tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post1643515119518957469..comments2023-06-09T14:31:42.016+01:00Comments on Philosophy Metametablog: June ShrugsPhilosophy Metametabloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04323470189556733345noreply@blogger.comBlogger235125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-36972871791622411672015-06-26T13:52:38.787+01:002015-06-26T13:52:38.787+01:00http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eO8o9_rI154/Tw4x1NQg0EI/...http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-eO8o9_rI154/Tw4x1NQg0EI/AAAAAAAAAnk/QeUJsEsqgMg/s1600/gus-psyche-popcorn.gifAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-12567405515161338132015-06-26T13:12:44.362+01:002015-06-26T13:12:44.362+01:004:41 here. Just for a bit of context and also to a...4:41 here. Just for a bit of context and also to anticipate the usual replies, this is my situation: at a top 3 Leiter department, multiple peer-reviewed publications (journal articles, book chapters, and invited book reviews); extensive teaching experience in a wide range of subjects as a sole instructor; countless conference presentations; extensive service to both my department and the profession; letters of recommendation from highly prominent and well-respected senior faculty (most of whom are not at my home institution).<br /><br />How am I supposed to take the fembots seriously when they belly ache about how hard they supposedly have it, and then I go to philjobs and see Jennifer has been hired by a research university with maybe one a single article in a shitty journal, or only a book review, or often nothing at all?<br /><br />It is pretty obvious bullshit, no?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-60731475159100726462015-06-26T12:41:15.606+01:002015-06-26T12:41:15.606+01:00Hi everyone: I am one of those "angry white m...Hi everyone: I am one of those "angry white male graduate students," but I am not angry because I am white or because I'm male. I am angry because the complete hypocrisy of current hiring practices is downright fucking laughable. If If I were a woman, I would have a genuine chance of landing an assistant professorship at a research university even without publications (maybe one book review might do). But I can't even sniff an interview. <br /><br />There is nothing the world loves more than a subtle hypocrisy! Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-30878838280845026952015-06-24T10:56:33.083+01:002015-06-24T10:56:33.083+01:0012:51 here. 9:04/2:38:
Agreed, that was his focus...12:51 here. 9:04/2:38:<br /><br />Agreed, that was his focus. But presumably he was intending to point what he took to be a certain irony in what Roof is quoted as having said (i.e. "You rape our women.") (This is in line with part of what 9:19 said above.) I see no reason to think that he was thereby essentially saying, about the shooting as a whole, that "the real take away here is how this relates to the oppression of white women".<br /><br />(The thread is probably dead, but: the above is not a defence of the substance of Stone's comments, nor is it a defence of the way he phrased them.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-65609938725836015072015-06-24T04:28:30.446+01:002015-06-24T04:28:30.446+01:00Too true.Too true.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-7942345899373908142015-06-24T03:04:03.587+01:002015-06-24T03:04:03.587+01:00That last comment was pretty unecessary, 6:51. I j...That last comment was pretty unecessary, 6:51. I just read the whole thread at once. What was I supposed to do - stop halfway through, go to NA, and try to guess which specific comments people were referring to, rather than reading the whole thing through first in order to try to find out what specific comments people were referring to? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-15417003882609092942015-06-24T02:54:25.566+01:002015-06-24T02:54:25.566+01:00three, or thereaboutsthree, or thereaboutsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-15458384278612838772015-06-24T02:51:06.070+01:002015-06-24T02:51:06.070+01:00I think there were several interlocutors, a couple...I think there were several interlocutors, a couple coming to the aid of the first one early on and then at a later stage three couple more coming to the aid, the last one satisfying you by doing your reading for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-83681119538459507472015-06-24T02:37:10.174+01:002015-06-24T02:37:10.174+01:00Kudos to 10:45, 5;12 and 5:54 who seem capable of ...Kudos to 10:45, 5;12 and 5:54 who seem capable of giving sensible responses. (Although, 5:54, from reading this thread it doesn't seem 'bizarre' that 10:45 is focusing on a particular thread. The original claim made by 10:45's interlocutor (before said interlocutor spit the dummy) was about that particular thread. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-47556436349402516652015-06-24T02:30:59.828+01:002015-06-24T02:30:59.828+01:00What is it with people like 6:20? Up til that post...What is it with people like 6:20? Up til that post to people with having a perfectly reasonable discussion, and then 6:20 starts getting cross that someone is daring to disagree, and starts pulling the troll-card and making baseless assumptions about what other 'last words' his/her interlocutor has had. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-27395692077576839042015-06-24T02:30:19.474+01:002015-06-24T02:30:19.474+01:00I'm 8:40 from above.
