Ethics Alarms offers an Open Form approximately every three to four weeks, so it’s time. (It’s also time because a doctor’s appointment beckons.)
Both Althouse and Instapundit do this every day, and accumulate literally hundreds of comments, but to be fair, Althouse allows comments about anything at all, and Prof. Reynolds’ free-for-all has evolved into a political gag-fest where substance is rare (and poor taste runs rampant). The topic here is ethics, and I assume a high standard will be be maintained.
Ethics Alarms 
Why are local reporters better journalists than national network reporters?
This isn’t a senile moment; it has been the Democratic strategy from the beginning: vote for who you are going to vote for. They are mostly counting on more liberal voters than conservative, rather than changing minds.
However, even on a purely intellectually honest level, it would be stupid to tell people to vote against their interests, so he tells them not to. The clip cuts off before why he explains why voting for him is in their best interest. Really, it is a dishonest cut.
The rest of the response is here.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-knocks-the-56-of-voters-who-say-theyre-better-off-now-than-4-years-ago-their-memory-isnt-very-good
However, he started off with “they (those who think they are better off than they were four years ago) probably shouldn’t (vote for me)”
Yes, that is exactly what I am referring to. It is the strategy they have been using throughout campaign. He used it when he was accused of sexual harassment (If I believed the accusations, I wouldn’t vote for me either), and he is using it now.
It is not an admission or concession, but a rhetorical device, daring the public not to vote for him. The strategy is most effective when it is followed up by strong reasons to indeed vote for him. The cut is dishonest, because it removes his rebuttal and thus the context of the quote. The rebuttal may be weak or strong, but omitting it denies the public from properly evaluating the strength of the argument.
Why are they 60 feet apart and wearing masks?
jvb
Ok, well, if this is the last chance to make an ethical pitch before the election, then here goes: In just under three weeks this country is going to decide who is going to have control for the next four years. There are only two real choices. Despite what now-retired libertarian curmudgeon Neal Boortz might have said, I think the last decade has shown that the vote for president IS in fact more important than the votes for the House, even if the House does have the power of the purse. It is the purview of the legislature to pass laws, and the purview of the judiciary to review them, but, in the end, a law means nothing if it is not enforced, and a decision means nothing if it is not executed. A vote for the president, or any executive, is answering the question of how you want the laws enforced and in some cases whether you want them enforced at all. The question is do you want the laws enforced in something resembling an even-handed manner, or in a manner that benefits one side and one side only? The question is also whether you want to say no to a potential power grab, or enable a potential power grab.
The thought when this nation first came to be is that we would be a nation of laws and not of men. Easy to say, unless you’re going to pull the politically correct dodge and say not to say men, but I wonder if too many people within reach of my writing understand what that means. It means that the law is supposed to be the law and it’s supposed to apply to everyone equally. It’s not supposed to matter who you are, or who your dad is, or how much money you have, or who you know. It’s also not supposed to matter what color you are, what faith you practice (or if you practice at all), how you work out your sexuality, or which philosophy of government you identify with. If you go to court to say “my neighbor and I have a dispute,” then that dispute is supposed to be resolved according to which side is right under the law. If you complaint “my neighbor has done me a wrong,” then the court is supposed to decide whether or not that person really was wrong, and, if so, what the penalty should be. However, even though you get a judgment against your neighbor for encroaching on your property, it doesn’t mean anything unless the sheriff’s officers collect it. Even if you fill out the appropriate complaint against your neighbor who attacked you and have a really good case for his guilt, if the prosecutor decides not to file charges, then you are out of luck.
It goes the other way too, if your neighbor chooses to trump up some nonsense charges against you, and the prosecutor decides to run with them, well, you may beat them in the end, but until a judge says these charges are nonsense, or a jury says the prosecutor fell short of proving the case you have to deal with the consequences of being under public scrutiny and the expense of defending yourself. Even if you beat one set of charges, if the prosecutor is still determined to get you he can just start over again with new charges. Sometimes it even affects you if you aren’t a party or a target. If you are just going about your business and someone decides to smash in your window and steal your stock, then you call the police, but if the mayor has told the police not to get involved in this incident, then you’re out of luck. If you’re at home with your family and someone decides to trash your neighborhood to prove a point, but the elected officials have said to just let it go, then you’re also out of luck. The police won’t come to keep order, the firemen won’t be able to save your property, maybe the EMS will be able to get you to the hospital, but maybe not.
