In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« Moviegoing: "The Black Dahlia" | Main | Both? »

September 22, 2006

Thought Police Strike Again

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Is Ilkka, of the now-defunct blog 16 Volts, in need of some serious re-education? His academic employers seem to think so. Steve Sailer tells the story.



posted by Michael at September 22, 2006


Would anyone have thought this kind of thing possible 30 years ago? Back then, "1984" was the mantra we followed and vowed to avoid. We seem to have arrived in spite of ourselves.

Posted by: Charlton Griffin on September 22, 2006 3:05 PM

16 volts seems to disagree. Or else they already brainwashed him.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on September 22, 2006 3:25 PM

Charlton -- Weird, isn't it? The whole thang 30 years ago was about freedom of expression, come hell or high water. So how'd it come to this?

JA -- I can't make out Ilkka's tone, can you?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on September 22, 2006 3:40 PM

Illka is free to express opinions such as this:

“The female overrepresentation is heavily concentrated on the fluff fields that ... which makes these fields suit the female mind better…basically all fields that don’t require any mathematics or logical and analytical thinking beyond the elementary school level.”

and the university is free to be alarmed that a member of their staff believes that his female collegues posses minds not capable of logical or analytical thought beyond grade school. From Sailer's post, the university did require him to attend anything, but merely stated their concern. I'm not one to usually side with overly-sensitive people, but in this case, I can see the university's point.

Posted by: the patriarch on September 22, 2006 4:11 PM

Here's the now deleted post where the above quote appears. Gotta love Google cache.

Posted by: the patriarch on September 22, 2006 4:40 PM

Patriarch -- that's not what he said. He said female overrepresentation was heavily concentrated in fluff fields -- implying that in hard fields, there are females, but fewer than expected. So he doesn't think his female colleagues are blockheads.

The tone sounded more satirical, but with plausible deniability on this count. Either that, or they done drugged him good. I hope it's not the "he loved Big Sister" ending...

Eppur si muove!

Posted by: Agnostic on September 22, 2006 4:46 PM

"Aggie, 'Patriarch -- that's not what he said. He said female overrepresentation was heavily concentrated in fluff fields'"

Yes, fields that "suit the female mind better." Fields "that don’t require any mathematics or logical and analytical thinking beyond the elementary school level." His opinion of the female mind is quite high, right?

Posted by: the patriarch on September 22, 2006 5:08 PM

It's hard to know where to draw lines sometimes. Still, any university I'd run would be one where profs would be free to voice a lot of wild opinions. Sensitive guy though I can be, I also like a certain amount of rough-housing, and excessive concern about sensitivities can really get to be a drag ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on September 22, 2006 5:37 PM about the belief that Bush planned 9/11, or that religion is an atavistic relic for idiots?

I'm not a fan of speech codes on either side, but I've noticed people only tend to defend the right to freedom of speech for their own side of the street's nutjobs. Human nature.

Posted by: SFG on September 22, 2006 5:50 PM

Ilkka's opinions ARE a bit, er, unconventional, but that does not mean the university had any right to censor them so long as he wasn't using any university resources. I've read 16 Volts for quite some time and I don't believe he ever named the university.

Posted by: Peter on September 22, 2006 7:25 PM

Yeah, Patriarch, we engineers have never made the connection between the lack of females in the sciences and engineering and their overrepresentation in such fields as elementary education, nursing, and whatnot. Would you like me to detail my experiences with female engineers (what few there actually are out there) to further prove my point? Probably not. Theory trumps experience in your liberal dreamworld. Illka is right on the money.

By the way, you might want to familiarize yourself with the idea that thought is not a crime. See, his opinions of his coworkers are irrelevant. If he had some sort of decision to promote somebody and you could prove he shafted them due to their sex or gayness, you would have a case. Otherwise, you don't. Funny, you marxists will scream and yell about somebody not LIKING a feminist or queer, but you'll openly support the shafting of straight, white men in jobs and promotions because of their race, sex, and sexual orientation, which is completely illegal.

So either take off the face paint and hold fast to some kind of logical consistency in your views or at the least refrain from supporting these ridiculously criminal and dangerous campus commissars. And you wonder why the left is falling apart!

