Ugh. Masks Again. My Breaking Point Is Getting Nearer…

Last night in Northern Virginia, I waited to be served at a SubWay behind a young, apparently well-to-do mother and her two children, no more than 5 or 6 years old. All three were tightly masked, though in the cloth variety that are—yes they are— virtually useless. The two women behind the counter were masked, of course, for business and PR reasons. I wasn’t. Also in front of me was a young African-American woman (who ordered a BMT with cucumber, mayo, mustard, oil and vinegar) who also wore a cloth mask, while two young men behind me were unmasked.

For about the tenth time in recent weeks, I had to wrestle my tongue to the floor to avoid asking the masked women in line, “Pardon me, but why are you wearing those things?” and the mother “Why are you forcing those tiny children to walk around with half their faces covered? (I also wanted to ask the woman in front of me, “Mayo, mustard, oil and vinegar all on an Italian sub? What are you, nuts?” But that’s another issue.) Once again, I resisted the urge, but I can feel myself nearing the point where I’m going to do it. In fact, I’m nearing the point where I think it is the duty of Americans who care about the culture, societal values and future as a democracy to challenge the maskers, especially those who are abusing and warping their children.

These people should be made to defend their conduct. It’s not a private matter, not when masks carry a message and send messages to others. There appear to be two varieties of masked Americans, one pathetic and the other sinister: those who wear masks as a symbolic show of solidarity with the statist, totalitarian Left that wants the government to train the “little people” to do and believe what they are told, and those who have been turned into lifetime germaphobes and agoraphobes by media scaremongering, inflated death statistics and incompetent health officials. Every day, in tiny, incremental ways, these two, sometimes overlapping groups are tearing down American individuality, liberty, and the quality of life.

No, I don’t think I am exaggerating. This is one of several critical ethics crises in the United States today. It will be hard to fix, but the starting point is recognizing where the danger comes from, and trying to somehow break through the public fog produced by the disastrous response to the Wuhan virus in 2020. It requires direct confrontation. You know, as in…

Today my Sunday Times has this article in the local section: “Cases Are Rising in Schools. So Why Are Masks Off?” The Times really pretends this is a mystery, but answers its own question: “The risk of serious illness and hospitalization from Covid in children is extremely low.” But that’s not the conclusion the Times wants readers to reach. This is: “[Y]et the costs of unmasking, largely in the name of symbolism, are not entirely fictional.” Costs of unmasking? This is pushing society to the assumption that wearing masks, and making children wear masks, should be considered the status quo.

Here’s more from the article of how influential voices in our society are pushing for eternal and and constant masking as the new normal, beginning with conditioning the young:

Even if most children have not fallen especially sick since the repeal of masking rules, consequences remain. Given that students need to isolate for five days when they test positive, the rise in cases means that hundreds of children are kept out of school after two years of what are obviously significant academic losses resulting from reduced or nonexistent in-person learning. What they have instead is “asynchronous” learning at home.

Got that? Children need to wear masks in school because they lost in-person learning time for two years thanks to the hysterical closing of the schools as an over-reaction to the pandemic in the first place.

If the shutting down of American business, culture, society and freedom in 2020 wasn’t a political plot—and at this point only my reluctance to sign on to a conspiracy theory stops me from believing that—the manipulation of the crisis at this point is definitely political as well as partisan. Those masks have become like red armbands, simultaneously persuasive and intimidating.

Those who have not been terrified or turned into “Good Germans” have to do more than just watch.

For me, the time is approaching…

48 thoughts on “Ugh. Masks Again. My Breaking Point Is Getting Nearer…

  1. NYC finally got rid of the school mask requirement a few weeks ago, but over half the kids in my son’s extremely woke middle school are still wearing them.

    Also, in NYC there is a third type of mask-wearer besides besides the two that you identified: teenagers and young men who want to commit crimes and other misbehavior without being identified.

      • Not entirely unanticipated. I was pointing out that crime would certainly rise if masks became the norm to anyone who would listen* way back when Fauci was still being honest and telling people that masks were useless.

        * Nobody listened.

          • It’s fair to say that there is no evidence that mask requirements are *causing* an increase in crime, but it’s also obvious that an increase in mask prevalence will, to some extent, make the job of identifying criminals on camera feeds more difficult.

            I don’t think that it’ll be a big enough factor to seriously impact the discourse, and of course, criminals wore masks before this too… but the difference in the two situations mentioned is that there’s at least a rational connection between masking and crime.

