies, intimidation and harassment, do you? Absolutely appalling. Ketland tried to save this woman’s life again, but was ignored. And she had assaulted him in the past, and she had stalked both him and his wife. That is what the evidence shows to be true. He was then vigilante witch hunted appallingly. He and his family had their lives destroyed. Show some basic human decency. Stop being vicious. Stop abusing innocent people, who were victims of a violent stalker and who were victims of vigilante witch hunt.
You don’t destroy innocent people’s lives.
Again, I can’t reply to your post of June 11, 10:15am, so I reply here.
Your claim that I have no sympathy is baseless. I am defending someone being attacked unfairly. You have no idea where my sympathies lie. Ketland’s actions that you cite do not bear on those attacks; that is irrelevant. The allegations of assault do not establish that as a fact, and the accused cannot defend herself because she is dead. You say ‘that is what the evidence shows to be true’, but the evidence does not show this, and your assertion that it does does not show it either. I have engaged in no abusive behaviour. Quote me and show where I have done this, so that others can judge,
You are right, I don’t destroy innocent people’s lives. You, on the other hand, try to do just that. So I ask you to withdraw your comments. Or, at least, stay true to your word and stop posting. And before you tell me to do the same, be sure that for every post you make, I will reply and demonstrate where you have gone wrong.
I hate to say this, but you come across as a pretty appalling person, treating victims of sexual violence, stalking and vigilante witch hunting with contempt. Not destroying innocent people’s lives is so basic in morality, while basic morality and human decency appear to be so completely alien to you, that it is clearly pointless trying to argue with you. You don’t destroy the innocent.
As amazingly funny as that it, it remains true that Charlotte Coursier was a rapist and a stalker and her victims got lynched.
“Had Jeff not stuck his dick in crazy, his wife wouldn’t have been stalked, as he claims”
Knock it off, you vicious dishonest pervert. You’ve repeated your retarded “dick in crazy” joke 50 times or more.
Ketland saved this woman’s life.
Now fuck off, you retarded pervert.
Explain how I have treated anyone with contempt. Quote my words. Back up your assertions.
I have done nothing at all to destroy anyone’s life. You have attacked a young member of the profession with baseless assertions. You have attacked a young woman who committed suicide such was the level of her distress, and so cannot defend herself.
I do not need to defend myself; I am confident that any reader of our dialogue will agree with me.
Coursier was bullied to death by Oxford feminists.
And you don’t destroy innocent victims of sexual violence and stalking .
And if people had paid attention t Ketland’s warnings about Coursier’s behavior, she would be alive. Instead, because of Oxford feminists, she is inside a box: Dead.
Back down. And take a long, long hard look at yourself
Provide evidence. Don’t merely assert. If you can’t provide evidence, don’t assert at all.
The cause of Coursier’s death is irrelevant to your smear on a young member of the profession.
You have effectively conceded that you have nothing to back up those smears. So withdraw your attacks on him. Apologise.
I will not back down. I can look at myself.
You are filth.
If you have only insults left, I suggest you remind yourself of what you said at 10.31am, and stop posting.
Why should victims of sexual violence and stalking be smeared, harassed out of their homes and have their lives ruined?
I am only interested in demonstrating that your attack on a young member of the profession was unwarranted. Since you seem to have given this up, and anyway the case has been decisively made, I will not respond directly to any of your frankly bizarre posts that do not engage with this.
So please, have the last word.
How does your excusing rape and stalking by Charlotte Coursier achieve that? Why should victims of sexual violence and stalking be smeared, harassed and witch hunted by vigilantes and have their lives ruined?
Had Jeff not stuck his dick in crazy, his wife wouldn’t have been stalked, as he claims. (Btw, how fucked up must his wife be to stay with him?).
That’s a nice big analogue clock you got there.
Why are you defending rapists by talking about a clock? Why are you supporting vigilanteism by talking about a clock? Why are you refusing to hunt down the selfmurderer’s boyfriend and have him hanged? This refusal is pure vigilanteism!
Innocent victims of a rapist and stalker were lynched. Hilarious, isn’t it?
I have no idea what to make of this:
So much for women’s sports.
This should go well: http://m.njlawjournal.com/#/article/this-weeks-news/1202789365742/New-Trial-for-ExRutgers-Prof-Convicted-of-Sexual-Abuse?mcode=1202617207189&curindex=9&_almReferrer=https:%2F%2Fwww.google.es%2F
I too use facilitated communication. But I talk to ghosts, not the severely retarded. Through my ouija board a sexy ghost once told me that it wanted to fuck.