By the way Peter, as an average guy I can tell you his ideas are completely conventional. I'm not sure what circles you run in to have the idea that they aren't, but I'm not that curious either.

My ultimate compensation for enduring this madness is the knowledge that the universities will soon price themselves out of existence to all but the smallest minority of well-clad nincompoops. The day is coming fast. And it gladdens my heart so!

Posted by: s on September 22, 2006 9:53 PM

The professor professes in a public medium and deserves to catch grief for it. Do his students have the freedom of speech to tell him what they think about what he said? Well sure, but there may be consequences. He's an adult. These are consequences. I don't think he should worry about female overrepresentation in fluff fields. Men are still mostly in charge of fashion in clothes, decor, professional cooking, etc. I think there's still room for more ladies in the "fluff" fields. Whatever you want ladies & gentlemen - go for your field!

Posted by: bridget on September 22, 2006 10:06 PM

"By the way, you might want to familiarize yourself with the idea that thought is not a crime."

I agree. Nobody, including the university, is attempting to censor him. If you read Sailor's post, the university simply stated its displeasure with Illka's choice of words. But as bridget points out, words have consequences. His words were not merely pointing out that men dominate the sciences (duh, that's obvious). He labeled entire departments and fields of study as "fluff" and not requiring logical or analytical thought beyond the grade school level. He is free to believe that, but to air it out in public where his peers can read it was idiotic. A blog is no different than a conversation at a universit event. If he state such beliefs at a function, do you think he'd expect no repercutions?

Posted by: the patriarch on September 23, 2006 12:34 AM

The professor does not profess in a public medium. You can only attend the classes if you pay thousands of dollars for them. And only a very select number of students take his classes. He might be an adult, but he is also a free citizen. Why don't you harangue the feminist man-haters who spew their venom against the white man on these campuses, Bridget? They are "adults" too, right? They have white males in their classes too, right? Don't you think this could be intimidating, or that they will get poor marks? How about "consequences" for these lesbian shrews, Bridget? How about the Black Studies' white-haters?

Leftists--a gaggle of liars, tyrants, and hypocrites. If I were Illka, I would quit and sue the University. He would win too. The commissars will only lose power when they lose money. Funny how liberalism has to ride on something else for its propagation, like a true parasite: it has to be slipped into the newspapers and TV news, movies, schools, etc., when people are there for something else. Put it on its own, like Air America, and it fails miserably.

Posted by: s on September 23, 2006 12:42 AM

When I was growing up with an interest in politics, I loved to debate ideas. This H(er)tler Youth, simply is using power to silence this man. She is a completely political person and she does not relish debate? That says a hell of a lot about her, a hell of a lot. The blogger had a comments section where anyone was free to respond.

As for the right silencing people, it may ocassionally happen. But, I'm certain that someone like Ward Churchill would be welcome to debate things on just about every right wing media outlet around. How many media outlets would let Steve Sailer speak on them?

The left makes silencing people policy. They wield the stick of racism, homophobia and more. These charges are in many fields the end of your economic viability. (Witness the man's forced confession.) In this corporate controlled country, being economically banished can be brutal. Do you think they would let the blogger pack up and go to another college?

Do any of you think when these folks are done making sure the outspoken like Coulter and others are silenced that these witch hunters will pack it up and call it a day? Seriously, anyone think that? No, they will turn their attack to the more moderate Right wingers.

They are setting up their tyranny, and future demographic changes will make it so much easier for them to prevail. Just the fact that people can easily talk about speech codes on campuses on this site, should make any free person wretch.

The college thugs have put a burqa on this professor; he is not to be seen; he is not to be heard. The Thugs of Diversity march on in their perfectly-straight crooked line.
And what are we to do? Reason with them? Argue with them? They've outlawed the argument. When they can, they will outlaw freedom.

Posted by: steve a on September 23, 2006 12:42 AM

Wow, steve. I thought the conspiracy theories were supposed to come from the left.

Posted by: i, squub on September 23, 2006 9:14 AM

I squub,
I did not offer a conspiracy theory. I made specific points which i would invite you to respond to. I don't think it is a conspiracy; it is a simple power play, something that has happened throughout history. I can go into more specifics if you could tell me what you disagree with. Many Western countries have already passed laws restricting criticisms and speech. Give me the courtesy of responding to my points.

