1. Are fake media stereotypes ethical if they are benign stereotypes? When my son was a young child, I watched a lot of children’s programming, and immediately noticed that almost every show had a computer nerd, tech genius character, and that character was almost invariably black. I get it: the idea was to fight pernicious stereotypes with opposite stereotypes, but neither stereotype was accurate. (Lots of prime time movies and TV shows for adults also perpetuated the black tech genius trope, like “Die Hard,” “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” and many others.)
Now Madison Avenue or their corporate clients apparently want American to believe that inter-racial marriage is the norm. I literally could not care less who people marry, but I just sat through four TV ads in a row featuring black and white couples. I failed at my admittedly limited attempt to find out what current percentage of American married couples are bi-racial, but the last study, which is nine years old, found that less than 9% of married couples consisted of a white and an African American spouse. That’s great, but the popular culture should be reflecting society, not using its power to manipulate it according to its own agenda.
2. Take this, for example:
This is part of new “woke” Gillette campaign. “Go out there and slay the day!” says the corporate tweet accompanying the photo.
Funny, I’ve been told that obesity has become a serious public health problem in the U.S. Fat-shaming is wrong—the Woke still constantly insult the President by calling him fat, and that babe in the photo makes him look like Chris Sale—but fat glorification is irresponsible. But hey, what’s consistency when the idea is to virtue-signal like crazy? “[We’re]committed to representing beautiful women of all shapes, sizes, and skin types because ALL types of beautiful skin deserve to be shown. We love Anna because she lives out loud and loves her skin no matter how the “rules” say she should display” says Gillette.
3. At the risk of losing you forever, let me send you to Ann Althouse’s blog where she does a marvelous job defenestrating a New York Times hack who uses this meme…
…to make a typical contrived Trump-hate argument. Without stealing Ann’s thunder—she doesn’t focus on this—I’ll make one comment about the Times’s hack’s argument. He writes in part,
“The entire event is at once silly, trivial, offensive and, thanks to Donald Trump’s Twitter feed, something we’re now begrudgingly made to pay attention to.”
Incredibly, in a sick clone of the Clinton-enabling of more than 20 years ago, good progressives are once again arguing that to hold a powerful figure to account for sexual assault and harassment is “silly,” because it’s their powerful figure. This is the unethical conservative argument, you hypocritical morons.
4. And if you want to be taken more seriously, stop calling yourself “Muffett.” I mentioned this story in the previous post, but it bears emphasis. Notre Dame women’s basketball coach Muffet McGraw announced that she would not hire another man for her coaching staff.
She cited the rationalizations you would expect—“Men run the world. Men have the power. Men make the decisions. It’s always the man that is the stronger one”—and she cited the usual list of dubious feminist arguments, like the phony “pay gap.” When asked why should it matter if the coach is a man or a woman, as long as they’re qualified, Muffett answered,
“When you look at men’s basketball, 99 percent of the jobs go to men, why shouldn’t 100 or 99 percent of the jobs in women’s basketball go to women?”
Oh, I’d say the jobs go to men because only men play men’s basketball, which is in all ways a more difficult, demanding game than women’s basketball. Her argument is like saying that since only professional baseball players go on to manage professional baseball teams, only coaches who never played professional baseball should be allowed to coach Little League teams.
Prejudice, discrimination and bigotry don’t solve gender bias, they perpetuate it.
5. And now, on a humorous note…A poacher hunting rhinos in South Africa’s Kruger National Park was trampled to death by an elephant and then eaten by lions. Once again, we have George Will’s favorite concept, condign justice.
Four of the now-digested man’s colleagues fled the game reserve and were arrested by police . Is it unethical not to feel pity for the poacher’s fate? No. Is it cruel to smile at the story? Not in my book. It sounds like a Gary Larson cartoon come to life.
6. Aren’t teacher unions wonderful? They’ll even fight for the right of teachers to have sex with students. Rhode Island is one of a few states where it is legal for teachers or other school employees to have sexual relations with their students if the kids are 16. An investigation by USA Today also found the state lax in its policies regrading information about teachers who are predators. Now the two largest teachers unions, the NEA the United Federation of Teachers (UFT) are opposing a proposed law that would make teacher-student sex a crime.
James Parisi of UFT actually made this argument in the bill’s hearing: Why single out school employees? Why doesn’t the law include the clergy, or legislators, or “store managers”? Why? WHY? Because the state doesn’t require parents to entrust their children to clergy, or legislators, or “store managers, that’s why. Because teachers are supposedly professionals that parents and students are supposed to and have to trust not to take advantage of their positions. (We don’t have to trust the clergy, and my advice is not to.)
