3 ms·

I know exactly who he was, the accusations against him, and the likelihood that he lied and misrepresented many aspects of his personal history. Still doesn’t j

by baubino 2mo ago

I know exactly who he was, the accusations against him, and the likelihood that he lied and misrepresented many aspects of his personal history. Still doesn’t justify the pile-on and relentless racially-tinged harassment. He was an academic for fucksake, not a politician or a world leader. We live in a bizarre world where far too many people believe that harassment is permissible if someone is famous, in the public eye, or if they’ve done something wrong. Yes, his claims and credentials should have been investigated (and done so years ago) but, again, none of this justifies relentless harassment. That others have been publicly shamed and harassed in the past does not justify this public shaming and harassment. That others did not take their life over it does not make this public shaming and harassment somehow okay. It is very possible to believe that Arday misrepresented himself AND ALSO believe that the harassment against him was unwarranted. I personally would have much rather seen all that energy funneled into pressure on the institution — Cambridge and the other universities he worked at — to be transparent about their hiring practices and answer for clear inconsistencies in Arday’s work history.

wahern 2mo ago
The claims of harassment came from him, and began long before this became sensationalized. Certainly the claimed harassment before the public scrutiny is highly suspect, and in some cases already shown to be utter fabrications, such as the pig head that he claimed he was sent. And reading between the lines, the harassment that Cambridge and his family has claimed seems to be them simply parroting claims he made privately to them, i.e. highly suspect. This psychologically impaired, pathological liar deftly leveraged DEI narratives and caricatures of racism to simultaneously aggrandize and shield himself from scrutiny. There are many people like him in this world. The reality of pathological liars is far more complicated than what people expect; these people are rarely malicious, and can seem (and legitimately be, until challenged) nice people. And the emotional pain they feel is no less real, and often more intense, than normal people. This guy happened to be black and figured out how to use white guilt to almost comical ends, but this type of person is usually quietly shown the door before things blow up so spectacularly. (Often the public ire ends up being about why authorities quietly showed these people the door, especially when they find new people and groups to dupe. Often part of the reasoning is concern about psychological fragility and being responsible for creating an even bigger mess.) The credulity exhibited by Cambridge is, IMO, patently racist. Whatever racial harassment he experienced after things became public pales in comparison to Cambridge and his supporters elevating this psychologically ill man into the position he reached. He was treated as a black avatar rather than a human being.
belZaah 2mo ago
Harassment is not permissible. But if he had been a black researcher in, say, microbiology, it wouldn’t have materialized to that extent. His research tried to shame a very large chunk of the society for being racist. And it turns out people react in unpredictable and unpleasant ways to accusations towards their core identity that are based on lies. There’s a difference between normalizing harassment and understanding where it comes from. I’d also like to be more forgiving about people talking bs about me. But I’m not. Also, imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story. The vitriol _they_ will receive, the scrutiny of _their_ work.
- anigbrowl 2mo ago
  Also, imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story. Indeed. It's a disaster for any minority or outsider trying to build a pathway for themselves, as well as people working in the 'soft' sciences; no matter how rigorous the qualitative methods a researcher uses, the additional effort involved in explaining/understanding them vs quantitative methods leads to reflexive dismissal from many.
- amiga386 2mo ago
  > imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story Honestly, I hope nothing like that happens. It would be outrageously racist to say "There was that one fabulist black person in academia, here's a different black person applying for a job in academica, therefore they must also be a fabulist". How on earth could you justify that thought? I think any applicant's work should speak for itself, it should be based on their papers published, their impact and reach, and if they're teaching staff, the aggregate reviews left by their students. I'm not sure I'd be a fair judge in a sociology department, because I'm on Sokal's side in the Sokal hoax and think appointments in humanities departments run on bullshit and social networking, not hard data. I think there are a lot more white bullshitters in UK sociology departments right now, and they think the equitable thing to do is to try to skew that social networking to admit more black people. I think the right thing to do is to put a hard ban on the social networking aspect of academic recruitment and promotion, and run the all the bullshitters out of town.
srean 2mo ago
Why should someone not be shamed if they do things shameful ? Trying to understand your logic here. By harrassment do you mean public exposure of his lies that earned him his fame ? What is the alternative you propose ? Cover up ? Look the other way ? Become an enabler of such behavior ? Shaming is one of society's feedback mechanisms to discourage dishonest behavior. It has its place. Granted that the standards used by a society at any point in time may not be a universal standard. Case in point Turing. In that case, it is the society that gets shamed later. Arday was no Turing.
- hollerith 2mo ago
  >Why should someone not be shamed if they do things shameful ? Trying to understand your logic here. His logic is probably, "arguments are soldiers": the enemy is trying to make my side look bad; neutralizing that enemy action takes priority over everything else.
- tpm 2mo ago
  In the wake of Arday's death, Nathan Cofnas (who led the X mob against him) states his motivation. Beyond whistleblowing, he states that after a 'revolution' removes professors like Arday, it will open opportunities for him to become 'head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard'. https://bsky.app/profile/kohngregory.bsky.social/post/3mt3ci7e3gs2b https://bsky.app/profile/kohngregory.bsky.social/post/3mt3ci...
  - amiga386 2mo ago
    I can't read this post, but you need to go to the source it's quoting: https://youtu.be/9ZDTBqb8Juo?t=1611 https://youtu.be/9ZDTBqb8Juo?t=1611 -- Cofnas is joking with the interviewer. He doesn't think such a position exists or would ever exist, it's a joke and/or outrage bait for clipping up. His actual views, the ones that got him fired, are ugly enough. His actual motivation is completely straightforward: R E V E N G E He got sacked from Emmanuel College (part of University of Cambridge) in 2024 due to the public uproar against his published blog posts, and in particular the college's reasoning was that his blogpost was a "rejection of diversity, equity, and inclusion". That's right, Emmanuel College explicitly requires you accept DEI or they'll sack you. So Cofnas's motivation is to: 1) get back at the University of Cambridge for sacking him 2) bring DEI into disrepute and get everyone to reject it You then have to ask the more pertinent question. Why did Cofnas know to look for plagiarism in Arday's work? SOMEONE AT CAMBRIDGE TOLD HIM TO. The anonymous member of faculty did so because they knew all about Arday's dubious academic output and did not like that the university had brushed it under the carpet. Both Arday and his employer had numerous opportunities to be honest and open about it, but they suppressed it and called the police and lawyers on good-faith academics and journalists. So what's Cambridge University's motivation for doing that? Simple: they wanted to protect their "star professor" who appears so often on TV, radio and in the press, to hide the fact that only 75 out of the 6180 academics at Cambridge are black, and they are actually a bastion of white upper-class privilege. Even though they know he's a plagiarist and a fabulist, and if everyone learned that truth, it'd bring all academics and universities into disrepute. This tragedy was entirely of their own making. I look forward to seeing Cambridge University properly investigated over this.
mike_hearn 2mo ago
His claims of harassment also turned out to be lies, FWIW. He made a lot of false claims, like saying someone had delivered bullets and a severed pigs head to his parent's home that he had "intercepted" and that the police had identified the specific butchers it came from. The Guardian somewhat surprisingly double checked and uncovered that he was making that stuff up too. When they challenged him he said "I thought you'd just believe me".
- caminante 2mo ago
  Worse. Arday tried to ruin a journalist's life with police complaints that the police pursued without following proper protocols. The police issued a public apology [0]. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

