philosophy meta-forum

Cambridge

6 day(s) ago

I believe the Boolos part of it.

I'm skeptical about the Langton part. HL would only have hearsay evidence about that, which can easily become distorted.

Walter

6 day(s) ago

How do we know the Boolos story is true? I don't know the details, aside from getting the sense that LH accused him of doing something inappropriate when he was her supervisor. Was there evidence? Did everyone hear both sides of the story and reach a verdict impartially?

6 day(s) ago

Langton's remarks are documented in email.

6 day(s) ago

How do we know the Boolos story is true? I don't know the details, aside from getting the sense that LH accused him of doing something inappropriate when he was her supervisor. Was there evidence? Did everyone hear both sides of the story and reach a verdict impartially?

Walter

It's HL, not LH. Sally Haslanger is at MIT, right? Kipnis mentioned the allegations in her book, and HL posted something on her Facebook page last fall during one of those my-pussy-too campaigns. Haslanger should call for an investigation. But of course she won't, because feminists always protect their own.

6 day(s) ago

HL, yes, sorry.

We don't *know* the Boolos story is true, but if it's not it would be a fabrication, not a misunderstanding.

What are the Langton remarks documented in email? Are they publicly available?

5 day(s) ago

The Weinsteins of philosophy are feminists, just like the Weinsteins of Hollywood.

Slavoj

5 day(s) ago

The Weinsteins of philosophy are feminists, just like the Weinsteins of Hollywood.

None

Of course they are. Women are abused by those who supposedly campaign for women rights. as reason is neglected by those who supposedly made her into a goddess. and equality and peace are destroyed by those who supposedly made revolutions to establish peace and equality.

Abu'l

5 day(s) ago

I wonder why women hesitate to come forward with their experiences of sexual harassment?

5 day(s) ago

Such a good point, Abu'l. I mean, look at us: someone claiming to be Heidi Lockwood showed up here and accused a known person of doing something, spilling (if it was her) some very personal details, and what she describes is not even clearly sexual harassment, especially in the latter case. And only about half of us, maybe a little less, jumped on the bandwagon immediately and called her 'brave' and resolved to treat the people she accused, with no evidence whatsoever, as unpersons for life.

We really need to fix this problem in the profession. When a woman, or someone claiming to be a woman, accuses a man of sexual harassment, even if he's in no position of power over her or is from a different university, and especially if she has no evidence whatsoever of this, we should never, ever doubt that the story is true. Nor should we ever doubt whether something is harassment. The memory of a woman who accuses someone of sexual harassment is ALWAYS accurate in all relevant details. The moral judgment of a woman who accuses someone of sexual harassment is ALWAYS perfectly correct. There is NEVER a need to wait for confirmation or have a conversation. We need to drain the swamp and turn on all these people. There is NO WAY that any of these woman, or people pretending to be woman on an anonymous forum, could EVER be unhinged, vindictive or petty. We need to support them and lionize them.

They are the true philosophers, and to them belong the domain of philosophy.

Aron

5 day(s) ago

An accusation of sexual assault is testimonial evidence. It’s defeasible of course. Also, the encounter Lockwood described with Heck does count as sexual assault. Not an extremely serious form of it, but nonetheless sexual assault.

I wish hypocrites would stop foaming at the mouth with faux outrage about “naming names” when it’s their favourite thing to do to people (especially women and people they claim are feminists). The transparency is laughable.

Ramanuja

5 day(s) ago

An accusation of sexual assault is testimonial evidence. It’s defeasible of course. Also, the encounter Lockwood described with Heck does count as sexual assault. Not an extremely serious form of it, but nonetheless sexual assault.

I wish hypocrites would stop foaming at the mouth with faux outrage about “naming names” when it’s their favourite thing to do to people (especially women and people they claim are feminists). The transparency is laughable.

Nahmanides

5 day(s) ago

Lockwood is desperate to convince herself that she ended up at a crappy directional just because of the evil menz.

Ramanuja

5 day(s) ago

Lockwood is desperate to convince herself that she ended up at a crappy directional just because of the evil menz.

