Journal of Controversial Ideas

The Journal of Controversial Ideas (JCI) can perhaps be uncharitably summarized as "4chan: the academic journal", in light of its use of pseudonyms and its willingness to publish, shall we say, a wide range of positions.Annabelle Timsit (November 13, 2018). "The Journal of Controversial Ideas promises anonymity to academics with unpopular opinions". Quartz. Although, its publications cite valid (or valid-looking) sources more often than 4chan, and its contents are more frequently written by people with some kind of credentials. As the name would suggest, its quirk is that it publishes papers that are anticipated to be controversial. Sometimes these ideas are controversial for very good reasons. Journal of Controversial Ideas has published a paper defending non-offending pedophilia; it has also published a paper claiming bestiality is "Morally Permissible".https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/3/2/255.https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/article/2/1/182 Recently it has published pseudoscience on the intelligence of refugees in Germany.
==Why?==
The basis for the journal seems to have stemmed from death threats two of its founders received for their publications. One argued in favor of " the other argued for euthanizing severely-ill infants. According to Vox, actually all three of the journal's founders/editors (Francesca Minerva, and Peter SingerPatrick Stokes (April 21, 2021). " Safe space or shirking accountability? A new Journal of Controversial Ideas will allow academics to write under pseudonyms". The Conversation.) are "notorious for defending the morality of infanticide in some circumstances".Dylan Matthews (November 19, 2018). "The Journal of Controversial Ideas is already, well, controversial. Here’s a founder’s defense." Vox. One founder cited backlash to pro-colonialism and pro-"transracialism" articles as supporting the need for the journal.
==Content==
According to one of the journal's founders (McMahan), speaking prior to the journal's launch, they would theoretically even publish a pro-eugenics article, as long as it was well-reasoned.Colleen Flaherty (November 12, 2018). "A Very Controversial Idea". Inside Higher Ed. It isn't at all clear what this standard even means — many controversial ideas contradict each other, can they all be well-reasoned? Concerning the journal's peer-review process, another founder (Singer) stated: "We send articles submitted to us out for peer review, and if the reviewers consider that the article contains controversial ideas that are defended by argument of a sufficiently high standard to warrant publication, we publish the article."https://archive.is/wdHxn Is it possible for committee approval to square the circle?
Initially, it might have been assumed that this journal was just going to end up as a de facto vehicle for papers written against "wokeness", or else from a discriminatory viewpoint.Scotty Hendricks (November 30, 2018). "Is “The Journal of Controversial Ideas” dangerous?". Big Think. By its third volume, it proved this wrong: yes, it would publish (many) papers such as that, but it would also publish a paper defending bestiality (termed "zoophilia") as "morally defensible". That paper also stated that bestiality was a sexual orientation "along with e.g. necrophilia or pedophilia". One of the journal's editors, Peter Singer, simply complimented this article as "thought-provoking."Peter Singer (November 9, 2023). "Another thought-provoking article is "Zoophilia Is Morally Permissible" by Fira Bensto (pseudonym), which is just out in the current issue of @JConIdeas." Twitter. Singer himself had argued similar positions as far back as 2001: then, in Prospect, he stated that sex with animals was not necessarily cruel and that sex with dogs in particular is "occasionally mutually satisfying" for some people (and, well, some dogs).Peter Singer (April 19, 2001). "Heavy petting". Prospect. Commenting on the 2023 Journal of Controversial Ideas paper, Richard Hanania said: "A brave position. Not my cup of tea but the marketplace of ideas needs this."Richard Hanania (November 9, 2023). "A brave position. Not my cup of tea but the marketplace of ideas needs this." Twitter. In correspondence with Hanania, Anatoly Karlin argued that bestiality is acceptable if non-human animals can give consent to having sex with humans using future AI technology, and had previously argued "there's no legitimate liberal argument against [bestiality]" in this scenario.Anatoly Karlin (November 9, 2023). "I'm against legalizing bestiality because the animal consent problem hasn't been solved, but probably actually will be quite soon thanks to AI (at least for the higher animals with complex languages). So why not wait a few more years." Twitter.Anatoly Karlin (September 17, 2023). There might be some progress on the animal consent problem pending AI making animal language more interpretable. If a cognitively complex, sexually mature animal (or alien species) genuinely wants to have sex with a human, there's no legitimate liberal argument against it." Twitter.