The UFT was able to come up with an even worse argument: a teacher using a student as a sex toy didn’t need to be a crime; the loss of the teaching job and a state teaching license is punishment enough.
48 thoughts on “Sunday Ethics Warm-Up, 4/7/18: Amazing Facts Edition: Every Marriage Is Bi-Racial, Fat Is Beautiful, Sex With Students Is No Big Deal, And Discrimination Is Good”
1. Thanks for that, Jack. I’ve been noticing this weird phenomenon as well. The even stranger one is you’ll see a white parent with kids and at least one of them is a mixed race kid. And as a general observation, there are black people in every single commercial. Try to remember the last time you saw a white person in a McDonald’s commercial. Do people seriously think that having particular people in commercials will improve their lot in life? Do advertisers really think they are that powerful? It’s fantasyland on steroids. And incredibly condescending.
And come to think of it, this is the fantasy on which “diversity” is based. Put poor people with rich people and, presto chango, the poor people will get rich! Put mediocre students with really bright students and, presto chango, the mediocre students will become really bright! Shazaam!
Did your ‘Shazam’ come with a lightning bolt and the speed of Mercury? (can’t wait to get to see the movie)
So to clarify, would it be better if mixed marriages were pushed on other cultures as well? And doesn’t it come out to the same thing anyway? I mean, if you want to erase white purity, you have to sacrifice your own racial purity as well. Plus you won’t have whitey to kick around anymore! And while I realize that Red Ice wasn’t saying you SHOULDN’T marry outside your race, is she (and you for that matter), okay with just letting it happen without pushing for it OR against it? My family is about as white and American as you can get, being from Scottish and Scandinavian stock, with ancestors who fought in the Seven Years War, Revolutionary War, were Great Plains pioneers…the works. But when my brother married a South Korean, we didn’t care that she was another race, and as far as I’m concerned, anyone who has a problem with his wife and kids has a problem with me.
And so would they have with me if they intended some sort of harm against them.
But one has to back up here:
There are a few levels that have to be considered. One (the more relevant one) is to entertain the possibility of a social engineering project brought against Whites, or as as it is expressed ‘against whiteness’. In my own researches I trace this back to what a recent poster has called Agit-Prop. Literally, the influence and undertakings of Communist-oriented persons who operated in the US (and many other places). You can use the term ‘Cultural Marxism’, or simple ‘Marxism’, but the important thing is to understand how it works. This involves a research project (as does understanding all important topics and problems). One either does this oneself or relies on those one trusts (that is a problem right there).
To understand ‘the Sixties’ and a new American Radicalism — these are the influences that have shaped our present and now are seen as fruits diaboliques of our present, one has to trace all of it back! It is maddening and not at all easy! You will either come to have an ‘answer’ that might oppose it, or you will realize that you are a part of it and do not, not really, oppose it. You have to have, or you have to be in the process of developing, an ideological framework to oppose Sixties Radicalism.
In my own view, to have an ideological position that could fairly, ethically, and rationally oppose race-mixing and also culture-mixing, one would have to establish a foundation for a larger, more general view. But, since the general idea more or less ‘floating around’ is one of unconcern about many different things that are going on, the average person is (I use this term) a ‘victim’ of choices made by others, not the engineer of his or her own choices. This describes our highly propagandized culture, the most propagandized culture that has ever existed on the planet. We are subsumed in it and by it.
There are — indeed there are — mean-spirited racist people. True ‘bigots’. But the people that I read are not such as these. They are mostly opposed to a far larger ‘engineering project’ that has been brought to bear on all of us, no matter your color or culture. True, they do point out that European culture, Whites and ‘whiteness’ are definitely under attack, and they see this as nefarious and ultimately terrifyingly destructive to Occidental Civilization (and there they draw a link to Marxian projects of undermining Occidental structures: an idea-war in essence). But they also point out that a general cultural blending plan will not work out well for other cultures, ethnicities and ‘races’.
Therefore, what they end up defining is an anti-liberalism (an anti-hyper-liberalism would be my term) that is pro-sovereignty. They are forced to contest the ‘democratic model’ when that model becomes active and hyper-liberalist (then tends to totalitarian) because they see, more or less, where it is tending. Yet they struggle to define a coherent oppositional platform because, well, it is not at all easy.
The first order of business is to get clear about ‘what is going on in our present’. It is a project of categorization and discrimination. Are you comfortable that elites in government, in culture, and in business, have chosen to deliberately dilute the demographics of the US by lifting controls? Are you comfortable that in just a decade, perhaps a bit more, you will no longer have ‘super-majority status’ and, further on, that you will be a minority? If you cannot oppose this with a coherent, ethically-based argument, then you must be willing to live the consequences of your choices.