For what it's worth,...I'm 8:40 from above.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I think we just have to be agnostic about the whole thing. At least some alleged cases of rape are known to be true, and at least some are known to be false. It would be very surprising if all the cases but those proven true were false, and it would be very surprising if all the cases but those proven false were true (as some feminists seem to think, or else they're just confused about what Lisak says).<br /><br />But I don't know if we can really go farther than that. There might be some factors that make the undetermined cases more likely to be true, or more likely to be false. I can't tell, and I don't know how anyone else can either. I think we just have to be agnostic about how many of the accusations are true and how many are false.<br /><br />But even with that admission of uncertainty, it would still be very, very bad to assume that some accusation is true just because someone makes the accusation. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-53708915343532022932015-06-24T02:20:06.707+01:002015-06-24T02:20:06.707+01:00Irrelevant. Nothing I said implies proven X = X. N...Irrelevant. Nothing I said implies proven X = X. Nothing I said implies 'proven' = deductive proof. Female chauvinist pigs manufacturing sexist propaganda use false rate estimate=Lisak proven false rate. Correct use of Lisak is false rate estimate = proven false/( proven true +proven false rates). This is very simple. You are now just trolling and I'm not wasting any more time on you. Have the last word if you like. It won't be any better than all your other ones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-72653750579525521422015-06-24T02:05:07.119+01:002015-06-24T02:05:07.119+01:00You're very welcome.You're very welcome.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-6578226892931682492015-06-24T01:57:55.804+01:002015-06-24T01:57:55.804+01:00Thanks for your research and the links, 5:54. This...Thanks for your research and the links, 5:54. This is good stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-36972265123547492062015-06-24T01:54:41.738+01:002015-06-24T01:54:41.738+01:00Hi again, 10:45.
As you can see in that NewApps ...Hi again, 10:45. <br /><br />As you can see in that NewApps thread, some comments that were originally published were later 'unpublished' by Jon Protevi (he admits this in Comment 9).<br /><br />Nonetheless, there are still some comments in the thread that cast light on what was going on.<br /><br />The question being asked in the comment you're talking about in that NA thread is why people aren't getting as aggressive and angry upon hearing the reports about Ludlow as they were about McGinn. Now, you can read that as an innocent musing on a puzzling psychological fact, or as a retrospective wish that people would have gone easier on McGinn. But that hardly seems likely to have been CL's intention, given that CL is writing immediately after the news broke about Ludlow and the NewAPPS hosts were very well known to be on the 'tough on sexual harassment, light on due process' side. of the issue.<br /><br />Indeed, when someone tries to come up with a morally adequate difference between the Ludlow case and the McGinn case, he is immediately condemned as engaging in 'gymnastics' by another commenter (#57 in the thread).<br /><br />CB, in Comment 65 in that thread, accuses the university of "hiding behind legalities" in not doing much worse to Ludlow at once. CB even goes as far as to make the outrageous claim that "[a]nything short of complete certainty that Ludlow is innocent does not excuse the behaviour of NU."<br /> <br />This discussion, keep in mind, was part of a broader discussion on other blogs and on some Facebook pages. Here's what was happening at Feminist Philosophers a little later:<br /><br />https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/03/07/statement-from-northwestern-grad-students/<br /><br />https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/02/23/do-universities-overreact-to-sexual-harassment-claims/<br /><br />https://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/sit-in-at-northwestern-today/<br /><br /><br />To me, the FP posts and comments did much more to rile up unthinking reactions in the Ludlow case than the particular thread at NewAPPS you've been discussing.<br /><br />So again: is your point just to discuss that particular thread at NewAPPS for some bizarre reason? Or are you interested in the more general question, as you should reasonably be, about whether the New Consensus crowd pushed the philosophical community (and indirectly, it seems, Northwestern) to a hasty and treatment of the Ludlow case? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-74187477487524559152015-06-24T01:12:28.591+01:002015-06-24T01:12:28.591+01:00FWIW, going back to the first reply on this thread...FWIW, going back to the first reply on this thread that opened up the whole discussion, I was one of those who attempted to post a comment on NA but who got shut down, the comment deleted. In my comment I suggested "that there was a wider context relevant to evaluating the situation". I was accused of disbelieving a victim of rape by the blog moderator, after CL reacted to it with that slant (and then got his/her comment deleted). I found this highly insulting as a rape victim myself (long before entering philosophy), and as someone who has seen another woman close to me go through the process in court as a rape victim whose character was maligned when she tried to give her testimony. Of course I would respect a person reporting rape. That doesn't mean that every single accusation of faculty misbehavior coming from an undergraduate who took one philosophy class is a cut and dry case of suppressing women in philosophy nor a cut and dry case of rape. But the truth is, on NA they were shutting down comments that wanted to introduce any considerations other than that we should all judge the NU professor harshly, and do so immediately, as if his guilt were established. But surely there are other considerations in this case, and perhaps many others, namely the larger political and cultural environment we are in in the US and in its allied countries too. It is no joke that there are more and more stories that appear to involve the suppression of dissent these days. How do you think that works, anyway? It works by reputation smearing, primarily. So if you see someone's reputation being smeared, be cautious, and don't leap in too quickly to participate, despite your natural inclination as a curious gossipy human or your natural inclination to fight for righteousness or your great pain and love for women and desire to fight for their freedom. