Unethical Blog Post Of The Month: The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

aggressive_rottweiler

I normally would not have read this post, not being a regular fan of The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler. However, more than one political website that I do frequent cited the post with favor, and this is profoundly depressing. The pots expresses classic non-ethical reasoning, based entirely on emotions like anger, hatred, desire for revenge, and joy at the pain of others. The blog, interestingly, includes a page on logical fallacies, but not one on rationalizations. The post, titled “How’s That Shoe on the Other Foot, Prozis?,” is the wholesale expression of an especially destructive rationalization, “Tit for Tat,”  that is well-expressed in the Golden Rule distortion, “Do Unto Others As They Did Unto You, But Even Harder, If Possible.”

This screed does have value: it does support my theory that a large portion of Donald Trump’s support was akin to Delta House’s decision in “Animal House,” spurred by this kind of logic:

Otter: Bluto’s right. Psychotic… but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody’s part!

Bluto: We’re just the guys to do it.

I wrote,

“In Germany, The Big Cheese says jump and the Germans say “How high?” In the US, the response is “Fuck you!” Obama never understood that. He and the Democrats are finally getting the “fuck you!” they have been asking for. I love that about America. And much as I hate the idea of an idiot being President, I do love the message and who it was sent to. America still has spunk.”

I should have also noted that the spunk is often registered in reckless and unethical ways.

The post begins with approving cites to quotes from a commenter:

I literally don’t care what Donald Trump does because nothing he can do is worse than what they’ve already done.

Donald Trump isn’t the bully; he only insults and abuses people in power who have attacked him. They’re the fucking bullies. The left, with their smears, their witch hunts, their slanders, their insults, their riots, their violence, and their weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy.

There aren’t any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they’ve left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins.

I have no personal investment in Donald Trump. He is a tool to punish the left and roll back their ill-gotten gains, no more and no less. If he succeeds even partially in those two things, then I’ll consider his election a win.

Here, you can list the rationalizations in that one if you have the time, for they are all over the place. My brain turns off, unfortunately, when any opinion begins with the dumbest one of them all, #22, The Comparative Virtue Excuse, or “It’s not the worst thing.” This is one of Trump’s favorite rationalizations as well; for example, his entire justification for wanting the U.S. to engage in torture is that ISIS and radical Islam does far more horrible things, so it’s OK. Why did I remind myself of Trump saying that? Now I’m really depressed again.

Here, in part, is “Emperor Misha I,” as he follows in the same vein..

We personally hope… that President Trump goes on to accomplish much greater things. All of our futures depend on it, after all. But even if all he does is to make the Prozis feel the pain that normal Americans have had shoved in their faces for 8 damnable years, if all he does is finally wake the limp wrists on our side up to the simple fact that it’s not wrong if you’re just turning the tables on the swine, using their own methods against them until they come crawling on their bellies, begging for peace, then we’ll take it as a solid win.

It’s wrong to kick somebody in the nuts, we’ve taught our Heirs that ever since they got old enough to potentially get in a fight, but it’s NOT wrong to do so if the dishonorable piece of shit facing you tries to do it to you first. And if he tries and succeeds, then you need to work on your technique and reflexes. It’s never, ever wrong to use the enemy’s rule book against himself…when he showed up to a debate armed with a rifle, he made it OK to shoot him in the face with your own, and if you insist on resorting to limp notes of disapproval, then you’re the idiot, not him.

…So go forth, be merry, use every last one of the methods that the Prozis have been using against us since they slithered out from under their rocks, use them in good cheer, laugh at their pain as they laughed at ours, then amp the brutality up to eleven, because they decided that that was acceptable. Not you….They started it. They chose the rules. Now let them suffer the consequences. Because we’re getting awful sick and tired of watching decent, innocent Americans taking it on the chin in the name of “civility.” Fuck them. They wanted war, let them have it.

Of course, that ethically bankrupt approach to politics and life results in never-ending war, and the unraveling of civilization.

