Our goal in starting this blog was to add some diversity to the philosophy blogosphere by offering the right perspective on current events and political topics. It’s no secret that the profession of philosophy is extraordinarily leftist, and all the popular philosophy blogs reflect that. Leiter Reports is left. So is Daily Nous. So is NewApps. So is Philosopher’s Coccoon. So is the APA blog. So is PhilPercs. So is PEASoup.* Boiler plate leftism has even deeply infected the once respectable Prosblogion, which has now become a news feed for Helen de Cruz’s silly sociological projects.
You’d think that leftist philosophers, cherishing diversity and inclusiveness as much as they do, would welcome our perspectives. Heck, conservatives are so underrepresented in academia today, especially in philosophy, that we half expected to be benefiting from affirmative action measures by now with shout outs, blogroll listings, and offers to guest post.
Except leftists don’t actually value real diversity and inclusiveness, and the idea of affirmative action benefiting conservatives would, I’m sure, be sufficient reason for leftist philosophers to suddenly start writing moral treatises against affirmative action.
So when I saw leftist philosophers deigning to mention our blog on Facebook, it wasn’t surprising to see comments like these:
Yes, we’re real. In just a month, we’ve written substantive posts on trigger warnings, labor unions, transgenderism, the academy, identity politics, blacks in philosophy, and more. So yes, we’re serious. And I’m curious to know what Jack Lyons thinks is “trolly satire” in our about page. Perhaps the bit about all human life being intrinsically valuable?
And though now our site has hosted original source material on the Swinburne controversy that the American Conservative, the Washington Times, the Federalist, and other national news media outlets have cited and run with, the philosophy blogosophere—our original target audience—has pretended we don’t exist.
I thought I smelled something fishy when, in Helen de Cruz’s link-fest on the Swinburne controversy, there was no mention of not just our post on that (a post that received so much traffic that our fledgling blog temporarily crashed), or the heartfelt open letter we posted on behalf of a concerned gay Christian, or any number of other non-leftist takes on the controversy (such as Feser’s and Spiegel’s—note that Spiegel was present at Swinburne’s keynote). But the fish stinks from the head down, as they say, and the rotten head in this case is Daily Nous. Surprised to see a trickle of traffic coming our way from Daily Nous, I went over to check out the reference. Under their post about the incomprehensible idea that people much smarter than them, such as Scott Soames, Daniel Bonevac, and Robert Koons, would support Trump, one of our contributors (Ideal Observer) left a lengthy and characteristically thoughtful comment. It was his name hyperlinking to our blog, much like how other commenter’s names there link to their associated websites. But shortly thereafter, his comment disappeared. Had it been deleted? No. As it turns out, an administrator at Daily Nous temporarily took the comment down to scrub the hyperlink to our blog from Ideal Observer’s name!**
Are leftist philosophers afraid to read and engage conservative ideas? Are they afraid that more open-minded, intellectually honest people will see that we’re right? I don’t know, but I suspect so. What I do know is that, for whatever reason, leftists would much rather simply dismiss conservatives as insane or evil or bigoted and their arguments as stupid than engage them.***
“Swinburne, meanwhile, was explicitly expressing a really stupid view, held by some Christians (and others), that gays and lesbians are defective humans. Knowing how comment threads go on matters like this, it would probably be best if we didn’t assess the substance of these views here.” (DailyNous)
“Swinburne offered the usual awful arguments for anti-gay bigotry that ‘natural law’ theorists and Christian philosophers usually trot out. No one outside the sect takes the arguments seriously, because they aren’t serious arguments, but put that to one side. … Professor Swinburne’s views really are a philosophical embarrassment.” (Leiter Reports)
Or perhaps they’d rather just ignore us until we die:
Sadly for them, we have many more years ahead of us (God willing). I hope they’re not holding their breath. In the mean time, we’ll be holding our noses.
*I am not criticizing these blogs for being left; I’m merely pointing out that the philosophy blogosphere is a leftist echo chamber. Many of the posts on these blogs are quite thoughtful, to be sure.
**Ideal Observer, classy guy that he is, let me know he doesn’t mind.
***This is not to say they never engage. Like a cornered dog, they’ll bite if barking proves insufficient. But their bite is always just as pathetic as their bark.
- An Even More Modest Proposal - February 17, 2017
- Yes, Clark, Trump Does Represent, Thanks to the Electoral College - January 27, 2017
- Hackslanger’s Fake Diversity Challenge - January 20, 2017
- A Prudential Argument Against Homosexual Behavior - January 3, 2017
- The Pedagogy Paradox for Conservative Professors - December 6, 2016
- The Girls Who Cry Wolf - November 29, 2016
- What the Electoral College and the Free Will Defense Have in Common - November 16, 2016
- How to Thrive in Philosophy as a Woman - November 14, 2016
- Craig and the “Lesser of Two Evils” Argument for Voting Trump - November 7, 2016
- Why the Alt-Right is Ult-Wrong - October 29, 2016