Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 12/29/2017: Daring The Alt-Right

GOOD Morning, Everyone!

1 Ethics Alarms Holiday Challenge! report: You did not disappoint  me. I have not read all the comments in detail yet, but the various evisceration of NBC’s jaw-droppingly stupid call for an end to freedom of speech produced at least five strong Comment of the Day candidates. I won’t re-post all of them, because Noah’s inept screed doesn’t warrant that much space, frankly. Good job!

On a related administrative note, I’m really going to try to get all the Ethics Alarms Best and Worst completed this year (having fallen short the last two), and would appreciate nominations in all categories. (Some examples are here and here, but don’t feel constrained. New categories are welcome.)

Use this post, please, or e-mail me at jamproethics@verizon.net.

2. Doesn’t help…President Trump couldn’t resist tweeting this:

‘In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record,’ he tweeted from Mar-a-Lago Thursday night, where it is currently a balmy 78 degrees Fahrenheit Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!’ 

Ugh.

  • These are the tweets that try men’s souls. It’s just never a good thing for the leader of the country to broadcast his ignorance and deficits of critical thought.
  • It would be a bit less annoying—but still unpresidential and self-destructive,  if the President were satirizing the climate change chorus, which despite the fact that the science they claim to revere so much says its nonsense to do so, still cite individual weather events as “proof” of global warming, most recently the 2017 hurricane season. Or if he were trolling his foes, which he is often masterful at doing, trying to lure them into hypocrisy. Predictably, journalists took the bait anyway, with many suddenly becoming sticklers for the key distinction between  climate change, and weather after years and years of intentionally blurring in in their interviews and reporting. Sadly, there is no reason to believe the President was doing anything but trumpeting his own scientific illiteracy.
  • I wonder what the President’s approval ratings would be if he had never sent a tweet after taking the oath of office?

3. Daring the alt-right is a really bad idea, Part I. Item:  Rising stand-up comic Iliza Shlesinger held a show called “Girls Night In WIth Iliza — No Boys Allowed.”  “Girls’ Night In is a hybrid stand up show and interactive discussion between Iliza and the women in the audience aimed at giving women a place to vent in a supportive, fun and inclusive environment,” promotion for the show read. . “She invites women of all walks of life to come, laugh with her and at her and be ready to share and feel safe for an awesome night of comedy and love.”

George St. George purchased two tickets to the  November 13 show, and when he arrived to pick them up at the box office,  he was told that he would have to sit in the back of the theater because he was male. [ This is an ethics alarms fail for obvious reasons.] . Then later, when Shlesinger tried to enter the theater, he was informed that no men would be admitted, and offered a refund.

St. George is suing. Good. He asks how the show was different from a “Caucasian Night” or “Heterosexual Night.” That’s an easy one: it isn’t.

If women’s groups and arrogant feminists really think they can engage in flagrant gender bias and discrimination of their own without consequences seriously deleterious to their cause, they are going to get a nasty and perhaps tragic lesson in the dangers of hubris. If Democrats think they can safely embrace this kind of bigotry, the party’s stupidity and dearth of integrity have no bounds.

4. Daring the alt-right is a really bad idea, Part 2.Item: “37 Things White People Need To Stop Ruining In 2018” is Buzzfeed’s headline of a supposedly humorous piece by racist African American asshole Patrice Peck. It’s a racist headline and a racially divisive and hateful feature. The fact that a parallel article about what “black people” ruin would result in immediate condemnation from all reaches of news media and immediate firings and this does not adds followers to alt-right groups like sugar attracts ants, and at a visceral level, I don’t blame them. Self-defense is a natural response to threats and hostility. It doesn’t require excessive pride in one’s personal characteristics to deeply resent a general attack on the people who share them. The Buzzfeed article is indefensible unless it confers license for the targets of its prejudice to return fire in kind. It doesn’t and can’t, but in the eyes of a lot of people who regard the establishment of a double standard a tacit admission that the standard is a sham, that’s what it is. If you want more Charlottesvilles, this is how you get them.

62 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Arts & Entertainment, Character, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Gender and Sex, Incompetent Elected Officials, Law & Law Enforcement, Rights, Science & Technology, Social Media

62 responses to “Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 12/29/2017: Daring The Alt-Right

  1. Copied from a post earlier in December:

    For what it’s worth, and I know you have a different grading scale, Jack, but I think for Commenter of the Year award, you should pull a Time magazine move and nominate the collective body of commenters (about a dozen or so) who don’t comment as often as those of us who are neurotically addicted to commenting, but when they do, they are well thought out.