Are you aware that they say ‘Sweden has been lost’? Are you aware that when the demographics mathematics is plotted out that in Britain, just a few years down the line, Muslims will begin to outnumber indiginous British whites? Are you aware that this means the cultural and religious supplanting of Britain? Are you aware that Islam does not have any concern for nor does it value any of the defined areas of Occidental value? That they will murder the West’s beloved gays. That they will sexually modify their girls and women as is done (sixty to eighty percent I have read) in Egypt? Are you comfortable with that? Because that is what you will choose if you do not oppose.
Therefore, I simply say to begin to examine the larger issues from a meta-political perspective. Just that word alone, dropped into Google, will reveal all sort of information.
One has to refer to a meta-political perspective in order to define an overall position. If you cannot define, as I suggest, a position that could oppose a larger example (a consequential example) of cultural invasion (Islamic invasion of Europe), then you might not be able to resist it. Because you could not establish an initial argument to oppose it. You would be malleable and indecisive.
The initial argument would also, as we know, include ‘social attitude’ or ‘social restrictions’. If you and anyone else cannot bring together inside of yourself, as a manifestation of your ethics and your morals, a position that would allow you to defend yourself against race-mixing and cultural dilution when it is established as a social value (and instituted by Agit-Prop and PR campaigns with government backing; or financed, for example, by NGOs and other perhaps private interests with dubious political intentions); if you cannot come up with an argument against this that is rational and fair (and ethical), then you will not oppose these. You will have no ground to. You have no other choice but to ‘go with the established flow’.
These issues are ‘meta-political’. The dimensions and the ramifications of these questions are huge indeed, and consequential.
If you asked me, I would say “In my opinion it is best if people would examine the larger, molding forces that ‘engineer’ us and seek to mold us into an economic mass to whom they can sell products. A people to be a people, and to be strong as a people, need to hold to and protect their cultural, social, philosophical and religious — and their physical — identity and integrity. It would likely be best if people were to choose to marry and reproduce within their cultural and racial groups, and empower other groups and peoples to a) think similarly and b) do the same. Because in this way ‘diversity’ will in fact be maintained. That is, if ‘diversity’ is really a value and not just a sham-value and a trick.
We already notice that ‘multiculturalism’ is not working. We would further say that ‘it cannot work’. It has not worked historically and has led to civil strife and civil war. It is a bad idea therefore. It must be stopped before the damage goes much farther.
How? That is of course ‘the problem’. But the ‘problem’ should not have been created in the first place. (And here I specifically refer to the change on US immigration policy in 1965; to the British policies that will lead to the police state now developing there; and definitely to Sweden which is said now to be ‘lost’).
“It would likely be best if people were to choose to marry and reproduce within their cultural and racial groups”
What if we left out racial and stuck with cultural? Because the two need not be synonymous. For example, which would be worse, a white guy marrying a black African immigrant woman looking to be a naturalized citizen, and belongs to the same church he does, and is basically looking to assimilate in American culture, OR a white guy marrying a white woman who, like him, can trace her history back to the 13 Colonies, but is a hard-core Marxist hippie?
I understand how unchecked immigration can lead to a hostile takeover of sorts of the host country, and I agree that any country looking to preserve it’s culture should only let in those who will perpetuate said culture, but I find the injection of “race” to be a big red herring, since there can be different cultural values even among people of the same race.
At the least I can honestly say that I understand, and appreciate, and also respect, your point of view.
In my own view, it seems that a homogenous society must be the starting point. What I mean is that if a homogenous society is not the starting point, getting to that, or back to that, is highly problematic. I don’t see how it could be done in peaceable fashion.
And how would a more segregated American society work?
Personally, I can say that from a political or social perspective (that is, from a certain distance) that I ‘regret’ that the US did not hold to its 1924 immigration policy, and would not have adopted the 1965 policy. The cultural crisis stems from that, will continue, and will not all on the sudden ‘get better’. But where it is going who can say?
Do you see things different?
I can add a bit of personal recounting too: I have lived in places where the races mixed (Panama would be my prime dystopic example) and I can say that it certainly would have been better if the races there (Amerindians, Blacks and Whites) would have kept their social distance. I am sorry if that seems horribly politically incorrect. I live now in South America and again I can say that race-mixing is not the better idea. Maybe I am wrong in what I see, but it does not seem to strengthen a people, it dilutes them. But you see I have also read a good deal about the eugenics movement and the biology upon which it is based.
The white guy, though a Marxist today, can change his opinion. Consider David Horowitz! A full-scale race-blended culture cannot reverse itself. A child may regret that he or she is not one or the other. It does happen.
