Comment Of The Day: “Ten Questions About The Lakewood High School Football Game Incident”


Once again, as I can’t resist doing periodically, I’m publishing a dinged comment as a Comment of the Day to illustrate the kind of thinking and debating technique that goes on among the addled, biased, and ethics-free.

This one is from someone with the ironic email handle “rightwing moron” (he is, it seems, a “woke” moron) objecting to the position expressed here that schools must not take political positions and inflict them on their students, parents and football game spectators, because doing so is an abuse of position, function and power, and because those who operate schools are (theoretically) trained as educators, not public policy experts and political scientists, and have no right to engage in indoctrination.  I don’t consider that assessment to be seriously debatable, but I am eager to read intelligent, well-argued, articulate and civil attempts.

This is the first of two comments by whoever this jerk is; both violated Ethics Alarms comment standards. The second was more of the same fallacies and typical emotion-based, ignorant reasoning, so it was sent to Spam Hell. Whoever this was didn’t comprehend the essay in question at all. As is usually the case in such screeds (I get a lot of them), the writer presumes that as long as he, she or it agrees with a political view, it is proper and ethical to unilaterally hijack any activity or function to advance it.

I’ll be back briefly at the end to poke some holes, not because any readers of average intelligence won’t see what’s wrong with this mess on their own, but because I enjoy the excercise, like the way I enjoy walking on bubble wrap. I didn’t clean the rant up the way I edit respectable COTDs, because the lack of care the comment exhibits is of a piece with its quality generally.

Here is the Comment of the Day on the post, Ten Questions About The Lakewood High School Football Game Incident”:

oh, my god. you’re meaning to tell me… that a school district with more diversity and african american students then you’ve probably ever seen in your life… is peacefully protesting to show those students that they care about their lives?? wow, I’m so shocked. now I know you’re not going to publish this (because censorship’s okay when it benefits your personal opinions, right??), but for the record– you’re a moron. if you read that statement (in which NOWHERE is it stated that they are anti-police in general, only anti-police murders of unarmed human beings) and truly think that pro-black lives means anti-white ones, you, dumb sir, are the epitome of brainlessness and ignorance. the pinnacle of stupidity. the model of gullibility (I could keep going, but people with racist nationalist upper-class-only mindsets like yours tend to have incredibly fragile egos. just ask mr. cheeto man in the oval office). you think that just because you care about yourself more than anyone else, that no one else’s life can compare to the importance of yours. and for the record, this is filled with complete misinformation, as is the original source of the post (and I have these facts confirmed, in case you were wondering, though you don’t seem to care much about facts, do you? for a party that calls the opposite wing “too sensitive,” you lot sure get pressed over the tiniest things): for one, “many people” is a false claim. the only people who complained about the song were the visitors from the entirely white, highly alt-right, mostly rural, extremely religious catholic private school. if you can hear that and not smell the partisanship, then you’re dumber than I thought. one of these people happened to be a racist radio talk show host, who then spread completely unrelated lies and rumors about the school district itself and its young students, which is NOT okay by ANY circumstances. second: law. enforcement. never. complained. neither local nor cleveland police nor first responders complained about the song. you know why? maybe because they’re smart enough to know it’s not a personal attack on them– it’s an observation of the system itself. maybe because they know it’s not worth getting pissed over like a temperamental toddler whose mommy didn’t buy him the best color of the toy he wanted. you wanted us to stop whining and act? we acted. you wanted us to stop acting and be peaceful? we did. we are. and this is how you react to a peaceful protest, a school standing up for its students?? you really are a hypocritical moron.

and I know you won’t post this comment (again, partisan censorship). you probably won’t even read it. but that’s okay, because by knowing you didn’t read it and won’t post it, you’re acknowledging YOURSELF to be a coward. a coward, a racist, and a liar. get your facts straight. stop twisting them to appeal to your readers’ racist, extreme nationalist opinions and feelings, because– as your icon ben shapiro (you know, the one that got pissed over a tiktok song that had nothing to do with politics whatsoever??) says– “facts don’t care about your feelings.” and that goes both ways.

Wow. (I’m back.)


  • It’s not censorship to refuse to post a comment that ignores almost all of the commenting rules clearly delineated on this site.
  • There were almost no sources to check the account passed on by the radio host (who does not appear to be a racist, except under the false definition that race-hucksters wield to silence critics). This is because the news media refuses to do its job, leaving the task of alerting the public to stories like the Lakewood High indoctrination exercise to the so-called “conservative media,” so it can be discredited as a partisan narrative. If the commenter had contrary facts and sources to report, he should have reported them. “That’s not true” isn’t an argument. It’s a dodge.
  • Irrelevancies: 1) how many spectators objected to the school’s exercise in propaganda 2) how many made their objections known 3) what the racial component of the student body or the community is. The school’s conduct would be unethical if nobody objected.
  • Moreover, the objection to schools engaging in such political grandstanding ought to be non-partisan. My objection would be the same no matter what views the school decided to use a football game to promote, from world peace to respecting the Second Amendment to being kind to kittens. Progressives defend such abuses of education is because the Left now views indoctrination in the schools as a prime strategy to gain power.
  • One reason I posted this garbage is that it’s a great example of the intellectually and ethically bankrupt dodge I keep seeing and reading that extolling and endorsing an organization that says that police are racist and tools of a racist society is a general observation and not aimed at any police individually. This is, of course, the same double-talk used for decades to excuse racism itself.
  • I regard ad hominem attacks on the President based on his choice of complexion signature significance for a unethical fool.
  • I have no clue what the hell the Ben Shapiro reference is. I guess I need to keep closer tabs on my “icons.”