    In that list I’d include at a minimum:
    Mrs. Q

    Ryan Hawkins

    Emily

    La Sylphide

    Brenda Pawlowski (which I think would comment MORE, but she was unfairly harangued one time in a very disproportionate manner by another commenter)

    Spartan (which is only in this list because she’s reduced her contributions from “prolific” to “very occasional”)

    Alizia Tyler

    Isaac

    Inquiring Mind

    Eternal Optometrist

    Red Pill Ethics

    and all the others who I’ve unfairly forgotten in my rush to get back to work focus.

  2. Glenn Logan

    No. 1 – Nominations

    I have a feeling a certain president will receive multiple nominations in the “worst of” and precious few in the “best of”.

    No. 2 – Global cooling

    You mean to tell me the weather of the world is not related to climate change (nee global warming)? OMG, I’m shocked, shocked! I was assured by our trustworthy media that the recent hurricane season means we are nearing a global apocalypse, and now the cold weather isn’t further proof of that after all?

    After all, isn’t all bad weather due to climate change (nee global warming)? Surely, surely it must be!

    No. 3 – Alt-right part I

    You surely aren’t telling the left that they can’t have POC/LBGTQzcxyfw&/Women only safe spaces where whites, males, Asians and non-woke gender-binary black people are not allowed. Surely. I mean, we all know that racial, sexual and gender exclusions by the left aren’t real bias, they are all done under the Holy Writs of fairness, #Resistance, and attacking white privilege.

    I have been assured that they can, and will, continue to create safe spaces, and compliance is mandatory on pain of protesting the nearest college president into unemployment. So be warned.

    No. 4 – Alt-right part II

    I’m glad you got to this, although I think it was probably worthy of a full-blown article. This Buzzfeed piece was, I think, the defining example of progressive hypocrisy in the media. The fact that nobody other than predictably conservative outlets are outraged by this is signature significance.

    I have to take exception to the last sentence. The only way you get more Charlottesvilles is if the police decline to prevent the violence… you know, like what happened in Charlottesville.

    • Inquiring Mind

      And that violence, incidentally, was used to fuel fear and anger among progressives, heightening the fever of “the Resistance.”

      I’m not normally one for conspiracy theories, but I have to wonder if they were HOPING that Charlottesville would go down the way it did so that it would boost progressive turnout in elections.

    • The Buzzfeed piece isn’t worthy of it’s own article if for no reason other than it is not an outlier. If one were to spill ink every time Buzzfeed posted some overtly hostile racist or sexist listicle, one would quickly run out of ink. Buzzfeed is where neurons go to die.

      • Glenn Logan

        You have a point about articles in this general vein being all too common, but this one is exceptional in its overtness, I think.

  3. “Self-defense is a natural response to threats and hostility. It doesn’t require excessive pride in one’s personal characteristics to deeply resent a general attack on the people who share them.”

    This thread would not be complete without Alizia’s agreement (or disagreement) with the above, in context of the global movement to commit genocide against “white identity.”

    Me, I consider overwhelming offense to be the natural response to threats and hostility. Genocide is for the self-entitled to practice against those who are self-entitled to preach it, however subtly said preachers do so, before said preachers become practitioners. It’s only fair.

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      PS I identify as white – plus a lot of other intersecting characteristics.

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      Whether I am a trolling ever-Trumper who is foretelling war against North Korea, well, you’ll all just have to keep guessing.

      • luckyesteeyoreman

        But personally, I don’t care HOW he does it, I just want Trump to wipe off the earth that fat little Kim Jong shit and anyone and everyone who follows or supports him – RIGHT. NOW.

        • I’ll be surprised if that disgusting little toad makes halfway thru 2018.

          I predict (and encourage!) an “inside job,” but would be amenable to the mere ”appearance” of one…

          • Paul W. Schlecht wrote, “I predict (and encourage!) an “inside job,” but would be amenable to the mere ”appearance” of one…”

            One word…

            Mossad

            • Why do things half fast?

              Self-anointed 4th Greatest President EVAH and current Citizen-Of-The-World Barack Obama should make a personal visit (with the talented Dennis “The Worm” Rodman riding shotgun) and issue a groveling and appropriately contrite apology for CBS canceling MASH 35 years ago.

  4. 2- Sharks are dying because from “cold shock,” mercifully just two thus far.

    Can you imagine how many more would have succumbed to far greater frigidity were it not for the Global Warming that’s here and worse than the models predicted?

    http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/12/two_sharks_die_from_cold_shock.html

    Four years ago as we speak, while researching…um…disappearing sea ice in the Antarctic “summer,” the Russian ship MV Akademic Shokalskiy got mired in (and this is where it gets good) a heavy accumulation of (drum roll) sea ice.

