44 thoughts on “Friday Ethics Open Forum!

    • I read several blogs, but only three with constant regularity: Ethics Alarms (obviously), Turley Law Blog, & It Bears Mentioning by John McWhorter.

      Dr. WcWhorter is a professor of linguistics at Columbia. He writes frequently on education, our nation’s prevalent focus on racism, and often how the two are combined. He happens to be a black man, which draws some readers to read his words with a more open mind, and others to feel he is betraying his race. I find him incredibly intelligent, interesting & honest, as well as a wonderful writer.

      He wrote this essay on “systemic racism” and I found it spot on.


        • Hi Steve! I actually recently found the blog that I believe you author…Society’s Building Blocks…if that’s you, I literally read three or four of your blogs just a couple of days ago and they were fantastic! Eloquent and relevant to the crisis our nation is facing. (I had to tell you before I forgot!) 🙂

          But in answer to your question, I’ve only JUST started participating in blogs that I’ve read for years, like EA. For the last six months I’ve felt even more compelled to read things that make sense, from people who actually care about America and upholding our Constitution.

          I’m stuck at home w/long term illness, so while I read voraciously, responding frequently happens when I’m nodding off and I either forget to hit SEND or lose my work and am too tired to retype!

          • I really appreciate your kind words about my blog; although, that’s not the blog I was talking about. I frequent a friend’s blog that’s local to my area and there is a recently new commenter on that blog too, and that commenter also referred to John McWhorter’s blog, and the commenter did so an hour and twenty-one minutes before you posted your comment on here. I thought the commenter being relatively new on both blogs and then both commenters referencing the same blog that I’d never heard of might have been a unique coincidence.

            • You are very welcome! Please keep blogging: it’s extremely needed. Regarding Prof McWhorter’s blog-that IS a very unique coincidence! I think more & more people are turning to blogs to get answers to questions they’re not “allowed” to ask in the current climate lest they be branded a racist/monster/have their entire lives ruined at worst, or an uneducated ignoramus at best.
              If you’re comfortable with sharing the blog you frequent (since it obviously has some like minded people on it), I’d love to know. Thank you. 🙂

              • CD-Patriot wrote, “If you’re comfortable with sharing the blog you frequent (since it obviously has some like minded people on it), I’d love to know.”

                We’re not all like minded but here it is. For the most part it’s deals with local issues that cross over to the same kind of issues that are faced across the USA.

      • I’ll second your recommendation for McWhorter. The ironic thing is that anyone who says he is betraying his race is making a racist comment, just as with the similar types of comments about Senator Scott.
        The thing about ‘systemic racism’ is that is difficult to describe a system that discriminates against blacks without referring to outcomes. We can do it pretty easily for discrimination against others, as for example the standards some universities use for who gets admitted – there the deck is stacked against whites and Asians, for example, and the stacking is revealed in the selection documentation, so we don’t even need to look at outcomes. Perhaps there are systems that discriminate against blacks; if so, let’s identify the system documents and practices and eliminate them. If there are no documents or practices to be found, then it is not systemic, it is something else.

        • You’re spot on, Johnny. I’m appalled at how so many treat Senator Scott, Candace Owens, Larry Elder AND John McWhorter. But they refuse to acknowledge their own racism. And I refuse to call it “reverse racism” when it’s a black person using derogatory name for a white person, or when it’s black on black insult, Asian on Hispanic, Indian on black and so on. It’s just racism, plain & simple. And it’s not ok.

          We need to stop dwelling in the past, playing the blame & victim game, find the real issues and get real solutions for them, as you suggested. Otherwise we will remain in a vicious cycle where no progress is actually made, no one wins, and more importantly, everybody loses.

    • Where did you find this crap? I did a deep dive into the author, and can find no indication that she has any expertise whatsoever, just lazy opinions. The tell is the false and ignorant reference to the Three/Fifth’s compromise, as well as the 1619 Project agitprop, and referring to criticism of Barack Obama as “racist.”

      She did inflict her biases on children, however, as a teacher. Not surprising.

