Commenter Steve Witherspoon has colorfully expressed the Ethics Alarms position regarding President Trump’s “punching down” with his direct attack on Goodyear Tires and Rubber for endorsing Black Lives Matter attire in the workplace while banning MAGA hats. In a comment to the recent Goodyear post, he wrote in part,
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….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.
Michael R, in his Comment of the Day on the post, “Goodyear’s ‘No Tolerance’ Policy Is Cowardly, Unethical, And Wrong, And The President’s Response Was Worse,” makes his case to the contrary:
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”.
16 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Goodyear’s ‘No Tolerance’ Policy Is Cowardly, Unethical, And Wrong, And The President’s Response Was Worse””
Congratulations on your COTD!!
I think my initial reply to the very last part of Michael R’s comment of the day warrants the risk of repeating myself so it follows the original comment, I personally think it’s that important.
I don’t have time to go into the additional part I’d like to discuss (which is the very thought provoking questions Michael R asked) tonight so I’ll dive back in sometime tomorrow. It’s been a really long busy day and I suspect tomorrow morning is going to feel like there’s 36 hours between 6am and noon, so until then…
Congratulations on the Comment of the Day, again.
Great comment, Michael. Obviously, the people in the Goodyear HR and communications departments are young and recently indoctrinated products of the American Academy. Fight fire with fire. The “Presidential” horse left the barn a long time ago. Goodyear is owned by Sumitomo. They don’t give a rat’s ass about the United States so long as it keeps buying Japanese stuff.
The audio came out today, which indicates that Goodyear lied in their press release. This was a company training meeting and the company did say that ‘Black Lives Matter’ is acceptable and ‘White Lives Matter’ or ‘All Lives Matter’ is not.
Congratulations on the COTD.
You asked lots of thought provoking questions in regards what’s has been and is being done to attack President Trumps. I think I understand you perspective and in some ways I agree with you. There really are way too many questions and points to effectively address so here is my very generalized answer to your overall theme.
Short of an outright shooting war, the President of the United States should be above punching down on the individual citizens and businesses of the United States from the Oval Office for exactly the same reason I stated in the karate analogy I mentioned earlier. These people and companies are welcome to their opinions, even if we think they are dead wrong, but their businesses shouldn’t be targeted by the President of the United States to be destroyed because of their opinions any more than business owners around the country should have their businesses looted and destroyed because they disprove of Defunding the Police, these are bully intimidation tactics. In my opinion, what the President did was ethically and morally wrong.
Politicians, the media, prominent citizens, companies and protesters that choose to thrust themselves into the political arena are all fair game for retaliatory rhetoric from anyone and everyone including the President of the United States. These people want a political fight and Trump is taking it directly to them and delivering what he stood up for in his campaign. I have Trump supporting friends and they have absolutely no qualms in telling me that this is where President Trump is doing exactly what they voted for; they didn’t want him to be politician that blows everything off, they wanted him to take the political gloves off, talk more like the common man, take the fight to the opposition and fight hard for what they want (some are calling it the soul of the USA, I tend to agree with them on this) and that’s exactly what Trump is doing.
I was recently in a conversation with a family member who really despises President Trump and part of the conversation was about Trump’s decorum and the way he breeds chaos, here’s what I wrote in response…
He understood what I was saying. He thinks that journalists have zero code of ethics anymore and agreed that the media was worthless.
In the end I really don’t mind President Trump taking off the gloves and being forceful to oppose his opposition when it’s appropriate, but I really wish his emotional unethical loose cannon mouth wasn’t so damned disconnected from the logical side of his brain that thinks about the consequences of words before uttering them. He isn’t in a pissing match in a bar to see who’s the biggest prick, he’s the leader of the free world an dammit he should curb some of his reactions and conduct himself a bit more appropriately. There is a time and place for a good pissing match, President Trump hasn’t figured that out yet.
ARRGH! I didn’t properly close the italics tag after “President of the United States should be…”
I fixed it.
Steve wrote: In the end I really don’t mind President Trump taking off the gloves and being forceful to oppose his opposition when it’s appropriate, but I really wish his emotional unethical loose cannon mouth wasn’t so damned disconnected from the logical side of his brain that thinks about the consequences of words before uttering them. He isn’t in a pissing match in a bar to see who’s the biggest prick, he’s the leader of the free world an dammit he should curb some of his reactions and conduct himself a bit more appropriately. There is a time and place for a good pissing match, President Trump hasn’t figured that out yet.
This is an interesting paragraph. There are a few things I notice about it and I will bring them to your attention:
What would really be interesting is if Trump — and really anyone, but certainly someone with cultural and political influence — could actually articulate What Is Going On in America right now.
