I've no horse in this race, but I'd like to point out something I discovered.
Before they retracted the (in my opinion, inappropriate) blog entry by Stephan Kinsella, the Mises blog had links up to Mr. Knight's personal Livejournal. From it, he linked to this article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Get this:
Michael Knight, the student who filed the complaint against Hoppe, said Thursday that he hoped the university's actions would deter the professor from making similar statements again.Knight said that as a graduating senior seeking a degree in economics, he had needed to take the course and had to pay to hear such unsubstantiated opinions.
"He was stereotyping homosexuals -- we don't have any family values; we don't know how to manage our money; we basically just blow all our money immediately -- that was my take on it," said Knight, who is gay. "When the door closes and the lecture began, he needs to make sure he is remaining as politically correct as possible."
Hoppe said he clarified to the class a week later that he was making generalizations and did not mean to offend anyone. That led Knight to believe Hoppe did not take the matter seriously.
Michael Knight, you are a thin-skinned little thug. Did you honestly expect your intellectual development in college to consist of absorbing objective fact from the mouths of disinterested and scholarly professors who are unable and unwilling to let slip their opinion? What a joke. You don't own Professor Hoppe, his lecture, the room he's lecturing in, or anything else of substance in this dispute, other than your easily-offended mind.
If this is your threshold of outrage, you're fucked in real life, pal.
ATTENTION: Comments are closed. You are viewing my old blog, archived for search engine purposes.
To view the new blog, please go to the homepage. To find the current version of this entry, search here.
Fuckin' A.
Posted by: billy-jay on February 11, 2005 11:53 PMUh, moron, the reason homo hans is in deep doodoo is for saying homosexuals have a higher discount rate when he really means MALE homosexuals have a higher discount rate.
It's so cute how these swishy, effeminate rightwing christian assholes think all homosexuals are men! They are just so obsessed (what's up with that?) with anal sex that they forget that some homosexuals are women.
Poor hans - I reckon the dismal scientist is a repressed homo.
Posted by: lefty on February 27, 2005 09:04 PM"Uh, moron"; you would do a lot better to indict the commie lexicon and its ubiquitous "lesbian" tag.
Lefty, I'd like to see a little evidence of your assertion because what I've heard and read of Professor Hoppe's remarks didn't discriminate between lesbians and male homosexuals.
Posted by: Drizz on February 28, 2005 04:21 PMI have no problem with lesbians - as long as I am allowed to watch.
"God save the Queeen...
She ain't no lez...bean"
- Sex Pistols, maybe
Posted by: John Sabotta on February 28, 2005 08:27 PMWhat "inapproprite" post of mine are you referring to? What blog post of mine was "retracted"? This is news to me.
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella on March 3, 2005 03:25 PMMr. Kinsella, I distinctly remember visiting the Mises Blog on the 11th. At the top of the column of posts was one from you that linked directly to Mr. Knight's LiveJournal blog. That was how I first found out he had such a website. Upon returning to the Mises Blog a few minutes after browsing Knight's LJ and leaving an anonymous comment, I noticed your post was no longer displayed. It was right after this post by Bob Murphy ( http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003142.asp ), but cannot be found. It was posted under your name. But now that you've reminded me, I looked for 003143.asp and lo and behold, there it is: http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/003143.asp
"Hoppe's Accuser
by Stephan Kinsella
Michael Knight's blog and website. He seems so proud of himself in this ordeal, I'm sure he'd love to hear comments from Hoppe supporters, via email or comments on his blog.
Posted by Stephan Kinsella at February 11, 2005 12:14 PM"
Italicized emphasis on "love" in the original. You also included links to his e-mail address, personal AOL website, and the comment form for a LJ post of his.
Considering that this post is not displayed on the February archive nor on the "previous post" or "next post" links on the posts both before and after the one I'm referring to, I think "retracted" is a fairly accurate description.
I called it inappropriate because I always conceived the Mises Blog authors as ones who have retained a higher level of discourse and not post a link to someone's personal website with the implied request to go bother him, which your post gave the strong impression of.
Now do you recall this?
Posted by: Drizz on March 3, 2005 03:48 PMYeah, it rings a bell. I think I either took it down, or moved it to a comment of an already existing thread, for a number of reasons. I wouldn't call it "inappropriate," just b/c that might imply it's some kind of wrong *to Knight," but nonetheless I decided to remove it.
Cheers, Normie
Posted by: Stephan Kinsella on March 4, 2005 09:57 AMFirst of all i am not related at least i think not!!??
I cannot believe the level of stupidity as well as the personnal difficulties that one obviously needs to work on, that is the student who complained. "Freedom of speech" is from i understand one of the main constitutions of American Law?
There are in-fact socio-political and cultural religious aspects to economic stratagies and success............Mr Knight will need all the success he can get.
Peace out.