      • The whole white-beating craze is just re-purposed, “re-imagined” anti-Semitism.
        I mean it (in reference to the 1940s Jewish Holocaust), when I say, “Never again.”

      • And I have my own sign to flash at the “Defund-Disarm-Dismantle” mindless little [wannabe vaginas] with their rainbow bullshit. My sign says, “Dick-Sever.” Only because the stupid assholes wouldn’t know what “Defenestrate” meant if the fence-builder told them he builds ALL his fences that way. Dicklessness inhibits breeding, thank God.

    • I would reply with “watch this video”

      My only criticism would be that the title should read “American progressives whine to much.” Anyone who thinks the United States is rife with racism simply needs to visit anywhere else in the world. We’re in the least racist country on the planet. Europeans have the liberal bigotry of low expectations. They do look down on all with brown skin as someone to pity and give a handout so they feel like they’re “being helpful.” Racism is widespread and open across Asia. They are a bunch of countries that are mostly homogeneous so no one thinks twice of flagrant racism. It isn’t confronted and the vast majority is OK with it.

    Observation 1
    We have been shown over and Over and OVER again since 2016 that the left’s Pravda like propaganda infused media will not disclose any facts that challenge their propaganda narrative and they actively demonize any and all opposing opinions.

    Observation 2
    The left’s Pravda like propaganda infused media have fully embraced Malcolm X’s quote, “The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” and they are doing everything within their power to exert that power over the population.

    Observation 3
    To completely control the narrative the left must brainwash as much of the population as possible into blindly following their hive like mind.

    Knowing these are actual observations, as I do, and observing what’s been happening since President Biden has taken office, it’s become quite clear to me that the left is actively trying to control a nation-wide narrative on damn near everything and, if their pattern of rhetoric continues, this will get much worse as we go through the next couple of years.

    Question: How can we trust any narrative that is being pushed by media that has shown that they no longer follow any kind of ethical journalistic standards and have also shown us that they are completely consumed by the left’s ideological hive mind?

    Conclusion Based On Observation: The United States is in serious trouble if we can’t adjust the ideological path that a huge swath of the nation has chosen to trod.

  2. Query: Why is it verboten to refer to Covid 19 and the Wuhan flu when it is perfectly acceptable and not even taken note of to refer to its variants by the locale from whence they come, eg., the UK variant or the Brazil variant or the South African variant? I think the Chinese government has so insinuated itself into the U.S. economy that U.S. businesses and media companies are entirely beholden to the CCP.

    • The American business kowtowing to the CCP is infuriating. The theory on opening up China was that coming out of extreme poverty would make them liberalize. It hasn’t worked, and that’s clear now. We’re just funding a country that has visions of world domination. A world where China is the superpower isn’t a good world.
      The hypocrisy is astounding. We have the Coke corporation refusing to break ties with known companies benefiting from concentration camps in China. That’s not important to them, but wokism in the US is very important. It’s a clown world.

    • Other Bill, I don’t have a better answer to your why question than the fact which you insinuated in your ensuing sentence. I have taken to calling The Virus That Is Forbidden To Connect With China “the Fauci Virus.” One way or another – maybe in multiple ways – that asshole Fauci has promoted himself through the existence of that virus. Hell, he might even be the central figure in enabling the virus’s “innovation.” In the Wuhan Virology Institute.

    • I would ask the person making the query to change the wording to reflect the opposite. How would a gun owner get an anti-gun activist to join the NRA, learn to use, and then buy a firearm. If the answer is you could not, then that is your answer.

    • The question I would ask is “Are you prepared to really listen to why you may not be able to convert them, and in fact may be converted yourself?”.
      Most anti-gun activism is propaganda intended to disarm law abiding Americans, and in fact would not decrease gun violence as a whole.

  3. So awhile ago I told you all about my opportunity to run for school board. The short answer: I didn’t win (not even close). The incumbent and a teacher at the local university were the winners. I (and another conservative candidate) decided that we were going to do our civil duty and attend the meetings anyway (they are open to the public). We learned that the next one was going to have someone there proposing CRT for our school system. This worried me and the other woman a lot so we decided to prepare a rebuttal.

