Journal of Controversial Ideas

[Parasaurolophus]

I would only point out that philosophers defend controversial positions--about abortion, free speech, human rights, disability, race, sex and gender, cultural patrimony and appropriation, minority rights, religion, torture, etc.--all the time. There's no shortage of controversial work being published. It's our bread and butter (that, and highly technical logic-chopping).

I suppose the Ivar Hardman article is an article that truly needs this journal

I don't even think think that much is true. One prominent counterexample that comes to mind is Laura Westra's "Environmental Racism and the First Nations of Canada: Terrorism at Oka", which was published in the Journal of Social Philosophy in 1999 (not at all a bad journal--solidly Tier 2, I'd say). There's a lot going on in that paper. One of the things that's going on is an argument to the effect that armed resistance and terrorism can be a justified response to state oppression and violence. I'm sure there are other defences of violence (outside the military context) out there, but that one leaps prominently to mind as a rather shocking example. (There are also a lot of defences of torture out there, which IMO amounts to pretty much the same thing.)

[dismalist]

One of the things that's going on is an argument to the effect that armed resistance and terrorism can be a justified response to state oppression and violence.

Among academics, this is controversial?

[downer]

One nice feature of JCI is that it is open access. Since it is likely to focus on issues in social policy and applied ethics, it will be very easy to recommend students use the articles there.

The idea of devoting a journal to controversial ideas does invite some mockery. Do peer reviewers need to be experts in controversy? It will be a shame if it just becomes a journal of anti-woke ideas, but I don't think there's much danger of that. I generally feel that there are quite enough journals already, and there is too much published. But JCI is likely to have a fairly high profile.

[marshwiggle]

I suppose the Ivar Hardman article is an article that truly needs this journal, but I fear that some of the other articles are only finding a home in this journal because they can't get published otherwise. And, some of the articles really are not controversial.

This leads to a completely different possible use of the journal and pseudonyms. Consider "big names" in a field who are considered "controversial". Think of one you like and one you don't. Because of their visibility, whatever they say will typically get two responses; agreement from their fans and disagreement from their detractors. Very little will be based on the actual content of their argument. So, if one of those people publishes under a pseudonym, it allows them to see the response to the ideas in the article, untainted by the author's identity.

Somewhat related; this allows someone to publish under a pseudonym for one article, but then include it as a reference in articles under their own name, so that the article deemed "controversial" doesn't bog down everything else they write, which may be only obliquely related.

[Parasaurolophus]

One of the things that's going on is an argument to the effect that armed resistance and terrorism can be a justified response to state oppression and violence.

Among academics, this is controversial?

When it's in the context of a racialized group taking up arms against a liberal democracy (int his case, the Canadian government), I'd day so. Imagine the backlash if it was about Black people violently resisting the US government. Or try publishing a justification for Al Qaeda's actions on 9/11. Not popular!

[dismalist]

One of the things that's going on is an argument to the effect that armed resistance and terrorism can be a justified response to state oppression and violence.

Among academics, this is controversial?

When it's in the context of a racialized group taking up arms against a liberal democracy (int his case, the Canadian government), I'd day so. Imagine the backlash if it was about Black people violently resisting the US government. Or try publishing a justification for Al Qaeda's actions on 9/11. Not popular!

This is mixing things. To sort it out:

Case I, racialized group against established democracy; Yes, of course, this is not controversial among academics.

Case II, Black people [and others] violently resisting US and State governmentS, we're there. I believe academia loves it.

Case II, justifying Al Queda, academia would love that, too, because anti-government sentiments are directed only against governments of established democracies, not against Islamic governments or pseudo governments.

The question of "controversial among whom" is the important question.

[Wahoo Redux]

I get all that, but publishing an anonymous article in a journal that frames all the articles in the journal as "controversial" does not do much to advance the anonymous authors' causes, because suspicion is already cast on the articles, just from the journal name.

Again, we will have to see how this develops.  This is issue #1, after all.  The whole project could be a new, much needed innovation in scholarly conversation or it could be a mudpie.  It is too early to tell.

