Philosophy Meta-Forum http://www.philosophymetaforum.org Dong, ya doofus, that doesn't clarify much. Are you registering yourself here as going for posterity or status? Anton 2017-10-23 04:28:09 Fine, whatever. Just register me on the 'more papers, shorter' side, where 'shorter' means the standard length of 20ish pages. Dong 2017-10-23 03:43:39 <blockquote> <p> <p>Quality matters for posterity. Quantity matters for status. <p> <p><footer>Dong <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>You're talking about a different contrast (quality vs. quantity) than the one at issue in this thread (short vs. long). I see little reason to think that long papers are higher in quality than short ones. And for the reasons given by Jaegwon, the quality/length relation may even be inverse. Jacopo 2017-10-23 01:53:43 Quality matters for posterity. Quantity matters for status. Dong 2017-10-23 01:05:30 <blockquote> <p>At least in our profession, there is an incredibly high correlation between strident virtual signalers and toxic abusive people. One is tempted to speculate that the felt need of philosophers to do the virtue signalling is designed to deflect attention from their own characters and misdeeds and at the same time try to make them indispensable allies to the movement. The fact that the movement has played along and in some cases knowingly given these people the reins disgraceful, and probably not a recipe for long term success. <p><footer>Diana</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Finally, the penny drops! Yet why is it not obvious? Being a SJW is perfect cover for being a toxic, narcissistic, manipulative, nasty person. So the system is set up now to reward creepy crawlies. It is no coincidence at all that the worst harassers, bullies and abusers (both male and female) are feminists/SJWs. <p> <p>Not an inexplicable coincidence. It is a direct consequence of the virtue-signalling and networking system itself to reward the worst. FA Hayek once made a similar point about socialist systems. When the constraints of meritocratic and egalitarian competition are removed by SJWs and anti-egalitarians, the criteria for "success" in the corrupt system are replaced by arbitrary ones which have nothing to do with intellectual merit, but rather with power, identity, grievance-status, networking success, competing factions, etc. The outcome is a large pot of dangerous creepy crawlies sitting at the apex. Vladimir 2017-10-23 00:58:03 Gettier is the world champ here. And Fitzgerald published one paragraph in a physics letters column that got him mentioned with Lorentz on the famous spacetime contraction. Quality beats quantity--except at TT time. Josiah 2017-10-23 00:52:32 I would never support an applicant for a TT job who didn't know how to use paragraph breaks. Kwasi 2017-10-23 00:20:20 <blockquote> <p> <p>I lurk here to watch the Blanchard's morally preen. It makes me wet. <p> <p><footer>Monique</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>oh god, not more ants... Domingo 2017-10-23 00:06:20 At least in our profession, there is an incredibly high correlation between strident virtual signalers and toxic abusive people. One is tempted to speculate that the felt need of philosophers to do the virtue signalling is designed to deflect attention from their own characters and misdeeds and at the same time try to make them indispensable allies to the movement. The fact that the movement has played along and in some cases knowingly given these people the reins disgraceful, and probably not a recipe for long term success. Diana 2017-10-22 23:44:23 Nobody likes reading papers over 20 pages. Writing them is a way of saying "I don't give a shit about your time or making an argument, here's a bunch of drivel you won't read anyway". <p> <p> Jaegwon 2017-10-22 23:43:14 Discerning philosophical conclusions from surveys and that ever-mythical beast the "intuition" -- what could go wrong? Jaegwon 2017-10-22 23:40:51 It's weird how so many people confuse "person I disagree with" with "subpar thinker" and/or "bad person". The arrogance is breathtaking. Unless it's not really arrogance, just a feigned attitude for the sake of defamation with the aim of political point scoring. Either way, it's disgusting, it's petty and it's anti-philosophical. And yeah, SJWs do it too, which is why you're no better than them. Pope 2017-10-22 23:12:08 <blockquote> <p> <p>Look, you can't have it both ways. <p> <p>You can say that these people are "trailing spouses" who are hired and tenured in spite of their lack of distinction. Or you can say that they are distinguished, respected, and