18 thoughts on “Comment Of The Day: “Ten Questions About The Lakewood High School Football Game Incident”

  1. “…you’re acknowledging YOURSELF to be a coward. a coward, a racist, and a liar. get your facts straight. stop twisting them to appeal to your readers’ racist, extreme nationalist opinions and feelings. . .”

    This person is not alone in this type of thinking. Ideas and arguments that do not comport with the thinking of those who believe their goal in life is to make us as good, compassionate and tolerant a person as they, are typically met with statements such as these. I listened to one woman call in to a radio show and explain when HRC lost a peaceful transfer of power occurred but when confronted by the litany of facts we know today, such as Brennan’s notes where he briefed Obama about intel stating that HRC was going to float a Russian collusion by the Trump campaign narrative to distract from the server investigation or the Mueller report she went ballistic calling it all lies.

    In my opinion too many Americans – on both sides- are willing to sacrifice truth if it undermines their ability to keep their side in power. We have been trained to do this by the power brokers who profit far more handsomely from the power we bestow upon them than any gifts they may deliver.

    I don’t know if what they are doing has the same effect on others as it does on me but if it does they are pushing me further away. My tolerance level is declining and if the pejoratives they use to describe me because of my ideas keep up I might as well agree and start behaving as what they describe.


    I want to know one thing why is it acceptable to call anyone with a pigmentation difference “cheeto-man” . Would he call James Clyburn licorice-man?

    If minorities need protection from the majority why does the majority demand a tiny minority pay most of the bills of the country? And if that minority is predominantly of one race why do we not consider disproportionate impact in these cases?

    The answer lies in the fact that all those who accept the above are the majority. So all those self righteous persons that believe they are for the little guy are deluding themselves they are just members of a gang. Intersectionality is nothing but a means to recruit more gang members so they can bludgeon any opposition easier. Take the financial rewards out of intersectionality and I would bet that the alliances would collapse.

  2. “rightwing moron”

    Glass half full? He/she/it was half right…

    “Progressives defend such abuses of education is because the Left now views indoctrination in the schools as a prime strategy to gain power.” (bolds mine)

    He Alone, Who Owns The Youth, Gains The Future> A. Hitler

  3. “then you’re dumber than I thought”

    At least he has he then/than distinction down. I will commend him for that.

    Honestly, that was the only thing I found noteworthy in his comment. Everything else was just a bunch of words that were not designed to persuade and would likely only make sense to someone in full agreement with the comment to begin with.


      • Even for a rant, it’s not very good, and that’s speaking as someone who’s done more than his share of ranting. This isn’t much below the crap Keith Olbermann spouts, and they are giving him a whole Youtube channel to spout off on. His first monologue: people like Amy Coney Barrett need to be prosecuted and “removed from our society.”

        I’ve sometimes spoken about how social media has enabled the worst among people to reveal itself and that’s a bad thing, but maybe it’s a good thing. Maybe it’s good that the loudmouthed, opinionated, self-righteous and intolerant come out from behind any facade and sing, fart, and generally show exactly who they are. That way at least we can make informed decisions as to who we want as our friends or even acquaintances. This is not someone any thinking person would want to know.

  4. I don’t know if emojis are allowed here, but 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣.

    This is especially funny because I see myself in that comment. I used to type like that before. Was always on the edge with my self righteousness and progressivism and advocacy, ready to deliver the insults and angry screeds to anything I felt did not align correctly. It’s par for the course with leftism. Typical Karl Marx style who barely ever responded to critics. He would instead dismiss them as “reactionary” &c.

    Fact: Leftism is a mental illness.
    The only proper response is to smile, pray for them and wish them well. Besides that, there no hope. Not thing with facts, not arguing logically, not trying to explain, NOTHING else works.
    The only people that ever leave the left are people that fell to leftism in their genuine search for truth. They’d come to realise the motley of contradictions and inconsistencies that blotch the garment.

    Also, not like it should matter to anyone here, but just wanted to say that I went to church today for the first time in years. I feel happier and at peace.

  5. I am not sure why you say the 2nd amendment is inappropriate for a school to support? Is supporting distinct from teaching the constitution? Supporting the 1st amendment seems a good idea for schools to do? Asking why since I don’t see it, thanks for all you do, enjoy the new laptop.

    • What “support” consists of is a political question. A school should teach the Amendment, its background, and the legal controversies about it as well as the current position of the Courts.

  6. Jack wrote: “This is one of many reasons I don’t have “likes” for comments on EA.”

    But, but…I SEE “Like” after each comment in EA, when I am logged in to WordPress. I have clicked Like many times – naturally, because of the numerous high-quality comments.

    Jack, is WordPress bulldozing over your preferences for what to put on your blog, in some way?

    • JACK: After EVERY comment, I see, below the final line, in the following order, left to right, in a grayish color:

      (1) a little “pointy-arrow” sweeping downward in an arc, ultimately pointing from left to right,
      (2) after a space such as what a spacebar would enable, the word “Reply”
      (3) a couple more spaces as a spacebar would enable
      (4) a little five-pointed star, same apparent font size as “Reply”
      (5) a space, and then the word “Like”

      I just now clicked Like on your reply to Vitaeus, of “1d ago.” The color of the star changed from “empty” with a gray outline, to filled-in with a blue color. “Like” changed from gray to blue, too.

      Am I the only commenter who is seeing all of that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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.