I have shackled my arms to the wall, and despite a violent desire to join in the fun, I will leave the responses to the offensive “satirical” idiocy above, by some woke “Afro-Latino engineer, writer, and occasional Bruno Mars impersonator” named Carlos Greaves, to you. In the process, consider the degree of indoctrination, ethical confusion, and rationalization poisoning necessary for someone to 1) write this garbage, 2) think it’s worthy of publication except as evidence or societal rot, or 3) read it and think, “By George! What a humorous and perceptive take!”
If you are one of the latter, please post a comment and explain your thinking. Really. I beg of you. I’ll unshackle myself for that.
[Addendum, typed with my nose: If there was any lingering hesitation on my part that I need to add “Walk a mile in his/her shoes” to the Ethics Alarms Rationalization List, this obliterated it.]
Ethics Alarms 
Does he realize that this decision tree undercuts the whole BLM – white privilege narrative if his logic prevailed. He is an idiot.
OK, I have to unshackle for a minute…this idiot, and all the flipper-slapping seals applauding his “wit,” all spent nearly every waking hour attacking Donald Trump’s decisions about how best to lead and manage the United States of America, the most unimaginably difficult job in the world and one which nobody, including those elected to the office, can truly understand until they are doing it. Everyone, however, has been a member of a team, has made commitments, has been told their whole life, and accurately, that there is no shame in failing a challenge, only in refusing to try. In addition to its other faults, the “decision tree” is hypocritical.
“In the process, consider the degree of indoctrination, ethical confusion, and rationalization poisoning necessary for someone to 1) write this garbage, 2) think it’s worthy of publication except as evidence or societal rot, or 3) read it and think, “By George! What a humorous and perceptive take!” ”
I think you give the guy too much credit assuming it was these things. The guy’s just probably an underachieving asshole trying to attract attention and “likes” by the one thing he’s good at – being an asshole.
Seriously, before you dismiss me as being a cranky middle-aged man who hasn’t had his coffee or a bitter guy who’s just banging pots and pans, I’ve had all my medication, prescription and otherwise, this morning, but reading stuff like this plays havoc with my faith in people generally.
Writing is what I do generally. I write briefs designed to persuade learned judges to see it my way. I write historical articles that are supposed to educate. I write fantasy stories that are supposed to make you boo the villains and cheer the heroes. I write poems that are supposed to be memorable. I write jokes that are supposed to get a quick laugh, usually without being dirty (Hey did you hear about the ghostly deli owner? He was known for his BOOlonga sandwiches!). Writing is a skill and tool that can do great things. It was considered one of the Nine Gifts of Heaven the legendary Chinese emperors carried: a crystal and jade ball with an eternal flame within (Fire); a jade hammer (The Forge); a golden plow (Agriculture); a jade horse; a golden wheel; a golden pen (Writing), a jade pen (History), a golden mask (Poetry & Drama) and a jade and gold lute (Music).
However, like any of these gifts, it can be worthless if used in a worthless manner, or destructive if abused. This represents both. There is very little value in telling anyone to be silent, which is easily answered by a refusal. There is less still value in telling someone to do so in a profane manner, which is all too easily answered by a sneer or more profanity. Sarcasm has value, up to a point. Satire has value, up to a point. Outright mockery has less value. Name-calling has almost none. Extended mockery and name-calling have close to zero. This is the latter. If you are going to make a point, then make it and move on. Maybe use ONE illustration to make your point memorable. This screed goes on a lot longer than it needs to, if it ever needed to begin, and boils down to “if you are not her, then be quiet,” which could have been said easily WITHOUT all the name-calling, profane insults, and mudslinging, and it would have made the same point. However, this guy thinks he’s that much more right if he adds in all this other trash-talk. He’s no different than the unhinged Jim Wright of Stonekettle station, who writes like Samuel L. Jackson on speed, or Dan Savage, who can’t finish a sentence without dropping an F-bomb.
My answer wouldn’t change, by the way, which is “No, I won’t just shut up. I have my thoughts on this and I won’t be silenced by a jerk with a poison pen. Is that all you’ve got?”
Note the black-and-white scenario he’s established. There is only one reason to criticize Simone Biles – you’re a conservative sexist racist.
When you start with such a flawed premise, there’s no reason for any reasonable person to keep reading. This is the equivalent of a Facebook meme that your ultra-Left friends will pass around, laugh and nod their heads in collective assimilated agreement.
They’ll be nodding their heads before it hits their inbox.
Surely, we all saw this coming.
As Lefties think the only problem in the world is the existence of Republicans, black wokesters think the only problem in the world is the annoying, continued existence of people of not color.
Using his…… ‘logic’ tree, the only person allowed to criticize someone is that person. By making this flowchart, he is criticizing others. By his own thought process, he should, to quote his own conclusion, ‘shut the fuck up’.
There’s an overlying logic here, Andrew: enlightened black people can criticize benighted people of not color. And besides, logic is a white supremacist construct. Check your privilege and your fragility.
This critical race Marxist theory stuff is ubiquitous and really, really nasty and depressing. It’s so dehumanizing. It’s vicious, but I have to say it’s brilliant in its ability to encompass everything. What’s the end game? Separate black and white countries.
overlying
Fixed it!
Thanks.
Good point. A world where no one can hold anyone else accountable for anything sounds great!
Wow. You can type with your nose? Impressive.
jvb
And no typos!
Even more impressive.
The left really likes to silence debate by deciding who has the right to speak and who doesn’t. The assumption behind much leftist thought is, “If you haven’t directly experienced something, then you can’t talk about it.” They aren’t even close to consistent on this though, as most people on the left have never been president, owned a business, or been a member of Congress, but they have strong opinions on all of these topics. Liberal women also have strong opinions on what it means to be a man as well.
But why even hope for logical consistency anymore? People just want to emote and virtue signal.
It reminds me of a quote by Ewan McGregor back in the day when he was talking about prepping for “Trainspotting” and considered briefly trying drugs to get an idea of what it was like. Then he decided that it wasn’t necessary because, after all, he’d played dead people before and hadn’t needed to die.
There is definitely a tipping point to the maxim of walking a mile in someone else’s shoes.
Definitely. It’s good practice to understand your knowledge limitations and to think of others, but it’s another thing to say someone is incapable of making a basic moral judgment unless they have directly experienced an event. Honestly, this principle seems like it would prevent most people from making moral judgments about most things.
“Never murdered someone?” Then don’t speak. “Never stolen something?” Don’t speak. To me, these are just really strange arguments.
My girlfriend says that liberals take something good and then exaggerate it. So, it’s good to walk in another person’s shoes to understand that person. Exaggerate this, and you get leftist thought that eliminates the ability to make moral judgments about an event a person has not directly experienced unless you are fighting for a leftist cause, which allows you to make all kinds of judgments on things you’ve never experienced.
Apply this to all sports. Have you ever…
— hit a home run in MLB, or at any level;
— kicked a field goal;
— sunk a “three” from the corner, in NBA competition…
I could go on for days…. the bleachers would be silent.
You know freedom of speech no longer exists when you can’t even debate an opinion because someone’s feelings are hurt because you dare to have a different opinion.
Freedom of speech still exists. Especially when you have the right things to say about the right people. If you don’t, well, that’s just a shame. Rethink your position and you can say whatever you want.
jvb
By the same sort of logic, I would have no basis for praising her accomplishments, no?
-Jut