by baubino 2mo ago

wahern 2mo ago

The claims of harassment came from him, and began long before this became sensationalized. Certainly the claimed harassment before the public scrutiny is highly suspect, and in some cases already shown to be utter fabrications, such as the pig head that he claimed he was sent. And reading between the lines, the harassment that Cambridge and his family has claimed seems to be them simply parroting claims he made privately to them, i.e. highly suspect. This psychologically impaired, pathological liar deftly leveraged DEI narratives and caricatures of racism to simultaneously aggrandize and shield himself from scrutiny. There are many people like him in this world. The reality of pathological liars is far more complicated than what people expect; these people are rarely malicious, and can seem (and legitimately be, until challenged) nice people. And the emotional pain they feel is no less real, and often more intense, than normal people. This guy happened to be black and figured out how to use white guilt to almost comical ends, but this type of person is usually quietly shown the door before things blow up so spectacularly. (Often the public ire ends up being about why authorities quietly showed these people the door, especially when they find new people and groups to dupe. Often part of the reasoning is concern about psychological fragility and being responsible for creating an even bigger mess.) The credulity exhibited by Cambridge is, IMO, patently racist. Whatever racial harassment he experienced after things became public pales in comparison to Cambridge and his supporters elevating this psychologically ill man into the position he reached. He was treated as a black avatar rather than a human being.

belZaah 2mo ago

Harassment is not permissible. But if he had been a black researcher in, say, microbiology, it wouldn’t have materialized to that extent. His research tried to shame a very large chunk of the society for being racist. And it turns out people react in unpredictable and unpleasant ways to accusations towards their core identity that are based on lies. There’s a difference between normalizing harassment and understanding where it comes from. I’d also like to be more forgiving about people talking bs about me. But I’m not. Also, imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story. The vitriol _they_ will receive, the scrutiny of _their_ work.