cited, but for scholarship you think is sub-par. But it can't be both! <p> <p><footer>Kenneth <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>No. Hired as trailers first, then recognised for "me studies" scholarship in which they whine about how unfairly they've been treated by the profession. Indexicals are tricky, aren't they? Jean-Paul 2017-10-22 22:37:08 People count papers when hiring and then when promoting, but they don't count total words of a person's scholarly output. People are more likely to read short papers. Short papers are often published in prestigious places like Analysis. Long papers can be annoying and sometimes suggest the author just didn't try hard enough to be concise. So, I'd say there's a pretty good general case to be made for more short papers, e.g. 4 short papers beats 2 short + 1 long or 2 long. Of course, many important works are long, and some thoughts just take a lot of space to express, but as a general rule I still think more short papers is pragmatically better. Philipp 2017-10-22 21:09:39 Look, you can't have it both ways. <p> <p>You can say that these people are "trailing spouses" who are hired and tenured in spite of their lack of distinction. Or you can say that they are distinguished, respected, and cited, but for scholarship you think is sub-par. But it can't be both! Kenneth 2017-10-22 20:43:12 <blockquote> <p> <p>Schliesser's feminist bullying and blacklisting of those who speak out against witch hunts and the abuse of rights <p>http://realfeministphilosophers.blogspot.com/2014/11/schliesser-advocates-collective-bullying.html <p> <p><footer>Chantal</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>And that's only what he does in public. Ask some of his former students what a callous individual he is. Pandurang 2017-10-22 19:53:14 Schliesser's feminist bullying and blacklisting of those who speak out against witch hunts and the abuse of rights <p>http://realfeministphilosophers.blogspot.com/2014/11/schliesser-advocates-collective-bullying.html Chantal 2017-10-22 19:21:41 "How is Jason Stanley a sleaze bag ?" <p> <p>Why do you ask? Did he stop bragging about fucking his students? Herbert 2017-10-22 17:57:51 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Remember Eric Schliesser? Another feminist. <p> <p><footer>Roy <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>is he also a predator? <p> <p><footer>Fujiwara <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p> <p>He is unhinged and a bully, to students and others. <p> <p><footer>Aron <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Confirmed. No surprise he loves the power that comes with being a finger-pointing SJW. Jean-Paul 2017-10-22 16:18:56 But seriously, I'd say that if you can publish, e.g., 2 short papers and 1 long paper, that is probably better than either 2 long papers or 4 short papers. Eusebius 2017-10-22 15:49:48 [insert "why not both?" meme here] Eusebius 2017-10-22 15:48:31 How is Jason Stanley a sleaze bag ? Anne 2017-10-22 15:16:27 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Remember Eric Schliesser? Another feminist. <p> <p><footer>Roy <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>is he also a predator? <p> <p><footer>Fujiwara <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>He is unhinged and a bully, to students and others. Aron 2017-10-22 14:41:25 Well, if you are a part of a cartel of SJW, writing endlessly about your disabilities gets you cited. Jonathan 2017-10-22 14:20:35 As I recall, there was quite a bit of fanfare from all corners about how "Nobody talks like that in the locker room." Liang 2017-10-22 13:47:34 <blockquote> <p> <p>Harvey Weinstein is not a feminist. <p> <p>Please answer me this: how characteristic of men's social interaction with each other is the "locker room talk" caught on tape between Trump and Billy Bush? The fact that so many people were willing to write it off as "mere locker room talk" suggests to me it is seen as very common. <p> <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Weinstein identifies as a feminist. Nobody is perfect, we all have flaws. <p> <p>As recall Liang 2017-10-22 13:44:16 Yeah, I have to say that it's a really difficult question. I do think that at the early stage, it might be better to do a larger number of smaller papers but it's important that you can tell a good story about how your work isn't just a bunch of scattered picky points if you get an interview. There are a lot of candidates with one or two longish things who, I fear, might have mastered the art of publishing the one or two good parts of the dissertation. There's a fear there that