You do not know, Jack does not know, Steve in NJ does not know, valygrrl does not know — no one here writing has any clear and thorough sense of what is going on. In any case you cannot say it outright.
You have partial and highly *romantic* notions which function as filters whenever you make any statement at all. I have come to see that you are all so much controlled by the coercive mood of the present — by political correctness essentially, by imposed ideology — that you are inhibited in speaking the truth. And when someone does make that effort you all ‘punch down’ in an effort to silence and marginalize that view and that person.
I think this is what Jonathan Bowden alluded to when he noticed that certain ideas are pushed to the fringes and therefor to engage with them — to think freely and realistically, indeed rationally — you have to go to the fringes to gain clarity. It reminds me a bit of 1984 and Winston’s situation. The temptation to accede to some forbidden idea is actually part-and-parcel of the regnant ideological system, but when you *take the bait* so to speak, then you reveal yourself as a dissident and you can be destroyed.
Again, if this were really an honest platform for discussing the most important and relevant ideas that pertain to our present the conversations would be very different indeed here. But you simply can’t allow that. It’s odd because that is where the *romantic* aspect enters in. You seem to want, with veritable desperation, to see things in a certain way, and you force yourself to do so. But doing this you effectively block yourself from seeing a truer picture.
All of this I believe that I see with at least some degree of clarity. And all of it I understand and sympathize with. But it is in no sense the proper nor the *ethical* way to proceed. That is my main argument, or what has become my main argument: this is a platform for playing games-of-ethics. But it is not a platform for really & truly investigating what is ethical. And I say this because — in my view of course — you have allowed yourself to come under the influence of coercive ideology and you yourself make yourself a gate-keeper and effectively block the larger conversation from occurring.
But this too I understand and sympathize with. It is not just you. Thousands and thousands of social ‘influencers’ repeat the same tropes like dutiful parrots. I notice this in many many places. It seems to me that many people wish to make *definitive statements*, and they do make them, yet they are not able to include the full picture. Actually, to be allowed anywhere near the *mainstream* one must have muzzled and muted oneself to a significant degree. And if you had been let in, so to speak, and you say the *wrong thing* you are very quickly denounced and ‘repudiated’ to quote John McCane.
And one does have to point this out because it is true: this is an above-average blog with above-average participants. You as a class are that class upon which the greatest pressure is applied. Therefore: your tendency to conform, and your tendency to shut down what I call *genuine* intellectual work is especially egregious. If this is so, if you really do carry on as I say, why should I consider you ethical influencers to who I should pay attention?
I have to take a contrary view. And people should take such contradictory view.
And even with this Goodyear example — as an ethical case to be examined — no one of you can actually get to the core of it! You will not to do so. You simply apply your will so not see what is really going on here. I mean, the operative essence. And thus you interpret it in the most superficial sense! So, what is the essence here? I will tel you and you will go silent!
The essence here is that the anti-whiteness movement has penetrated into the corporate and the business world. It is not becoming a necessary tenet of corporate Americanism to develop internal anti-whiteness programs. The ideology of anti-whiteness has been let out of its box and it ravages. It is becoming part of the system and that means part of a governing, education, advertising, media and social world.
This is very very serious and yet not one of you will name it as such. Therefore — and if what I say is true — why should I pay attention to your ethical alarms if your *alarm* does not go off in respect to the most important thing? You miss the point and you simultaneously instruct others to miss the point. You *influence* them therefore in the wrong way. You weaken ethically and morally, you do not strengthen.
At least in some sense, and possibly only because he is a belligerent soul, Trump responds. And when he does this, I think this is true, he definitely sends signals to his followers: the displaced and dispossessed class that you are incapable and unwilling to recognize! And so they should respond and react to him. And so there should be open advocacy for them, that submerged class.
And that of course opens up into a real and genuine conversation that has to do with what is really going on and why. But here, full-circle, I have to say that you-plural seem to do all that you can to keep that conversation from actually coming out.
Ideological coercion takes its toll.
Correction: “It is now becoming a necessary tenet of corporate Americanism…”
That comment from Alizia warrants this as the consequence.
Alizia wrote nearly a thousand words and almost all of it was transparent in-your-face gaslighting. There was nothing in her entire comment that specifically addressed anything in the words that she quoted from my comment however there were a couple of cosmic puzzle tangents that briefly danced around the blog topic; but overall, theme of her comment was about how everyone participating on Ethics Alarms is wrong about everything and she is the only one that can see real truth. I see a bold arrogance and unabashed narcissism in Alizia’s arguments that I haven’t seen in any other person commenting on Ethics Alarms or anywhere else on the internet.