Posted by: steve a on September 23, 2006 2:45 PM


Read my post to Bridget for my response to your argument. Be consistent and stop the "hate speech" on all sides. Freedom of speech means a freedom of "word choice". Freedom of speech means being able to make your own word choices in public.

Sociology, psychology, even economics are fluff sciences because they are not accurately predictive. Real sciences are predictive. In fact, one of the hallmarks of proving an hypotheseis is for another researcher to independently replicate your results, i.e. create the predicted outcome. If you can't enter the realm of prediction, its fluff. Illka is right. He should know the difference between science and fluff, being trained as a scientist. I wouldn't expect anyone from the fluff side of the campus to know that, as they got such an insufficient education and don't know what the insignificant Scientific Method is or what it has achieved. Psychology, compared to a field like Materials Science, is a joke. I used to know a psychology PhD. She would whine about how she hated the math, and how statistics was difficult. She always was babbllng about this or that trauma and how it "caused" this "personality disorder". Funny how everybody who even slightly inconvenienced her had a mental illness of some sort. She was the least mentally healthy person I have ever met. And from what I have heard from others, this is true of many psychologists. Sociologists are even worse. No rigor at all. Yet all this is hard science, in your opinion. just as good as the hard stuff, only more understandable to you. Not abstruse, dry, and boring.

Gay studies is much better. Far more important stuff there. We wouldn't want the Gay studies department to know that there might be people on the campus who don't like them. It might traumatize them. Ouch, oooh! I hurt! Strip away other people rights! It hurts! Pansies. Fluffy pansies.

Posted by: s on September 23, 2006 3:08 PM

However distressing this situation may be, it is no surprise. The seeds were sown during the Fifties when commies and "modernists" completed their takeover of America's educational system, news media, Hollywood, key portions of the judiciary and most permanent government bureaucracies. In the Sixties these infil – traitors invited a cabal of femi-nazis, homosexuals, migrant workers and Black Panthers to expand their ranks and the takeover was nearly complete.

Today we clearly see the disastrous results. Congress now seems like the field hockey locker room at Vassar, filled with blocky "womyn" sporting mullet haircuts and their dark skinned toadies with barely a single elected white man in evidence. The radio airwaves are filled with the rants of Al Franken and his innumerable clones; only dedicated underground freedom forces using ham radios and contraband eight track tapes allow the voices of such patriots as Rush Limbaugh (God Bless him!) and Ollie North to be heard from their secret hideout, suspected to be a bunker in a box canyon in the Dakota badlands defended by a patriotic militia. Television is even worse. One never gets to hear from a conservative on the talk shows or news. I mean, can you remember the last time you saw the likes of Tony Snow, Cal Thomas, George Will, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, or Ann Coulter on a TV? Of course you can't! They're all in a re-education camp in San Francisco.

Business is even worse. Other than Orville Redenbacher (reportedly reduced to being a mere advertising figurehead and otherwise kept drugged in a small safe house by his non-English speaking captors) it is impossible to think of a major American corporation still run by a white man. Wall Street is filled with lavender pantsuits and the once great Wall Street Journal is a wholly owned subsidiary of Oprah's expanding media empire.

And don't tell me this is overstated. I know the TRUTH! White Men are the most oppressed group in America and we've got to start fighting back before we lose even our minimum wage jobs and the rat infested ghettos in which we're forced to live and are sent as unwilling cannon fodder to "liberate" England where white men still rule.

Wow. That was really weird! I seem to have channeled some other 2blowhard commentators.

Posted by: Chris White on September 23, 2006 5:08 PM

Notice how adroitly Mr. White evaded the real issue of a white man having his job threatened for his private views, while ugly spit-spewing lesbian feminists and racist black supremecists issue their bile in the classroom without any fear of administrative concern over their "word choice". Liberals are hypocrites, liars, tyrants, and religious fundamentalists just as dangerous as any right-wing dictator they so feverishly condemn. Luckily more and more people are waking up to this BS. I hope FIRE takes up his case.