The idea of equality is also supposed to extend to the idea that every individual has some merit, and individuals or groups are not pawns or pieces to be moved or sacrificed at some greater someone’s behest. This nation is not supposed to be “when the kings fight, the peasants get hurt.”
The executive is also supposed to be about taking care of things. Lately many talk about taking extra and special care of the climate and the environment. However, that’s also supposed to extend to taking care of people, infrastructure, and property.
Then we have the question of individual rights. Most folks here already know the Bill of Rights, so I won’t run through the whole thing. However, individual rights don’t mean very much if the executive won’t extend protection to the point where folks feel comfortable exercising them.
The executive is supposed to protect the processes in place for making things happen, and when necessary, stop those who try to bypass the processes by unlawful action.
The executive arguably should also stop attempts at power grabs, or attempts to use the government to benefit one group at the expense of others, or to render rights meaningless.
Putting it succinctly, ethical leadership in the executive acts to make sure the laws are applied fairly and equally.
So, when you look at who you choose to elect, ask yourself these questions:
Which party has instructed law enforcement not to protect ordinary people, or to protect them too little, too late?
Which party do prosecutors who regularly drop all charges against rioters, but dig deep to convict police officers or elected officials from the other side almost exclusively come from?
Which party stands behind the idea that justice should vary depending on the color, gender, or some other characteristic of the parties involved?
Which party picks and chooses winners and losers in business, commerce, etc., depending on the color, gender, or affiliation of who is getting picked?
Which party picks and chooses which laws it will enforce on the basis of whether enforcing them will benefit it politically?
Which party looks the other way when those who decide the process for something isn’t moving fast enough decide to bypass the process altogether?
Which party uses the process to attack the other, whether the attacks are grounded in fact or not?
Which party has openly talked about changing or stacking the process to benefit itself and cement itself in power as soon as it has the power to do so?
Which party has talked of limiting certain of the rights in the Bill of Rights as soon as it has the power to do so, and in some cases has limited them already?
If you haven’t figured it out yet, it’s the party a certain mayor who allowed 100 nights of rioting, another mayor who thought tweaking the president’s nose by turning the street into a political billboard was more important than keeping order, still another mayor who let six blocks of her city declare itself a new country, four governors who slammed the lid hard on ordinary people so much as having a meal out but embraced and in some cases joined mass protests in the streets, and a presidential candidate who can barely finish a sentence, but knows how to avoid giving a straight answer to a very consequential question all come from.
If, despite all this, you still want to give it your vote because you just hate the man in the White House that much, then I’d suggest you check your ethical compass. If you want to give it your vote because you agree with all this, then there is nothing more I can do or say, because you are too far gone and have crossed the ethical horizon into embracing tyranny.
Great comment!
This is something I found pertinent to the comment above: https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/MACH-IV/
Excellent, as always, Steve.
jvb
I will most certainly pilfer this. Well done.
Something I’ve been wondering about lately: Why is it when black people vote as a block for Democrats (and presumably in their self-interest by doing so) it’s beneficial and democracy in action. But when anyone votes for Republicans (and presumably in their self-interest by doing so) they are a threat to democracy?
If this isn’t self-evident, OB, it would appear you’re needful of a stint in the Reeducation Gulag.
Would you like to self-report, or should we send someone from…um…collections…?
Reminds me of one of my favorite college class room moments, Paulie. At the beginning of the lecture/discussion of “Othello” in the class of the spectacular Shakespeare professor we had, a brilliant but quirky and verging on pedantic student (first name Marvin) asked, “Professor, why didn’t Othello simply ask Desdemona whether she’d had sex with anyone else?” The Professor, quite a dramatist and character himself, shook his head quickly and briefly as if to clear it before emitting a large, Jack Benny, “Well, Marvin. I guess we just don’t ask questions like that, do we?” and proceeded apace with his lecture.
It’s also OK when Hispanics or women or gays or Muslims vote as a bloc too. It’s only a problem when white men start voting together, that’s why every white man should have a pink-hatted woman, a cool black friend, or a gay relative to keep him voting the right way.
I was thinking a similar thing while watching the court hearings. Why is ok for the liberal bloc to vote together (which they do more than the conservative bloc) but not the conservative bloc?
They vote together because they were picked specifically to be reliable votes on the left.
Media and academia are run by leftists.