I don’t think it is a ‘red herring’. I think it is very real. But it is not about ‘values’ alone. The other factor (if one takes such into consideration) is the biological component to personhood. It stands as a choice if one wishes to accent that aspect, or not to care about it.
I think too that the more extreme cases illustrate the problem better. For example in South Africa.
Finally, I acknowledge completely the difficulty of this sort of conversation: to speak of things so coldly. Again, I have spent years now reading the material and I am simply used to it.
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDTBsAoCFHs&t=423s ]
The over-the-top levels of ethnic diversity in advertising have nothing to do with any attempts to socially engineer any kind of behavior. It’s done to stave off criticism. Marketing departments and ad agencies know there’s basically no downside to having non-whites featured prominently in their ads. White people aren’t going to complain and threaten boycotts and such. The reverse isn’t true if a company fails to reach the acceptable diversity threshold in its ads. Putting too many white people in your advertising opens you up to criticism and accusations of racism, because race hustlers like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have made a cottage industry of shaking down corporations for exactly this sort of thing.
…until enough white people start to realize how they are being attacked and turn on you. Of course, it has not happened yet: so far so good.
I think that there is a good portion of truth to what you are saying: businesses choose a safe route to an ‘inclusive image’.
But I think there is a further dimension to having established racial integration as a stated object and one tied profoundly to Postwar Americanism and post-Sixties Radicalism. This had been a giant, participatory project that moved — literally as Agit-Prop — through the entire culture. Powerful, repeated messaging. Shaming, Emotional and sentimental manipulation. Was there one source of it? That is doubtful. But who can describe how it was ‘created’? And, most importantly, how could *it* be opposed and countered?
On a further note:
Edward Bernays, the father of the PR industry, wrote in his book Propaganda:
I think it may be a bit of multiple factors. In the late 70’s there were early attempts to create inter racial couples were only with black men and Asian women. I believe the first sitcom with an interracial couple was Barney Miller. Yes, Guess Who Is Coming To Dinner withe Sidney Poitier was released much earlier but the context in that movie was to illustrate that blacks and whites were more similar in beliefs than each thought. The practical fathers knew what the kids would face while the moms understood love would conquer all. So, I cannot attribute social engineering to these early works.
What is interesting that during the 80’s I recall reading some news magazine (Time Newsweek – I think) articles in which professional black women were opting for white partners (and lamenting it) because of the lack of suitable professional black suitors. They revealed their preference for black men but the economic differential was just too much for them to overcome.
I do think that the proliferation of advertisements in which the inclusion of interracial couples is routine may be defensive to avoid criticism or could be part of a narrative the creative teams want to project. It does seem to be a ridiculous stretch to show two white grandparents with an obvious bi-racial grandchild when the childs parents are not shown.
I dont know why there seems to be a much larger number of black males with white females when it appears that the males come from a significantly lower economic strata and appear to have adopted the gangsta persona. I think they may be being manipulated by the multicultural forces or by the guys themselves. But it is their relationship not mine. There are however, cultural issues which have developed among black males since the 70’s that will ultimately impact all of us when these girls wind up as single moms with multiple baby daddies. This is not culture exclusive to the black communit, it affects all who learn to rely on government.
Interesting to read your view! Fellow EA poster E2 used the term ‘agit-prop’ recently:
In my brother-in-law’s films collection I found a Stanley Kramer set (“Stanley Earl Kramer was an American film director and producer, responsible for making many of Hollywood’s most famous “message films”) (including Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner, Ship of Fools, Defiant Ones). I carefully watched both Guess and Ship and ‘analyzed’ them. They provide an excellent example of what ‘agit-prop in a non-centralized society like the US looks like. You (and no one else who writes on this blog) have likely no desire to have background on what is called ‘the Jewish Qyestion’, but people like Kevin MacDonald have written extensively on that theme in order to understand ‘the Jewish revolutionary spirit’ and the Jewish tendency to be involved in progressive-radical political movements. I suppose because I come from that culture, and no longer am an active part of it, that I don’t have guilt-issues studying the question.
But, in my none-too-politically-correct analysis (of the sort that if stated publicly would cost me my job and would bring to me harassment and threats) that especially Guess and Ship are filled (to the top) with agit-prop assertions and value-impositions. Kramer is a radical, and he was likely influenced by a social ‘revolutionary spirit’, and definitely one that is aggressively critical of white American culture and, of course, by extension of Whites. He shows what happens when a resentful, crafty, undermining agit-prop intentionality is put into motion through a cultural production such as film. If you want to understand a counter-Jewish position, and therefore if you wish to understand one significant dimension of ‘what is happening in our present’, one has to understand what ‘Jewish-critical’ means, and on what it stands.