Notice also how Mr. White passes off the illegal activity by noting how successful white men are in many fields, dominating the top. From his perspective, it then becomes justifiable to discrminate against and victimize other white men. After all, we have (earned) so much. This also involves the taking away of our rights. In this regard, he has much in common with the anti-semites of times past who could not stand to see the Jew succeed. What a fine tradition the leftists have subscribed too, becoming more tyrannical and clown-like with each passing year, trying harder and harder to mask the real intergroup differences we all know exist and determine the patterns of success and failure apparent to even the most casual spectator.

White men are the most oppressed group in America. What that has to do with success is really irrelevant, as our prosperity shows, though all too many are negatively impacted. Liberals have, with their inherent deficit of logical ability, somehow tied oppression to poverty and failure. That is not true. People can still be oppressed and do well. See the jewish achievement noted earlier. Others can be priveledged and do poorly. Only when they can control and shut down the free market will the correlation be complete. The marketplace gives the lie to their oppression/failure shibboleth. That's why it must be erased. I judge whether or not people are oppressed by what their civil rights status is, and from the example we are all talking about, it is obvious straight, white men have fewer rights than others.

Mr. White and the Patriarch are insane. Both are white men who support a situation where they, their friends, their family, and their neighbors are legally discriminated against, and not only do they acquiesce to it, they support it, with enthusiasm! No other group that I can think of, in the history of the world, has EVER been as stupid and mentally ill as the white liberal. And the only reason they acquiesce to it is that they personally aren't paying for it. No backbone. Pathetic. Deal away your own money, rights, and opportunities boys! But you won't. Hypocrites and cowards. You both won't put your money where your mouth is. Cowards that you won't stand up for your own rights or your neighbors rights.

Posted by: s on September 23, 2006 6:20 PM

Ilkka has a new posting up in which he claims that his employer never pressured him into giving up the blog. In fact, it looks as if he got pressure from a different, and much more influential, source - his wife.

Posted by: Peter on September 23, 2006 7:40 PM

Let's see, here is what the object of the reputed feminist witch-hunt had to say in his final 16 Volts posting:

"I am doing this completely in my free will to become a much better person than I used to be. No entity whatsoever has threatened me with any kind of consequences for blogging. This is not any kind of violation of my rights or free speech. In particular, if any of you want to start email or other campaigns about this, or in some other way publically accuse people and organizations for having treated me wrong, please don't. I seriously mean this."

What are the options here? [A] He means what he says. [B] He's being threatened by a cabal of angry feminists into telling an outright lie to save his job. [C] He's had an overnight conversion and become [like me and the patriarch] an insane, pathetic hypocrite and coward.

I'll take it at face value and say "A".

Apparently some white men feel the need to be measurably, clearly and unambiguously in an elevated position of obvious power in order for their world to seem in proper harmony with what they believe to be the natural laws of the universe. Speaking for myself, I have never felt my own rights threatened by extending the same rights and respect to others.

Posted by: Chris White on September 23, 2006 7:45 PM


What changed from the day before to now? We all know a feminist tattled on him to his employer, that's what. Then they called him into their offices to lecture him on his "word choice". How old are you? We all know how the world works. Please don't act as if we or you just fell off of the turnip truck. He often posted that his wife knew about his blog. I'm sure she knows his political opinions too. It didn't seem to be much of a problem until the feminists ratted on him to take away his free speech, which obviously the leftists who post on this board can't define or understand correctly. Free speech protects both private AND public speech, don't you know. its all very tricky. Nowhere does it say feminist man-haters and minority racists only.

We rational white men just want the same rules applied to everybody, so we can beat all comers handily in level competition, as we always have. I don't need to be in power--its just my natural place in the world. I like freedom and justice. You don't. Just like I said before, when confronted with an injustice to your neighbor, all you talk about is yourself. Unless it happens to you, or one of your pet minorities that you feel sorry for and don't really believe can compete, it doesn't exist. Not a threat to me. Ho hum. Where's the bleeding heart now?

We all know you are a marxist, Chris White. As I pointed out before, you believe that if someone is doing well (a white man) while another person is not, its okay to take away the successful person's rights and money to give to the loser. From each, according to his means, to each, according to his need. It stands to reason you would subscribe to the most heinous, murderous, and fruitless philosophy ever devised by man, socialism. We can all be grateful that you are one white man who has no power. You would wield it rather poorly, like all socialists do.