Some other early papers ( within the journal's first three volumes): one argues there is a religious/moral dilemma in Christian anti-abortion positions, a couple argue that blackface should be acceptable, at least thirteen separate articles have transgender people and/or the definition of man/woman as a major focus,"Who Is a Woman: Sex, Gender and Policy Making" (Daphna Joel and Cordelia Fine), "'Men' and 'Women' in Everyday English" (Edward Jarvis), "Sex Categories in Healthcare Contexts" (Susanna Flavia Boxall and Becky Cox-White), "Queer Theory and the Transition from Sex to Gender in English Prisons" (Michael Biggs — a SEGM advisor), "Politics Aside, Healthcare Considerations Motivate More Caution before Medical Intervention for Trans-Identifying Youth" (Jay Cohn — SEGM again, as the paper notes), "Feminist Separatism Revisited" (Kate M. Phelan and Holly Lawford-Smith), "The Female of the Species: Reply to Heartsilver" (Alex Byrne), "Gender Muddle: Reply to Dembroff" (Alex Byrne), "Pronoun Problems" (Alex Byrne), "The Limits of Identity: Running Tuvel's Argument the Other Way" (pseudonymous author), "Against the Harm Argument for Censorship: On the Abuse of Psychology and the Dismissal of Rights" (Uwe Steinhoff), "Sex and Sexual Orientation, Gender and Sexual Preference" (Raja Halwani), "Deflating Byrne’s 'Are Women Adult Human Females?'" (pseudonymous author), and "Discounting Females, Denying Sex, and Disregarding Dangers from Self-ID—A Reply and a Defense of Open Debate" (Callie H. Burt). multiple papers are clearly about the fact that the word "nigger" is taboo (although they're both slightly cagey about this; one of them even bizarrely substitutes it with the word "joker" throughout the paper), one compares vaccine mandates to sexual harassment, one compares anti-racialism to young Earth creationism, and one written by a pedophile argues that non-offending pedophiles should be better-respected (this paper also defines pedophilia as a sexual orientation).
Well, then, you can't say the journal is necessarily fostering accuracy (for instance, necrophilia is most certainly a paraphilic disorder rather than a sexual orientation), but at least its position is somewhat consistent: "if you shock, we will stock". There does seem to be somewhat of a bias in its stock towards discriminatory ideas, but this could be explained if people holding those ideas tended to be the sort to submit papers in the first place. Though, the journal rejected a submitted manuscript in 2022 arguing for misanthropic anti-natalismhttps://hcommons.org/deposits/item/hc:47749/ — join the club, buddy.David Kernohan (April 27, 2021). "I read every paper in the first issue of the Journal of Controversial Ideas". Wonkhe.
Rather unhelpfully, the journal's were listed completely out of appropriate order by volume three, issue two.
==Race and intelligence pseudoscience==
The journal has a history of publishing discredited hereditarian and race and intelligence pseudoscience. In October 2024, they published "Intelligence of Refugees in Germany" by Heiner Rindermann and James Thompson.Intelligence of Refugees in Germany: Levels, Differences and Possible Determinants. journalofcontroversialideas.org. Both Rindermann and Thompson write for the anti-Semite The Unz Review. Their paper was criticized for critical flaws and lack of scientific rigor:
Only a month previously, Rindermann had a paper retracted in another journal.Retraction Note: Surprisingly low results from studies on cognitive ability in developing countries: are the results credible?. link.springer.com. Journal of Controversial Ideas is basically a bottom of the barrel cesspool for pseudoscientists that is operating as a last place resort where they can publish their data as no other journal will publish their nonsense.
==See also==
*Balance fallacy
*Manufactroversy
*Teach the controversy
==External links==
*The journal itself
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Clogosphere
Category:Freedom of speech
Category:Journals
Category:Pseudoscience promoting organizations 
Category:Racism
Category:Transphobia
Category:Webshites