    CRT (Critical Race Theory) is a ideology that asserts that at its core the United States is a fundamental racist country. This means that all aspects and institutions such as our system of government, our laws, our economy, and equal protection are built upon protecting white supremacy and keeping down black people and minorities. However, CRT does not limit itself to only white supremacy, but it also seeks to protect people from so called white institutions such as capitalism and patriarchy, and the nuclear family.

    The idea of CRT is not new going back at least 40 years. It is typically attributed to two CRT scholars Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. There work is built upon a twisted definition of racism that isn’t what the average person would understand. Most people would understand racism to be prejudice against a particular person or group of individuals based on skin color (or perhaps even culture). Going back to their book, Critical Race Theory: An Introduction, Stefancic and Delgado argue there is no objective way to define racism essentially arguing that it is whatever the everyday experience is that is not typical of a person of color in this country. This leads us to our first two big problems with CRT: Interest convergence and the lived experience.

    Interest convergence is another ideology or subset of CRT that argues the only reason white people help minorities is when it also benefits their own self interest. Derrick Bell (Building on the work of Delgado and Stefancic) believes that the only reason racism persist in our society is white (both elite and working class) have little incentive or interest in eradicating it. Therefore, when they do, it serves in their best interest. Here Bell uses the example of Brown v. Board of Education. What should have been a landmark case to our society is nothing more than ulterior motive to serve the self-interest of whites.

    Interest convergence creates a sad and ironic twist. If your white, it damns if you do damns if you don’t. Proponents of CRT state that there is no sitting on the side lines of racism. If you are not actively working against it, you are part of the problem. However, interest convergence says the only reason you are actively helping is not to make society better, but because you are really just serving your whiteness. Which brings us to privilege.

    White privilege is another part of CRT ideology that argues if you are born white, despite all all hinderances, you are automatically better off than minorities. As life progresses, you will always have a leg up. When combined interest convergence and anti-racism, you must acknowledge your sins as a white person, and even though you are doing doing anti-racism to benefit yourself and your whiteness, others must see your repentance so they know how bad your whiteness is therefore the cause is truly helped.

    Now lets look at the other problem: the lived experience. In sociology the lived experience is an experience you or particular individuals partake in due to your surroundings, culture, race, home life, job, and many other factors that may or may not apply to anyone else. For example, while I lived in China for 5 years, it was a completely different experience from the native Chinese who have lived there all their lives, a completely different experience than a Chinese-American visiting China for the first time, but was very similar to most of the expats who have lived there for at least a year or two. The lived experience isn’t a problem, but offers a different prospective on life. It is the reason qualitative studies exist. However, in CRT there are no individuals only groups. Therefore blacks collective share the same desires and experiences with other blacks as well as whites with other whites. Since blacks have historically been the recipients of racism at the hands of white people in the United States they have all experienced racism because whites collectively share in white supremely (this is also one of the reasons why proponents of CRT argue blacks cannot be guilty of racism).

    I’m going to come back to this idea in a moment, but first I need to back up and talk a different problem with CRT: the rejection of science, reason, evidence, and free thinking. Perhaps you have read articles or seen headlines that say something like, “Math is racist.” This is a very simplified version of the problem, but it is also built upon the work of Delgado and Stefancic. In there book they write ““First, that racism is ordinary, not aberrational—‘normal science,’ the usual way society does business, the common, everyday experience of most people of color in this country.” Since modern science was predominately producted by white western men, CRT views science as a white and western way of knowing and ensures and perpetuates white dominance. At its core CRT is arguing that science cannot be objective but must be socially constructed (Robin Diangelo and Ozlem Sensory).

    Here we see the lived experience and interest convergence (as well as racism) intersect. Since white people are the creators of the current scientific method, it is only another form of white supremacy therefore (paraphrasing Delgado and Stefancic) black people aren’t served by science and that sharing there lived experience is the best mode to produce and advance knowledge. This incredibly insulting to black people and white people alike. Not only is it the worst case of bigotry of low expectations I have ever seen, it supposes the absolute worst in people. With this kind of language I can’t imagine white people or black people ever getting along, let alone ever overcoming racism, and I’m not even done.

