Comments on: Genocide and Juice

By: Alex

Alex — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 23:24:35 +0000

Are we positve that this isn’t just a cross-dressing Michelle Malkin?

By: Tom Doyle

Tom Doyle — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 20:34:54 +0000

Any mental health care professionals (or paras, for that matter)on board? I’m a Juris Doctor, so I’m not technically qualified to offer a diagnosis. (or even a second opinion. Second guessing either of the former is as far as I can go. [;8^)> ) However, a previous thread which dealt, inter alia, with psychopharmacology, clinical indications, ethics, etc. prompted me to visit some web sites related to those subjects and mental health disorders are still on my mind. Does anyone who knows something about these subjects think that the professor’s letter, together with his dialogue with those who inquired about it, suggest the possibity that a manic episode of bi-polar disorder (these terms may be out-dated) might be in the picture? Or ruled out? I’m not looking for an argument about this and I don’t want to derail the thread on this issue. Any further comments I might post on this thread should be regarded as unrelated to this request. If anyone cares to respond, an email is fine with me.(I hope the last suggestion doesn’t violate blog policy, which I have no desire to do.) TD

By: Eric the Unread

Eric the Unread — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:39:30 +0000

Do I Paul? I think not. Did I say they lie? I’m sure I agreed with them that Kozloff was a nut. I do say what I mean, stop projecting your fears on me. And not once have I advocated a indescriminate slaughter of Muslims as a route forward in the War on Terror. Given that more Muslims have been slaughtered by Islamic fundmentalists than anybody else, that would be a rather stupid position to take up.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:56:15 +0000

No-one is suggesting that idiots like Kozloff should not be discussed And that’s what we’re doing. So what’s your problem? Wanna discuss something else? It’s a big Internet—it’s probably out there. Wanna apologize for Kozloff? Then do so. Crooked Timber has a bizarre tendency to focus on the kooky “itch” when it suits, in order to avoid facing up to the rather large tumour. Which means … what? The writers here lie, is that what you’re saying? They propagandize? They just aren’t with the program? Don’t be so mealy-mouthed. Say what you mean. You sound just like Kozloff with his “I don’t advocate violence (except when I’m advocating violence)” disclaimer.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 17:09:14 +0000

Mona, No-one is suggesting that idiots like Kozloff should not be discussed, but Crooked Timber has a bizarre tendency to focus on the kooky “itch” when it suits, in order to avoid facing up to the rather large tumour.

By: Edward

Edward — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:32:51 +0000

Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of “free speech for me but not for thee” at work here. That’s beyond lame in this context. With the right of free speech, one hopes, comes the obligation to defend what one argues. Professor Kozloff is advocating, among other things, kidnapping, murder, censorship, destruction of private property, and discrimination based on religion. His defense of this laundry list of atrocities is the belief that the entire Arab Muslim world is responsible for the actions of the 9/11 terrorists. Guilt through association. Hardly the sort of thinking one would expect from a Professor of Education.

By: mona

mona — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 16:03:18 +0000

eric, you’re right, it seems everyone forgot that there is terrorism, and that because there is terrorism, we can safely discount much less troublesome matters like the existence of racist jerks and bad professors, in fact, we can safely discount discussing anything at all, safe in the knowledge that the war on terror will unfold itself all of its own, in the way it sees fit, like an intelligent super antivirus, and that opinions however marginally related to it are not our concern, even if it’s fantasies of genocide, which are ok, because of terrorism. amen.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:36:55 +0000

Thank God for that, now that Crooked Timber has flagged up this nut job I can totally discount the threat of Islamic terrorism, secure in the knowledge that I’m more likely to be shot by a “strawman” Professor in North Carolina. Someone tell Hitchens and Berman quick! The war is over.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 14:22:33 +0000

Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of “free speech for me but not for thee” at work here. You’d think a Professor of Classics would be above trotting out this old chesnut. Is this what you say when a manuscript or article of yours is rejected? And while we’re at it, what’s all this combat frontin’ among classicists? There’s you, Kozloff calling himself an “aging hoplite,” and Ol’ Victor Hanson Davis, Master and Armchair Commander himself. Is this Renn Fest, classics stylee, or are you all just too fond of Shaw’s remark about gunpowder and professors of greek?

By: KCinDC

KCinDC — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:57:07 +0000

David G.: Examine carefully what the word “you” means in your two points. The professor has a very broad definition of who fits into that category, and I don’t find it refreshing at all.

By: mona

mona — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:11:15 +0000

Andrew – I guess he is only advocating violence against “roaches” after all, so yeah, technically it’s not people… Or maybe he just doesn’t think of “arab-muslims” as people. Who knows? Who can penetrate the complexities of such a fine mind? David G, thanks for the translation, I’m not sure if the roaches and scorpions part fits in your neat summary, but here’s a few things you might consider: a) free speech works both ways, ie. the Professor can write his stuff and other people can write and comment on it; b) anyone can say whatever they like, you can put to paper any kind of fantasies, be they porno-genocidal or paedophiliac or necropheliac, however, free speech usually comes attached with a thing called “responsibility”; c) no one is advocating removing the constitutional right to free speech of the Professor; d) since he has the responsibility to teach students, and since all universities usually uphold professional standards, they might want to consider whether the professor using the uni’s own website to publish this material is an acceptable trade-off for what must surely be his wondrous professional skills, and whether his choice of tone and style as well as the content of his article suits their wider principles – in other words, whether they want such an arrogant racist jerk teaching at their college. You can bet that if it was someone at say IBM who had used the company site to write something like that, you wouldn’t have even had the time to know about because they’d have fired him instantly. Even if he was the best programmer in the world. Where does the tiresome “PC” strawman figure in there? is the concept of responsibility and standards a “PC” invention? Would you be so tolerant of blatant racism if instead of “arab-muslims” the piece was about Jews, and if instead of being Jewish the professor was a Muslim? The very people who think like Prof. Scorpion would be first in line not just to cry outrage and demand firing, rightly so, but would also be wrongly indulging in more of the generalisations and demonisations of all Muslims. Like they’ve done a million times. Hypocrisy stinks.

By: George Williams

George Williams — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 13:09:17 +0000

“Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of ‘free speech for me but not for thee’” “Leftists” do not have a monopoly on this principle.

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:56:35 +0000

david g., what would your response be to a muslim saying the same thing about the US? e.g. You attacked us and killed (tens of) thousands, creating misery for many more. If you invade us I want you punished even more. Both could be claimed with larger raw numbers by Muslims. If this view is reasonable and everybody takes it, how will that make a better world? For me it looks like a death spiral.

By: Andrew Brown

Andrew Brown — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:18:38 +0000

The cream of the joke is how he links to theis “recent paper” on his site: “[Warning. Provocative language. I do NOT advocate violence against any persons or groups.]” Heaven forfend!

By: david g.

david g. — Wed, 29 Sep 2004 11:15:16 +0000

What the man said: 1. You attacked us and killed thousands, ruining lives of many more (widows, orphans). For this I want you punished. 2. If you invade us (commit more acts of terror on U.S. soil), I want you punished even more, e.g. your mosques burned. I find this refreshing, not alarming. And quite sensational coming from a (1) professor of (2) education, the most p.c. category in all academia. It’s funny to see all you lefties getting so upset about it, though. Clearly it’s the old leftist principle of “free speech for me but not for thee” at work here. I doubt that you would like to see Islamists kill more Americans or that you do not believe Americans have a right to defend themselves. I wonder, though.