As well as the vast majority of the political class and the administrative state. And more and more, corporate America (which is really scary). And of course you’re right, Bobby, but the correct answer does not obviate the hypocrisy at work in this situation. I just think it’s worth observing.
Editing of reruns has gone on for decades. One of my least favorite television viewing experiences is to watch a rerun of a program I saw when it first aired or even a program that has been intact in syndicated reruns in the past and find that gags and little character moments I distinctly remember are gone. Some stations are so terribly sloppy that they will cut entire scenes or even cut in the middle of a scene.
Obviously, they want more commercial ad revenue. That hasn’t changed. The least they can do, though, is not make it obvious they are editing when suddenly a character is cut off mid-sentence and we are at a commercial break. There also seem to be stations in which only certain episodes of shows are shown. MeTV seems to only have rights to specific episodes of “The Love Boat” as its rerun airings skip entire seasons.
I’m not sure what’s worse, the chopped up episodes or the ones that are just missing.
Which brings me to Comedy Central which is showing reruns of “The Office”, a show that is an ethics nightmare under normal circumstances, but is now seemingly falling prey to the cancel culture wars. “The Office” is purportedly Netflix’s most popular show – though it will be leaving the platform soon – and is apparently so popular in reruns that stations like Comedy Central run marathons of it night after night and on weekends.
I’ve run into scenes cut in the middle only to pick up after the commercial break where the scene left off. That’s irritating enough. I also have to mute the commercial breaks because they are nothing but endless Trevor Noah bits mocking President Trump (I have no need to watch his show because his commercials imply this is the only material he has).
They also won’t stop skipping episodes. The Christmas episodes are routinely skipped so they can be shown repeatedly in December, even though some of them have significant plotlines develop in them. Suddenly, they started skipping other holiday-themed episodes that take place on Halloween, Valentine’s Day or St. Patrick’s Day (the latter not too often), again despite important events taking place in them.
Now they’re skipping “Diversity Day”.
Completely. They’ve skipped it multiple runs through in the last month or so. It is not a holiday episode. They even stuck in a Halloween episode last run through…maybe as compensation?
“Diversity Day” is the second episode of the series. In it, the branch is forced to go through diversity training because Michael had upset his employees with a profanity-laden Chris Rock routine that touched on racial issues. Michael doesn’t seem to understand what he did wrong and constantly disrupts the facilitator of the training with his own pointless insights. When it’s finally pointed out to him clearly that he is the instigator in this scenario, he decides to prove he’s woke by holding his own diversity training. He hauls the employees back into the conference room, disrupting their workday (causing Jim to lose a huge sale) and forcing them to wear tags on their heads identifying them as members of marginalized minority groups. They are required to treat each other as stereotypes of those minority groups. Michael himself is wearing the tag identifying him as MLK because he wants to get the attention off of himself as the original cause of this mess. When his employees refuse to go to extremes, he launches into an extremely offensive caricature of an Indian shopkeeper in front of resident Indian employee Kelly who responds by slapping him across the face.
This episode has disappeared from CC’s lineup. The show has been rerun a good four or five times in the last couple of months and this one is nowhere in sight. Any guesses as to why this non-Christmas or even minor-holiday themed episode appears to have been dropped?
They still show the “Sexual Harassment” episode in which Michael and his BFF Todd Packer behave extraordinarily inappropriately toward the employees. They still show the ridiculous “Scott’s Tots” episode where Michael has to tell a bunch of black students on the brink of graduation that he cannot fulfull his 10-year old promise of putting them through college.
And they still show “Gay Witch Hunt” in which Michael accidentally outs an employee and spends most of the episode promoting gay stereotypes before guilting the employee into letting Michael hug and kiss him.
At the beginning of the episode, Michael is confronted by Toby the useless HR guy because he called Oscar “faggy” for liking “Shakespeare in Love” more than “Die Hard”. He explains that Michael should have said “lame” instead. The perpetually-clueless Michael, who has a middle-school sense of humor, explains that lame is what “faggy” means. That’s when Toby has to tell him that Oscar is gay and would appreciate him using another word.
Within these same couple of months that “Diversity Day” has vanished, “faggy” is now being muted out in “Gay Witch Hunt” and asterisked out in the closed captioning.
I don’t understand why they are censoring episodes of a show that was written to be offensive in the first place. But, at least they’re not advertising, “Every Office Episode Ever” the way FXX is still showing commercials for “Every Simpsons’ Ever” despite them announcing the yanking of the Michael Jackson episode.
