Goodyear’s “No Tolerance” Policy Is Cowardly, Unethical, And Wrong, And The President’s Response Was Worse.

An angry employee took that photo of a slide used in a diversity training  program.  Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company’s has a “zero-tolerance policy”,” and like almost all such policies, the employee or committee charged with developing it lacked the wisdom, perspective, legal guidance, common sense, and ethics skills to do it competently.  The employee says the obviously incompetent slide above was presented at the Topeka plant by an area manager and says the slide came from Goodyear’s corporate office out of Akron, Ohio.

“If someone wants to wear a BLM shirt in here, then cool. I’m not going to get offended about it. But at the same time, if someone’s not going to be able to wear something that is politically based, even in the farthest stretch of the imagination, that’s discriminatory,” said the whistle-blower. “If we’re talking about equality, then it needs to be equality. If not, it’s discrimination.”

Bingo. A lawyer could hardly do better. Here’s one, Professor Turley, regarding the slide:

I get the policy on barring “forms of advocacy” and businesses have the right to impose limitations…However, the list does not seem to follow a needed bright-line rule to avoid the appearance of bias. The inclusion of Black Lives Matter but not Blue Lives Matter raises the most obvious concern over a preference for political viewpoints. There are some people who support the call that Black Lives Matter but do not support the organization. Others support both the Black Lives Matter as well as Blue Lives Matter.  I understand the view of many people that we need to focus on BLM to address problems of racial justice in our system.  But it is a viewpoint preference.

…Goodyear has a right to limiting viewpoints expressed in their stores. For example, a clothing store may want to espouse environmental causes. In taking such an approach, there is an obvious risk of boycotts and backlash but I do not believe that there is a legal requirement to evenly apply such rules in a private space. 

…In this dispute, Goodyear is allowing some advocacy while barring other forms of advocacy. However, this is a private space (albeit open to the public). The first amendment applies to government limitations on free speech. Thus, Goodyear is likely to face economic and political consequences rather than legal consequences for its policy. 

That’s the legal perspective. Here’s the ethics perspective: it is unethical for a company to tell employees that some political or social advocacy in the workplace is “acceptable” and other points of view are unacceptable. The employee was right. It’s discrimination and viewpoint bias, and unfair, incompetent and irresponsible, for Goodyear to say, “If you broadcast these opinions, yay for you, but if you have a different opinion, it’s no- tolerance.” It’s especially unethical for Goodyear to be taking sides that advocate the demonization of police, or that oppose the President of the United States. MAGA’s not tolerated, but Biden/Harris T-shirts are fine? Wrong. Stupid and wrong, as Goodyear’s “clarification” made clear:

“Goodyear is committed to fostering an inclusive and respectful workplace where all of our associates can do their best in a spirit of teamwork. As part of this commitment, we do allow our associates to express their support on racial injustice and other equity issues but ask that they refrain from workplace expressions, verbal or otherwise, in support of political campaigning for any candidate or political party as well as other similar forms of advocacy that fall outside the scope of equity issues.”

As I said: stupid. Incompetent. An organization that calls all whites racist, vilifies the nation’s Founders and advocates de-funding the police is not for “equity,” nor does openly promoting such a group send a message of “inclusiveness.” A policy that has “no tolerance” for expressions of support for one candidate but leaves the door open for support of his adversary is not engaging in “equity.”

Those responsible for that policy should be punished, demoted, or fired.

What’s going on here? I’m pretty sure it isn’t that Goodyear really wants to advocate for Black Lives Matter or oppose President Trump’s re-election. What’s going on is that Goodyear’s management is trying to minimize customer backlash and employee controversy by virtue-signaling , just like so many other gutless and jelly-spined corporations that have been intimidated into promoting the racist, violent, dishonest, hate-mongering and Marxist organization with the deceptively cuddly name.

Goodyear chose…poorly.

Then, as he often does, President Trump chose even more poorly. He tweeted,

It is unethical, and, not that I want to give coup-minded Democrats ideas, a serious abuse of power for the President of the United States to advocate a boycott against any corporation or organization. Goodyear’s stock dropped after Trump’s tweet. He is right that the Left has been playing the boycott “game,” and in doing so it has been playing with fire. That should not suggest that playing with more fire is smart or reasonable. Trump has never comprehended that “tit for tat” is unethical; his version of the Golden Rule is “Do unto others what they do unto you, but harder” Advocating boycotts is coercive and anti-democratic, and the President, more than anyone, must not do it. Ever. The tactic is so ripe for abuse that it gives POTUS the power to extort any company that displeases him.

Goodyear quickly blathered out…something:

Huminahuminhumina. That was double talk. Why was the slide being used at all? It had a Goodyear logo. If Goodyear supports the police, why is it tacitly endorsing an anti-police movement and opposing a pro-police slogan? If political campaigning of “any kind” is prohibited, why are only supporters of the President listed on the “bad side” of the chart?

Goodyear is lying. This is, once again, Rationalization #64, “It isn’t what it is.” I’m glad the company is embarrassed and that its incompetence and lack of principles have been exposed. I’m glad that Goodyear’s stock fell in value. However, the ends don’t justify the means.

The President should not have been involved.

67 thoughts on “Goodyear’s “No Tolerance” Policy Is Cowardly, Unethical, And Wrong, And The President’s Response Was Worse.