they might have spent their fuel and will struggle to build on past success. (This, too, can be combated if they get to the interview stage, of course. The concern for those who start out publishing one or two very long pieces in the top venues is whether there's a surplus of people like this and there's a need for people who can produce a steady stream of good publications.) Jonathan 2017-10-22 13:26:49 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWmctv2OF8 Buddhaghosa 2017-10-22 13:21:42 In general, is it better to publish a larger number of shorter papers or a smaller number of longer papers? (Or does it not matter, or if there is no good generalization here what are some relevant considerations?) One hears complaints from people like Velleman that too much work is being produced, and some folks seem to look down on quantity. But one also hears complaints from people like Hurka that papers are too long (and I think boring). How should these views affect one's publishing strategy? Jacques 2017-10-22 13:19:43 (it"s a real question) Fujiwara 2017-10-22 13:02:35 <blockquote> <p> <p>Remember Eric Schliesser? Another feminist. <p> <p><footer>Roy <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>is he also a predator? Fujiwara 2017-10-22 13:02:20 I saw a post on facebook where someone was soliciting suggestions for things for a student interested in X-Phi to read. I wanted to grab this person by the lapels and tell them that they need to tell their student to stay away from X-Phi. It's career suicide. I would never support an applicant for a TT job that specialized in X-Phi. In fact, I would argue strenuously against any colleague who supported a candidate who did X-Phi. The empirical work that goes into a typical survey-driven piece contains little to no evidence that the author is interested in philosophy or capable of engaging in philosophical discussion. When people say that surveys are ways of answering philosophical questions, I think that they are either full of shit and confusion or have some very interesting ideas about philosophical methodology that they never discuss and defend. Either way, what's the point of adding them to the department? If you survey people about thought experiments about free will, knowledge, obligation, etc. that's no sign that you yourself have the chops to discuss the interesting philosophical issues that lead people to disagree about things. If you're using your time and resources to dodge discussing the interesting issues, it seems like a clear sign that you couldn't carry your own weight in philosophical discussions with colleagues or students. Why send that signal? I appreciate that some people can do experimental philosophy and traditional philosophy, but when we're looking at the CVs of junior people fighting over the few jobs that are out there, ceteris paribus, I'll be much more confident in the abilities of someone who, say, has published 5 papers on free will than someone who has published 2 or 3 traditional papers and pretty much any number of additional experimental papers. You don't need to understand much of anything about philosophy to crank out empirical work that's pitched as work on, say, freedom or responsibility. I've spoken to others that feel the same way and I worry that the people who are into this sort of thing are really selling some junior people a line when they encourage it. People like Stich and Machery can get away with it because they're already secure. Junior people encouraged to follow their lead should really proceed with caution and those that don't warn them should know better. It would be great if the X-Phi crowd could find work for their folk in psychology departments, but I can't think of a single reason why they should be employed by philosophy departments since we have so many talented philosophers in need of work. Allan 2017-10-22 12:30:31 <blockquote> <p> <p>God the Barnes-Camerons monitor this place closely. She had zero pubs or forthcoming things when hired. At the moment Cameron has an h-index of 22, Barnes of 15. That's a huge difference. <p> <p><footer>Catherine <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Yes, but an h-index of 15, in philosophy, is impressive in itself, especially at her career stage. There are plenty of tenured people further along in their careers at fancier departments than hers who are cited less. "Trailing spouse" just seems misleading when you're talking about the less famous but still very well regarded half of an academic power couple. <p> <p>I'd say the same thing about Haslanger/Yablo, btw. Kenneth 2017-10-22 11:33:29 Remember Eric