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-2721191473767311352015-06-24T00:55:26.605+01:002015-06-24T00:55:26.605+01:00To be precise, the process of establishing a false...To be precise, the process of establishing a false accusation is different from that of establishing a guilty vs not guilty finding. That is to say, someone could go back from a guilty or not guilty finding and establish that the original accusation was false but that would be a separate process. Or someone could establish a false accusation prior to charges being brought (that is, upon complaint), but again, that's obviously a separate process from that of a trial. That's because there are different people accused of different things in the two cases. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-40095618441079119132015-06-24T00:47:11.425+01:002015-06-24T00:47:11.425+01:00"No, it's very simple, either the accusat..."No, it's very simple, either the accusation is true or false."<br /><br />No, once a trial is brought, either the accusation results in a conviction or it results in a finding of not guilty. A finding of not guilty does not necessarily entail that the accusation was false. That's because the process by which the finding is established is a lot more complex that determining the color of a fish in a two-color population. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-68524895454816689882015-06-24T00:36:27.335+01:002015-06-24T00:36:27.335+01:00No, it's very simple, either the accusation is...No, it's very simple, either the accusation is true or false. I've given the correct way to make use of Lisak: compare proven false against proven true. If you want to add it more evidence you'll have to add in all the studies showing FA rates of 40-60%, all the testimony from law enforcement of the suppression of true FA rates, the other studies of policed deciding proven false of 15-30% etc etc. But since, as is usuall, Lisak is appealed to show FA rate = approx 5% I've proven why it cannot be used like that and correctly used in isolation leads to roughly equal FA/TA (taking proven true at 5%. Pretty simple and obvious really, which is why feminists start pulling fire alarms rather than let anyone talk about thefacts. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-47225104673343006672015-06-24T00:10:45.919+01:002015-06-24T00:10:45.919+01:00I'm sure Dicey Jennings and the others over at...I'm sure Dicey Jennings and the others over at New Apps will give it a venue, as long as it confirms just how tough women have it getting TT jobs. If it doesn't, expect it to be ignored and ridiculed, and expect to be told that you're a bad person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-30631353768749068452015-06-23T23:59:33.400+01:002015-06-23T23:59:33.400+01:00One of my summer projects is to fill out this part...One of my summer projects is to fill out this part of the data and submit it to that prestigeandgender person, whoever they are. Supposing that CDJ's new data is close to complete, and given that she's supplied data for earlier years, tracking trends won't be difficult. I'll also submit it to Leiter, who'll hopefully give the data more of a venue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-36867379790607917452015-06-23T23:59:10.858+01:002015-06-23T23:59:10.858+01:00Just to clarify, 9:04 = 2:38 but not 3:04. Just to clarify, 9:04 = 2:38 but not 3:04. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-73312275481741874262015-06-23T23:56:43.785+01:002015-06-23T23:56:43.785+01:00Anon 5:00 here. I didn't know Stone was black ...Anon 5:00 here. I didn't know Stone was black (I'd never heard of him before this). 9:19 misconstrues my concerns about the metaphorical use of "rape". I'm not worried about someone's feelings getting hurt because someone used the word "rape"; that is silly. Instead, I think "rape" should be reserved for a certain kind of sexual violence or coercion. There are already perfectly good words for non-sexual forms of violence or coercion, after all; no need to muddy the waters by calling anything we don't like "rape".<br /><br />For a theoretical justification of this kind of concern more generally, try "Politics and the English Language"; see also countless feminist critiques of the metaphorical use of "rape" and its contribution to the trivialization of sexual violence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-20899158779987162262015-06-23T23:29:39.227+01:002015-06-23T23:29:39.227+01:00I'm not sure determining fish colors in a bina...I'm not sure determining fish colors in a binary colored population is a good analogy to the conclusions of criminal prosecutions for rape in the USA in the past 25 years or so. The first seems to be a very low dimension enterprise (you only need to hold a few background conditions stable) where there are many variables in the second (relative competence and resources of prosecutors vs defense attorneys, local cultural values, commitment of police as evidence gatherers, ability of witnesses to evoke confidence in their testimony, and quite a few others I would guess).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355563160992600607.post-7581196489622268942015-06-23T23:11:50.383+01:002015-06-23T23:11:50.383+01:00There are one hundred fish in a pond, all of which...There are one hundred fish in a pond, all of which are black or white, and of those ten which have had their colour proven, 5 are black and 5 are white. Best estimate: roughly half the fish are black and half are white.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com