  1. “The visual in question was not created or distributed by Goodyear corporate, nor was it part of a diversity training class.”

    Okay, now we know what you say it *wasn’t*. What, then, was it, who created it, and how did your own employee get the impression that it was corporate policy? “This isn’t what it looks like!” is a funny line when Jack and Chrissy get caught in an awkward position by Mr. Furley, but if you’re going to use it in real life, you’re going to need to explain a bit more.

    The incompetence runs deep and wide at Goodyear’s PR department, further evidenced by the use of the word “upmost” when they mean “utmost”…

    I doubt there will be much lasting fallout from this, but I imagine we’ll be seeing fewer Goodyear tires on police cruisers in the future…

  2. I disagree on your assessment of Trump’s response.
    Nobody should be a party to their own immolation. Nobody should be made to lend support to their destruction whether through their own silence in the name of ethics. In fact, it is unethical and a disservice to yourself to not fight for and defend yourself.

    • How’s the weather in St. Petersberg?

      It’s a good example of what Putin is pushing though and how Trump lives his life. A world of deliberate ignorance, false equivalency, and pretending that showing your every weakness a demonstration of strength.

      Tolerable, much less acceptable behavior depends on who you are and what position in life you hold. Lashing out at every perceived slight and attacking twice as hard at anyone who offers criticism or insult might be understandable in a small child though you would expect a parent to step and explain the rubber and glue principal or send the child to bed without supper depending on the circumstances. In a grown man such things are cause for pity and eye-rolling in the best circumstances escalating into a serious problem such as the anti-maskers who yell in people’s faces and deliberately cough on other people all the way up to road rage and domestic violence. Thus what you describe as “lend[ing] support to their destruction” serves to bring more derision and the occasional criminal charge. This is toxic behavior and not to be tolerated from adults in a civil society.

      For a president–or anyone in a position of public trust–it’s worse. If you shame yourself only you bear the consequences. If you harm a person, you’ve harmed a person and again bear consequences. When you hold an office you damage–you shame–an entire institution and when you do harm it is far-reaching. Should I choose to harm Goodyear or Amazon or an inane Russian troll bot I have only my voice and my hands to use. A president has the mechanisms of the state, the petty power–if one is inclined to abuse it and why not do so rather than participate in your own destruction right?–to deny contracts, to dismantle mail sorting machines, to deny disaster relief, to order that those who act against you face no consequences.

      What you propose is the exact opposite of Kant’s categorical imperative, abandoning duty for personal inclination or as people who explain the principle are want to say, what if everyone did it? Does lashing out at every slight create a more polite society or does it just show everyone what button they can push to get a reaction? Bringing this to the level of public officials, To act as the pettiest of petty dictators and then to have the favor returned when the pendulum swings.

      That is what we avoid in the name of ethics. We put our responsibilities to people and the country over self and ego.

      Really the smallest bit of social interaction in school should’ve taught you this lesson if somehow your parents failed to impart it.

      • That quite a comment valkygrrl.

        This is really not intended to be a deflection or a long rationalization just a piece of reality that I’d like others to think about.

        I think I detect some double standards. An example; “a world of deliberate ignorance, false equivalency, and pretending that showing your every weakness a demonstration of strength”; this has a very familiar ring to it, it seems to be what’s been spewing forth from the political left for he last 10+ years and especially since November 2016. Another example, “lashing out at every perceived slight…”, this is exactly what the political left has been doing since November 2016, in my opinion the impeachment proceedings fit nicely into that perceived slight niche plus what’s happening in our streets fits into that niche too.

        Now I’m not saying that some of this doesn’t apply to President Trump but some of it may depend on your personal point of view, but it really shouldn’t. The President punching down is perceived as unpresidential but from what I’ve gathered over the last few years that’s exactly why a lot of people supported Trump – a dramatic change from politics as usual. What I do think is pretty clear is that President Trump is not being “Presidential” and project the Mr. Nice Guy persona, he’s using some of the same hyperbolic rhetorical tactics against the political left that they are using against him and the hypocritical political left really HATES that. Since the President of the United States is “supposed” to be beyond these kind of rhetorical revenge tactics and just ignore all the constant hateful partisan attacks against him, things like this “slight” regarding MAGA logos at Goodyear makes the heads of the political left explode. I’m just so damn tired of all the double standards and hypocrisy in politics these days, it’s a constant problem.

        Lastly.

        Everyone, I do mean everyone, needs to think about what happens when you back your opposition into a corner with unethical and immoral tactics and there’s absolutely no place for that opposition to go, that opposition will eventually lash out with an equal or overwhelming opposing force to break free.

        The political left has been backing society as a whole and the current occupant of the Oval Office into a corner and it’s not too hard to predict that there will eventually be an equal or overwhelming opposing force applied to break free of what’s happening. I suppose the political left sees themselves as being backed into a corner too. If our society continues down its current path, it’s not going to end well.

        Sorry if I rambled a little bit, please just think about it.

        • Leave a tiger, especially a wounded one, no way out, challenge a dragon in his lair, or back a rat into a corner, and expect any of these creatures to fight to the end.

        • “Everyone, I do mean everyone, needs to think about what happens when you back your opposition into a corner with unethical and immoral tactics and there’s absolutely no place for that opposition to go, that opposition will eventually lash out with an equal or overwhelming opposing force to break free.