Ah, but doesn’t it feel good?

(Rationalization #52. The Hippie’s License, or “If it feels good, do it!”)

Unfortunately, the unethical, ugly, hypocritical and un-American conduct of Democrats, progressives and the news media since the election does nothing to convince people like the writer that they are wrong. But they are—deeply, dangerously.

48 Comments

Filed under Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Train Wrecks, Etiquette and manners, Government & Politics, Leadership, U.S. Society

48 responses to “Unethical Blog Post Of The Month: The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

  1. I love your Delta House reference, it’s what I call Animal House School of Thought.

    • As the film shows, it is not a bad idea for adversaries to believe you capable of acting like Otter and Bluto. This is what made Obama so weak, and why America’s “cowboy” rep often protects us.

      When I was playing the multi=player negotiation board game Diplomacy, in which you try to conquer the world by making and breaking alliances, I discovered that the threat that I would take horrible vengeance on a nation-player who lied and betrayed me, even to my own ultimate detriment in that game, served me well. I had to sacrifice one game by making good on my threat of mutual assured destruction, but only once. After that, nobody dared to cross me.

      I bet Senator Blutarski did OK.

      • Glenn Logan

        I think back to how America employed the policy of “Mutually Assured Destruction” to useful effect in the cold war. If people believe you will destroy their entire world, even at the expense of their own, it “concentrates the mind wonderfully.”

        As useful as that can be, diplomacy is useless if all the parties to controversy are deceased. Likewise, it may feel good to visit all manner of payback on the Left, the media, and all the other objects of TAIR’s scorn, but it does nothing to advance the cause of America and improve the lives of its citizens.

        Schadenfruede is fun, but ultimately the ascendant right has to understand that the left will be in power again eventually. Do we really want and endless cycle of retribution by political ideologies to be our legacy? I don’t.

        You’ve beautifully exposed the unethical rationalizations in that post (which are tragically obvious to even the untrained eye), and while a little bit of payback is probably inevitable, it can’t be the raison d’être of the Trump administration.

      • Alex

        Since it is clear that you understand game theory… 🙂

        At what point is it ethical to commit tot he tit-for-tat strategy? If you keep cooperating in the Prisoner’s Dilemma and you opponent keeps defecting there must be a point where the strategy morphs from “ethical and exemplary” to “stupid and suicidal”. Clearly enough Americans decided that this was the time for the ‘tit’, but how many ‘tats’ is it necessary to get before turning the tables.

  2. I’m going to strip come of my comments from another one of Jack’s blogs because they sure seem to apply here.

    “Politicians associated with both ideological extremes need to fully understand that we reap what we sow; this principle is true in physics, philosophy and business; it is a law of nature. Trump is the direct result of continuous Democratic Party overreach, continuous Democratic Party divisional tactics, and extreme partisan politics shown by everyone in DC…”

    The blog Jack has referred to is just another example of what I said above, there are lots of these all over the place, it’s become the dominate common thread when talking to Trump supporters.

    To continue the thought from above…

    “…Politicians need to be the responsible adults in the room for a change and there is no better place to start than to confront the bias of the media while confronting their own extreme bias. The next four years are going to be politically challenging, to say the least, if the politicians and the media don’t get their collective heads our of their ass we’re in for a long haul.

    The voters in the United States of America told everyone in November that they are sick and tired of being sick and tired of the status quo and they latched onto a political outsider, a full blown narcissist, to “drain the swamp” (personally I think that was the single campaign slogan that likely put Trump over the top). Sick and tired of being sick and tired covers my feelings about how DC is working but it doesn’t quite cover my level of disdain for what’s happening to our country as a whole regarding the society wide ethical flush that has overtaken a majority of our population.”

    Jack said, “Unfortunately, the unethical, ugly, hypocritical and un-American conduct of Democrats, progressives and the news media since the election does nothing to convince people like the writer that they are wrong. But they are—deeply, dangerously.”

    I agree.