What do you think? The show ended in 2013 so it’s not a decades-old Western or variety show with old-fashioned worldviews. Should episodes in syndicated reruns be edited for words and content that are upsetting to people today? I haven’t checked out reruns of “All in the Family” or “The Jeffersons” lately…are the racial epithets that were common in those shows being censored?
Personally, I think it is insulting to the writers and shows themselves. The reason those shows are popular is because they are provocative. Those who pick and choose are just saying only we can say what is acceptable provocative. There not the only ones though. I just learned last week Wizards of the coast who has made more than 20,000 unique mtg cards now has a banned list of cards that they deem culturally unacceptable. There are about 8 cards on that list. If you go look up the card on their website they won’t even show you the picture. The one I looked up using google (Jihad) appears to be banned based on the title of the card alone because the picture is just a battle scene and the card offers no flavor text.
Also, Jack as written on this subject before, if you haven’t read this article, I think it will help: https://ethicsalarms.com/tag/home-alone-2/
I’ve actually read all of the entries, but it’s fun to go back to some of them occasionally. Turns out I responded a couple of times in that one.
However, in this case, the episode in question had been routinely aired in sequence like every other non-holiday episode until, suddenly, it wasn’t. The episode with the censored word had previously aired the word without muting it out.
In the examples in the previous entry, CBC was accused of cutting out Donald Trump because he’s now a President they hate, a film that would normally have profanity censored on basic cable is being censored and a film is cutting a minor sight gag to appease offended foreign audiences.
I’m not sure they’re the same thing. They aren’t cutting a scene out of the show because they now hate the person in it and they aren’t censoring words that they’ve always censored. The closest would probably be the third example in the previous entry. Someone is freaking out over a derogatory word for gays or Michael’s singular obtuseness in “Diversity Day” so those episodes are now being affected in the same way Singapore doesn’t want kids to watch two women kiss.
I do rather wonder, considering that actors get paid residuals for reruns, what happens if an actor’s scene is cut from an airing. Does that actor still get paid? If Donald Trump’s scene in “Home Alone 2” also contained a scene with a struggling actor who was getting residual payments for that immensely popular film, does that actor now get his income reduced because stations are excising Trump? What are the ethics of cutting scenes or refusing to air certain episodes when it financially affects the income of the performers who appeared in them, most of whom are not wealthy and rely on small residual checks to keep them afloat?
I have noted the same things from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary. The Left is very good at controlling the debate. They will define and redefine words to meet their agenda. This is a great example. If the Left can redefine the word, then using a prior, common definition or understanding of the word/idea allows them to use Alinsky tactic of “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” You are left defending yourself against claims of prejudice. The Left is doing this in real time with “court packing”. The Left means filling judicial vacancies with conservative justices the Left hates, not expanding the numbers of judges/justices with an ideological or political bent in hopes of promoting that party’s policies or agendas.
jvb
“Diverse” is the one that ticks me off the most. The leftist definition of “diverse” = not white. It is the leftist word of choice when they want to imply not white but it violates their sensibilities to just say not white.
I had a school principal who kept referring to a reservation school as “very diverse.” No lady, it’s not diverse at all. The antonym to diverse is monolithic. 100% Siletz Indian is quite monolithic.
No different than CGI versions of dead actors hawking products: their images are used without their knowledge or consent. It’s an unethical appeal to make emotion-based decisions.
They turned their son into a product. How sad. How pathetic.
A colleague and I were talking yesterday about a situation that happened to him when he was my age (about 20 years ago). The church we both belong to does what is called an invitation at the end of service. It is a chance for people to confess their sins/ask for the prayers of the church/be baptized. This is done while the congregations sings a song. If someone comes forward they have a conversation with a minister/elder and the minister/elder will give an abridged version of the event (not important to the story, but I am not a fan of this). He told me a story of a woman who grew up in that church and her family still attended. She married a devout catholic who agreed to go to church with her on Sunday and do catholic mass on Saturday. They had children together and had be doing this situation for some time.
One Sunday the man responds to the invitation. While the congregation sings, the man confessed to the minister he had an affair. It was then the question was asked of me what should I do if I were him in that situation. I suggested asking the man if he wanted to stop, tell him to stop, tell him to tell his wife, suggest we do marriage counseling and I would make an announcement that the man wanted to repent of a personal sin which we would be working on.