    Ignoring it’s many other problems, I want to share only two more before I go to two bad examples of its usage. The first is it rejects all potential alternatives as solutions especially that it will be fixed with time. While studies have shown we have become significantly less racist since the civil war and even less so since the civil rights movements in the 50-60s, CRT says the only way it will diminish is by focusing on race all the time. This is why so much time and devotion is given by CRT proponents to find racism in every situation and ever interaction. It is why you have to find “hidden” racism in your job, school, society, church, etc… If you can’t find anything, the problem is that it doesn’t exist, the problem is you (I read an biography by a Chinese person living in Mao’s China that said the Party used to say this exact same thing). Based on these conclusions, racism will never be fixed.

    The second issue is you can’t disagree with it. To disagree with it automatically makes you a racist and therefore, the person you are disagreeing with doesn’t have to listen to you. Since a individual is judge based on the collective lived experience, those lived experiences must reflect the over-arching problem which is racism is a constant in our society. This statement is so strong, it doesn’t even protect you if your black. The treatment of Kanye West is a famous example of this happening, but a lesser known black man Daryl Davis was called a white supremacist because he was willing to associate with racist (he is famous for talking people out of the KKK). Nikole Hannah-Jones sums up this problem nicely, There is racially black and politically black. Or Joe Biden who said, If you don’t vote for me, you are not black.

    Summing up, I want to mention two works that use CRT. The first is White Fragility. According to the author (Robin DiAngelo) I am guilty of white fragility just for writing this statement. Because I enjoy white comfort, any idea that challenges that comfort or my interest prevents me from confronting my racism. Therefore anything I say must to defend myself from racism must always be treated as suspect.

    While I roll my eyes at the first, the second is a bigger concern for me: the 1619 project. I’m going to ignore the stealth edits, the fact that Hannah-Jones won her Pulitzer in commentary, her constantly lies about what she said or did not say regarding the project (Dispite the fact the internet is forever), and focus on what is being used as propaganda as history. Elementary and secondary schools across the country are adding the 1619 project to their history curriculum despite the inaccuracies and practicing historians objections to its content: the most obvious being its central claim: the US started in 1619. Historian James Oakes had this to say about it: [T]he project asserts the founders declared the colonies’ independence of Britain’ in order to ensure slavery would continue. This is not true. If supportable, the allegation would be astounding—yet every statement offered by the Project to validate it is false.”

    What happened in this project is everything I mentioned above. It was built upon the “lived experience” which would have been ok as anecdotical evidence and supplements to history, but they were not historical fact. The people who objected to the project usage were wrong, not because their facts were wrong, but because they had “hidden motives.” When challenged by Tom Cotton who brought a bill to prevent its teaching in public school systems as uncontested fact Commentary Magazine noted:

    Cotton’s initiative, which is more a political statement than legislation, would strip schools of federal funding equivalent to the amount of instructional time dedicated to teaching the 1619 Project. “This bill speaks to the power of journalism more than anything I’ve ever done in my career,” Hannah-Jones wrote while promoting the Pulitzer Center’s “educational resources and curricula” designed to “bring ‘The 1619 Project’ into your classroom.” American education, implied in the series of articles she subsequently promoted, does not adequately teach “the history of American slavery.” And what is objective knowledge anyway? “LOL,” the Pulitzer-recipient wrote when confronted with Civil War historian James MacPherson’s assertion that the project “lacked context and perspective. “Right,” she continued, “because white historians have produced truly objective history.”

    Commentary Magazine sums up this section by essentially saying the use of the 1619 project in schools is a waste of time. There is a lot wrong with how we see and study history, but the 1619 project would have us debate it before learning it (this is a lot nicer than what I would have said).

    I would like to sum up my thoughts on all of this with the following statements:

    First, CRT is itself racist. To use it is to practice racism. If your not sure, just ask Coke-cola, Disney, or even any of those Silcon Valley places that have tried it and rejected it.