    “I think the leadership of the Democratic Party has proven beyond any doubt that they have absolutely no intent of learning anything from the November election results and make efforts to separate themselves from their morally bankrupt tactics of division, etc. The Democratic Party leadership is foolish, they are going to replace the old leadership with in the same kind of leadership that got them into this mess, same Liberal hive mindedness with a different face. They cannot look within to find the cause of their problems; they collectively have a Responsibility Deficit Disorder; they will continue down their path of psychological projection and blame others for their own shortcomings. It’s the same shit different day from Democratic Party leadership. Until the citizen voters of the Democratic Party change who they put in office, nothing will change for them.”

    This election cycle has dragged from the depths of unethical behavior the worst of what the USA has to offer. Other countries must be looking at the USA right now and thinking, what the fuck. If you think we’ve sunk to the lowest possible place and it’s sad where we’ve gone, be assured, there’s great potential of even going lower. “The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.” Albert Einstein

  3. THIS is what I have been warning of on this blog, many former conservatives (and a lot who were never conservative but thought they were) who have decided it is time to ‘roar’ and make the left understand what it feels like, and therefore not be so deplorable when they return to power.

    It is a great theory, like “raising taxes will generate the revenue predicted based on last years sales” (ignoring that people will find a way around the taxes, or buy less), but people rarely learn a lesson by being treated as they were treating others. Last time this worked in my house was when mamma bit me to show why we don’t bite (is that considered child abuse now?). That DID work, but still not a viable strategy.

    Since the new Alt Right (and this is what we are discussing, here) has decided the ‘get even,’ times will get interesting.

  4. Steve-O-in-NJ

    Now it’s our turn to kick ass instead of licking it, and the liberals’ buttocks are going to be so sore they won’t be able to sit down for a year after Trump is no longer president. They’ll have to take pain injections, one a morning in the opposite buttock like Morgan Freeman in An Unfinished Life.

    Seriously, I know tit for tat isn’t ethical, and I know revenge is ultimately a lousy goal in life. However, acting jerky, cocky, and messianic when your guy is in power, then bitter, contrarian, and all-around sore-loserish when the other party’s guy is in power, is also not ethical, and is not a good look for anyone. Deliberately pressing the other guy’s buttons and taking every chance for a cheap shot to make him look bad when you are in power is not ethical, and expecting him to take a hands-off approach when you are not is hypocritical, which is also not ethical.

    Pushing your own agenda ahead like it’s an unstoppable blue wave and telling the other guy you won, so he needs to GTFOTW, no discussion, no anything, is not ethical. Expecting him to give you advice and consent powers when the next deal leaves him holding all the aces and you with maybe a pair of twos is wishful thinking at best, stupidity at the worst, also unethical.

    The Nazis tried to bomb England into rubble and committed uncountable brutalities on the battlefield. The Japanese hit Pearl Harbor while still supposedly in discussions with the US government, and we needn’t rediscuss what they did in the Philippines and Singapore. In return they got the Dresden raid, SS soldiers being shot on the spot, and the atomic bomb. None of that should have come as a surprise, and those who now preach that the Allies did too much or did wrong by hitting back harder are misguided idealists at best, idiots at worst.

    Politics doesn’t and shouldn’t have to be war, von Clausewitz aside. However, when you turn your election from a mandate to change the country’s direction for the better into an opportunity to bully, crush, embarrass, and ridicule those you don’t agree with, you are not only misusing the mandate, you are gambling with the future and tempting fate. You are also putting your faith in human nature being something other than what it is.

    The fact is that no one political faction ever gets to be in power forever in a legitimate system outside a one-party state, especially not when that faction gets overconfident and starts to believe its own press releases. The fact is also that those bullied and otherwise poorly treated have very long memories. The final fact is that when the political picture changes, as inevitably it always does, the first impulse of those poorly treated is NOT going to be reaching out to you with an olive branch, leave alone giving you more power under them than they had under you (remember the Dem senators asking Mitch McConnell to restore the filibuster in 2014 after they were the ones who took it away in the first place?).

