philosophy meta-forum

Philosophical Misconduct blog

Rgyal

104 day(s) ago

This blog/resource, "Philosophical Misconduct" continues to grow, and it will likely be of interest to readers of this forum, given the focus here on allegations of misconduct across threads here.

Anaximander

104 day(s) ago

This blog/resource, "Philosophical Misconduct" continues to grow, and it will likely be of interest to readers of this forum, given the focus here on allegations of misconduct across threads here.

Rgyal

What a gross and irresponsible blog, just as much as what goes on here.

Eino

104 day(s) ago

This blog/resource, "Philosophical Misconduct" continues to grow, and it will likely be of interest to readers of this forum, given the focus here on allegations of misconduct across threads here.

Rgyal

Truth hurts?

What a gross and irresponsible blog, just as much as what goes on here.

Anaximander

Eino

104 day(s) ago

This blog/resource, "Philosophical Misconduct" continues to grow, and it will likely be of interest to readers of this forum, given the focus here on allegations of misconduct across threads here.

Rgyal

What a gross and irresponsible blog, just as much as what goes on here.

Anaximander

Truth hurts?

Georg

103 day(s) ago

This blog/resource, "Philosophical Misconduct" continues to grow, and it will likely be of interest to readers of this forum, given the focus here on allegations of misconduct across threads here.

Rgyal

What a gross and irresponsible blog, just as much as what goes on here.

Anaximander

At least it is non-partisan in the stories gathered there -- bad behavior from philosophers of all kinds, not just the white men.

Motoori

103 day(s) ago

Old news

Kuki

103 day(s) ago

I love that Kripke is on that list. It's about time he get his comeuppance for decades of harassment.

Wesley

103 day(s) ago

Why aren't Jeremy Fantl and Lauren Leydon-Hardy on this list? The poop mailer isn't "unknown", too, it's David Barnett.

Emil

103 day(s) ago

All LLH did was lie to her advisor about her infidelity for 100 perfectly good different reasons (like, for example, staying in a positive light in FPer eyes or, you know, saving her future marriage). Jennifer Lackey, on the other hand,decided to weaponize LLH's sex life and ran to the Title IX bureaucracy with that lie. LLH did not ask her to do that. Lackey did not give an ant's ass about her student or what the consequences might be if the lie were exposed by evidence sitting on a hard drive or phone somewhere. And now that the mess is spraying all over her buddy in Calgary she is trying to stuff it back in the enema bag. Good luck with that. But the question is: Isn't this just an astronomically huge case of professional misconduct on Lackey's part? Using her own student like that against her wishes?

Tai

103 day(s) ago

an ant's ass

Emil

downvoted

Bradley

103 day(s) ago

All LLH did was lie to her advisor about her infidelity for 100 perfectly good different reasons (like, for example, staying in a positive light in FPer eyes or, you know, saving her future marriage). Jennifer Lackey, on the other hand

Emil

Two people can be guilty at once, both Lackey and Lackey-Hardy.

Hannah

102 day(s) ago

Why the hostility to Peter Ludlow? Professional jealousy? He is well-published.

Debendranath

102 day(s) ago

All LLH did was lie to her advisor about her infidelity for 100 perfectly good different reasons

Jesus F, can we PLEASE stop making excuses for the behavior of Lauren Leydon-Hardy. "Ludlow made her do it" no "Lackey made her do it" no "Lockwood made her do it" no "Pogin made her do it". Is this woman NEVER responsible for her own actions?

Anjan

101 day(s) ago

I'm really against such anonymous accusations...but C. D. C. Reeve really is a massive, inexcusable piece of shit. Enough people know this now that it's less like an anonymous accusation and more like common knowledge.

Friedrich

63 day(s) ago

Blog is still going strong, and now it's quoting Heidi Lockwood's posts here.

Matt

63 day(s) ago

This blog/resource, "Philosophical Misconduct" continues to grow, and it will likely be of interest to readers of this forum, given the focus here on allegations of misconduct across threads here.

Rgyal

What a gross and irresponsible blog, just as much as what goes on here.

Anaximander

Truth hurts?

Eino

Lies hurt too.

Valentin

62 day(s) ago

Peter Smith is an interesting case. Convicted for downloading kiddy-porn and banned from using the internet, he still regularly blogs about logic and philosophy on his website. And it seems that quite a few 'respectable' philosophers are happy to comment and engage with him there on logical/philosophical matters:

http://www.logicmatters.net/blogfront/

A story about his criminal case here:

http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/news/0014557-cambridge-university-rocked-by-twist-in-sickening-sex-pervert-scandal.html

Madhava

62 day(s) ago

Convicted for downloading kiddy-porn and banned from using the internet, he still regularly blogs about logic and philosophy on his website.

Valentin

So what's the extent of the ban if he is able to continue blogging?

Mahatma

62 day(s) ago

Simone de Beauvoir. Convicted of kidnapping a schoolgirl she sexually molested and banned from teaching.

And it seems that quite a few 'respectable' philosophers are happy to engage with her on philosophical matters.