And then blame your failures on someone else, of course.

BTW, what is your obsession with powerful white men? Affirmative action doesn't touch them at all. It affects the powerless students, the unemployed looking for a job, and the low level worker. You know, the proletariat. Just like a socialist--talk big about confronting power while victimizing the young and weak. Cowardice. Its about to end in Michigan though. Your socialist schemes will fall apart as good jobs are shipped out, foreign labor is shipped in, and the Social Security and Medicare systems go bankrupt (which will happen as the Baby Boomers start to retire). I wouldn't want to be a card carrying socialist when that happens. I hope you live long enough to see socialsim ruin the greatest country ever created by mankind, which you hate, because it isn't perfect or "just" as you prefer it. Much evil will run free in the world as we lose our standing. And it will all be people like you who brought it about. Please glory in stifling a rather weak professor. The small victory of taking away another white man's rights is probably very satisfying. I will wait until November and the vote in Michigan to have my laugh. And it will be much larger one too!

Posted by: s on September 23, 2006 10:32 PM

Mr White, your comments are like a cheap paint job on a car, bright on a quick look from a distance, but crappy under scrutiny.
First, your post makes clear that you believe rights adhere in groups, not individuals. (If many white men are doing well, then all white men have nothing to complain about.) I think the fact that many today believe rights adhere in groups is a major part of my complaint and the basis for my pessimism toward future events. I am clearly told at work, in the media and the arts that I am privlleged, being a white male. Therefore, I conclude as my group becomes a smaller part of the population, these groups will take away more of my "privllege" then they currently take, especially if my group continues to do well, because that is only a sign that more of my "privllege" has to be removed. They've (and there are many whites in this "they") have rigged a game where I can only lose. But they do on some level need my skills, so if I keep quiet when my little brother is never called for the fireman's test or when somone at work is promoted over me to balance some imagined diversity right (where is this right spelled out?), then I will still get a slice of the pie.
All this occurs before a generation that has been raised on grievances and speech codes moves into power positions. What can I expect from them? I've been to events that attract college students and I've heard them up their renouncing their race, basically apologizing for being white. I was talking to a young man the other day and he was trying, trying to come up with a white figure they could add to their mural of Che, a Mexican revolutionary and a few other of the standard icons of today. Here we are in a country that everyone (especially my nonprivlleged brothers) wants to get into and this white kid can't come up with a white hero. (Just to fire his imagination i suggested Gen. Patton.) Let's do a count how many murals have George Washinton or George Patton in them in schools comapred to Che or the usual characters that the hip and sensitive educkrats bow to.
I will stop here, but I cant let your post pointing to the blogger's apology as proof that all is well except in mine and others like me minds. Are you telling me after this incident he could find work in a college? Hey, if larry summers feels the heat, what chance does this man have? Seriously, folks, if you dont see the tryranny of this apology...mygawd.
Also, your last comment that extending rights to others can never threaten you. Try to Google 9/11. They only used the rights extended to them to further their evil aims. It happens.

Posted by: steve a on September 23, 2006 10:32 PM

Chris White -
But then look at what Ilkka says next:

This is not some underhanded attempt to grovel because I am afraid of losing my job or something. Because I'm not, as far as I know. And even if I were, that would be peanuts compared to the idea of the woman you love looking at you and you see how she is disappointed of you, asking you why you would want to write mean things. I would rather shovel shit for living every day than have to come up with an answer to that. Because there really is none.

Seems pretty clear to me, his wife put her foot down and that was that.

Posted by: Peter on September 23, 2006 11:18 PM

What are the options here? [A] He means what he says. [B] He's being threatened by a cabal of angry feminists into telling an outright lie to save his job. [C] He's had an overnight conversion and become [like me and the patriarch] an insane, pathetic hypocrite and coward.

I'll take it at face value and say "A".

From my life experiences I would guess "B"

Posted by: Glenn on September 23, 2006 11:26 PM

To the greater number of posters here, I apologize for the long response below. Once again a tongue in cheek riposte has resulted in a couple of focused personal attacks that make claims, accusations and presumptions that I feel deserve direct response. No doubt this will illicit further ad hominem attacks, but so be it.


