Ethics Alarms reader and frequent commenter Michael J. Ejercito reports that he tried to post this morning’s warm-up on the U.S. politics Reddit and got the above response.
Your Ethics Alarms Ethics Quiz of the Day is…
What in this post was not “safe, civil, or true to their purpose”?
I honestly have no idea. What’s going on here?
It appears to me that as Twitter has come out as a direct censor of any assertive commentary that offends “the resistance,” other social media is becoming emboldened to engage in outright censorship. But maybe that’s not it. Could it be that appending the adjectives “dumb” and “stupid” to conduct and statements that are per se idiotic is “uncivil” in blog commentary of social media? If so, how do you diagnose and expose dumb and stupid statements and conduct. I guess I could be like Jonathan Turley and just say everything that is aimed at the gullible, ignorant and mouth breathing is “troubling.”
Hell, this ticks me off. It’s bad enough that Facebook regards every post here as a violation of its community standards without ever explaining why (though I think it’s because I dared to post a fair and thoughtful defense of Fred Astaire’s use of black makeup in “Top Hat”). Let’s see: which item in the warm-up represents an unfair, unsafe, or uncivil application of the terms “dumb” or “stupid”:
Tate MacRae’s hit song, which is nothing but a more prosaic and less moving version of Sondheim’s great “Losing My Mind”?
#1, about the widespread discussion of the spike in virus cases that omit the protests as a prominent cause?
#2, about MSNBC elevating a vile incompetent to anchor status?
#3. Is it referring to the GOP as “the stupid party,” which has been a common and often quoted insult for many years, if not decades? (I find this especially unlikely.)
#4.( Oops! I just realized I had two #3s. Better fix that…done.) Is it the implication, this one with a brief parody of a song lyric, that De Blasio grafitti tactic is both uncivil and dumb?
#5. Is it the statement that public figures making public statements, especially in Minnesota, that the man (over-) charged with murder in the death of George Floyd did murder him (thus poisoning any potential jury pool and tainting the prospect of that “justice” upon which future “peace” rests, and risking future riots when Chauvin isn’t convicted) is incredibly stupid? Because, you know, it is….
#6. Is it the implication that a public figure who cries wolf about a “noose” based on hearsay information, causes his organization to grovel in white guilt, forces the FBI to spend–what, thousands? Hundreds of thousands?—to have the claim investigated only to learn that there is no way the noose, which wasn’t a noose, was directed at him as a black man, and yet still insists it was a noose because he doesn’t have the integrity to admit he was wrong isn’t the brightest bulb on the tree?
Or is the post unsafe and uncivil because, by purest chance because I don’t race-check people or topics, 5 out of the 6 items involved Black Lives Matter or criticism of black individuals, to wit Joy Reid, Don Lemon, and Bubba Wallace? Wait, is the Minneapolis police commissioner black? Checking…yup, he is. I had no idea, and my opinion of his statement wouldn’t change if he were Mongolian.
I guess that means I’m a racist.