Our disagreement came over if the man should tell his wife. He thought he didn’t have to because a. he wasn’t part of our church and b. it would ruin his marriage, and c. destroy his kids.
I thought he should because a. res ipsa loquitur (i think this is the correct term), b. they could never fix their marriage without addressing the issue, c. whether or not he is part of our church he claims to be part of the body of Christ and should respond in kind, and d. she could always find out on her own (the fact she didn’t was moral luck).
Anyway we left and he said I was young and would change my mind on the subject when I got older, but I wanted to see what you guys thought. Given the details would you tell the man to tell his wife? Or do you think it is better not to?
Since the context is a religious conversion and the Bible is pretty clear on confessing one’s sins, I think telling his wife is expected. If his conversion is genuine, honesty is at the top of the list of character traits desired. From a practical point of view, problems in the marriage don’t just go away without acknowledging and working on them. You were correct in that it’s likely she will find out whether he tells her or not.
I do, however, believe that the minister should leave out the personal sin part in relating the man’s decision to the congregation.
There is no good option, only options that minimize further harm.
A man could, for instance, take a discreet one-time act of infidelity to the grave and permanently reform his behavior. However, an affair that became known by happenstance to multiple people should probably be disclosed by the offending spouse directly to the innocent, as learning of it from a third party is likely to be world shattering. The individual circumstances are impossible to know third hand, and can only be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
When a person strays from their marriage or relationship, it is always damaged, regardless of a confession. In this case, even if the man did not confess (especially if he does not), his actions in the marriage will always be tainted by guilt and shame. If the man does confess, his conscience will likely feel better, but even if his marriage survives, it will always be influenced by his actions.
The difference between the two choices is whether he gives his wife the burden of his selfish act, or keeps it on his own shoulders. I think he should confess, because his wife deserves to make a choice about their marriage.
Michelle,
I tend to agree with you but I am wondering if his confession to his wife would relieve him of the burden of his actions, and place them squarely on her shoulders. Wouldn’t she, then, be the one who has to make the decision of forgiving and reconciling? What harm will this do to her?
It’s a tough call, but if it were a single instance or one occasion, then I would be inclined to have him take it to the grave. If it were a continuous affair, then he should tell her and let her decide.
jvb
I agree with you in spirit. On one hand, telling her is another selfish act on the husband’s part. He gets to feel better, and she gets to feel worse.
Having said that, I’ve been in the wife’s shoes. I would have preferred to have my partner tell me of his actions, rather than hearing it from a “friend” who told me about the affair solely to watch my reaction.
An affair is an unforgivable cruelty to a spouse or partner. Once the act is done, there are no good outcomes from remaining silent or confessing the sin.
I totally agree with you. It is the betrayal of trust.
I am sorry for what you went through. If I knew a friend was having an affair, I would be terribly conflicted about telling my friend.
jvb
Thank you.
I cannot say for sure what I would do if I knew a friend’s spouse was having an affair. Cruel news is cruel news, no matter how compassionately it’s delivered.
Recently, a neighbor couple relayed an uncomfortable encounter they had with some new neighbors who moved in a few months back.
Initially, the new folks seemed nice and sweet and a good fit for the neighborhood. Young couple with two preschool age kids. My wife and I have, however, overheard the wife yelling at the husband more than a few times, seemingly with no regard for the fact the people across the street can hear this. It’s not just “why didn’t you do this like I asked?” yelling, it’s peppered with personal insults and belittling.
So the other neighbors told us about an incident where they were all visiting pleasantly in the street as the new neighbors took their kids for a stroll. The youngest child fell off her bicycle, and wasn’t hurt, but was upset. The wife, in front of the other neighbors, proceeds to berate the hell out of her husband for allowing this to happen. Full-on shouting at him while the other couple was just awkwardly standing there. Once the storm was over, they moved on without apologizing for the outburst.
I laughed as they were telling me this tale, because it is such an awkward situation. If a neighbor you don’t know all that well behaved this way in front of you, what’s the best response? It feels likely that I’ll be in this situation at some point seem, and I’d prefer to have a better response than just stunned, awkward silence. Part of me is firmly in the “it’s their marriage, she can yell at him if he’s willing to take it” camp, but part of me thinks modelling that kind of behavior in front of your kids isn’t great, and doing so in front of other people seems to indicate that she doesn’t see anything wrong with acting this way. I also am kind of bothered by the idea that if the roles were reversed, and he was abusing her in this way, most people would consider that a much bigger problem.