This is getting fun. I’m starting to wish that I had gone to law school.
For what it’s worth, these Ketland threads are really making me think hard about whether it’s worthwhile to continue this blog (especially in light of the existence of the metaforum).
I feel you.
Independently of the Ketland threads, I’m inclined to think the metaforum is a better platform for this sort of thing all around, and it may be worth shutting down the blog purely to induce people to post there.
The Ketland threads are extremely important. They are the only place where the truth of the outrageous way he was treated have been stated. I know because his wife told me how they were being harassed and stalked by Coursier and how scared they both were that Coursier would do something vicious. She told me this well before Coursier killed herself. A number of us have also seen the documentary evidence, including the Police document, of the sexual assault of Ketland by Coursier that happened in Edinburgh. The boyfriend deserves everything he gets because he deflected the blame from himself onto Ketland by malicious lies.
Umm, ketland was the one who drove this poor woman to suicide. It’s likely that this behavior will also drive his wife to suicide. Can you imagine living with a man who fucked a student despite being married and then the student committed suicide?
Great: the malicious lying cunt is back. Let’s just go over the facts again, shall we. Boyfriend Fardell gets Coursier pregnant, persuades her to have an abortion, on June 10th she threatens to kill herself if he dumps her, he dumps her, she goes home and kills herself. So, you are proved a malicious lying cunt. You are despicable. Fuck off.
I am not Anonymous 26/6/2017 6:07pm.
Anonymous 24/6/2017 4.21pm said that “the boyfriend deserves everything he gets.” This could be construed as a threat or inciting violence. I therefore ask the moderator of this blog to delete this comment.
The writer of that comment (who is presumably also Anonymous 25/6/2017 11:12am) needs to withdraw their baseless attacks on the boyfriend. There is no evidence he “persuaded her” to get an abortion, and your implication of responsibility for Coursier’s suicide is also without basis. Nor is the accusation of lying (presumably to a coroner’s court, which wold be perjury) based on anything at all.
The statement that Coursier sexually assaulted Ketland should also be withdrawn, as there is no evidence to support this allegation in the public record (a record of an allegation being made to the police is not evidence).
The Ketland threads are extremely important. They are the only place where the truth of the outrageous way he was treated have been stated. I know because his wife told me how they were being harassed and stalked by Coursier and how scared they both were that Coursier would do something vicious. She told me this well before Coursier killed herself. A number of us have also seen the documentary evidence, including the Police document, of the sexual assault of Ketland by Coursier that happened in Edinburgh. The boyfriend Fardell deserves everything he gets because he deflected the blame from himself onto Ketland by malicious lies.
The metaforum can’t handle links, twitter, images, or video, like this one. The latest from Evergreen.
I guess it can’t embed or whatever, but surely it can handle regular text urls?
In any case the video strikes me as pretty weaksauce compared to the ones from a couple weeks ago.
I hate fundamentalist, proselytizing Christians just as much as I hate SJWs. Was I supposed to root for the Christers?
Neither, I think. But I have a desire to root for nearly anyone when someone grunts in a megaphone in their face. That’s how I found myself perversely rooting for Milo. . . .
Some of the usual cast of characters was there. And someone got arrested. That’s progress, I suppose. At least no one got hit by a bat.
“Call for Abstracts – Conference on Gaslighting and Epistemic Injustice
Claremont McKenna College, September 21-23, 2017
Abstracts due: July 15, 2017
Kate Manne, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Cornell University
Gaile Pohlhaus, Jr., Associate Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
Kate Abramson, Associate Professor of Philosophy, Indiana University
Alison Bailey, Professor of Philosophy, Illinois State University
Rachel McKinnon, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, College of Charleston
Elena Ruíz, Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Michigan State University
Cynthia Stark, Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Utah
Over the past 10 years, following the publication of Miranda Fricker’s groundbreaking book, Epistemic Injustice: Power & the Ethics of Knowing, philosophers have begun increasingly to attend to issues of epistemic injustice, a phenomenon that occurs when individuals are wronged in their capacity as knowers. Epistemic injustice often arises in cases involving differing positions of social privilege, where prejudice and power combine to undermine an individual’s own testimony.