"We rational white men just want the same rules applied to everybody, so we can beat all comers handily in level competition, as we always have. I don't need to be in power--its just my natural place in the world."

Is that the level competition when Negroes were slaves and women didn't have the vote? And where did you get the idea that being in power was your natural place in the world?

"I like freedom and justice. You don't."

Wrong. And, for the record, I think Ilkka has every right to say anything he wants, on 16 Volts or in the classroom. There are, however, sometimes responsibilities and consequences that go along with how that right is exercised. And if you guys think free speech is being stifled within the educational community how about the private sector where, for example, a lowly Miller beer delivery driver was fired for drinking a Bud after work? Now THAT is a case for the ACLU!

"We all know you are a marxist ... It stands to reason you would subscribe to the most heinous, murderous, and fruitless philosophy ever devised by man, socialism."

I'm not a Marxist. And I was taught that Marx was the theorist behind communism, not socialism. Now Sweden, there's a bunch of socialists. I've never heard the Swedes described as heinous, murderous, etc. Not that I'm a Socialist (card carrying or otherwise) either. I've always been an unaffiliated voter. I've voted for Democrats, Republicans, Greens, and unaffiliated independents.

"what is your obsession with powerful white men?"

I've known powerful white men personally. Some I admire, some are complete jerks. I have no obsession with them. I just enjoy tweaking those who make super serious blog rants that exhibit what I see as a severe case of Victimitis, a psychological illness that makes one think they are perpetually victimized not for what they've done or who they are personally but for some group identification they hold. This is a very equal opportunity disease and has been known to affect women, homosexuals, Hispanics, and, in this case, white guys. You'd find me tweaking anyone who goes off the same way.

"Much evil will run free in the world as we lose our standing. And it will all be people like you who brought it about."

While I agree that much evil will run free as we lose our standing I think the current evidence suggests that a small group of white men currently occupying positions of power in Washington will be the ones to blame, not folks like me.

Moving on to steve's comments:

" you believe rights adhere in groups, not individuals."

Not true. I believe in individual rights very much. That said, when groups are granted or denied rights as a group (e.g. African Americans' or women's right to vote) it is logical for them to seek redress as a group. Here the discussion shifted to conflating Ilkka's decision to cease his 16 Volts blog for what he says are personal reasons into an attack on the rights and power of all white men.

"Also, your last comment that extending rights to others can never threaten you. Try to Google 9/11. They only used the rights extended to them to further their evil aims."

I fail to follow the logic. How did we shift from female students complaining about what they perceived as a bias against them by a professor (whether or not they were correct) to radical Islamist terrorists from the Middle East attacking the USA on our own soil?

Enough for now.

Posted by: Chris White on September 24, 2006 8:01 AM


Nice shift of the topic to the Negro and women in times past rather than the white guy we are all talking about here and now. I should have known you would avoid the issue. Its your favorite tactic when you don't have an argument. Typical liberal. Think Soviet Union, China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, East Germany, Poland, etc. then you'll get the real picture. One hundred million murders. Shift the topic again back to Sweden (remember, your favorite argumentive technique!). You just like to try to tweak those you disagree with. You have never made any of those jabs at your favorite woe is me groups. Just conservative whte guys. I couldn't care less, again it is off topic.

And also, the point I was making was that by bankrupting the country with a socialist welfare state, the US will iin coming years not be able to afford to go after terrorist states like Iraq, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. And it won't be because of the "current administration". It will be because of the last 40 years of the welfare state, which is a disaster.

And as a final note, you do hate freedom for those you disagree with, which is why you agree with silencing the professor for his private views. Free speech is the ability to say what you want in public. The last place that would uphold that now is the so-called bastion of the free intellectual debate, the modern marxist university. You indeed are a marxist who fancies himself as something else. trying to run away from the failure of that system, but you still endorse the forced wealth transfer of someone elses property to the so-called "poor", which is completely marxist. I'm not buying the disclaimers, fella.

Look, its all very simple. If you favor free speech, this guy should not have been called on the carpet and made to shut down his personal web site, which his employer made him do, and which we all know did indeed happen. Or, if you believe that there should be limits to personal opinions against certain groups because of the nature of the employment, then the racist blacks, hispanics, lesbian man-haters, queer studies profs, and left-wing radical liberal professors should be shut down too. Take your pick. But be consistent. After all, you say you are for equality. Unless that is just a lie and you really are a hypocrite after all.