Schliesser? Another feminist. Roy 2017-10-22 11:28:11 Jason Stanley is a feminist and also a sleaze bag. No contradiction. Feng 2017-10-22 10:51:47 ...but being predatory sleaze bags doesn't mean they're No True Feminists. Anybody who supports feminism is ipso facto a feminist. Feng 2017-10-22 10:45:25 <blockquote> <p> <p>No, endowing a university chair in Steinem's name does not make you a feminist. It's essentially image management. Posing as a feminist is an obvious way to hide one's predatory inclinations, and to capitalize on access to women. <p><footer>Saul <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>"Women, I will let you in on a male secret. Men know that constantly self-proclaiming male 'feminists' are often predatory sleaze bags. They are intensely disliked by other men because of their manipulative qualities and not, in general, because they are viewed to be sex traitors." <a href="https://twitter.com/julianassange/status/921760921931927552">Julian Assange</a> Feng 2017-10-22 10:42:36 <b>The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions - 2014</b> <p> <p><p>...in 2011 the CDC reported results from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), one of the most comprehensive surveys of sexual victimization conducted in the United States to date. <p><p>The survey found that men and women had a similar prevalence of nonconsensual sex in the previous 12 months (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men). <p><p>This remarkable finding challenges stereotypical assumptions about the gender of victims of sexual violence. <p>However unintentionally, the CDC’s publications and the media coverage that followed instead highlighted female sexual victimization, reinforcing public perceptions that sexual victimization is primarily a women’s issue. <p><p>Lara Stemple and Ilan H. Meyer. The Sexual Victimization of Men in America: New Data Challenge Old Assumptions. American Journal of Public Health: June 2014, Vol. 104, No. 6, pp. e19-e26. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946 <p> <p>(I am posting this in reply to the claim in this thread that men are the primary perpetrators of sexual abuse.) Feng 2017-10-22 10:30:17 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>That's very strange. I do not observe that, and I am a feminist who knows many other feminists. If you are a man, are you privy to "locker room talk" about women? Feminists, in my experience, don't have that kind of "locker room talk" about men. <p> <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>The fact you think the contrast class to 'men' is 'feminists' speaks volumes. WOMEN frequently engage in locker room talk about men. <p> <p><footer>Calcidius <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Calcidius, I was responding specifically to the claim, that someone else made, that FEMINISTS are the worst perpetrators of gender injustice. <p> <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>I realise. The point stands. Yamuna 2017-10-22 08:20:58 <blockquote> <p> <p>And it's also coming out, from the thread on trailing spouses, that some of the loudest 'feminist' voices in the profession benefit from hiring practices whose egalitarian bona fides are questionable. So the 'basic criteria' for being a feminist are not as clear cut as some might have us believe. <p> <p><footer>Wonhyo <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Sorry, that should be 'appear to benefit' rather than 'benefit.' Wonhyo 2017-10-22 08:14:16 And it's also coming out, from the thread on trailing spouses, that some of the loudest 'feminist' voices in the profession benefit from hiring practices whose egalitarian bona fides are questionable. So the 'basic criteria' for being a feminist are not as clear cut as some might have us believe. Wonhyo 2017-10-22 08:06:06 No, endowing a university chair in Steinem's name does not make you a feminist. It's essentially image management. Posing as a feminist is an obvious way to hide one's predatory inclinations, and to capitalize on access to women. A bit like a pedophile who volunteers for children's charities and organisations. I think it's more likely you're trolling than that gullible. <p> <p>I've already said what I think about the Stubblefield case. She is a) an outlier b) not a serial abuser, but someone who deluded herself into believing she was having consensual sex with a mentally competent man. Saul 2017-10-22 08:04:16 <blockquote> <p> <p>Wonhyo, that's not "no true Scotsman". It's just that basic criteria for being a feminist precludes being a serial sexual abuser of women. A bit like how serially singling