    Their impulse MIGHT be to try to tamp down the partisan rancor for the good of the country, but if you come out of the gate still calling them names and making impotent threats, that impulse is going to dissipate faster than mist over the lake on an August morning, leaving them with only the impulse, ethical or not, to do to you as you did to them, your requests not to do so notwithstanding, and perhaps take some scalps of their own.

    We don’t want or need things in this nation to reach the point where a random gunshot kills Stewart as he leaves the pub in Kingstown on Friday night, and at midnight on Saturday the black car with tinted windows comes sneaking around Connolly Road to take Patrick on a ride that ends face down in a lonely grove of trees. However, if both sides keep pushing the other further and further away, and put hurting those they disagree with at the top of the list, with the good of the nation running sixth or seventh, we can get there sooner than you think.

    • I nominate Steve for Comment of the Day:

      …Seriously, I know tit for tat isn’t ethical, and I know revenge is ultimately a lousy goal in life. However, acting jerky, cocky, and messianic when your guy is in power, then bitter, contrarian, and all-around sore-loserish when the other party’s guy is in power, is also not ethical…

      It would be a great discussion, and we could discuss the ethics involved that Steve raises. I for one have no real training to pick through the nuances of unethical treatment in response to unethical treatment, as my strong sense of fair play and my realization that spankings are all children understand product the emotional indignation on the one hand and my resignation to basic facts on the other.

      What say you, Jack?

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        I think Steve-O is connected to that Rottweiler blog, somehow. (Not that I hold, or would hold, anything against him for that, if true.) In his last sentence above at 10:04 am, he seems to distance himself from the blogger and corresponding commentariat. But that does not stop me from suspecting Steve-O’s connection thereto. So much prose, so similar…

      • Jack say, just got back after four straight hours of non-stop talking to a video camera, and Jack too fried to review thread. Jack will do tomorrow.

  5. It’s very hard to come up with some confidence-building goal. If people on the left want to try build a bridge, I think two things would help very much. First would be to acknowledge what’s in the DNC and Podesta leaks and agree that the essential character of the Clinton campaign was one that was intended to subvert democracy. This campaign was worked against both the Republicans and the Sanders wing of the Democrats, so it doesn’t have to be a partisan rejection. The second would be for the left to acknowledge bigoted beliefs within their own voting groups, as demonstrated by polling and hate crime statistics. This would end the notion that white bigotry comes from some uniquely evil source, instead of from the ignorance common to all groups. If these thing magically got done this year, then I could imagine 2018 congressional campaigns that contested free markets v. central planning.

  6. Chris

    The commentariat there seems fond of the word “cuck,” so no wonder they are idiots.

    • Chris, I had a brief shining moment where we shared common ground (the “George Costanza rule).

      But that was quick to fade. Your comment is why we cannot have nice things. It is at once insulting, unproductive, and unethical.

      All of what we have come to expect from a Liberal post election, in other words. (See? that was a not so subtle use of your tactic against you)

      • Chris

        It was insulting toward the commenters at that blog, who Jack has already established are morons. It wasn’t very productive, I’ll grant you that. Unethical? Why?

        What exactly is your problem with my comment? Are you defending the use of the word “cuck?” Are you taking the position that it isn’t an automatic signal that one is an idiot?

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          It’s a popular term with the so-called alt-right. Being on the alt-right doesn’t automatically make you an idiot, although the chances are high. Using the expression to mean someone who identifies as conservative who the speaker believes sold out on or betrayed key conservative principles isn’t idiotic, it’s the same as using the more acceptable “RINO.”

          Now, the question of conservative infighting over who is more conservative or more purely conservative is a different one, and arguable it isn’t helpful for the broader conservatives to do that.

          • Chris

            No, it’s always idiotic–it’s intended to compare “not being conservative enough” to being into a sexual humiliation kink.