By the way, if you would like to avoid the topic again, there is an internet encyclopedia with millions of listings and alternate topics called Wikipedia. Check it out. A true cornucopia of red herrings for you, CW:

"How did we shift from female students complaining about what they perceived as a bias against them (a white male college professor threatened with losing his job for his personal views) to radical Islamist terrorists from the Middle East (to slavery and the women's suffrage movement)?

Hahahaha! You are a barrel-full! Talk to you later.

Posted by: s on September 24, 2006 7:18 PM

I seem to find myself cast as Jane Curtin in an old SNL skit facing Dan Ackroyd, "Jane, you ignorant slut!"

The sheer number of accusations, distortions and false assumptions lead me, in the interest of clarity and brevity, to respond to just one point.

I said "... Ilkka has every right to say anything he wants, on 16 Volts or in the classroom. " That remains my opinion.

The response is, "If you favor free speech, this guy should not have been called on the carpet and made to shut down his personal web site, which his employer made him do, and which we all know did indeed happen."

If anyone can substantiate that his employer made him shut down his web site I'll gladly contribute to his defense. Not having previously followed 16 Volts, but based upon his farewell posting (which I take at face value) he made the decision primarily for personal reasons.

Some of you interpret his realization that he was disappointing the woman he loves as "his wife putting her foot down." I'm more of a romantic than that. In my life I've tried to become a better person due to seeing my wife (or father or friends) disappointed in my behavior. When people you love and care about, whose opinions you respect, are disappointed in you, it is usually worth making an effort to change. That is exactly what I meant said, "There are, however, sometimes responsibilities and consequences that go along with how that right is exercised."

Posted by: Chris White on September 24, 2006 11:29 PM

My impression is that Ilkka hasn't recanted his political beliefs, but now regrets the personal attacks he made on various people - or more often, ostensibly impersonal commments that amounted to personal attacks. He has great powers of ridicule, and he realised he was hurting people who had done him no real harm, to no real end - people who are, as he rightly puts it, weaker than him.

Posted by: Intellectual Pariah on September 25, 2006 8:46 AM


The dude got shut down by the University. He said more than once in his earlier posts that his wife knew about his blog, and that she and him had the same opinions. He is just using his wife as cover for the university slamming him. Also in marxist Canada, a person can be fined severely for so-called "hate speech' by the government. So not only has he been threatened with losing his job, he can also be hauled into court and fined heavily for his personal views! And you support this! "Oh, he can say whatever he wants, but he should know there are consequences." Really Chris? Like being hauled into court and maybe facing prison time and substantial fines, and losing his job with the concomitant blacklisting? don't be so sure it all ends with him shutting down his blog. The feminazis will try to run him out of the university still. But Chris White supports free speech and free association (in theory, anyway).

I bet you believe that all those corporate and high level government officials "resign" to "spend more time with their famillies" too, huh? His wife is just providing cover for him so he can exonerate the University and the feminazis from their proper role. It won't end there either. Stalinism, step by step. You MUST like the left and their pets. YOU MUST!

Posted by: s on September 25, 2006 11:56 AM

"And as a final note, you do hate freedom for those you disagree with, which is why you agree with silencing the professor for his private views."

I don't think anyone here would agree with "slicencing the professor," if indeed that is what ocurred. But that's not what happened. Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, but would you agree that on occasion, depending on the speech and the context in which it was given, that there are consequences to excercising that entitlement? Words do not exist in vacuums. Ward Churchill found that out, as did Illka. Disparaging your collegues in a public forum is going to have an impact, no matter where you work. If I sent an email to a group of people where I work that called the entire IT dept. a bunch of shut-ins who can't think beyond writing code, what do you think would happen? I'd most likely be fired. Illka's job was not threatened, nor was he forced to quit his blog or attend some seminar. He was publicly pressured to do something, which I think is appropriate in this case.