Black people out for abuse precludes being antiracist. <p> <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Ah, but the question is whether 'being a feminist' should be understood as a descriptive claim. People here are pointing out that, empirically, self-proclaimed and widely recognized 'feminists' often don't live up to the 'basic criteria' characterized as a normative standard. And that makes it hard to see the normative standard as an accurate characterization of the identity. Wonhyo 2017-10-22 07:55:47 </blockquote> <p>I was responding specifically to the claim, that someone else made, that FEMINISTS are the worst perpetrators of gender injustice. <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>The only philosopher convicted and imprisoned for sexual assault is a feminist - Anna Stubblefield. <p>The most famous person currently in the spotlight for sexual harassment is a feminist - Harvey Weinstein. <p>Check mate. Andy 2017-10-22 07:49:10 Harvey Weinstein "recently endowed a university faculty chair in Gloria Steinem’s name". <p>That makes him probably one of the most powerful feminists in the world. A very, very high bar. <p> <p>https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/briefing/las-vegas-harvey-weinstein-spain.html Christopher 2017-10-22 07:45:57 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>That's very strange. I do not observe that, and I am a feminist who knows many other feminists. If you are a man, are you privy to "locker room talk" about women? Feminists, in my experience, don't have that kind of "locker room talk" about men. <p> <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>The fact you think the contrast class to 'men' is 'feminists' speaks volumes. WOMEN frequently engage in locker room talk about men. <p> <p><footer>Calcidius <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Calcidius, I was responding specifically to the claim, that someone else made, that FEMINISTS are the worst perpetrators of gender injustice. Philippa 2017-10-22 07:44:56 Wonhyo, that's not "no true Scotsman". It's just that basic criteria for being a feminist precludes being a serial sexual abuser of women. A bit like how serially singling Black people out for abuse precludes being antiracist. Philippa 2017-10-22 07:38:29 <blockquote> <p> <p>That's very strange. I do not observe that, and I am a feminist who knows many other feminists. If you are a man, are you privy to "locker room talk" about women? Feminists, in my experience, don't have that kind of "locker room talk" about men. <p> <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>The fact you think the contrast class to 'men' is 'feminists' speaks volumes. WOMEN frequently engage in locker room talk about men. Calcidius 2017-10-22 07:25:47 No true Scotsman! Wonhyo 2017-10-22 07:20:32 Attending a women's march is a pretty low bar, one easily defeated by multiple cases of harassment, abuse and alleged rape. Philippa 2017-10-22 07:17:53 Harvey Weinstein is a feminist. He attended a "women's march" organized by Chelsea Handler. <p> <p>http://www.dailywire.com/news/22154/flashback-harvey-weinstein-joins-womens-march-emily-zanotti Anniceris 2017-10-22 07:06:34 Harvey Weinstein is not a feminist. In case you're wondering, neither was Jack the Ripper. <p> <p>I've read about the Stubblefield case. I'm not certain what to make of it: whatever the truth is, it's disturbing either way. Either Stubblefield was delusional and she raped an extremely disabled man, or Stubblefield is not delusional and she has been locked up for being the only person to properly treat a non-verbal but fully cognitively competent man as an equal. I think the former sounds more likely, and that's what the courts found, so that's what I'll go with. The Stubblefield case is certainly an outlier though and Stubblefield herself does not have a history as a serial abuser, unlike the string of high profile falls from grace we've been witnessing as more and more men get revealed as serial sexual abusers. <p> <p>Please answer me this: how characteristic of men's social interaction with each other is the "locker room talk" caught on tape between Trump and Billy Bush? The fact that so many people were willing to write it off as "mere locker room talk" suggests to me it is seen as very common. Philippa 2017-10-22 07:02:38 <blockquote> <p>It's generally not feminists who are getting charged with abuse and sexual abuse of men <p><footer>Philippa</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>On the contrary. The only philosopher charged with, convicted for, and imprisoned for, sexual assault is Anna Stubblefield, a