Maybe take it up in private with the husband? Have your wife take it up in private with the wife?
Don’t get involved, UNLESS physical fighting starts or their screaming starts to disturb the peace. Then call the cops. Yes, if the roles were reversed and he was shouting at her most people would consider it a much bigger problem, but that’s just one of those little unfairnesses in life. In the old days the husband would have just had to lean in, and say very quietly, “If you shout at me one more time there will be hell to pay when we get home,” and that would be that.
Yeah, I’m not inclined to get involved at this stage. It’s one of those situations where there are no good answers. If it were physical abuse, then it’s a no-brainer that that would have to stop. Verbal abuse gets a little grayer. Some people just express themselves in ugly ways, and if he’s content to let it continue, it’s not really my place to step in.
A few years ago, not long after Hurricane Harvey turned my locale into a disaster area, I shared in this blog what I called a “Manifesto.” It was a homespun “thesis.” Jack actually declared it a Comment of the Day. I went back to it this past week, dredging it out of my archives, having almost forgotten that I wrote it. It was hard for me to read my own product. My difficulty was not because it affected me emotionally or anything like that, but because I am not an especially confident or skillful writer, like so many here at EA.
Anyhoo, my “Eeyore-ish” thesis basically stated, or attempted to state, that we Americans are trapped in a cycle of history that is both unavoidable and a result of our own strivings to re-cycle. Still, I do believe what I said in 2017 is relevant to today, and particularly relevant to the upcoming November 2020 elections. I offer its re-cycling here, still in strong belief that two types of people – “ownwayists” and “governists” – put us where we are.
Here are two links to “Lucky’s Madcap Mangled Manifesto” – first, to Jack’s post where I commented (September 30 at 3:08 PM, the tag says), and next, to Jack’s COD-designation post.
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/09/28/ethics-essay-of-the-month-andrew-sullivan/
https://ethicsalarms.com/2017/10/03/comment-of-the-day-ethics-essay-of-the-month-andrew-sullivan/
See? That should say above, “I am not an especially confident or skillful writer, unlike so many here at EA.”
I think the sentence works either way, Lucky.
The Howard Beale lives loudly within you, Lucky.
Love the passage on laws and regs. Funny how everyone has ignored the CDC for decades. Obesity? Who cares? Can you super size that? Hell yes I want fries with that. Cigarettes dangerous? Hah! Not really. You got a light? Diabetes? Gimme some more of that Kit Kat bar! But now, there’s a whatyamacall pandemic! Save me, save me. It’s the government’s job to protect us from a virus, and pronto! And it’s all about SCIENCE now and them fellas at the CDC are experts and know everything and they’re always right. Dr. Fauci for Czar!
It’s pathetic.
Thanks OB. I am always inspired by how succinctly and straightforwardly you make important points.
Beale lives TOO loudly within me, IMO (laughing at myself). He has lived there since I was in my 20s, when I first saw “Network.” My all-time favorite scene of all American movies is the “sales pitch” that the CEO Jensen (played by Ned Beatty) gives to Beale. “The World Is A Business.” Truth, packaged for the insane. (laughing again)
The Democrats are engaged in pure censorship and thought control, which will only get worse if they win this election, as it certainly seems they will. There’s a virtual blackout on news that’s good for Trump or bad for Biden. Today’s example: NY Post this morning publishes an expose that, if true, proves that Joe Biden lied about his involvement in Hunter’s doings in Ukraine. If anything remotely similar had been published about Trump, it would have been the top story in every new outlet all day. Instead, as of 5:00 PM, both Twitter and Facebook have blocked their users from forwarding the story, and there is not a single mention of it anywhere on nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com, latimes.com, wsj.com, cnn.com, msnbc.com, abcnews.com or cbsnews.com.
How does this affect the ethics analysis of the government response to the pandemic?
https://www.wsj.com/graphics/when-did-covid-hit-earliest-death/
Meanwhile the transgender community is all over trying to say that sexuality isn’t ingrained, it is “preferences.” They are offended by people who won’t date them, arguing it is bigoted to refuse to date a transgendered person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqT_6LpLTa8
The LGB community has been trying for a long time to get people to accept that orentation isn’t a choice, and it isn’t a societal construct. Now the T in LGBT wants to blow that up.
Why did gay activists include the T?
The T’s have much more in common with anorexics and bulimics than gays.