It’s my opinion that there’s a relatively definable pattern to Alizia’s comments. Similar to a Philosopher trying to teach a class, Alizia tries to drag others down so deep into her abyss of Philosophy that they’ll question everything right down to the sock lint between their toes. She’s a very intentional overly verbose version of a gaslighting troll, a master of deflection but you have to be willing to bite on her bait and of course if you don’t bite on the bait then you’re willfully blind or trying to prevent the “right” conversation and part of the problem. Alizia is damn good at it her task and persistent to a fault, it’s almost as if she’s a paid professional.
After years of reading her comments, I think Alizia has actually tried to use, at some level, every one of the steps involved in brainwashing. I’ve been reading things all over the internet for many years and met many people in all walks of life and I’ve never come across anyone that writes, and presumed speaks, quite like Alizia; the only thing even close was a Philosophy professor.
Let me say this loud and clear; Aliza has shown me over the years that she/he is a gaslighting internet troll trying to deflect and drag others into her Philosophical abyss to satisfy some inherent personal need.
This infomercial is complete, we can now return you to our regularly scheduled program.
Steve writes: . . . but overall, theme of her comment was about how everyone participating on Ethics Alarms is wrong about everything and she is the only one that can see real truth.
It is interesting to me that it is this that would offend you. Is there no one in your world who has access to knowledge that you admire and emulate? Is it impossible for you that there may be knowledge or information or ideas that you need to prepare yourself to receive? but that you can’t because of a *hard head*?
I find that time and again people react most to their sense of being talked down to. That hooks them and they remain forever hooked.
No no no. I am really quite specific in what I say. What I say is that I believe, and I perceive, and I feel I can explain, why it is that “you” (language forces a general usage here) fail to clearly identify what you are up against, and what is attacking you, and what is dissolving you. I often say ‘if what I am saying is true’, which means that if I am perceiving correctly, then what I suggest may have merit and be worth thinking about. Obviously, I think that is the case.
You cannot *see your world*. Yes, that is a philosophical but also a spiritual idea. But if the assertion is valid — it is in any case an interesting one — it is certainly worth exploring.
I have explained that “I have worked myself into a corner . . . and I have been worked into a corner”, and by that I mean that I deliberately take a somewhat aggressive tack in what I say because of the reaction I get (historically) and my own need, as it were, to keep plugging away. It is curious to me how one must continue to repeat very basic things over and over. And then repeat them again when the world (as in what is going on outside and around us) presents us with a clear illustration.
You are being dispossessed. You are being displaced. That warrants a special ethical awareness and attention.
I deliberately make too-general statements. Because that is the fuel of polemics and I am, or I would like to be, a polemicist. My function here is polemical. And I also say that anything I say should not be taken personally.
I think you would get more productive result, Steve, if instead of trying to counter what I say — which really does have some merit — and trying to oppose it with the “you’re a troll” insinuation (this goes back to those nostalgic ‘stocking troll’ days — do you remember?) you would devote some time to thinking about, and commenting on, what I write. Instead of trying to block it take just one part and comment.
I’ve been reading things all over the internet for many years and met many people in all walks of life and I’ve never come across anyone that writes, and presumed speaks, quite like Alizia; the only thing even close was a Philosophy professor.
Well that’s interesting. But it does not mean much. ‘All over the Internet’ might indicate very common run-of-the-mill ideas. I think one writes, and certainly thinks, according to what one reads. And I can direct you to various different places where very different, and very challenging ideas, are discussed. They take some preparation though to understand.
I might suggest this is the preparation that you considerably lack?
. . .our regularly scheduled program
. . . of thinking within the same boxes and within pre-established parameters. Because that is where your *ethics* is bound, I choose to expand the bases of ethics to include the excluded.
It is all fair-game Steve!
You get the last word(s).
My dear Steve, I will always have the last word because I also have the first and the middle words. My words wrap yours. As does my discourse generally. It is because I am engaged in the conversation. I don’t mean with your limited conversation, I mean in a wide conversation going on around us. It is a conversation that transcends your limited sphere.
I do not understand your ‘gaslighting’ reference. I actually ordered and watched the movie with Ingrid Bergman . . .
Do you mean that your insinuation that I am a troll and have nothing valid or important to communicate is ‘the truth’ and that I gaslight you into thinking that you are wrong?
If this is the case you might want to get hold of some *preemptive meds*? 😂 Take them now before you slide off the edge of the world.
There is an upside to this: I realize there is an American and a European version of Gaslight. Now I have to see the European version! (said to have more edge).