Rutgers feminist who sexually assaulted a non-verbal disabled man whose mental age was that of a small child. Anjan 2017-10-22 06:49:40 Harvey Weinstein is a feminist. Alonzo 2017-10-22 06:40:32 That's very strange. I do not observe that, and I am a feminist who knows many other feminists. If you are a man, are you privy to "locker room talk" about women? Feminists, in my experience, don't have that kind of "locker room talk" about men. It's generally not feminists who are getting charged with abuse and sexual abuse of men . . . rather it is (most of the time) men that are getting charged with abuse and sexual abuse of women. Can you please point me to the feminist equivalent, of, say, Harvey Weinstein? <p> <p>Hard to tell if you people are trolling me or whether you actually believe these things. Philippa 2017-10-22 06:33:13 That feminism is anti-egalitarianism is an empirical observation. <p>Feminists hate men and subject them to bias, abuse, mistreatment, prejudice, vilification, discrimination and violence. This is observable. G. 2017-10-22 06:25:25 The claim that feminism is anti-egalitarian is a conceptual one, not an empirical one. <p> <p>If you are obliquely referring to affirmative action hiring practices, then that is very weak. Feminism does not entail affirmative action. And affirmative action is not necessarily anti-egalitarian: in fact, affirmative action can come out of a commitment to egalitarianism. <p> <p>The actual empirical claim worth addressing is this one: "that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group". Philippa 2017-10-22 06:09:00 That feminism is anti-egalitarianism is an empirical observation, not an axiom. <p>You are free to participate or make sandwiches, as your inclination dictates. Edmund 2017-10-22 06:02:55 So you are asserting that as axiomatic to your discourse then? So anyone who disagrees can't participate? So super rational and philosophical of you! Now I see why philosophy has been so male-dominated: it's all to do with the extra rationality courtesy of the SRY genes on the Y chromosome, nothing to do with stubborn dogmatic protection of the status quo whatsoever. <p> <p>I guess I'll just go make sandwiches then. Philippa 2017-10-22 05:30:20 Feminism is anti-egalitarianism. Chrysippus 2017-10-22 04:46:47 Feminism is egalitarianism, plus the belief that women as a group are oppressed by men as a group. <p> <p>Communism is egalitarianism, plus the belief that workers as a group are oppressed by the bourgeoisie as a group. <p> <p>Antiracism is egalitarianism, plus the belief that Blacks as a group are oppressed by Whites as a group. <p> <p> Philippa 2017-10-22 04:42:23 Feminism is anti-egalitarian. Therefore, egalitarianism is anti-feminist. Vauvenargues 2017-10-22 04:33:17 I'm a feminist here to argue with anti-feminists, to see if we can learn from each other. To test their arguments and to test my own. <p> <p>I thought that's the kind of thing philosophers are meant to do. Philippa 2017-10-22 04:12:15 <blockquote> <p> <p>Upvote iff you're a lurker and here to see what the secret misogynists in the profession are thinking. Downvote only if you're one of the misogynists. <p> <p><footer>Mark <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>I wonder if I'm a little of both. I'm here to see what the (alleged) misogynists -- i.e., the regular posters here, who are certain to be branded as misogynists by FP-types -- are up to. But sometimes I agree with them. And when I do, I post indicating my agreement and even give arguments. <p> <p>Upvote if you are, like me, perhaps a little of both! Jacopo 2017-10-22 04:01:44 Upvote this thread if you think the Blanchards are merely lonely, horny guys trying to get laid by pretending to be SJW knights in shining armor. Downvote if you think they talk the way they do to deflect attention from the fact that they routinely **COUGH**excuse me**COUGH**COUGH**sorry**COUGH** 14 year old girls. Frans 2017-10-22 02:14:09 Problem is that now Haslanger's the only person with a track record of placing anyone at MIT Alcinous 2017-10-21 21:47:35 Peter Lewis is trailing behind Amie Thomasson at Dartmouth. They're both really impressive. Dong 2017-10-21 21:33:45 <blockquote> <p> <p>Anicius here. Okay, maybe they are twice as deserving. Then what's wrong with a dept offering superstar and superstar's spouse a gig which gives them 100k each rather than an offer of 200k just to superstar? And what's wrong with them accepting it? <p> <p><footer>Lady <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Easy: it's culpably misleading to force people to pretend to believe the fiction that the