In this conference, we aim to focus specifically on distinctive forms of epistemic injustice produced through lying, misinformation, manipulation, and deceit. A paradigm example is the phenomenon known as “gaslighting.” In the 1944 film Gas Light, Gregory Anton slowly and cruelly manipulates his wife Paula into thinking that she is going insane. Having deliberately caused the lights in their home to dim, Gregory insists that Paula must be imagining it whenever the subject is raised. This depiction of Paula’s plight – made especially poignant by a brilliant performance from Ingrid Bergman – has given rise to the term “gaslighting,” used to refer to one individual or individuals causing another to question their own perceptions, beliefs, and memories – and even their own sanity – through a series of manipulations, deceptions, and lies.”
not taking someone seriously = epistemic injustice (fancy new jargon)
being too shy to speak = epistemic injustice
disagreeing with standpoint epistemology = wronging someone in their “capacity as knowers”
Evil cis white male magical mind control = gas lighting.
Examples of this dangerous form of manipulation inspired from recent events:
“He forced me into thinking that I wanted to have a drink.”
“He manipulated me into thinking that I wanted to text him that I love him.”
“He made me think I wanted to sleep with him.”
“They made me doubt that I am a woman just because I have a big dick and swinging balls.”
Happy belated Birthday to Scratchy!
This is hilarious.
The NYTimes has an incredibly misleading account of went on at Evergreen. They don’t even explain clearly that the white people were “invited to stay home.” Why didn’t they quote that lovely bit of double speak?
They suggest that the violence was a result of BW going on TV. WTF??? They get the narrative backwards.
And the last sentence suggests that he’s a racist.
I’ve come to hate the NYTimes. It cannot be trusted. See for yourself:
Harassment in philosophy gets lots of attention, but I’m sure many stories get overlooked and we focus on more “fashionable” or “obvious” narratives. Two cases I found follow. Add your own here or at the philosophy-meta-forum, with links.
From Diana Brickell (re: Allison Jaggar): https://www.facebook.com/dianabrickell/posts/10102139771976703
“I never experienced any sexual harassment or notable sexism in the department. On the whole, I was supported and encouraged by male and female faculty, and I was treated in a professional and friendly way.
The only major exception to that was noted feminist Allison Jaggar, particularly when she was the graduate advisor. Her behavior toward me was appalling: I felt very keenly that she was trying to push me out of the department on any possible pretext. In my view, that was because I was not on board with her brand of radical leftist feminism, including plans by her and other feminists to take over the department. Alas, I was not the only non-feminist woman in the department to experience overt bias and hostility from her. Now, in light of what’s happened, I wish that I’d lodged complaints at the time.
Overall, I’m very sad — and very angry — that such a fabulously awesome philosophy department has had its reputation trashed in what seems to be little more than a radical feminist witch-hunt and power-grab.”
From Lily Hope Chumley (re: CDC Reeve): https://jezebel.com/how-about-we-start-outing-people-who-do-this-rather-tha-1782325879
“How about we start outing people who do this rather than protecting them? I see that the one that caused me (and lots of other people) the most personal trouble is nowhere outed on the internet, so here goes: C.D.C. Reeve, Plato scholar and philosopher of sex, is a widely-known creep, who creepily chose me as an undergraduate thesis student, and made my thesis meetings into awful torture sessions of one-sided flirting, as a result of which I fell into a deep depression, spending much time crying on the floor in the library, and thought I had no choice but to drop out of school. He clearly got pleasure out of seeing me feel trapped, nervous, confused. It was weirdly almost worse that he didn’t try to touch me, because if he had I could have made a formal complaint—but what could I do about constant sexual innuendo that me feel helpless and stupid, as if all my achievements in school were a sham, that the good grades I’d earned in his classes were nothing but pre-payment for this?
In a great stroke of luck he left for a new job at UNC half-way through my (Spring-Fall) thesis-year, and with a new (strict but non-creepy) advisor I was able to write a thesis and graduate with honors. Now I am on my way to tenure at an R-1 school (in another field) and I am ready to say: fuck that creep. I spent years trying to forget it but what I need is to be angry because I need to remind myself that he was wrong about me.”
Anonymous accusations are, obviously, not worth much. I basically never believe them myself. And anonymous accusations of sexual harassment in the current insane climate are probably worse than worthless. But, for what it’s worth–which is, probably, nothing: I can confirm about Reeve.
Be advised that it requires great restraint on my part not to say what I honestly think about that person. It is not flattering, to say the least.
My only knowledge of that issue is from a friend who went to Reed. Long ago, before any of this was really in the air, she told me stories of the creepiness, and the sense I got was that it was something everyone there “just knew.”
Good thing any more recent hires don’t have related issues. Oh wait.
Bollocks. This is 10 year old girl social bullying tactics used by adult women who apparently are incapable of being responsible adults.
Another member of the murderous, racist SJW left. He includes all the buzwords:
View story at Medium.com
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