Pierre

62 day(s) ago

Mahatma, I know this is your shtick and all, but I'm pretty sure the blog is meant to be about contemporary professional philosophers. Give it a rest.

Wilhelm

61 day(s) ago

This blog is the consistent, final twisted progeny of the old "What Is it Like" blog. Anonymous accusations and gossip, all in service of feminism, but mostly just dragging down the lives of anyone named or involved.

I can't look away.

Alison

61 day(s) ago

Actually, Pierre, the blog is meant to be about issues in the profession. Some sociopathic idiots have descended on the place and slandered people because, hey, who the fuck needs to preserve his reputation anyway? Why not throw mud?

There's a word for people who can't focus on issues because they are only capable of throwing shit at people and jeering. That word is 'subhuman'. I hope all the people who engage in the naming of names on public blogs have their own reputations destroyed utterly by their actions and are never allowed to pollute public spaces with their filth again. Actually, I hope much more than that, but I think we have a duty to be civilized even with these grunting, degenerate babboons. But we would all be much better off without them.

John

61 day(s) ago

Pierre here. By 'the blog', I and others in this thread mean the philosophical misconduct blog linked in the OP, not the metaforum. So I think your criticism here is misdirected. Though perhaps I should register agreement that this forum would be a much better place if it wasn't so overwhelmingly focused on accusations like this and related culture war issues.

Also, some advice: when making moral criticism of people, don't call them things like 'subhuman' or 'grunting, degenerate baboons'. It tends to cede whatever high ground you may have started with.

Nathan

60 day(s) ago

Actually, anyone who names names online is, in fact, a degenerate. It does not cede moral ground to refer to perpetrators of morally intolerable acts, qua perpetrators, as subhuman, especially when their actions destroy not only lives but the institutions that undergird civilization, like due process. Let's not be politically correct about this also. We need to resist.

Ismael

60 day(s) ago

"Actually, anyone who names names online is, in fact, a degenerate."

I disagree. Mildly, perhaps, but I'm inclined to disagree. If I witness, say, a married philosopher hitting on a high school girl that I suspect might be underage at a conference or philosophy event (which I think I have), I don't think I have a particularly strong reason to keep that to myself. If I hear from people I trust that the person has a habit of hitting on underage girls at conferences, it seems like there's a pf duty to do something or other. Maybe it's to speak to them or maybe it's to speak to their school, but their employer might have no jurisdiction and there might be countervailing considerations that speak against speaking to them directly. Why would I have the obligation to conceal this information? If I'm allowed to share it and have no other place to share it than online, I think the permissibility of doing so will turn on whether the expected consequences are proportional. Okay, so I agree that they probably wouldn't be in this case (hence the silence) but I think it's a calculation that makes it hard to say. The evidence might come in that suggests that this is a pattern of grooming behavior. Depending upon whether there are feasible ways to intervene and change things, might a blog be the best way to go? Maybe.

Musonius

60 day(s) ago

Maybe Ismael. But as for me, my credence in the general reliability of philosophers to judge when someone is being hit on, harassed, etc. is very low. And my expectation that once the rumor mill gets going there will be people who say someone has a 'habit' of doing so is high. So when I see a train of reasoning to the conclusion that it is morally permissible to reveal this 'information' on a blog, and under the cover of anonymity, I fear it tells me more about the perverse mentality of the accuser than the perverse behavior of the accused. Nonanonymous accusations are another story. And there may be exceptions otherwise. But in general I just don't trust that professional philosophers today have anything like a healthy conception of human sexuality.

James

60 day(s) ago

What if the thing I'm sharing happened to me, though? If someone behaves badly towards me in some way (and I don't mean just sexual harassment here, but general assholery as well) I don't see why I have any obligation to conceal that fact. Imagine someone cornered you in the bathroom at a conference and, say, punched you. Would you think you have an obligation not to to tell anybody that Philosopher X punched you?

Musonius

60 day(s) ago

Ismael was talking about witnessing other people being hit on, not being oneself punched. I don't give much credence to philosophers' general ability to judge that accurately, given how poorly today's professional philosopher seems to generally be at understanding human sexuality.

James

60 day(s) ago

Sure. But the original claim was that 'anyone who names names online is, in fact, a degenerate." I'm saying that sure, there might be situations where it is inappropriate to name names, like in a situation where there is a reasonable possibility that you misjudged what was happening. But there are other situations where I think it would be odd to hold that someone ought to refrain from naming names. If someone does something to me that is really shitty, I don't see why I have any obligation to conceal this. Other people of course may have good reason not to repeat what I have said, especially if I say it anonymously, because they have no basis on which to evaluate the truth of the claim. But *I* do, if it happened to me. Why do I have any obligation to protect the reputation of someone who has behaved badly towards me? You don't get to sexually assault someone, or harass someone, or punch someone, or whatever, and then demand that they not tell anyone about it.

Bonaventure

60 day(s) ago

But as for me, my credence in the general reliability of philosophers to judge when someone is being hit on, harassed, etc. is very low.

But in general I just don't trust that professional philosophers today have anything like a healthy conception of human sexuality.

Musonius

This. Academics are freaks.

posts per page.