    Unfortunately, a crack team of Irony Specialists were unable to make contact before FoxNews found out.

    Notice a trend toward listing “feels like” (wind-chill-added) rather than actual temperatures?

    • luckyesteeyoreman

      “Notice a trend toward listing “feels like” (wind-chill-added) rather than actual temperatures?”

      Yes – it makes me curious about what WARM temperature must be achieved, before wind must be taken into account for making the air feel HOTTER than it is.

      But then, I have always been curious about the effects of nukes…

      I guess we are all just cursed to live most of the time in a sort of Goldilocks zone, where winds and temperatures are more often “just right” so that taxes cannot be collected to fund studies of global “wind chill threats.”

  5. Steve-O-in-NJ

    1. I’m late to the party, but my post is in moderation, probably because I linked to two articles to make a point.

    2. This is the opposite number to Jimmy Carter telling everyone to just put on a sweater.

    3.4. Glenn said it all.

  6. Neil Dorr

    Jack,

    “St. George is suing. Good. He asks how the show was different from a “Caucasian Night” or “Heterosexual Night.” That’s an easy one: it isn’t.”

    Good? That’s a crap thing to say. It’s good that society is falling back into “you can’t do that, I’ll SUE!’ instead of engaging with each other? I’m not sure I see any heroes here. George St. George wanted to make a point, he made his point, and now he’s suing to make it crystal clear to everyone in the cheap seats. Thanks, George.

    Also, I don’t understand. Groups aren’t allowed to cater to their members and no one else? What makes it okay for Jews to exclude gentiles from certain religious events? Why is it allowable for white supremacists to hold a music festival where, presumably, blacks wouldn’t be welcomed? How is this any different than “SHUT IT DOWN!” ?

    Why can’t anyone talk anymore without a cloud of smug emanating from every orifice?

    • It’s ILLEGAL. Absent a lawsuit, cowardly officials terrified of Hillary supporters would let this pass, and the biased news media would ignore it. Now, he could have crashed the show like the civil rights protesters had sit-ins, and go to jail. I don’t know abut you, but I’d rather be a plaintiff in civil curt than a defendant in criminal court. And no, Americans should have have to negotiate to be treated with respect and in accordance with their rights.

      Sometimes I wonder if you think these things through. This isn’t someone suing because his son didn’t get to play shortstop on his Little League team, or because a waitress looked at him funny. This is straight up discrimination in a public accommodation. And it’s more egregious than not selling a cake—at least the gay couple wasn’t told that they couldn’t enter the bakery.

    • Glenn Logan

      Good? That’s a crap thing to say. It’s good that society is falling back into “you can’t do that, I’ll SUE!’ instead of engaging with each other? I’m not sure I see any heroes here. George St. George wanted to make a point, he made his point, and now he’s suing to make it crystal clear to everyone in the cheap seats. Thanks, George.

      I sympathize with your lament, Neil, but I think you’re mistaken.

      Sometimes the only way to get the attention of the miscreant is to cost them money. This is not a place where patient conversation would do much good — the show’s organizers would just listen patiently and eject the next man to buy a ticket just like they did him. Suing them will likely force them to change their behavior, and that is very much worthwhile.

      Also, I don’t understand. Groups aren’t allowed to cater to their members and no one else? What makes it okay for Jews to exclude gentiles from certain religious events?

      I’m unaware of any such cases, but generally the Supreme Court has said that the Free Exercise clause can trump generally applicable laws unless the government shows a compelling interest why they should not.

      There is no free-standing right of free association in the Constitution, it is implied by the right of assembly, free speech and the right to petition the government. In private gatherings, it is generally permissible to discriminate on almost any basis. That doesn’t hold true for schools because of the nexus with contract law, but organizations who do not accept public money or involve themselves with the tax code (i.e. tax exempt status) may generally discriminate as to membership. Remember the kerfuffle over Augusta National Golf Club and their exclusion of female members? They were never forced by law to accept either blacks or women, but ultimately they did so because it was in their interests to do so.

      The Supreme Court has found a right of “expressive non-association” when it comes to certain non-profits and private organizations. Apparently, the key is whether or not the message of the organization will be undermined by enforcing a non-discrimination policy on them, and these holdings have been pretty narrow. You couldn’t force the KKK, for example to accept black members (even assuming one were desirous to join) because it undermines the free speech rights of its members, regardless of how reprehensible the speech. The court held also that the Boy Scouts can’t be forced to accept female or gay members for similar reasons.