Guess has so many other features and covert intention than you seem to be able to see. Why is this? I ask. My answer: you as conventional, standard American have been raised in and through this sort of material. You have been substantially informed by it (your inner forming I mean). You have a very hard time standing away from it and looking at it with a critical eye. And to do that is tantamount to social delinquency and overt engagement in thoughtcrime. And, you cannot see that it is through these types of films, the music and song, the presentation of the Sixties and its radicalism as a positive ethical movement: the entire sphere of thought, ideology, art, assertion of value, all of this! that you and various generations have been formed. In essence, this is how agit-prop works! It is programming. It becomes an epistemological — a deontological — issue.
So, when the structure of your views (and *you* means millions and millions and millions of ‘yous’) is questioned, it is your very self that feels offended. No, you literally feel that “something wicked this way comes”. Your entire perceptual system is bound up in forms of Sixties americana! In order to get through to you with a different set of assertions and values . . . one has (to put it ironically) attack and defeat your TeeVee (if TV is made a symbol of vast social programming).
One pull at the loose thread, and the fabric begins to un-bind. We have a name for this: red-pilling. It is the ingestion of one small critical idea that begins to undermine this radical-progressive intrusion.
Spider Senses Are Starting To Tingle
Today, now, The System if understood as a ‘spider web’ has registered the in-flow of contrary ideas. Be it NSA or FBI of FB or social media generally. Critical ideas, ironic ideas: memes and counter-memes this way came. Now is beginning the attack on those who are not toeing the line of proper thinking. It starts (as we all noticed with Dear Chris) with a profound level of ‘shaming’ and ‘guilt-slinging’. But when that doesn’t work — immunity to it — it quickly shows another, coercive face and then come the claws. Under true ‘agit-prop systems’ it will eventuate in psychiatric prisons and gulags, jailing under false pretenses, or simply embroilment in lawsuits.
Perhaps you see that I am suggesting that the US has indeed been ‘infiltrated’ by those employing a Marxian praxis? I do not suggest this, I assert it. It seems to have taken 50-60 years but les fruits diaboliques are now present and visible.
Now, if I am right the question becomes: How to put these motions in reverse, and What will that entail? (I would love to critique both Guess and Ship but . . . that will have to be in another stunning essay! Suite à la prochaine!)
“The house committee on the judiciary is holding a hearing about how to best criminalize nationalism for White people. The hearing is headed up by Jerrold “Jerry” Nadler from New York City and they titled it “Hate Crimes and the Rise of White Nationalism.” A number of people including Candace Owens will testify but not a single self identified White nationalist or nationalist who is White will testify.”
[ https://youtu.be/43a7yS0zhWc ]
#2 I have my doubts that a woman of this size shaves. The logistics of it seem rather difficult without assistance.
How much you wanna bet the Gillette woman was photoshopped to look that fat?
And given Gillette’s response to the backlash on their “toxic masculinity” ad, I predict that their next deodorant ad will feature an in-shape woman on a treadmill.
That’s a beautiful beautiful ad that really captures the heart of America.
There are now several women (Tessa Holliday, for example), plus-sized models, who are that heavy. She’s not Photoshopped. They all claim to be healthy, which I find hard to believe. “Healthy at any weight” is the rallying cry of the fat acceptance movement.
RE #1: leaving aside the racial component, I’m betting one of the ones you’re talking about is the Geico ad with the obsessive-compulsive husband. I think it’s hilarious – the casting and performances are pitch perfect.
2. Back in the ’60s, our family doctor was far ahead of his time on the health problems presented by being over weight. I remember sitting in the examination room in his office waiting for him to come in looking at two photos side by side of stainless steel laboratory pans, each holding a human heart (presumably from cadavers), one of which was labeled “Normal Human Heart,” the other labeled “Human Heart in Obesity.” Not being a trained pathologist, I doubt the images were that informative, but I got the message and it’s stuck with me. Messages delivered to us in our youth have a lasting effect. Too bad so many kids are getting the message that being obese is empowering.
This struck me while reading your story: We have two hearts, side by side. Both 36 year old white men, both dead before their time.
The healthy heart belonged to a man who exercised regularly, never smoked or drank, donated his time to charities involving kids, and ate only vegan approved meat substitutes. His Yoga instructor never had a better student (for a man.) He never voted against the Democrats, was Woke, and strove to make up for the sins of whites everywhere. A paragon of virtue!