trailing spouse is worthy of the department whereas she's just a perk for the target hire. Pay the target hire 200k and let them support their spouse. Imagine a world in which Haslanger can't pretend she's an MIT-caliber philosopher. Catherine 2017-10-21 21:30:39 God the Barnes-Camerons monitor this place closely. She had zero pubs or forthcoming things when hired. At the moment Cameron has an h-index of 22, Barnes of 15. That's a huge difference. Catherine 2017-10-21 21:26:39 Flrpl (n): <p>A flrpl is a person who believes themself to be a flrpl. Slavoj 2017-10-21 20:33:09 <blockquote> <p> <p>I think of this place as the philosophy equivalent of KotakuInAction <p> <p><footer>Hugh <p></footer> <p></blockquote>I'd say 4chan Giordano 2017-10-21 20:19:09 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>http://rightlyconsidered.org/2017/10/10/at-the-heart-of-progressivism/ <p> <p><footer>Ventimiglia</footer> <p></blockquote>that post is about 75% as funny as it should have been. <p> <p><footer>Fakhr <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>You sure you don't mean 33%? Hasana 2017-10-21 19:24:48 <blockquote> <p> <p>http://rightlyconsidered.org/2017/10/10/at-the-heart-of-progressivism/ <p> <p><footer>Ventimiglia</footer> <p></blockquote>that post is about 75% as funny as it should have been. Fakhr 2017-10-21 19:17:27 Feminism and SJW are secularized Christianity. This is why so many SJWs are antisemitic. They hate Jews for the same reason they hate men and for the same reason they hate science. Namely, they hate success; they hate intellectual diversity; they wallow in imaginary victimhood and virtue-signalling. All secularized Christianity. Baltasar 2017-10-21 19:16:57 <blockquote> <p> <p>Maybe this has to do with the Jews that are everywhere in positions of power? <p> <p><footer>Cressida</footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>No, Cressida, I'm pretty sure it's because you fucking suck at philosophy. Which is true of nearly every other Christian male philosopher I know of. Leon 2017-10-21 18:29:34 It’s so easy for a SJW to plant an antisemitic post here or there to discredit this whole place. Just ignore them. Allama 2017-10-21 18:28:09 Christian men are not discriminated against at all. No one is interested in or pays any attention to Christians. And many of men who are most discriminated against are Jewish. Norman 2017-10-21 17:02:41 <blockquote> <p> <p>Men in the philosophy profession are discriminated against and subjected to bias and sexism. All of this has been well-established by detailed evidence. <p> <p> <p><footer>Mario <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Men are much more discriminated against in philosophy than women, and especially Christian men. Christians are the most persecuted group in academia. Maybe this has to do with the Jews that are everywhere in positions of power? Cressida 2017-10-21 16:58:28 Men in the philosophy profession are discriminated against and subjected to bias and sexism. All of this has been well-established by detailed evidence. <p> Mario 2017-10-21 16:24:49 Maybe Chang and Green and all the other experts of law and ethics back at Oxford could break this one down for us: <p> <p>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/21/extraordinary-student-lavinia-woodward-spared-jail-stabbing/ Hasana 2017-10-21 16:20:59 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/21/extraordinary-student-lavinia-woodward-spared-jail-stabbing/ Hasana 2017-10-21 16:19:39 <a href="http://mra-uk.co.uk/?page_id=22">Relevant to philosophers and everybody else.</a> Drucilla 2017-10-21 12:00:39 I think of this place as the philosophy equivalent of KotakuInAction Hugh 2017-10-21 08:16:28 <blockquote> <p> <p>'Downvote if you're a misogynist'... the new playground game from the people who brought you 'losers say what'. <p> <p><footer>Hildegard <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>I know you are, but what am I? Gregory 2017-10-21 06:56:23 Jesus, that has got to be near the record for a low-effort tranny. <p> <p> Hector-Neri 2017-10-21 03:33:31 I'm here for the knapsack of White privilege. Hector-Neri 2017-10-21 03:28:23 bump Piero 2017-10-20 22:51:28 Another member of the glitter family goes to jail: <p> <p>http://trib.com/news/local/casper/suspect-pleads-not-guilty-to-charges-alleging-sexual-assault-of/article_5762304a-9bc8-5da9-bdd1-fa0c2a10f834.html <p> <p> Bruno 2017-10-20 22:36:26 Any updates? Giovanni 2017-10-20 22:05:25 It's been discontinued. Giovanni 2017-10-20 22:04:45 I am actually surprised by the general reasonableness of most threads, given how this place is portrayed