          “The political left has been backing society as a whole and the current occupant of the Oval Office into a corner and it’s not too hard to predict that there will eventually be an equal or overwhelming opposing force applied to break free of what’s happening. I suppose the political left sees themselves as being backed into a corner too. If our society continues down its current path, it’s not going to end well.”

          Interesting way of putting it. And when you have two very different value-structures — for the sake of a clear polarity let me suggest one as Marxist Ideology and the other as Orthodox Christianity — and when the essential conflicts derive from these necessary differences, you will eventually come to a point where there is open civil conflict. Maybe that will settle into a sort of entente, with conflictive undercurrents, or a strategic entente where one waits for a more favorable moment to establish one’s vision.

          Now, in this polarity there is another pole to consider: the pole that you hold and stand in. You are neither fish nor fowl in this sense. Neither an activist Marxist nor a dedicated Christian. And what I mean is that a ‘trained Marxist’ and a ‘dedicated Christian’ both have positions that they will die to defend. But the pole you represent is value-less (in relation to these categories).

          The reason I make this reference is because the *you* that is referenced here is a huge part of the dynamic. On one pole you have Marxian activism of one sort or other, and on the other you have Christian activists who are trying to hold to the somewhat tattered ethical and moral structure their religious affiliation demands of them.

          You allude to something also interesting with “The political left has been backing society as a whole and the current occupant of the Oval Office into a corner and it’s not too hard to predict that there will eventually be an equal or overwhelming opposing force applied to break free of what’s happening”. It is interesting, to me, because I have made it a point to study the radical right in America. Whether you understand it or not, or whether you refuse to see it or not, one of the backdrops to Donald Trump is a nativist population with very very different views about what should be and indeed “what America is”.

          They have already been ‘backed into a corner’. They have long ago defined a position of militancy. They have already armed themselves. What I suggest is that it is really interesting, if one can bear it, to look into their ideological positions. Because at the base of it is various forms of Christian Identity.

          It is not completely right to say ‘the political left’ (is backing Trump into a corner). Trump in this sense is a screen onto which different people project different things. Does Trump know what he is? I am not at all sure that he does. Trump is a screen for what others see, hope for, desire. It is a pretty confused mass of projected things.

          But in regard to another of your points, Jordan Peterson pointed out that the Left is wise not to push too hard. Because the progressive left in America is a fractured whole in many ways. As long as there is a clear and defined opposition they might hold together in unity. But the faction that could far more easily be organized in opposition to them is the white-Europeans of America. I mean just imagine if it were a feature of the general white demographic will to accept none of any of this revolutionary and semi-revolutionary nonsense. If they would accept NO PART of having their cities burned, their statues toppled, their saints denigrated, and their ‘whiteness’ vilified. Just imagine!

          From one day to the next all of this would stop. That is to say, they would reclaim their political and personal power and they would become active in regaining their *supermajority status* so to determine their own affairs.

          But if you can succeed in slowly bringing about s demographic, social, existential and cultural death, and if those being killed do not notice what is being done to them, and even participate in it, ideologically, well . . .

          Oh, right, that is what I was getting at: You wind up with you! And there are millions of yous.

          • “But if you can succeed in slowly bringing about s demographic, social, existential and cultural death, and if those being killed do not notice what is being done to them, and even participate in it, ideologically, well . . .”

            This seems to be territory through which many people I know are now passing, with realization slowly dawning on them as they metaphorically ask, “where are we headed, and why are we in this handbasket?” My own grandchildren are very young, but many of my friends have grandchildren in their late teens and into their twenties. Almost daily I hear from one or more of these grandparents who are astonished at the political, social and cultural garbage their grandkids have begun to espouse. These friends recognize from these expressions that it could easily be their grandkids taking part in the Antifa / BLM “peaceful protests” in Seattle, Portland or Minneapolis. They tell me that their grandkids don’t hesitate to lecture them on “privilege,” “systemic racism,” and other fictions of the left. I know that many of them are questioning their own children, the parents of these budding socialists, about “where in the hell” these kids learned such nonsense. I detect much willingness on the grandparent’s part, at least on an intellectual level, to resist where this is heading, but also a realization that a “gray resistance” of older Americans is not likely to become effective. I take hope from the fact that my daughter and her husband, and many of their friends in their late twenties and thirties, reject the leftist dogma and embrace constitutionalist political viewpoints. They are also homeschooling their children in most cases.
            Whether armed civil conflict will result in the near term is still unclear to me. Actually, I am surprised daily that I don’t hear a news story about some rioters being perforated by someone they accost on the street or attempt to pull from a vehicle. Once that balloon goes up, all bets are off, particularly in the larger cities. There really are two Americas; small town / rural America and big-city America. I am so glad I reside in the former and avoid the latter.

            Regarding “Christian activists who are trying to hold to the somewhat tattered ethical and moral structure their religious affiliation demands of them”: I find it especially puzzling how some church denominations or factions thereof have strayed so far from what is taught in the Bible, yet claim to still be Christian. They prefer a “cafeteria style” faith where you can selectively choose or dismiss the various aspects of God’s teachings according to what “feels good.” All this in an apparent effort to broaden their appeal. Their faith often seems to me to be so watered down that they really don’t stand for anything. My own church takes a fairly inflexible position on doctrine. We prefer the liberation of unchanging authority to the endless task of deciding what the tyrannical popular culture tells us we should believe in today. Thus we make our stand.