The obese heart was created by a man that rarely exercised, who single handedly improved mid western sales figures for Keebler, and ate at all hours of the day and night. His only exercise was lifting a beer or a smoke; he believed in hunting and football. He had been rumored to have voted for Trump: no evidence supporting the allegation has surfaced. The world is undoubtedly a better place with his passing, which he himself hastened with his lifestyle. He died of a heart attack brought on by clogged arteries, the result of a lifetime of excess.
The healthy heart was obtained when its former owner stepped in front of a dump truck while jogging.
The rationale behind the claim is that the legislature had adjudged 16 to be the age where persons have authority to consent to sex with other persons 16 and older. A person 16 years old is mature enough to consent in this context. I
The United States already has the highest prison population in the world. In a civilian context, sex between a teacher and a student, when both are of the age of consent, is an employment disciplinary infraction, albeit a grave infraction; it need not be a crime.
(Please note that I specify a civilian context. If a U.S. military commissioned officer has sex with an ROTC cadet at the age of consent, such an act is properly punishable by court-martial.)
1. I guess that’s a variation on “fake it till you make it.” “Fake it so until it makes it so.” Yes, I do remember the black tech geeks prevalent in many kid shows, and the two you mention. I had no problem with LeVar Burton’s Geordi LaForge, who wasn’t supposed to be so much a genius as a super-crip but then again I was 18 at the opening and 24 at the close of Star Trek: TNG and didn’t exactly have discriminating taste when it came to sci-fi. I remember Die Hard too. I was kinda annoyed that the character you mention didn’t get killed at the end of the film as his karma for being blase’ about death.
2. Woke trumps all. Actually votes trump all and money trumps all. If Gillette’s advertising models tell them they can grab a little bit more of the market share by exalting this morbidly obese woman in a bikini who doesn’t give a damn what others think of her, they are going to do it. If the models tell them otherwise, they will do otherwise. At least that’s the wise approach. They are first a business, second a business that makes razors, and anything else after that.
3. Of course they are. But hey, why are we even talking about this when Obamacare is still under fire, Americans’ health care is in danger, children are in cages, and the Supreme Court is about to tip permanently to the right and put unfettered abortion access in jeopardy?
4. (shrug) This is nothing all that new. Michael Moore already wrote sixteen years ago in “Dude, Where’s My Country,” that it was time to stop hiring white people. He also initially said that he thought Mumia killed that guy, but changed the passage in time for the paperback release after the Black Panthers said “say WHAT?”
5. Hunt illegally and get killed doing it. Logical consequences. That said, maybe we shouldn’t spread that all over the net. Karma can be a bitch, and I know if I die I don’t want others sneering and jeering at my death.
6. Rhode Island’s unions and legislators are idiots in this case.
If I get trampled by an elephant while I’m teaching ethics, you have my permission to laugh.
“Elephant? What elephant?”
How the ethics got into my pajamas, I’ll never know!
Just sitting there, all teed up, waiting…
“Elephant? What.. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAiiiiiiiiirghhhhhhhhhhh!“
Nicely played, Gamereg. Nicely played.
Talking about the elephant in the room is supposed to be metaphorical, but if you do insist on using a prop in an ethics seminar to bring the metaphor to life, perhaps it would be good to ensure that the elephant isn’t overly sensitive and doesn’t mind being talked about?
But the Jumbo reference is different: it is not metaphorical in its original incarnation, and the reference is to one’s denial that something obvious and undeniable exists. Now, if Jimmy Durante had said, “Elephant? What elephant?” and the elephant on the end of the rope he was holding trampled him, that really would be funny…
The “elephant in the room,” in contrast, is just foolishly ignored because nobody wants to deal with the problem, but nobody is claiming it’s not there.
(5) That is the reason dangerous-game hunting has always been seen as a test of ones manhood. It is dangerous. They make special rifles for it just for the unique dangers of hunting dangerous-game (double rifles). You have entered the food chain, you are not necessarily on top.
(6) There is a part of me that agrees with the teacher’s union. A public school teaching job is kind of like winning the lottery. Having that taken away permanently is actually quite a punishment. Where else can you get a job that pays that much with one of the least challenging B.A. degrees in the country? Teachers make well over average for humanities degrees. Where else are you going to get a healthcare package that good (the Michigan teacher health insurance costs over $20,000/year per person). Where else are you going to find a job where you have to have sex with kids on the job to get fired? After having that gig for a while, you are in for a huge adjustment in your next job.
(2): I’ve been doing my part to actively exorcise P&G products from my home since the ‘toxic masculinity’ ad first ran… Before i run out of things, i buy a small size of a competitors product an try it out. So far, there has been no P&G product that I couldn’t replace with something else…
Replaced Tide with Persil
Replaced Cascade with Finish
Replaced Right Guard with Dove Men+ care
(and I use a Norelco buzzer, so never used Gillette blades…)
The Lovely Lady Carolyn and I were stunned to see how much we were spending with them. Its stopped.