Nahmanides

Are you denying that can and does happen?

Ramanuja

5 day(s) ago

Lockwood is desperate to convince herself that she ended up at a crappy directional just because of the evil menz.

Nahmanides

Are you denying that can and does happen?

Alison

5 day(s) ago

Hey idiot,

I'm the person who criticized the person who claims to be Heidi Lockwood for naming names. Some other person is naming names. There is no hypocrisy here. If you took a second to try to figure out what's going on rather than automatically defending your intellectual and morally bankrupt ideology, then you wouldn't come off as such a complete shithead.

I doubt this will do much good, though. Nothing makes people as stupid as supporting a prevailing ideology while lacking the intellectual courage to consider alternatives.

Cotton

5 day(s) ago

Hey idiot,

I'm the person who criticized the person who claims to be Heidi Lockwood for naming names. Some other person is naming names. There is no hypocrisy here. If you took a second to try to figure out what's going on rather than automatically defending your intellectual and morally bankrupt ideology, then you wouldn't come off as such a complete shithead.

I doubt this will do much good, though. Nothing makes people as stupid as supporting a prevailing ideology while lacking the intellectual courage to consider alternatives.

Alison

Right Alison, you totally sound like someone who dispassionately evaluates claims that are associated with ideologies different from your own. Your intellectually bravery practically radiates out of every word you type.

Cotton

5 day(s) ago

The point Alison, is that the only person copping flack on this entire thread for naming names is HL. Why didn't you criticise others for doing it too?

Alison

5 day(s) ago

Who else named names, Cotton? Is there someone who named names here who didn't get duly criticized?

I criticized the person who alleges that (s)he is HL for disclosing very personal details about other people who did little if anything wrong, and in such a way as to form a permanent record and to cause those people harm in their personal and professional lives. That is reprehensible.

Did someone else in that thread do this? I missed it.

Barry

5 day(s) ago

We really need to fix this problem in the profession. When a woman, or someone claiming to be a woman, accuses a man of sexual harassment, even if he's in no position of power over her or is from a different university, and especially if she has no evidence whatsoever of this, we should never, ever doubt that the story is true.

And who has been a victim of this? Any examples?

Abu'l

5 day(s) ago

Barry, your interlocutor's tiresome satire (satire standardly at least aims at amusing) was not intended to be tethered to any factual basis. It would be like satirizing Occupy Wall Street as the Khmer Rouge: any bit of truth brought into relief is overwhelmed vapid and misleading characterization. Demands for evidence will get you nowhere.

Enver

5 day(s) ago

It's a wonder the metaforum hasn't fallen victim to the same fate as the metablogs, with so much foaming at the mouth and naming of names.

Cotton

5 day(s) ago

Talk of name naming and foaming at the mouth reminds me of Kripke. Apparently, when he gave lectures, the front few rows were always empty because so much spittle came flying out of his mouth. Great philosopher though. I'd endure a bit of spittle to see him speak.

Cotton

5 day(s) ago

By the way, I wrote the original "Ramanuja" comment, but from another device.

Anjan

5 day(s) ago

An accusation of sexual assault is testimonial evidence. It’s defeasible of course.

Ramanuja

Not if there's a separate eyewitness who heard what was happening.

Cotton

5 day(s) ago

ie, it's defeasible.

Edvard

5 day(s) ago

You mean provable.

Cotton

5 day(s) ago

I meant that it is subject to disconfirmation, like all proffered evidence.

Yohanan

5 day(s) ago

It is also subject to proof beyond reasonable doubt, if there is a separate eyewitness who confirms it.

Cotton

5 day(s) ago

Yes, of course. The point is that the accusation itself counts as evidence. I don't think this is peculiar to sexual assault: it's a kind of observation.

Petrarch

5 day(s) ago

The point is that it can be *proven beyond reasonable doubt*, by separate eyewitness evidence.

This is true even if political activists deny it and refuse to accept objective and eyewitness evidence.

posts per page.