    Second, if your going to try it, because it is racism, you are risking a lawsuit. People are going to only put up with you telling them they are horrible for so long. Keep it up in the lawyers will get involved.

    Finally, it will never be satisficed. If that point wasn’t clear above, this one is here so there is no confusion. If you don’t choose to stop it, all you can do is pray that it doesn’t come for you.

      • It’s important, JP. I’d rather read something crucial and insightful that is lengthy than something shorter that doesn’t include a whole lot to back it up. Lots of writers do that, and it becomes more about feelings than facts. You come at it from a relatable human experience but back it up with facts. When do you plan to submit your rebuttal? Thank you for writing this, JP. It speaks to me, and I know it speaks to many people who are terrified of speaking up at this irrational and unreasonable time in our society. It’s the school board who lost someone incredibly valuable in not electing you.

      • Rich in CT wrote, “Insightful comments like these are why I keep coming back!”

        I keep coming back because this blog inspires me to think critically about ethical and unethical things in life and although the comments are usually great the commentary and voicing my opinion are secondary to reading the blog.

    • Ah, Delgado and Stefancic.


      Delgado and Stefanic, though, argue the price for freedom in this case may be higher than we think. For example, a John Hopkins study published in 2013 concluded that being exposed to racism can lead to high blood pressure and stress among African Americans. Similarly, according to research by Claude Steele at Cornell, negative stereotypes affect African-American self-perception, and can lead to lower test scores.

  4. A possible new wrinkle in the Killing of St. George by the Heretic Chauvin.
    A lawyer for one of the other officers claimed in a court filing that the examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, was coerced into including neck compression as a factor in Floyd’s death.


    If true, it also raises ethics villain issues on the part of the doctor (Mitchell) who allegedly did the coercion. An excerpt from the article:
    “Thao’s attorney alleged that Baker originally didn’t think that neck compression was a factor in Floyd’s death. But he was pressured into including it after speaking with former Washington, D.C., medical examiner Dr. Roger Mitchell twice.
    Mitchell was going to criticize Baker’s findings in an op-ed for The Washington Post, the filing alleges, but he didn’t after Baker released the report.”

    • I left this comment in the comments section.

      That attorney is a brave one, putting his entire reputation and career on the line.

      Who would hire him to fight a parking ticket if he just made it all up?

  5. During a dinner conversation yesterday evening, several friends and I were discussing the current political climate and hostility toward whites in particular and conservatives in general. One friend who is quite politically astute, but usually very reserved, made the following observation (and I’m paraphrasing): “Remember this: For most people on the Left, political activism is like a thermostat that they can turn up or down, from ‘Voting’ to ‘Peaceful Protests,’ ‘Mostly Peaceful Protests (Riots)’, ‘Property Destruction’, ‘Arson’, ‘Assault’, and sometimes ‘Murder.’ On the other hand, for the vast majority of folks on the Right, political activism is a two-position switch, and the settings are ‘Vote’ and ‘Shoot.’ And you really don’t want that switch to get flipped.”
    The rest of us were momentarily taken aback, but I had to concede an affinity for his reasoning.

    • Lock and load, ye of the Right! Jim, even your astute friend shows signs of leftvirus infection. We of the Right have every bit as much “spectrum” – likely more spectrum, in which we act out our “activism” – as the leftists have. Oversimplifications of the character of those of us of the Right, along with attempted complexity-attribution to the leftists and subsequent pseudo-comparison of alleged deep-thinkers (leftists) vs. simpletons (Rightists), is a sure sign of the kind of infection that has zombie-fied so many people in this part of the world. But don’t tell your friend; he won’t listen, anyway. And I don’t give a shit.

  6. I find a lot of amusement with the idea that the hackers that shut down the pipeline to millions basically said ‘We’re not bad, we steal from corporations and give to charity, like Robin Hood.’

    Umm ok. Whatever makes you feel better.

    Is that the rationale “it’s for a good cause” or is it the ever popular #64?

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.