            • Interesting comments and observations.

              It seems that 2 very different nations now exist together. I wonder how they can share a constitution? A constitution functions for a people basically in agreement in fundamental areas. But when people are not in agreement, in a sense they serve different *constitutions*.

              I just can’t visualize where all this is going. Can it ‘get better’? Can new agreements be forged?

      • What is interesting — from where I sit anyway — is the degree to which dear Valkygrrl has no profound understanding of what is going on in the country. St Paul spoke of seeing things ‘through dark glass’ and I would borrow the metaphor and adapt it to our present. We seem to see things through obscuring lenses.

        Jack wrote: “An organization that calls all whites racist, vilifies the nation’s Founders and advocates de-funding the police is not for “equity,” nor does openly promoting such a group send a message of “inclusiveness.” A policy that has “no tolerance” for expressions of support for one candidate but leaves the door open for support of his adversary is not engaging in “equity.”

        This is, again, extremely superficial looking, not seeing. The purpose of the engineering of the demographic shift in America (1965 European-Americans 90% / today European Americans at 60-65% and declining rapidly) is to foment the conditions of radical cultural shift which, to all appearances, seems to be socialistic/communistic. The purpose of the dilution is to a) undermine one social structure and b) introduce the conflict that inevitably occurs when unrelated and divergent people are thrown together in ‘multi-culturalism projects’.

        What Goodyear is doing is carrying forward a larger program for the New America. If you watched the Democratic Convention and the pieces on Kamala Harris last night you will know what this is about. This has come about through socialistic and communistic *infiltration*. It has happened over decades. It is culminating in what you see going on all around you. And you are powerless because you cannot see.

        If you can internalize that, and go to work intellectually on that, now that would be something!

        Trump is the utterly imperfect vehicle for all of this! And yet he is what has been called forth from out of history to respond to, to deal with, to counter in some senses, what had been set in motion. Trump is a psychic phenomenon for America. He is part of America’s psychic process. It is very psychological.

        See him in these Hegelian terms! He represents the *distorted American* who wakes up. But the waking up is completely distorted. Trump is exactly what *you* need. He is a part of you. In a sense he is related to America’s bizarre and twisted psyche.

        • I found these segments interesting for a few reasons.

          One is the smooth, crafted Maoist propaganda aspect, a gorgeous propaganda production crafted by experts, and the other has to do with showing, demonstrating, the New America which is now being defined by an emerging, activist demographic.

          You might imagine that I am a ‘racist’ or something — this has been assumed from the start and that word will be applied to anyone who offers any sort of opposition or counter-idea into the mix — but this is not quite how I define myself or my view. True indeed this demographic route should have been avoided — so to keep America being America. But I do not condemn, necessarily, that black & brown America are rising up to take political power and to determine affairs going forward. It makes great sense. It was predicted looooooonnnggggg ago by Lothrop Stoddard in The Rising Tide of Color.

          It is, I would say, an inevitable result of Europe’s colonial projects: the in-flow and the back-flow of the conquered and the *civilized* who define in this sense a *wound* (what was done to them) but also, and more simply, that they have been given the opportunity to take advantage of (exploit) those categories that Europe itself defined: inclusion, fairness, egalitarianism. This is what is now occurring in America: it seems just a fact: the POC are rising up in demographic and democratic power to take what is theirs to take. And it is true that those smiles are authentic. Their project indeed makes them happy. One of the greatest *pleasures* in life is when what opposes one abates. When the doors swing open and you no longer feel held back. When you can advance freely. It is a delicious moment.

          It does not matter, at least in the sense of the long run, that Joe & Kamala will not have their day. Joe and in a very real sense the *class* he represents — the older class of European Americans who served these processes of deliberately shifting America’s demography — will be dead and gone in a few, short years. And a new demographic — vital, younger, more energetic — will eventually take the reins of power.

          Kamala Harris’s day will come.

          Now it has to be said, because it is true, that the America we know will begin to divide. That much is happening now, today. It is being planned. I do not mean by government or by business. What history has in store for America is a really interesting topic.

      • Valkygrrl said:
        It’s a good example of what Putin is pushing though and how Trump lives his life.

        What’s Putin got to do with it? I have no objection to the rest of the paragraph, but why this debunked absurd insinuation? Must Putin always be included when rejecting Trump’s stupid actions? Are there no other unethical dictators to mention?

        Should I choose to harm Goodyear or Amazon or an inane Russian troll bot I have only my voice and my hands to use.

        Am I sensing a theme here? Is this something that the Left just can’t let go of, or is it just a few of you, so inundated and convinced by the media and Democrat conspiracy regarding Russia and 2016 that it must always be considered for inclusion? Talking points much?

        A president has the mechanisms of the state, the petty power–if one is inclined to abuse it and why not do so rather than participate in your own destruction right?–to deny contracts, to dismantle mail sorting machines, to deny disaster relief, to order that those who act against you face no consequences.

        I don’t think this qualifies as a “petty power.” In fact it is the abuse of vast and almost unchallengeable power, which makes it much worse.

        Your comment was strong but for the Russian conspiracy crap, and it makes me wonder if you’re not engaging in exactly the same type of behavior as Trump. Yes, of course it isn’t the same thing — you are relatively powerless like the rest of us. But is it ethical?