Posted by: the patriarch on September 25, 2006 1:54 PM


Ward Churchill lost his job because he plagarized his doctoral thesis, and lied to his employers about his ethnic origins, which were pertinent to his postion in the "ethnically diverse" university. He was not canned for his personal views. In fact, his fellow professors say far worse things routinely and get away with it. Public employees and private universities are two different things--private employers have far more leeway to terminate employees than public universities. Try firing a public empoyee sometime. AGAIN, please compare Illka's speech to his fellow professors' for an honest view of his situation. He was SHUT DOWN for his views. Why can't you and CW see this clearly for what it is? Is admitting the truth too painful? That the radicals on the left are just as dangerous, even more so, than the ones on the right? So the left never errs? So the left is perfect? So they never have to be reigned in? C'mon!

Posted by: s on September 26, 2006 7:38 PM

"That the radicals on the left are just as dangerous, even more so, than the ones on the right? So the left never errs? So the left is perfect? So they never have to be reigned in?"

That's four (4) strawmen in a row. Not bad.

"In fact, his fellow professors say far worse things routinely and get away with it."

I'm guessing the "far worse" things they are saying involve leftist politics. You're probablty right, then. I'm no supporter of spewing bile from any side of the political spectrum, but in my experience, when professors do so, it's usually in the context of a classroom discussion where one is expected to support one's theses. I had a World Religion professor who once gave a lecture on why women should stay home with their kids. I'm not joking, it was in the context of fundamentalist societies' view of what they consider the West's mixed-up priorities. This was at San Francisco State. The women in the class practically combusted. You probably would have loved it.

What I'm saying is, that professors spend all kinds of time building and supporting theses of one kind or another. We can agree or disgree with these theses. But to just come out and call entire fields of study "fluff" and label women's minds as not suited to logical thought beyond grade school is not a theses or argument or much of anything other than a rant, and one that is unwise to make public within one's own profession.

Posted by: the patriarch on September 27, 2006 10:32 AM

This is my last post on this largely abandoned thread. Strawmen? The topic thread, if you haven't read it, is "Thought Police Strike Again", the Thought Police being the leftists who disagreed with the professors PERSONAL opinions. To say the leftists can do this and conservatives can't, while the leftist attack dogs say far worse stereotypical things about white men in their own CLASSROOMS (not away from the school), is so ridiculous that its hard to believe anybody would actually defend this action. CW and Patriarch both ignored the double standard and exonerated their leftist pets, focusing on, of all things, slavery and women's suffrage, instead of the right of free citizens to have non-pc opinions and still be employable. To them, leftists can do no wrong--all misdeeds can be rationalized away by the misdeeds of white men in the past. See the previous posts. Therefore, the statements above were not strawmen, but a very accurate description of leftist double standards and the way leftists think.

Once AGAIN, you ignored the free speech rights of the professor, in an institution which supposedly supports the free exchange of ideas, and which tolerates the most vicous sterotyping and attacks by pet leftist professors, both on the job, in public, and in private, without any kind of "consequences" whatsoever.

"Gee, don't you think he should have been a little smarter? After all, he has a job where if his private opinions were widely known, he could have some problems with his co-workers, bosses, and students". Really? I tell you what, name one job where that ISN'T true? Look, is it okay to not like everybody? Is there any job one can hold where if people find out you don't like somebody, that's okay and you can still do your job? Do you believe in free speech or not? Why do you support a double standard for leftists and conservatives? I've never advocated shutting leftists down and silencing them by threatening to fire them, why do you think that's okay to do to a conservative?

Also, whether or not the professor thinks the fields are fluff or not, so what? How many professors have rivalries and pet theories they push and think their peer's work is worthless? How many say it out loud (answer: a lot)? So what, somebody thinks what you do is unimportant? Are you and adult, or not? How pathetic that people are so sensitive to criticism that they have to silence their critics. These are children, not adults. They should grow up. Not everybody is going to like you or agree with you. And it doesn't mean they should lose their job for it. What, if I find out your boss is a conservative and I go to him and show him your blog and your leftist views, you should be canned? What the hell is that? Show a little consistency and tolerance. Free speech for everybody, or censure for everybody. Stick to teaching at the university and leave personal opinions and politics out, or everybody gets to play the game. Make a choice. And then be consistent. And be an adult about it too.

Posted by: s on September 28, 2006 5:57 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?