I would only point out that philosophers defend controversial positions--about abortion, free speech, human rights, disability, race, sex and gender, cultural patrimony and appropriation, minority rights, religion, torture, etc.--all the time. There's no shortage of controversial work being published. It's our bread and butter (that, and highly technical logic-chopping).

I suppose the Ivar Hardman article is an article that truly needs this journal

I don't even think think that much is true. One prominent counterexample that comes to mind is Laura Westra's "Environmental Racism and the First Nations of Canada: Terrorism at Oka", which was published in the Journal of Social Philosophy in 1999 (not at all a bad journal--solidly Tier 2, I'd say). There's a lot going on in that paper. One of the things that's going on is an argument to the effect that armed resistance and terrorism can be a justified response to state oppression and violence. I'm sure there are other defences of violence (outside the military context) out there, but that one leaps prominently to mind as a rather shocking example. (There are also a lot of defences of torture out there, which IMO amounts to pretty much the same thing.)

I'm sure that's all true, but times are much different than they were in 1999.  This is the era of intemperate internet assaults, doxxing, and general cultural intolerance. 

[Parasaurolophus]

This is taking us too far afield from the topic, but I think I have to say it:

I'm sure that's all true, but times are much different than they were in 1999.  This is the era of intemperate internet assaults, doxxing, and general cultural intolerance.

Respectfully, the Oka Crisis was very, very controversial. It was a Big Fucking Deal, and the prevailing public opinion was not with the Kanien'kehá:ka. Taking their side (even nine years later)--and arguing that terrorism can be a legitimate response to state oppression--was at least as controversial as claiming, in the "era of intemperate internet assaults, doxxing, and general cultural intolerance", that animal liberation may sometimes require violent means. (Considering the vitriolic response to the Indigenous blockade last year, I rather suspect this kind of thing is still extremely controversial today.)

Again, my point is not particular to this paper (I brought it up as an example of something that makes a similar point about violence and didn't require the JCI to see the light of day). My point is simply that we (philosophers) talk about controversial things in ordinary journals all the time. Given that given, it's not obvious to me that this JCI fills much of a niche.

[Caracal]

I guess the innovation here is that you can publish under a pseudonym?... a piece published here is unlikely to get any attention since the journal is positioning itself as an outlet for fringe ideas.

I imagine it's for the same reasons we use pseudonyms here.  People say all sorts of things about their colleagues and colleges which might not get them fired (or might, actually) but would go over poorly in their real-world lives.

I try not to write anything that I would really, really not want anyone to associate with me. Generally its a bad idea to assume anything is actually anonymous.

[marshwiggle]

This is taking us too far afield from the topic, but I think I have to say it:

I'm sure that's all true, but times are much different than they were in 1999.  This is the era of intemperate internet assaults, doxxing, and general cultural intolerance.

Respectfully, the Oka Crisis was very, very controversial. It was a Big Fucking Deal, and the prevailing public opinion was not with the Kanien'kehá:ka. Taking their side (even nine years later)--and arguing that terrorism can be a legitimate response to state oppression--was at least as controversial as claiming, in the "era of intemperate internet assaults, doxxing, and general cultural intolerance", that animal liberation may sometimes require violent means. (Considering the vitriolic response to the Indigenous blockade last year, I rather suspect this kind of thing is still extremely controversial today.)

Given the extreme reluctance to use force to break up the blockade at OKA and more recent ones other places, and the sympathetic portrayal of protesters and unsympathetic portrayal of police in those cases, it's pretty clear that among the media and the intelligentsia, favouring the protesters over the government was not at all controversial.

[Parasaurolophus]

As you know, I think you're wrong. But rather than squabble about that--which, again, is not the point--how about we perform a slightly different exercise? You tell me what kinds of ideas you would agree are legitimately controversial, and I'll try to find published examples for you from philosophy (since this is a philosophy journal).

[Wahoo Redux]

This is taking us too far afield from the topic, but I think I have to say it:

I'm sure that's all true, but times are much different than they were in 1999.  This is the era of intemperate internet assaults, doxxing, and general cultural intolerance.