        Signs point to “No.”

        • The power is vast, it’s the use that’s petty. I apologize if I was unclear. One of the problems with using a first draft. There are small errors, another good reason for rejecting COTD.

          Completely my own bad.

          At least if I write a guest post, I take some time between writing and revision and let a second pair of eyes see it before it gets posted.

          But is it ethical?

          Probably not, but if I’m unethical, I’m unethical, I suffer the consequences. When Trump’s unethical we all suffer the consequences eventually.

  3. I saw this a couple of days ago on Turley’s site and posted this early in the afternoon…

    I absolutely HATE the way President Trump punches down like this from the Oval Office, it’s unpresidential! This is where his unethical loose cannon mouth gets him into trouble. Calling for a boycott from the office of the President of the United States is inappropriate.

    That said…

    What Goodyear is doing is straight up bigotry and they are in a position of power being the employer that makes this a prejudicial abuse of power, it’s in-your-face suppression of certain kinds of thinking and chills free speech, it’s unethical and immoral! If they are going to ban some then they need to ban ALL of it or they will suffer the whatever consequences come their way for their choices. If some, or all, consumers choose to boycott Goodyear because of this obvious abuse of power I have absolutely no problem with that; this is the kind of moral bankruptcy that consumers should consider when choosing who they purchase from.

    President Trump, shut the hell up and stop punching down; let the consumers make their own choices and speak with their dollars in the manner in which they choose.

    • The problem is that if Trump had NOT tweeted about it, we wouldn’t know about it. The press would have buried it. The only way Trump can get incidents like this into the light is to cause a stir. Not a great situation, but it is what it is. ;’)

      • Michael R. wrote, “The problem is that if Trump had NOT tweeted about it, we wouldn’t know about it. The press would have buried it. The only way Trump can get incidents like this into the light is to cause a stir. Not a great situation, but it is what it is.”

        There would be nothing wrong with President Trump telling the public about an issue, the problem is when the President of the United States calls for a public boycott it’s punching down hard!. There is a HUGE difference in these two things.

        • That is my point, though. If he just pointed it out, it would go no where. There would be no press coverage of it. We are only having a conversation about it because he did something outrageous. During last night’s speech by Obama, Trump tweeted that Obama spied on his campaign and waited a long time to endorse Joe Biden. The press deemed both of those demonstrable facts as lies and misleading,then moved on, no discussion. If Trump had just complained about this incident, the press would have claimed he was lying and that would be the end of it. Only by allowing the press to complain about him does anything get covered.

          • Michael R. wrote, “That is my point, though. If he just pointed it out, it would go no where. There would be no press coverage of it. We are only having a conversation about it because he did something outrageous. During last night’s speech by Obama, Trump tweeted that Obama spied on his campaign and waited a long time to endorse Joe Biden. The press deemed both of those demonstrable facts as lies and misleading,then moved on, no discussion. If Trump had just complained about this incident, the press would have claimed he was lying and that would be the end of it. Only by allowing the press to complain about him does anything get covered.”

            I understand what you’re saying but isn’t that a bit of the ends justifies the means or consequentialism?

            • When someone is acting unethically towards you, what should you do? What if there is no actual, ethical recourse for you because EVERYONE around you is acting unethically? Do you just accept it or do you fight back anyway? The press and the DNC are pushing a murderous agenda. Didn’t Andrew Cuomo kill 4x+ as many New Yorkers as the 9/11 terrorists? How many lives have been lost and businesses destroyed by their actions in the recent ‘peaceful protests’? What about their calls for perpetual lockdowns and states of emergency? Gangs of people are setting up roadblocks to harass and attack people. They are intimidating any local official that dares oppose them. They are demanding people turn over their houses. They are teaching elementary school children that all white people are racist. The press’ 1619 project teaches that this country is ONLY about slavery and uniquely so. What happens if their Marxist agenda succeeds? Is it ethical to allow those voices to be the only ones heard? When the press refuses to cover the President’s events and his campaign ads get banned, what is he supposed to do? When the press promotes lies as the truth and the truth as lies, what should he do? Tweeting outrageous things is not ethical, but neither is remaining silent. There seems to be almost no outlet for the President to speak to the people without the press editing it, distorting it, or selectively reporting it. HIs opponents are pulling people from their truck and beating them unconscious, burning people alive in buildings, ordering the FBI to continue following the orders of the previous president after the new president takes office, trying to overturn an election, and intentionally killing tens of thousands of elderly patients in nursing homes. He needs to be able to expose this and get his side of the story out. I view his Tweets as coded messages, like ‘Animal Farm”, which also would be unethical in this context.

              Give me an example of another way Trump can get his message out that is ethical and would work. “Maybe he could hold rallies?”- the Democratic city leaders have shut that down over Coronavirus fears. “Maybe he could hold a press conference” – that has to go through the editing of his enemies. “Maybe he could put a video on Facebook” only for it to be taken down because it violates ‘community guidelines’. Even his Twitter feed, that the Supreme Court rules was a public forum and forbade Trump from banning people (or editing things, I believe) is subjected to ‘fact checks’ by random Twitter employees. It is not acceptable that Trump is not allowed to get his message out to the American people without being deleted or modified by his opponents. If he has to use code, subterfuge, and social engineering tricks to do it, that says a lot about his opponents, doesn’t it? I wish he didn’t do this, but I can’t find another way.

