Expert Philosophy Journalist Leiter Tries to Smear Rightly Considered Again: But It’s an Abject Failure

Lyin’ Brian says our blog is a home for racists and anti-Semites and calls our blog a racist and anti-Semite blog.  Presumably he thinks that the blog is also a leftist blog since (a) he reads it and (b) we have a liberal comment policy with leftists commenting.  If racist comments make our blog racist, then leftist comments make our blog leftist!

He does note, though, that some on the blog are trying to resist the alt-right. (Some of us have the suspicion that Brian actually likes us).  But then, curiously, he says that such resistance has been an abject failure. So does he agree with the racists’ and anti-Semites’ arguments? If not, we invite him to contribute to the comments section, perhaps even acknowledging that, like many of our contributors, he stands with Israel.

AR-15

A former police officer, AR-15 (or “AR”) knows the difference between an assault rifle and home defense rifle. AR now fights with other weapons and demolishes arguments. He agrees that the pen is mightier than the sword, but he isn’t so stupid to bring a pen to a gunfight.

View All Posts

5 Comments

  1. Insults and smears from the gossip and notorious misogynist Brian Leiter feel good! More please.

    Incidentally, I also “stand with Israel” in some respects. I think Jews have a right to a country of their own and given that Israel has been a real existing country for a while now I don’t have any objection to that country being Israel. (I don’t know enough to have an opinion about the more difficult details of boundaries and settlements, etc.) I doubt these opinions are common on Stormfront. But I wouldn’t really know since I read Stormfront about as often as Leiter Reports.

    Brian: If there are any philosophers among your readers–there must be a few–they’re eventually going to start wondering why you never produce any argument or evidence in support of your name calling and moralizing bullshit. In philosophy we assess claims and arguments rationally. So we don’t dismiss them just by calling them “communist” or “atheist” or even “anti-semitic”. At the very least, we are supposed to define the relevant terms and offer reasons for believing that the things to which they apply are bad. I wonder if you could do anything like that in this case. Give it a try! You might learn something.

    • Don’t you understand, Jacques? Noticing patterns of human behaviors as relates to race or thinking that it is perfectly sane and normative for a race to maintain a majority in its own country is a horrible, rank bigotry that is beyond the pale and anyone who believes such things ought to be slandered and have his life destroyed.

      • Maybe I’m out of my depth here, but I thought Jewry was related more to culture than to race (whatever exactly *that* is)? As for “race”-dependent patterns of behavior, I’m open to the evidence but I’m not sure that what I’ve seen on offer (all properly controlled for of course) for such a thesis is all that good. As for such an idea, I do know I’m not in sync with academic left-wing crybullies who make it de facto taboo to inquire into any kinds of differences based on “race” or sex – see, e.g., the treatment Larry Summers received for his not-precisely-worded suggestion that not as many females are to be found at the elite end of the bell curve when it comes to academic subjects. (Statistics, bell curve distributions, and such things: are they permissible in discussions of any observed differences between and among demographic groups, even if they prove little to nothing about individual cases?)

  2. Does it occur to any others here that Leiter is not an honest critic of views he opposes. (Or: he’s only selectively “honest,” i.e., selectively truthful.)

    Notice how he invalidly slips from “a blog where a racist and/or anti-Semite posted in the comments section [which blog openly advertises a liberal comment policy]” to “a racist and/or anti-Semite blog.”

    Leiter seems to wonder at times how people could be so vicious and nasty toward him, attributing it to a combination of his “feisty” “New-Yawker style” and intellectual inferiority on the part of those viciously and nastily attacking him. But he’s at least every bit as – dishonestly – vicious and nasty as any number of his usual critics, like with his smears of this blog.

    Leiter has a prestigious piece of paper and a set of publications that give him the initially plausible appearance of being a genuine philosopher. But since he places mostly-politically-motivated agendas above the fair pursuit of the truth, the historical record is not going to look kindly on his selective “wisdom-loving.”

    Leiter is leftist scum – the epitome of the cognitive-biased academic leftist you hear so much about from the Right, who doesn’t argue or play fair and – being tenured – suffers no direct professional consequences for all his dishonesty and selective-truthiness.

    Leiter is leftist scum – as evidenced by his long-standing obsession with the “Hermeneutics of suspicion” and silly attempts at reviving key aspects of the Marxian system/epistemology which includes a scientifically unaccountable (at best; plainly dishonest is another way I’d describe it) attempt to discover material/class causes for people’s belief-worldviews. (One good way of spotting leftist scum is how much stock they place in Marx as a philosopher vis a vis Aristotle. If they write journal pieces, do they focus more on Marxian or on Aristotelian themes?)

    And he’s apparently done a fine job alienating even a bunch of the more reasonable, responsible and accountable academic liberal-left types, with his pattern of loathsome behavior online.

  3. “Philosophy journalist” is a good way of describing Leiter. He’s got some training in philosophy, his specialty is other thinkers’ ideas and the ranking of academic departments, and his so-called philosophy blog is mostly gossip about the profession and – when there is something of substance to be asserted or addressed – lots of snide sneers toward ideas/thinkers/groups he thinks beneath serious comment.

    But, no, rigorous philosophical discourse is not something you’re likely to find on a regular basis at Leiter Reports.

Comments are closed.