      The show was a public performance, hence subject to non-discrimination laws. Therefore, they violated the law and torts by excluding male members.

  7. Neil Dorr

    Jack,

    Isn’t this freedom of association?

    • Legally? Almost certainly not. I can’t think of an argument, for instance, that requires the specific performance of a baker to bake a cake, but doesn’t require a comedy club to merely seat someone at a table they’ve purchased a ticket for under the same auspices of public accommodation.

  8. Wayne

    Trump must have been a pain in the ass to his teachers during junior high school. These dumb snarky tweets pretty much makes it look like Blutto from “Animal House” is running the country.

  9. Related to #1

    I respectfully present…

  10. Related to #1

    Because it’s sometimes hard to choose these kinds of things, choose three Comment’s of the year! from 2017 Comments of the day.

    1st Place gets (hold your breath) free access to Ethics Alarms for life.

    2nd Place gets an honorary absolutely nothing.

    3rd Place gets < nothing.

    😉

  11. From the “Check On Yer Lefty Friends So’s They Don’t Need Coaxing Off’n A Ledge Or Lowered From Being Self Strung From A Basement Beam” department.

    Oh, and because you may not see this anywhere else.

    ”The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove.

    Trump is ending his first year in office with virtually the same job approval ratings that Barack Obama earned on Dec. 29, 2009, at the end of his first year as president. On that date, 46% of voters approved of the job Obama was doing; 53% disapproved. (bolds mine)

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_dec29

    • Chris

      First thing I see when I Google “Rasmussen bias:”

      After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver concluded that Rasmussen’s polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver’s model.

      • Allow me to respectfully preface this with the acknowledgement that I understand these have been, are, and will continue to be, trying times for career Lefties (most, not all).

        The reality they’ve accepted, untethered in any way, shape, or form to the fact-based variety, has been a harsh mistress and an unforgiving spouse.

        Hyman Roth (Lee Strasberg) said to Michael Corleone (Al Pacino) in Godfather II:

        “This is the business we’ve chosen”

        Capisce?

        Anywho; too freakin’ funny, Chris!

        You cite Nate “HRC has a BETTER THAN 90 % CHANCE TO WIN THE MI PRIMARY” Silver?? And from 2010???

        How’d that work out; the MI Primary thing, that is?

        https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-democratic/

        Yer Boi Silver also gave HRC an 80 % chance to beat The Donald.

        How’d that work out, 2.0?

        I strongly recommend you hitch yer dray to a different nag, yours is headed to the glue factory!

        • Chris

          Yes, because predicting the likelihood of an event is the same as predicting that it is going to happen with absolute certainty.

          Any actual counter-argument against the well-accepted common knowledge that Rasmussen has a right-wing bias and is the least accurate of all major polling companies?

          • ”Yes, because predicting the likelihood of an event is the same as predicting that it is going to happen with absolute certainty.”

            “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.” Voltaire

            >99 % certainty ain’t but <1 % uncertainty, am I right?

            ''Any actual counter-argument against the well-accepted common knowledge''

            Seriously, you want to discuss the legitimacy of polls after their Waterloo on 11/08/2017?

            Feeling the warmth, Chris? Yer pissin’ upstream.

            • Chris

              I’m trying to follow your argument, but not for the first time, your writing style makes it very difficult.

              Is it “Polls that conform to my beliefs are accurate while polls that do not are not?” Because that’s what it sounds like.

              • ”I’m trying to follow your argument, but not for the first time, your writing style makes it very difficult.”

                Thanks for the delicate upbraid.

                ” ‘Polls that conform to my beliefs are accurate while polls that do not are not?’ ”

                Not at all, the only poll that counted took place on 11/08/2016; heck, even that one is held in utter contempt and assigned illegitimacy by a certain demographic.

                Honestly, I did a double-take when I saw the results, Trump being Trump & all.

                What didn’t surprise me is…um…someone on this forum immediately questioning the legitimacy of those results.

                No big deal, that someone is hardly alone, and we should seek the truth and question those who claim to have found it.

                The usual Lefty suspects will be doing their level best to savagely flay Rasmussen Reports and salt the wounds.

                While there’s no commenting section to the Rasmussen Reports article, I’d LUV to see some of the reactions.

              • Further on: ” ‘Polls that conform to my beliefs are accurate while polls that do not are not?’ ”

                Probably nothing to it, but how does your spirited effort to devalue the Rasmussen Reports findings square with your attempts to legitimize the ~ 90 % negative press about President Trump?