            The phrase started among white supremacists in the alt right who insisted that Americans letting in more immigrants (illegal or otherwise) were the same as men allowing themselves to be “cucked,” I.e. watching their country (here a metaphor for woman) be “raped” by men of color.

            So in addition to idiotic, the slur has overt sexist and racist connotations.

            • Steve-O-in-NJ

              Cuckolded just means someone else is doing your significant other, not raping her, and you’re a fool for not realizing it and taking action.

              • Chris

                I’ve seen it used in both a consensual and rape-y context. Either way: as used by the alt right, still racist, still sexist.

                • Steve-O-in-NJ

                  Because you can look into the hearts of everyone on the alt-right and detect the evil therein, Sir Christopher?

                  • Chris

                    No. What is in someone’s hearts and minds has nothing to do with whether their actions and words are sexist or racist. If it did, we would all have to be telepaths in order to judge whether an action was sexist or racist. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that.

                    • Steve-O-in-NJ

                      Words are words. actions are actions. You can’t know what the motivation behind them was unless the person tells you, unless you are a mind-reader, or unless you are a 1E paladin, gifted with the power to detect evil in the hearts and minds of others. I know everyone didn’t tell you, I doubt you have the power to read minds, and you are certainly no holy knight – to be that you have to be wise and charismatic – you’re just stubborn and annoying.

                    • Chris

                      Stop it. You’re being ridiculously obtuse. I don’t care about the motivations of someone who calls someone the n word–the statement is racist regardless of the person’s intent.

                      Similarly, using the word “cuck” as a slur is sexist and racist, regardless of the intent. I can say with absolute confidence that anyone who uses it as an insult is a moron, and it requires no mind-reading powers to do so.

        • Steve covered most of it. ‘Unethical’ is from Virtues, Values, and Duties: Respect. The violated values are
          • Civility
          • Courtesy
          • Decency
          • Dignity
          • Tolerance
          • Acceptance
          • Autonomy

          • Chris

            Does using the word “cuck” match any of those values?

            If not, it is not at all unethical to call those who use the term “idiots” to describe them. Honesty is an ethical value as well.

    • I am happy to say that while I have been reading that word frequently of late, I have no idea what it means, and I’m likely to be sorry when I learn.

  7. luckyesteeyoreman

    Aww, shit, Jack! You HAD to remind me that I’m STILL a hippie!

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      But on the bright side, and I am not being sarcastic, Jack might have found a blog for enabling our own dear Alizia to strengthen the [r]ight nets.

  8. luckyesteeyoreman

    I get what is meant by “Prozis.” Progressive-Nazis.
    But, how to pronounce? A little like “Yahtzee?” More like the drug, Prozac?

    • Steve-O-in-NJ

      Progs or proggies also works. Helpful for using the term “prog march.” “Gaystapo” and “feminazi” are insults cut from the same cloth.

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        I like the term I first saw Mr. Schlecht use here: proglib.
        Are you a contributor to, editor of, or commenter in, that Rottweiler blog?

        • Steve-O-in-NJ

          I am not. This is the only blog I post on. I usually do most posting on social media on my own, though I am thinking of starting a page called “Godfrey’s Scroll” which will tell the truth about Islam and its history. It will be mostly historical articles, book reviews, etc., interspersed with nods to historical anniversaries, the major Christian holidays, etc.

          • luckyesteeyoreman

            This is the only blog I post on, too. That might change. I would visit a site like you describe, about Islam. I would pray for your safety every day.

    • wyogranny

      If pronouncing it like Prozac causes people to mellow out like Prozac I say pronounce it that way.

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        But WHICH people might (or should) that pronunciation mellow out?
        Prozis, or their accusers?
        I think both are already stuck on stronger drugs. (says an addict)

  9. luckyesteeyoreman

    Jack, all you say here supports why I am convinced that The Apprentice (Trump) is a transitional figure, along with his regime – a brief and chaotic pause between eras – a squishy and rather low-profile (despite the Left’s panic, and the Right’s glee) speed bump on the road to totalitarianism.