Ugh. Just had a chance to go over this post again, and found a half-dozen dumb typos–wrong words, double words, missed upper case. I’m sorry. I think I fixed them all.
Perhaps the era of white Twiggy girls is over but I don’t really want to buy a Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition featuring whales of all ethnicities. Gillette’s ad campaign will be predictably a flop.
1. I don’t care what the demographics on interracial marriage is. The more you show it, the more ‘people of the earth’ (you know, morons) may come to accept it. The UK — because of its imperialism, tho not an exactly good thing — is full of high-level Brits who are black, Indian, Asians, etc. Absent our peculiar history of slavery, and despite the UK’s colonialism for centuries, the Brits have it knocked and we do not. Watch some BBC programming some time. You’re overreacting on this: maybe this is positive agit/prop. God knows we need it.
2. Fat-shaming is cruel. Obesity is unhealthy. But the conundrum is the promotion of both. And who exactly, except for me, is horrified when at 5’8* my size 6 jeans feel tight? Mixed messages lead to deadly anorexia, and there should be a middle ground between the horribly obese and the size zero. It is totally possible to portray normal-sized women, not just the extremes. And by the way, if women should have all the POWER, why do they let this go on? When’s the last time anyone saw something similar regarding fat men? Those are all testerone-based. Wny aren’t women screaming about both of these issues?
3. No need for comment on the moronic Joe Biden.
4. Re Ms. Muffatt: Her idiocy is a great example of why men still run the world. In professional sports especially, this is pure nonsense.
5. Good for the elephant and the lions. Just because a bunch of Asians are stupid enough to think rhino horns are aphrodisiacs, doesn’t make the extinction of these wonderful animals anything but horrific and idiotis. (By the way, I think it’s wishful thinking re rhinos assisting in sexual prowess, but who am I to say?)
6. Teachers abusing students. This is just like Clinton/Lewinsky and priest pedophiles. It’s power, pure and simple. What in the world are they thinking in Rhode Island?
Despite my handle here on Ethics Alarms, I now live next door to Rhode Island. In answer to your question, E2, they are thinking that their clear chowder is the best, and that’s about it.
I will grant them that their version of chowder is in fact superior to the clam-flavored tomato soup they serve in New York state, but go east and north to find how provincial – and narrow – their thinking is.
More to point: Rhode Island is to California what a single-A team is to the Major Leagues. Everyone there wants it desperately. A scant handful will make it to the show.
Flo’s in Newport has the best fried clams I’ve had since I last visited Cape Cod.
Interpreting what you have said here, you are comfortable with ‘agit-prop’: “Agitprop is political propaganda, especially the communist propaganda used in Soviet Russia, that is spread to the general public through popular media such as literature, plays, pamphlets, films, and other art forms with an explicitly political message.” How appropriate, how timely!
You show appropriate contempt — this also fits in to an agit-prop type social engineering, no? — for the ‘morons’ who (I gather) must be agit-propped to accept your particular cultural and social values. With this you more or less explain, while giving evidence of, the machinations of elite classes as they look down over their subjects and seek to blend them into a mongrel-mass.
Your plan — what you imagine to be ‘ethical’ — is in fact thoroughly unethical. If you establish as a norm the blending of races, you effectively propose the destruction of the diversity that is part of the agit-prop deception. When people lose their distinguishing and characteristic features, they become bland and homogenized. Let me correct myself: the ‘people of the earth — you know, the morons’ get tossed together in your cultural salad and lose their bearings. They might then become more malleable, more easily manipulatable, in the sort of culture that you envision.
This is why the so-called American Conservative is an evil actor. You do what you do because you serve a devilish agenda. You don’t really think things through — you are so darned sure of yourself! But what you contribute to are destructive processes. But at least you say honestly what you are up to and where what values are.
The UK is now in the early stages of being ‘occupied’ and ‘overrun’ by Muslims and their pernicious, vile religion. The tenets of their religion are religiously and adamantly opposed to British values, to Occidental values, and when they gain more majority power, they will manifest their power by attacking everything that (I might almost believe) you hold dear. And you? What have you to say about this? Except to refer to TeeVee programs as ‘evidence’ of the rightness of your agit-prop cause.
The Brits do not ‘have it knocked’. Many complain that Britain shows itself as a totalitarianism-lite that is increasing every day. Jailings. Harrassment. Intimidation. It is very extensive. Consider the case of Jayda Fransen who has been jailed for 9 months, and will likely soon return to jail, for opposing encroaching Islamization, take-over of neighborhoods, grooming gangs, and more. What, will you tell here she should watch more British TeeVee? Just lie down and accept the destruction of her country at the hands of people who forward the destructive social policies?