              My karate instructor told me that his master almost refused to teach him because he was a pacifist. His instructor said “Pacifism is just an excuse cowards use to refuse to get involved”.

              • Michael R wrote, “My karate instructor told me that his master almost refused to teach him because he was a pacifist. His instructor said “Pacifism is just an excuse cowards use to refuse to get involved”.”

                If your karate instructor had any integrity he/she would have also forcefully stated that you make every effort to pick your battles wisely. As a karate student, or any student of self defense and fighting discipline, if you use what the instructor is teaching you to go out and pick fights and bully defenseless people, there will be consequences. I’ve personally witnessed what those kind of consequences can be for other students that have abused their training in aikido and taekwondo classes, plus in military units.

                Punching down, as the President did with the call for a boycott, may not be illegal and the company might actually deserve some public retribution for their actions but what the President did was abuse in a similar way that a student of karate starts bullying the weak and untrained, there is no fighting back plus it sullies the Office of the President. The President really needs to stop punching down and find a different manner to vent his frustration.

                Pick battles wisely and don’t be a damn bully to those that have no defense against you.

      • Jack wrote, “I gave up reading the professor’s comments sections because he doesn’t moderate them, or didn’t. maybe I should try again.”

        Naaaa, there is a shit load of trolls running wild and free in the threads. I just do my thing and call a troll a troll when it’s appropriate.

  4. I agree with your post 100%. Let’s get that out of the way. But I’d like to add something.

    Jack wrote:

    Goodyear is lying. This is, once again, Rationalization #64, “It isn’t what it is.” I’m glad the company is embarrassed and that its incompetence and lack of principles have been exposed. I’m glad that Goodyear’s stock fell in value. However, the ends don’t justify the means.

    No, they don’t, but…

    One of the unintended benefits of the President’s unethical, paper-thin skin is that this episode will illustrate, in no uncertain terms, that corporate virtue-signaling is not cost-free. The one profound good that can come of this affair, primarily because of the President’s failings, is that corporations may begin to get the message that they would be better off staying out of social issue debates rather than picking sides.

    If that happens, this entire mess will have been a net positive. Moral luck, but I can live with that.

  5. If there’s one thing bullies hate, it’s having their own tactics used against them. I’ve run into it more than a few times in my profession. Leaving aside obvious craziness like threats of violence, somehow it’s always the most obnoxious attorneys, the ones who make all kinds of improper objections in depositions or at trial to break your flow, who interrupt you during oral argument to throw you off, who file motions to dismiss your complaint or suppress your answer on the slightest of issues, who file motions for sanctions which they know they won’t get, and who try to intimidate you by yelling or deliberately mispronounce your name to get you angry, who act all butthurt and indignant when you use the same tactics against them. It’s the most obnoxious activists, who yank down statues, who engage in profanity-laced tirades, etc., who would be horrified and cry racist, white supremacist, etc., if someone yanked down a statue of MLK or engaged in a profanity-laced tirade against one of their protected groups, or tried a field goal on one of their people’s heads like the guy in Portland did.

    Is it right? Most definitely not. Is it effective? Yes. My area is heavily Italian-American and dotted with Columbus statues, and the word is out that a few pillars of the community whose names end in vowels would view leaving them alone very favorably (obviously a threat, veiled by a smile). The president shouldn’t do what he is doing, but he shouldn’t HAVE to do what he’s doing. It shouldn’t even come to his mind. It also shouldn’t come to most company’s minds that they need to take sides in the culture wars, leave alone that they can only take ONE side. The business of business is business, not being enablers, financiers, and cheerleaders for wokeness. However, they have done so. Those of us who are not woke have basically 2 choices. They are the same choices Judge Bork, may he rest in peace, and now-Justice Kavanaugh faced. It’s either maintain a dignified silence and hope John 8:32 will prove out, which Judge Bork did, or fight, like Justice Kavanaugh did. You can see the results for yourself.

    It’s not supposed to come to this. However, it also wasn’t supposed to come to Pearl Harbor, the assault on Liege, or a litany of other historical tipping points. The points came anyway, whether we wanted them to or not. When they did, it was time to either shrink, or fight. At this point it’s shrink or fight. The president is deciding to fight, and it’s time for those of us who wear badges, who stand to the right of the center, even a little, and who are something other than brown or black and not ashamed of it, to fight back.

      • I am Calabrese, not Sicilian, but the same general idea applies (go ahead, call me testa dura, it’s nothing I haven’t heard before). Way back when the authorities’ presence was very weak in the farmlands, hamlets, and villages. As a result we came to distrust authority and it became expected that you would handle your problems yourself or refer them to the local leaders, often unofficial, for action. Sometimes we discussed it to resolution, sometimes we fought. As often as not you’d go to Don Federico and say “Don Federico, I have an issue with Paolo,” and Don Federico would say “I’ll take care of it.” You wouldn’t see what happened, but soon after Paolo wouldn’t bother you any more. The idea of handling your own problems your way is strong. No one respected a man who let himself get abused by a bully, or shamed by rumors that were untrue, or made a fool of by a wife who was running around on him right under his nose (the reverse wasn’t true, sorry). So, you took action, it was the only way to maintain any kind of respect.