anigbrowl 2mo ago
Also, imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story. Indeed. It's a disaster for any minority or outsider trying to build a pathway for themselves, as well as people working in the 'soft' sciences; no matter how rigorous the qualitative methods a researcher uses, the additional effort involved in explaining/understanding them vs quantitative methods leads to reflexive dismissal from many.
amiga386 2mo ago
> imagine being a black person trying to build a career in academia after such a story Honestly, I hope nothing like that happens. It would be outrageously racist to say "There was that one fabulist black person in academia, here's a different black person applying for a job in academica, therefore they must also be a fabulist". How on earth could you justify that thought? I think any applicant's work should speak for itself, it should be based on their papers published, their impact and reach, and if they're teaching staff, the aggregate reviews left by their students. I'm not sure I'd be a fair judge in a sociology department, because I'm on Sokal's side in the Sokal hoax and think appointments in humanities departments run on bullshit and social networking, not hard data. I think there are a lot more white bullshitters in UK sociology departments right now, and they think the equitable thing to do is to try to skew that social networking to admit more black people. I think the right thing to do is to put a hard ban on the social networking aspect of academic recruitment and promotion, and run the all the bullshitters out of town.

srean 2mo ago

Why should someone not be shamed if they do things shameful ? Trying to understand your logic here. By harrassment do you mean public exposure of his lies that earned him his fame ? What is the alternative you propose ? Cover up ? Look the other way ? Become an enabler of such behavior ? Shaming is one of society's feedback mechanisms to discourage dishonest behavior. It has its place. Granted that the standards used by a society at any point in time may not be a universal standard. Case in point Turing. In that case, it is the society that gets shamed later. Arday was no Turing.

hollerith 2mo ago
>Why should someone not be shamed if they do things shameful ? Trying to understand your logic here. His logic is probably, "arguments are soldiers": the enemy is trying to make my side look bad; neutralizing that enemy action takes priority over everything else.
tpm 2mo ago
In the wake of Arday's death, Nathan Cofnas (who led the X mob against him) states his motivation. Beyond whistleblowing, he states that after a 'revolution' removes professors like Arday, it will open opportunities for him to become 'head of the department of eugenics and race science at Harvard'. https://bsky.app/profile/kohngregory.bsky.social/post/3mt3ci7e3gs2b https://bsky.app/profile/kohngregory.bsky.social/post/3mt3ci...
- amiga386 2mo ago
  I can't read this post, but you need to go to the source it's quoting: https://youtu.be/9ZDTBqb8Juo?t=1611 https://youtu.be/9ZDTBqb8Juo?t=1611 -- Cofnas is joking with the interviewer. He doesn't think such a position exists or would ever exist, it's a joke and/or outrage bait for clipping up. His actual views, the ones that got him fired, are ugly enough. His actual motivation is completely straightforward: R E V E N G E He got sacked from Emmanuel College (part of University of Cambridge) in 2024 due to the public uproar against his published blog posts, and in particular the college's reasoning was that his blogpost was a "rejection of diversity, equity, and inclusion". That's right, Emmanuel College explicitly requires you accept DEI or they'll sack you. So Cofnas's motivation is to: 1) get back at the University of Cambridge for sacking him 2) bring DEI into disrepute and get everyone to reject it You then have to ask the more pertinent question. Why did Cofnas know to look for plagiarism in Arday's work? SOMEONE AT CAMBRIDGE TOLD HIM TO. The anonymous member of faculty did so because they knew all about Arday's dubious academic output and did not like that the university had brushed it under the carpet. Both Arday and his employer had numerous opportunities to be honest and open about it, but they suppressed it and called the police and lawyers on good-faith academics and journalists. So what's Cambridge University's motivation for doing that? Simple: they wanted to protect their "star professor" who appears so often on TV, radio and in the press, to hide the fact that only 75 out of the 6180 academics at Cambridge are black, and they are actually a bastion of white upper-class privilege. Even though they know he's a plagiarist and a fabulist, and if everyone learned that truth, it'd bring all academics and universities into disrepute. This tragedy was entirely of their own making. I look forward to seeing Cambridge University properly investigated over this.

mike_hearn 2mo ago

His claims of harassment also turned out to be lies, FWIW. He made a lot of false claims, like saying someone had delivered bullets and a severed pigs head to his parent's home that he had "intercepted" and that the police had identified the specific butchers it came from. The Guardian somewhat surprisingly double checked and uncovered that he was making that stuff up too. When they challenged him he said "I thought you'd just believe me".

caminante 2mo ago
Worse. Arday tried to ruin a journalist's life with police complaints that the police pursued without following proper protocols. The police issued a public apology [0]. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c0rd9y99grzo

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]