      • Chris marschner

        So Chris, if Rassmussan has a higher error rate and the questions were the same wouldn’t the relative approval numbers still show equivalency. The error rate has no bearing on accuracy between identical surveys of different candidates. If I measure point a to point b and then measure point c to point d with the same tool and the distance from ab = distance from cd I can state they are equivalent even if my ruler has two inches cut off before I take my first measure.

  12. valkygrrl

    Jack, I did a post with three offsite links to polling data so it’s in moderation.

      • valkygrrl

        Thanks. You’re a gentleman and a scholar despite what I might sometimes mutter under my breath.

        • Right.
          You are, over all, a great foil and a lot of fun. If you come through DC and don’t call me so I can buy you a drink, I’m going to be ticked off.

          • valkygrrl

            Alas I haven’t been through DC since 2003 or maybe 2004, it’s all a bit hazy. There was a ski-trip in Vermont and then instead of overnighting in Toronto with a friend like we did on the way out, we decided to avoid the jerk-assed US border guards we encountered in New York and stay in the US for the trip back, somehow while I was asleep in the back seat that devolved into going to Virginia so one of my tripmates could have lunch with a friend, and we only stopped in DC at all so I could take a quick peek at the famous monuments.

            Don’t ever road-trip with my friends unless you don’t particularly care where you might end up.

  13. Isaac

    “If you want more Charlottesvilles, this is how you get them.”

    Oh, but they do.

  14. 4. Daring the alt-right is a really bad idea, Part 2.Item: “37 Things White People Need To Stop Ruining In 2018” is Buzzfeed’s headline of a supposedly humorous piece by racist African American asshole Patrice Peck. It’s a racist headline and a racially divisive and hateful feature. The fact that a parallel article about what “black people” ruin would result in immediate condemnation from all reaches of news media and immediate firings and this does not adds followers to alt-right groups like sugar attracts ants, and at a visceral level, I don’t blame them. Self-defense is a natural response to threats and hostility. It doesn’t require excessive pride in one’s personal characteristics to deeply resent a general attack on the people who share them. The Buzzfeed article is indefensible unless it confers license for the targets of its prejudice to return fire in kind. It doesn’t and can’t, but in the eyes of a lot of people who regard the establishment of a double standard a tacit admission that the standard is a sham, that’s what it is. If you want more Charlottesvilles, this is how you get them.

    Yes indeed, from your angle it is certainly racial baiting. And yet it is really instructive it it is interpreted in the right way. I do not really care what Blacks or anyone else thinks of Whites or white culture. White (European) culture and the attainments of white culture are unparalleled and awesome, what I notice in that series of videos is Whites imitating Blacks and demonstrating what comes about through both racial and cultural contamination of a really vile sort. It is inevitable that this come about when any two people are tossed together and forced, through social engineering, to mingle. This is one reason why multiculturalism is wrong.

    The level of comtamination is really horrible, it’s tragic, that is, from *our* angle. So, the ‘self-defense’ that I advocate for —- that we advocate for —- is the first steps toward dismantling the multiracial culture. It must begin at the level of ‘idea’. The issue has to be seen first and then what one sees has to be clarified. This is hard because of all the years of false-indoctrination. It takes years to sort through it.

    This is how I (and we) interpret the sense in ‘preserving Occidental civilization’ and it is through various contaminating influences that this is coming about. It has to be first seen, then understood, then militated against. And out of this comes the sentiment standing behind Ethno-nationalism and the sentiment behind preserving white culture.

    I am glad that you do not blame *us* for our reaction. Yet I am sure that you will blame us when over the next years you notice more and more of our activism. It is interesting, for me, to notice the sort of opposition I get here. I value it highly as it helps me to think through and clarify my own beliefs and understanding. Myself, I am staking a great deal on this because I feel it is right and definitely ethical. I can think of nothing that is more fundamentally ethical. I will arrive at the point where I can defend and explain each precept, point by point.

    I have no interest in ‘returning fire’ and I have every interest in, and intention of, constructing an ideological base that will attract and hold the consciences of hundreds and thousands of like-minded souls, and then millions and millions. It is a revival of European categories. In Canada, in America, down to the Southern Cone; in Europe and int he English-speaking world. We will militate, we will become active, and we will lay the groundwork for what I certainly hope is a bright future. Will it be possible? Is it possible? The odds are not in our favor, that much is clear. The object really does seem impossible. But as my friends at Red Ice say: we have faced far greater threats and succeeded. And I concur with Jonathan Bowden: we are now facing the more dangerous existential threat that we have ever faced.

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