        • (go ahead, call me testa dura, it’s nothing I haven’t heard before).

          No Olive, what I’ll call you is weak. Threats, bluster, perhaps actual violence but never strong, never handling it, just barking and biting like a frightened dog.

          Paolo spoke sharply when you acted the buffoon and because it embarrassed you, you decided it was disrespect and bullying so you went and called down violence.

          If a man takes action against a cheating spouse that’s other than hiring a divorce lawyer then he’s the fool and an ass and worthy of derision.

          And if you want to have fantasies about violence against people you disagree with politically then you’re about as strong as a waterboarding advocate who whines that he can’t breathe through a cloth mask and deserving of as much respect.

          • HEY! I didn’t try to turn this ugly. Don’t you be the one to do it. You want to be sarcastic, snark away. But spare me the bluster. Don’t mock my last name, either use the right one or stick to my first name. Mocking names is pretty juvenile. I don’t get where I talked about violence against people I disagree with, we’re not there yet. So far it’s mostly the left acting like a Bolshevik mob. If you can’t keep it civil I’d suggest a break from this thread.

            Jack, request permission to respond in kind if this gets uglier.

            • Responding in kind would mean calling me weak, something you’re free to do. You could also call me stupid, ignorant, malevolent, hypocritical, dishonest, or deranged, Jack’s used forms of them all to describe me in the past.

              What you want to do is escalate and lash out with threats and misogyny.

              *shrug* a hit dog hollers.

              • Responding in kind would mean me mocking you like we’re both still 13 and giving each other grief before school, which I’m not going to stoop to today. I could call you all of those things if I wanted to, but since Jack’s already done it, I don’t think repetition would accomplish much, although if he really called you “malevolent” or “deranged” I’d look at myself more closely. I’m not doing misogyny, I know too many decent women to hate an entire gender, but this is no shining example of how a woman should act if she wants to be respected.

                (shrug) Resorting to mockery is the same as saying “I got nothin’.”

  6. What you propose is the exact opposite of Kant’s categorical imperative, abandoning duty for personal inclination or as people who explain the principle are want to say, what if everyone did it? Does lashing out at every slight create a more polite society or does it just show everyone what button they can push to get a reaction? Bringing this to the level of public officials, To act as the pettiest of petty dictators and then to have the favor returned when the pendulum swings.

    This is a wonderful question or issue: bringing a categorical imperative into the picture. I suggest this is a good line to take. Because by doing so you will then allow — you will force — the full social and political and spiritual dimension of the present problems to be fully discussed. They are not now discussed. They are shut down. They are kept from being discussed.

    Kant’s imperative in relation to profound anti-white indoctrination and activism that has gone beyond mere theory taught to children and young adults? Carry that imperative forward and see what you wind up with.

    The object is not *polite society* — are you drunk or stoned? — at this point you need to wake up and accurately see what is going on in the country. How and why this has happened. Who is behind it. How it can be countered. To all appearances, whether it happens today or 5 years from now, America is clearly on the verge of a demographic revolution with very real consequences.

    Yet here — here on this blog — I feel I am dealing with Drunk American Flower Children who refuse — adamantly refuse! — to accurately see what is going on and where it is going.

    I had to include that having just recently come across this marvelous song! C’mon Valky! Let’s take ayahuasca and dance! 😭

  7. “Advocating boycotts is coercive and anti-democratic, and the President, more than anyone, must not do it. Ever. The tactic is so ripe for abuse that it gives POTUS the power to extort any company that displeases him.”

    Didn’t the Rosa Parks incident create a boycott of the bus company which led to a change in policy? Many would argue that it was for a good cause. It seems that BLM can extort any firm that displeases them so who holds the cards?

    I am not totally sure that the POTUS could extort any firm that displeases him because they have the power to move their factories overseas and sell globally. If Goodyear, which operates in Ohio, pulls up stakes and moves to Vermont do you think the President might just incur a political cost? There is a cost to everyone where boycotts are concerned. They are similar to war where competing sides kill people and break things. The winner is the one that does the most damage.

    The question in my mind is do we want a POTUS that uses simple direct language that is spontaneous, but un-presidential, or do we want a presidential candidate that uses language that is carefully crafted by trained linguists and psychologists which effectively insulates him from wrong doing by providing plausible deniability while ensuring the inflammatory message is received?

    Do we want a government that has within it like minded minions who will launch attacks like sleeper cells upon the president and his/her supporters without any direct command and control from above such as Lois Lerner at the IRS when she held up up non-profit certifications from the political opposition. Or Brennan, Clapper, and Comey and their co-conspirators using the FBI and Intelligence services to conjure up a series of lies and distortions to establish false probable cause to go after its political adversaries. Or, Holder’s DOJ that would not say long and loud the Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin, and the Baltimore drug dealer were NOT hunted down and killed by the police. Was it appropriate for the President to set the stage for the war on law enforcement when he said that the police acted stupidly when they questioned the Harvard professor who neighbors thought was a burglar. My answer is no. I’ll take a single tweet and agree with it or disagree with it.

    In a world where almost everyone can concoct a narrative that will be embraced by many in minutes any bully pulpit power that the president might have once had is long gone now that so many get their political insight from those they follow for fashion and fitness advice or sports stars and other celebrities.