For Heaven’s sake E2 put a little more thought into this and examine what you are saying.
From a NYTs article (today):
This is, as the saying goes, the mere ‘tip of the iceberg’. The flow of information, the flow of the transmission of opinion and idea, must be made controllable. The MSM has lost a great deal of its cultural power and position because the necessity of it has been undermined by ‘independent news producers’. Because MSM are business interests, they have to combat those who gain market share. It is inevitable. It is a ‘business decision’. So, they are now teaming up together and figuring out how this will be enacted.
Obviously, they will begin to employ the most ‘successful’ models: Communist China would be a good place to start. And tech companies have been, already, helping them to design their social monitoring and Internet communication police-force.
Christchurch has become the stated ‘reason’ they are doing this. They have to strike out against the people who are thinking in the terms expressed by the man who carried it out. It will be a concerted effort. Recently, Jared Taylor the most benign and peaceful essayist of European rights and identity was banned from Europe. Martin Sellner (Austrian) has been banned from visiting the US. There have been hundreds of incidents that are not reported on. Just yesterday the Wikipedia page of E. Michael Jones was deleted. First it was deleted, and now a search reveals that there is no one by that name to connect to. It is somewhat similar to the Soviet erasure of persons, isn’t it? You fall out of favor and you are . . . erased. (I imagine that eventually the page will return but this shows that the struggle to control information, opinion and idea that are threatening is on-going).
So, your reference to ‘agit-prop’ was perfectly apt. And it will be programmed into AI technological tools. But please remember that the Soviet methods were ultimately brutal and ‘blunt’. Today, people like you will be needed more and more because the Cultural Project is Maoist not Stalinist. They need a more sophisticated university-educated apologist who defends the use of social engineering machinations to protect the general order of things.
A housewife in Connecticut with the TeeVee tuned to British sit-coms will serve quite well! 🙂
You are ‘part of the problem’ and no part of its solution. Keep up the good work.
Re: 2. There really should be an in-between size 00 and the Gillette ad. I don’t buy a size 0 actress as a superhero stomping bad guy butt. A size 12 isn’t obese. I run 3-5 miles 3 times a week and still hover between 12 and 14. I much prefer the Dove ads that showed weight, height, and color diversity. People aren’t stamped out with a cookie cutter. It’s okay to say “be healthier” without fat shaming.
Oy; it was only a matter of time; the…er…elephant in the…um…over-sized human discussion?
Are Climate Change And Obesity lLinked
“[We’re]committed to representing beautiful women of all shapes, sizes, and skin types because ALL types of beautiful skin deserve to be shown. We love Anna because she lives out loud and loves her skin no matter how the “rules” say she should display” says Gillette.
Liars. They don’t think she’s beautiful. They just want fat, undesirable women to buy their crap, because there are so many of them out there now, and they obviously use a lot more razor per capita.
I don’t understand why modern women (and it’s almost exclusively women) have this need to be told they are ALL physically “beautiful.” Correction, I DO understand it, but it’s stupid. If everyone is beautiful, no one is. There’s nothing wrong with being the sort of reasonable, level-headed person your church lady great-grandmother was and saying, “I know I’m not very beautiful, but I’m okay with that because I have many other good qualities.” Of course, the part about other good qualities would have to be true.
Corporations and ads run the world now, and that’s an underrated reason why any negative feedback whatsoever by anyone is considered “cruel,” even if it’s just a stone cold fact stated without malice. Corporations don’t criticize you or challenge you; they just tell you you’re the best and ask for your money. Politicians wouldn’t dare say that modern voters are lazy, selfish, and uninformed, because they need your lazy, selfish, uninformed vote. Friends can’t hold you accountable for being a loud, obnoxious slob because you can just go on the internet and find yourself some loud, obnoxious slob friends to surround yourself with. Teachers wouldn’t dare say a negative word about their students poor diet, habits, or hygiene for fear of being accused of “bullying” and getting bad scores on ratemyteachers.com. Parents, assuming you have both of them, and assuming they care about your upbringing, might spend 10 minutes of quality time with you each day…the equivalent of a couple of ad breaks, and if the Elizabeth Warrens of the world have their way, the age at which you are carted away from Mom and Dad to spend the day with a disinterested government hireling will be about 3.
#2-Dickinson College removes Why Not Take The Stairs If You Are Physically Able? signs…Fat Shaming to blame.
5. Jack, is the elephant perchance an Ethics Hero? Or just morally lucky?
Cross-species rescuer? Easy Ethics Hero.