philosophy meta-forum

How Kookla thinks


166 day(s) ago

From Facebook: "Collective wisdom question ... As a journal editor I try to remain open to publishing papers I disagree with deeply, if they are innovative and rigorous. But some papers not only reach what I find repugnant conclusions, but in doing so they reinforce an already-dominant, already-repressive kind of repugnant conclusion. When it comes to those I feel like I am not just promoting the free exchange of ideas but being complicit in enforcing the hegemony of dominant, oppressive ideas. This makes me inclined to just not play along. What do you think, should I just desk reject in such cases, or do they deserve a fair hearing from referees in the name of open discourse? "Just so you have an idea of the kind of thing I mean, imagine a paper that argues that women who have a lot of sex with different people lack self-respect, say, or that obeying police instructions is a great way to stay safe and show proper respect ... but it argues this in a scholarly, careful way. (These are NOT what the paper prompting the post is about. I'm intentionally picking different examples.) "No right answer here - I genuinely don't know what I think. Open to thoughts." Does anyone other than Kookla or Mark Lance think Kookla's sense of repugnance is a reliable guide to what's repugnant? Isn't she just going to desk-reject anything right-wing but then give any insane leftist view a full hearing?


166 day(s) ago

It sounds like this person is making editorial decisions based on article conclusions alone. arguments don't even seem to figure in the decision. Isn't the obvious answer that if the article has new, solid arguments for a conclusion (even if repugnant) and the reviewers were unable to find obvious problems with those arguments it should be published? Assuming the journal and its readership is competent, then should it not put the argument out there for diagnosis and public dismantling? If not, it's not like the paper will go away. It will just slink away to some shitty journal with a sympathetic audience where it will go unscrutinized and unchallenged.


166 day(s) ago

"dominant", "opressive", hegemony"...blah blah blah.

You can't reconcile a free exchange of ideas with neo-Marxist claptrap right from Marcuse's repressive tolerance playbook.


166 day(s) ago

A couple of things:

The discipline is knee-deep in shit when those people are journal editors but we are still lucky that those imbeciles do it out in the open, makes them easier to recognize.

The respectable rest should abandon the use of "philosopher" as a job description, rarely any of us are real philosophers and have gained wisdom. Makes the rest of us look more realistic and down-to-earth, and allows us to draw a boundary to those with an inflated sense of self.

As for Kukla, has her muscular vagina finally eaten her brain? What is her purpose in life other than preening on facebook? I know it doesn't like a cock diet but there are still other ways to feed it.


164 day(s) ago

First, does anyone actually believe she's genuinely soliciting feedback and not just engaging in ridiculous moral grandstanding? My guess is that she's already made up her mind to desk reject the article and wants her Facebook echo chamber to validate how supposedly woke she is by refusing to "be complicit" with "oppressive" ideas.

Second, isn't it a bit absurd that she's asking whether or not to even send the article out for review? I would think that, if an editor is unsure whether or not a submission should be published, a good way to get some feedback would be to find out what qualified referees think about it.

Third, at which journal(s) is Kukla an editor? It'd be helpful to know where not to submit stuff that's even slightly "controversial" (according to her odd view of the world). I also wonder if the other associate editors/editorial board(s) at Kukla's journal(s) would be interested to know that she is considering engaging in outright ideological censorship of various views, even when those views are supported by careful argumentation. Considering her own rather extreme ideological predilections, it seems like that would threaten the credibility of whatever journal(s) she edits.

Allowed tags: 'p', 'b', 'em', 'blockquote'. URLs are automatically linkified.
posts per page.