    Even here, Val’s COTD again helped feed the big lie that there is a Trump / Putin association. How come we don’t point out that virtually everything in the Democratic platform is derived from Stalin’s Soviet Constitution? Why don’t we point out that creating public imagery of a political message such as massive paintings of Black Lives Matter (the organization) on public thoroughfares using public funds is an abuse of power. I can imagine the reaction if Trump bought thousands of signs with public funds and had federal workers put them up across the city like you might find in PRK, China, or Saddam’s Iraq. Val, where is your condemnation of those whose ideals you embrace when they unleash the venom from their tongues publicly denouncing a wide swath of society? Your silence is deafening. You are silent because it advances your cause.

    In actuality the President has very little individual power over the average person. Every dime spent comes from Congress, Every rule made by the Executive branch must have controlling legislation enacted by Congress and even then Courts have enjoined him from executing Constitutionally approved powers if a voting block finds the right judge. In my mind the President only has the power Congress and the Judicial branch allows him to wield. Both create de Jure legislation. The only powers the President actually has is the power not to act (DACA) which was also an abuse of power, and his or her ability to communicate and convince.

    The president’s ability to communicate is in large measure controlled by the media. The media amplifies the message that they want out and attenuate or silence the messages that run counter to their narrative. Thus, the U.S. President is elected to be our savior and our whipping boy depending on which side of the aisle you fall. I do not expect anyone even a president to be subject to continual disrespect. Moreover, I know what it is like to be the object of ridicule and also be told that I must endure it because it would look bad if I took action to defend myself. That’s my bias. But it is bias from experience.

  8. Goodyear ignores that BLM is a motte and bailey, as are some other names and slogans touted as promoting “equality”. That has been noted on this blog…it’s just another form of “it isn’t what it is”, really.

    I think it may also have been on this blog where someone floated the idea of claiming that KKK stood for Kindness for Kids and Kittens. Would Goodyear be good with that on a tee?…even if spelled out (in smaller script, of course)?

  9. Both Goodyear’s and President Trump’s actions were unethical. However, President Trump’s actions are understandable. Since before his inauguration the progressives in both parties, in media, and internet behemoths have been hell-bent on removing him from office or blocking his agenda. These same groups combined with efforts of various Federal Agencies and State Governments have tirelessly worked to hobble him and his Presidency. He and his family have been relentlessly and viciously attacked. I cannot name a single public figure who could have withstood the onslaught our president has been subjected these past four years.

    Do I like his style? No.
    Would I be inclined to cultivate a friendship with him or his type of personality? No.
    Would I seek his help if I needed a junkyard dog personality to get me out of a perilous situation? In a heartbeat.

    The turmoil America is currently experiencing has been nurtured by career politicians from both parties, government bureaucrats, academics, the media, and much of big business. For each of these groups, life is good. The system works in their favor. President Trump is not of the system. He is a threat to the system.

  10. Can anyone explain to me how this constitutes ‘Punching Down’ on the President’s part? By making this post, the President is taking on the entire media establishment, the Democratic Party and all it’s subsidiaries (like BLM), academia, the Social Justice Industry, and all the Big Tech firms that promote these things, and multiple government agencies the also promote such policies. The President seems to be punching UP, from my point of view.

    Donald Trump is a President that is NOT in control of the full executive branch. Look at the DOJ, the CIA, and the FBI. They were actively fighting against him and opposing his control. Look at how many people in those departments said they were part of ‘The Resistance’ against the President. The U.S. Army even sent out a handout to the troops stating that “Make America Great Again”, “All Lives Matter”, and “Don’t Blame Me. I never Owned Slaves” were white supremacist slogans and that celebrating Columbus Day indicated white supremacy. These could subject you to military discipline. Supporting the Commander-in-Chief could get you disciplined in the military today. I don’t see how Trump can ‘Punch Down’ under these circumstances.

    • Michael R. “Can anyone explain to me how this constitutes ‘Punching Down’ on the President’s part?”

      With all due respect, it’s already been explained to you in my reply to you above. You don’t have to like or agree with the explanation but it is a reasonable explanation. 😉

  11. Jack, looks like the majority of your commentators disagree with my posting. They say it’s okay because other people are mean and Trump’s really angry about it.

    There’s now a butthurt right-winger exception to ethics guidelines.

    • valkygrrl wrote, “They say it’s okay because other people are mean and Trump’s really angry about it. There’s now a butthurt right-winger exception to ethics guidelines.”

      You found the edge and went straight over. Nope that’s really not what they are saying, they’re saying that Trump is being backed into a corner and enough is enough.

      I wrote about it above, maybe you missed it…

      Everyone, I do mean everyone, needs to think about what happens when you back your opposition into a corner with unethical and immoral tactics and there’s absolutely no place for that opposition to go, that opposition will eventually lash out with an equal or overwhelming opposing force to break free.

      The political left has been backing society as a whole and the current occupant of the Oval Office into a corner and it’s not too hard to predict that there will eventually be an equal or overwhelming opposing force applied to break free of what’s happening. I suppose the political left sees themselves as being backed into a corner too. If our society continues down its current path, it’s not going to end well.

      What say you?

    • Ethics verdicts are not determined my majority vote. Anyway, my vote counts extra. It’s punching down, and a President must not do it. It’s too dangerous a slippery slope to fool with.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.