Respectfully, the Oka Crisis was very, very controversial. It was a Big Fucking Deal, and the prevailing public opinion was not with the Kanien'kehá:ka. Taking their side (even nine years later)--and arguing that terrorism can be a legitimate response to state oppression--was at least as controversial as claiming, in the "era of intemperate internet assaults, doxxing, and general cultural intolerance", that animal liberation may sometimes require violent means. (Considering the vitriolic response to the Indigenous blockade last year, I rather suspect this kind of thing is still extremely controversial today.)

Again, my point is not particular to this paper (I brought it up as an example of something that makes a similar point about violence and didn't require the JCI to see the light of day). My point is simply that we (philosophers) talk about controversial things in ordinary journals all the time. Given that given, it's not obvious to me that this JCI fills much of a niche.

Sure.  I'm sure philosophers write on difficult, controversy-inducing subjects all the time.

I hate to admit it, but I had to look up the Oka Crisis----I think maybe I remember something about it...maybe.  Are you referring to a guy named Knopf who wrote about the protest in the context of terrorism?   

Regardless, even as late as 2013 we had not developed the level of online frontier justice that we have in the post-Trump era.  2021 is a whole new doxgame.

Maybe JCI is an outlet for people who do not want to be part of the BFD that controversial statements can create.  Kudos to those who are strong enough to stand up to public scrutiny and opprobrium, but there are lots of good reasons not to.

Actually, if you think about it, maybe it is better for controversial ideas to be anonymous. 

Anyone remember Mike Adams?

I posted his thread before and it quickly turned into a trainwreck.  As exhibited by this example, the fact that the "vile" and "hateful" tweets came from a professor seems to indicate that the idea is often only a secondary target to the person with the controversial idea.  There are a number of professor stories.  Maybe keeping the author's identity is actually a better way of approaching a problematic idea----that way we have to deal with the idea itself, not the person who wrote it.

[mahagonny]

Case II, Black people [and others] violently resisting US and State governmentS, we're there. I believe academia loves it.

It's not clear to me whether they love it or are indifferent to it, as they don't live in the neighborhoods that are threatened. At any rate, it's politically aligned with the democratic platform, the bonanza of spending, which surely has some goodies in it for the successful career academic.

[marshwiggle]

As you know, I think you're wrong. But rather than squabble about that--which, again, is not the point--how about we perform a slightly different exercise? You tell me what kinds of ideas you would agree are legitimately controversial, and I'll try to find published examples for you from philosophy (since this is a philosophy journal).

The point isn't that controversial stuff hasn't been published in other journals.

Regardless, even as late as 2013 we had not developed the level of online frontier justice that we have in the post-Trump era.  2021 is a whole new doxgame.

Maybe JCI is an outlet for people who do not want to be part of the BFD that controversial statements can create.  Kudos to those who are strong enough to stand up to public scrutiny and opprobrium, but there are lots of good reasons not to.

Exactly. If the fear of the possibility of getting destroyed for publishing something prevents someone publishing, then that undermines the principles of academic investigation.

Since no-one can know in advance how much response, if any, their article will create, it's good that people can err on the side of caution and publish safely, rather than not publish at all.

[apl68]

I suppose the Ivar Hardman article is an article that truly needs this journal, but I fear that some of the other articles are only finding a home in this journal because they can't get published otherwise. And, some of the articles really are not controversial.

This leads to a completely different possible use of the journal and pseudonyms. Consider "big names" in a field who are considered "controversial". Think of one you like and one you don't. Because of their visibility, whatever they say will typically get two responses; agreement from their fans and disagreement from their detractors. Very little will be based on the actual content of their argument. So, if one of those people publishes under a pseudonym, it allows them to see the response to the ideas in the article, untainted by the author's identity.

Somewhat related; this allows someone to publish under a pseudonym for one article, but then include it as a reference in articles under their own name, so that the article deemed "controversial" doesn't bog down everything else they write, which may be only obliquely related.

You might have something there.