    Among residents of this part of the world, that “fuck you” attitude toward “extreme authority” is fading fast to extinction. Power in Wasamerica increasingly is with the sheeple and their herders.

    It’s long past time for people in this country to get used to being whip-sawed from one regime to the next, like is suffered by peoples in all other countries. It’s long past its due time for every vestige of American exceptionalism to die – just ask a leftist. Only total obedience to total control by a total authority will make the world better. And democratic. Democracy is best.

    For far too long, citizens of the was-USA have enjoyed the undeserved privilege of not having their lives disrupted and impacted in so many ways, so adversely, so painfully, from year to year, day to day, ruler to ruler. The lesson of the “real and eternal normal” must never again be un-learned or forgotten. That is, that a person’s life from day to day is, and can only be, a terrifying encounter fraught with uncertainty, and can only be lived on the very edge of survival in every respect. To live otherwise is to embrace privilege. Privilege is bigotry. Democracy is equality.

    All that said…”Fuck them. They wanted war, let them have it” are simply the words of the prophets, written on the Internet walls, and power halls. Human history will continue repeating forever.

  10. Wayne

    Looking at the Democratic leadership’s plan to delay confirmation of Trump’s cabinet appointments and filibuster his Supreme Court noniminations, I see no willingness on the left side of Congress to compromise and work with the Whitehouse. I disagree that Trumpism is a temporary phenomenon. Romneyism won’t work with the current crew of Demos: Time for the castor oil option!

    • Chris

      Why should Dems confirm unqualified candidates, some of whom don’t even believe their departments should exist? So far Trump’s list of nominees is indistinguishable from a list one would compile if one were simply trolling: Rick Perry for EPA? Carson for HUD? Devos for Ed? Of course they should be opposed. Dems have already voted to confirm Carson, so if anything, they are capitulating too easy.

      • Perry is Energy. You’re cherry-picking. Perry and Carson are the worst of the worst, and should have been dinged on the grounds that they are boobs. Then again, Chuck Hegel was confirmed. The enmity against DeVos is not based on qualifications, but ideology. That is not a valid reason to reject a nominee.

        • Wayne

          I’m not sure that Carson’s lack of experience will be a major liability. His predecessor Julian Castro, former mayor of San Antonio was a “Viva la Raza” radical liberal and ran HUD with a huge budget with many of the programs the Department ran by their own criteria were rated as “ineffective”. It was just a stepping stone for Julian Castro’s political ambitions.

      • Steve

        What makes them unqualified? I am tired of seeing this, what are the qualifications required for these political appointments? This goes in the same vain as saying Obama or Trump were unqualified to be President, no they met all the qualifications required by law. They are qualified, period.

        I keep seeing the left rail against Trump saying he is unqualified based on our history, the tradition of electing politicians as President but fail to recognizes how much of an anomaly Obama was, he by the very history the left is trying to hold up as the standard falls dismally short.

        These appointees, although I dislike some, need only be confirmed. You can dislike them as I do, but they are not unqualified unless they do not meet the requirements that have been established for that position.

        The left would have a much better chance of persuading the public if they would have been ethical when they were governing. It has gotten so bad that no-one dares to break from the party line, even when things are glaringly obvious the left still resorts to trying big lies.

        The Republicans are not the stepford wives the Democrats demand of their members. There is lots of talk that divisions in the republican party will lead to loss of power but it gives many a sense of security. That members of the party will loudly go against their own if they feel the wrong decisions are being made. That a Republican congress does not insure that President Trump gets whatever he wants and the reverse that Trump would veto a bill he thought the congress screwed up. Democrats are going down a path that cements an adversarial, no that would be ok, an enemy position with President Trump, the most liberal of all the Republican candidates and likely more liberal than Hillary Clinton. This is a president that they could easily find common ground with if they weren’t so invested in identity politics, it is clear their goal is to gain power not to govern.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s