The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

The Vocabulary of Professor Erik Loomis: ‘Motherf–ing F–kheads F–king F–k’

Posted on | December 23, 2012 | 69 Comments

Dishonest academic defenders of University of Rhode Island assistant history professor Erik Loomis have repeated the professor’s false assertion that he was criticized merely for using “metaphor” in his unhinged Dec. 14 attacks on the NRA’s Wayne LaPierre.

One critic has decscribed the petition on behalf of Loomis, although ostensibly a defense of free speech rights, as a ”campaign to dominate debate and suppress criticism.”

In fact, Loomis’s “head on a stick” Tweet was just one of many offensive messages he sent on Dec. 14. More importantly, perhaps, the professor’s demented obscenity-strewn tirade attacted scrutiny, revealing that Loomis seemed prone to angry online eruptions, and had a habit of employing vulgarities in his Twitter messages, particularly in targeting Republicans.

Professor Loomis seems to have recognized that he had problems more serious than “right-wing morons” too stupid to understand metaphor, because he deleted his Twitter account to hide the evidence of his derangement. Fortunately, before the evidence got flushed down the digital memory hole, one of those “right-wing morons” was clever enough to compile six months’ worth of Erik Loomis’s Tweets into a 439-page PDF file. A few samples from the archive:













Perhaps you see the f–king pattern, motherf–king racist sexist f–kheads.

And perhaps the administration at the University of Rhode Island can provide appropriate mental health counseling to help assistant history professor Erik Loomis deal with his problems.

UPDATE: Linked by Daley Gator and Legal Insurrectionthanks!

UPDATE II (Smitty): Welcome, Instapundit readers!




 

PREVIOUSLY:


Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • narciso

    He’s the ‘Tony Montana’ of academia

  • OldmanRick

    This alleged “professor” has some real mental issues. He might even go postal. I advise everyone to communicate with the university to have him isolated from young students.

  • http://opinion.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    Ban assault profanity!

  • http://alanye.com/ Dai Alanye

    Kudos for your knowledge of heraldry.

  • http://alanye.com/ Dai Alanye

    Soon “going postal” might need to be replaced by “going academic.”

  • http://marezilla.com/ Zilla of the Resistance

    Reminds me of that freak who trolls Stacy on twitter, you know, the BK cheerleader with the appropriate initials of BS.

  • Pingback: A history of rhetorical violence: The Vocabulary of Professor Erik Loomis. « The Rhetorican

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Frary/651015637 John Frary

    Now, now, give the twerp a break. Using the infamous f-word makes him feel manly. What other recourse does he have?

  • werewife

    I’m glad not to be the only one who knows this rule, but it has nothing to do with legibility. White and yellow both fall under the category of “metals” (they represent silver and gold), while blue, red, green, orange and purple are classified as “tinctures.” The rule is simply that you may not place tincture upon tincture, or metal upon metal. It’s kind of arbitrary, but there you are.
    Given that, Erik Loomis is still a potty-mouthed (potty-keyboarded?) extremist moron who had the misfortune to come to the study of history once everything interesting had been done already, leaving him with nothing to study but unpleasant leftist hobbyhorses.
    Thank you for this opportunity.

  • Badger Pundit

    I recant my tweet of three days ago about being tired of covering Loomis, in which I suggested that perhaps he deserves to be ignored
    (http://bit.ly/ZtTynm).

    Given the idiotic nature of the Loomis tweets you’ve laid out, and the underlying idiocy of Loomis briefly making his Twitter feed public again, allowing you to capture this material in easily viewed format, coupled with Loomis’s idiotic blog post yesterday joking about putting someone else’s “head on a stick” (http://bit.ly/VoG03V), further coverage of Loomis is justified to help illustrate the grave flaws in our country’s system of “higher education” created by the politicized left’s near-total capture of many of the liberal-arts fields.

    We need to make the academic left own Professor Erik Loomis. Huge numbers of leftist academics, orchestrated by the Crooked Timber professors, elected to make their stand with this fellow — going so far as to sign a statement lauding him as “[a] gifted young scholar.” http://bit.ly/TZrAIw. He’s officially on record as being among the best of their best, so examination of what he’s written that reflects poorly on his intellect, judgment, and character by definition reflects poorly on the entire academic left, and on academia in general (but I repeat myself).

    If, as many of his tweets and blog posts suggest, Loomis is an “offensive,” “dim,” “rather pedestrian academic
    left-radical” (as someone who knows him remarked,http://bit.ly/V4hDd9), given that he’s such a highly gifted scholar — mind you — that means the rest of the academic left, including many who signed the statement supporting him, must be even less impressive.

    We also need to do our best to keep in the forefront the astonishing array of vile comments that Loomis has made other than the one calling for the death of the head of the NRA — none of which his “defenders” apparently are eager to defend. Glenn Reynolds has been doing a good job of keeping up on the failure of Prof. Henry Farrell, the lead defender, to address Loomis’s most-vile comments. His most recent post is here:
    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit&#8230.

    On the blog of the professor who’s criticizing Farrell for refusing to address Loomis’s most-vile tweets, earlier today I laid out a chronologyof Farrell’s non-responsiveness, here:
    http://econlog.econlib.org/arc&#8230.

    Farrell has now responded by again refusing to address the most-vile tweets, closing: “I AM OUT OF HERE” (caps added). Here:
    http://econlog.econlib.org/arc&#8230.

    Pretty much the level of transparency and openness to debate we’ve come to expect of progressives.

  • Turning Leaves

    Regarding Loomis’s proposed criteria for chosing a President, does this mean the Obama beat Hillary in the 2008 primary because of homophobia?

  • Dana

    Tom Wolfe described Deke Slayton, in his book The Right Stuff, as having conversation that consisted of ten nouns, five verbs and one adjective. It seems that Dr Loomis could fit right into that.

  • Dana

    I have found that if I use “fornicating” in place of the adjective employed by the esteemed Dr Loomis, it gets my point across, and the choice of the less common form not only passes through all censorship, but gets more attention than the vulgarity.

    Patterico once said that there are times that only the f word will do, and that’s true enough, but those times are actually pretty rare. In most circumstances, a literate man can come up with a better word, one that makes him look like he has actually thought about what he has said.

  • Pingback: And We’re The Knuckle-Draggers ? « YouViewed/Editorial

  • Pingback: “PROFESSOR” Erik Loomis Want’s Wayne LaPierre’s Head On A Stick – Profanely | Extrano's Alley, a gun blog

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    White is easier on the eyes over time. The key is to shadow the white lettering in black.

  • Pingback: Guns Do Kill People, You Nitwits: The Bizarro News Of The Day - Tenured Radical - The Chronicle of Higher Education

  • Pingback: FMJRA 2.0: Heavy Metal : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Tenured, Yes. Radical, My Ass. : The Other McCain