elsewhere. Sarvepalli 2017-10-20 21:21:45 'Downvote if you're a misogynist'... the new playground game from the people who brought you 'losers say what'. Hildegard 2017-10-20 21:04:32 Is the point to discuss the open misandrists and sexist discrimination in the profession? Mani 2017-10-20 20:51:09 I lurk here to watch the Blanchard's morally preen. It makes me wet. Monique 2017-10-20 20:06:51 What do we do if we're neither? Geoffrey 2017-10-20 20:02:52 Upvote iff you're a lurker and here to see what the secret misogynists in the profession are thinking. Downvote only if you're one of the misogynists. Mark 2017-10-20 19:57:44 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Not sure about Barnes/Cameron, maybe he was better, but they were both above the average at UVA. <p></blockquote> <p> <p>But she was permanently hired at Leeds as an unpublished ABD, whereas he had graduated and had several papers out. <p> <p><footer>Madhava <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Looks like she completed her PhD in 2 years and within that time published a paper at Analysis and had a paper forthcoming at Mind. Seems pretty impressive to me. <p> <p><footer>Marko <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Barnes was totally hired because of her track record. And she's arguably one of the most impressive philosophers of her generation. Aristo 2017-10-20 19:37:31 <blockquote> <p> <p><blockquote> <p> <p>Not sure about Barnes/Cameron, maybe he was better, but they were both above the average at UVA. <p></blockquote> <p> <p>But she was permanently hired at Leeds as an unpublished ABD, whereas he had graduated and had several papers out. <p> <p><footer>Madhava <p></footer> <p></blockquote> <p> <p>Looks like she completed her PhD in 2 years and within that time published a paper at Analysis and had a paper forthcoming at Mind. Seems pretty impressive to me. Marko 2017-10-20 18:22:11 Thanks for opening this topic, because I hadn't realized what an astoundingly high percentage of these "couple hires" involve people who are toxic, unhinged, virtue signalling, hypocrites. It really makes me wonder. Did they become these vile creatures to compensate for the guilt they must feel at knowing their joint hiring was morally unjust? Or is it simply a standard feature of the power couples in our profession that they are amoral sociopaths? Monique 2017-10-20 18:21:19 Still can't quote you, Derek/Democritus, but: <p> <p>Obviously you could be right. But I doubt that the bias is currently symmetrical. We've seen very high-profile cases of one side in the disagreement obviously engaging in epistemic contortions fairly recently, and nothing really comparable on the other side. Also, there is a lot of open, often vicious, social pressure to agree with one side. That's what drives the most open discussions onto anonymous venues like this. Also, many people on the contortionist side of the disagreement, seem to condone the subordination of truth/evidence to politics as a matter of principle, whereas almost no one on the other side does that, at least. <p> <p>(I was more sympathetic with the opposite side of this dispute until *fairly* recently, but the evidence changed my mind--maybe that looms too large in my thinking.) <p> <p>"if it turned out that having some forms of ASD makes you better at certain kinds of reasoning commonly deployed in mathematics and philosophy) then the trick would be how to make sure the field wasn't exacerbating that by making it harder for women who do have the requisite talent to enter the field." <p> <p>I think it's *always* important to make pretty sure that we're not discriminating. What I really oppose is what seems to me like a full-court press to push *for* discrimination in favor of women in the face of evidence that, on the whole, indicates that they *already* enjoy e.g. hiring preferences. I think we have to avoid an asymmetrical attitude such that we constantly/repeatedly expend enormous effort to address even rather speculative possibilities that *might* be disadvantageous to women...while we simultaneously ignore fairly significant evidence that our previous efforts have created *actual* discrimination against men. <p> <p>I very much want a level playing field for everyone. I'm skeptical that this is as true of the other side. I'd normally attribute that to "my side" bias...but when prominent people on the other side reject objectivity even as an ideal...well...I think that makes it less unreasonable to think that there are real asymmetries in these respects. <p> <p>Needless to say, all of that could be wrong. Bartholomew 2017-10-20 17:30:54