          • Masks do two things to human interaction: provide you with a degree of anonymity, and dehumanize us to each other. It’s ludicrous to think that those two factors, taken together, had nothing to do with a rise in crime over the past two years. Is it the largest factor? Of course not. But it’s in the mix.

            I noticed very early on in the masking craze that people wearing masks almost immediately became more rude and irritable. I also noticed that people treated me worse when I wore a mask than when I didn’t. If you can’t see a person’s face, it seems to be a subconscious trigger to treat them as lesser. You don’t get valuable emotional feedback, which short-circuits respectful interaction. There’s no way this hasn’t led to some number of assaults that otherwise wouldn’t have happened.

  2. I recognize the byline of the “Big City” columnist in the New York Times, which is what the article in question is, as a regular liberal-trending writer who has been given her own voice. I’ve repeatedly recommended that people follow the unusually well-regulated *comments* in the New York Times to see where that base of people is actually trending. In the article, if you open the comments and click on “Reader Picks” – remember, these are the READERS, indeed I think the subscribers, of the New York Times – here is the most recommended (209 times) comment in its entirety:


    Note that this reader self-identifies as someone on the left. The third, fifth and sixth most READER-recommended comments are in the same vein. Of course there are sub-threads below each of these comments with protesters and all, but the trend is clear. I recommend you all check it out.

  3. Went to a social event last night that had the policy of “We follow the State guidance, no mask shaming please”. Funny thing is that, as an unmasked person, I was asked “are you vaccinated”, which was kind of reverse discrimination.It really is getting to be a mental disorder….

  4. Well, I guess the way I formatted the quote of the most popular NYT reader comment to that article didn’t work. So here it is, period, as follows. Or just do it yourself from Jack’s link to the article.

    Proponents of preschool mask mandates, including the CDC, have no argument. There is no data supporting the claim that preschool masking is effective at containing Omicron. There is also no data supporting the claim that masking preschoolers is safe. By forcing preschoolers into a masked environment for 40 hours a week, we have made them guinea pigs in a novel experiment. Nobody knows how much it negative impacted their social, linguistic, psychological, and intellectual development.

    The United States is the only country in the world imposing toddler mask mandates at preschools and daycares. We on the left have lost perspective and developed tunnel vision when it comes to Covid. In doing so, we have grown reckless and unable to recognize the costs of our Covid precautions.

    With all of this uncertainty, it is unacceptable to compel parents in one direction of the other. Parents who believe that masking toddlers is safe and effective can continue to mask. Parents who feel it is harmful and useless can remove the masks.

    • And only 2 years late to the party! Forgive me if I don’t read anything more into this than pushing back against stupid policy now that it’s no longer politically or socially dangerous to do so.

  5. So, I have a dentist appointment on Tuesday and I live in NY (near Elmira). I just switched dentists as I had been continuing to drive to Rochester (I moved here from there) until now. Six months ago for my last visit to Rochester I didn’t wear a mask and wasn’t challenged but they’ve known me for decades.

    I’m pretty sure the new office is going to require a mask. I’m going to walk in without the mask but if I’m challenged I feel I have no choice but to put on the mask since NY still has a mask mandate in place for medical services. I need to have my regular cleaning and checkup and that’s why I feel if I’m challenged I’ll have to put on the mask or they will refuse service.

    I haven’t been challenged at any other location for not wearing a mask and those places (bank, small market, etc) had the “mask required” signs posted. I ignored them. In those cases I could just walk out and take my business elsewhere, but, I don’t feel that’s an option with the dental visit.

    So, if I put on my mask in order to complete my dental checkup does that make me a p***y as Dr. Naomi Wolf put it in her substack article?

    • Wear the mask during the entire appointment, including the routine exam and cleaning. Don’t ever take it off. They’ll get the message: “If I can take it off during the exam, where your fingers are doing stuff to my teeth and there is little risk, then what kind of risk is involved with me not wearing before or after my visit?”


    • No. Even Pussies have the right to make their own rules for their own businesses and homes.
      But there’s nothing inappropriate in asking why the proprietor is requiring them and making a case why it is a bad idea….or changing dentists and making clear that this is why.

      Every little bit helps.

    • That’s why I have a shamans, so that if someone wants me to wear a mask, I can thoroughly shroud my head until I look like I’m joining Al Qaida.

  6. Jack, every time you talk about restraining yourself from saying something to a stranger in a store or hotel or other public place, I always want to scream out to you: YOU’RE ON CAMERA. You had some incident at a CVS or somewhere where I think you discovered this to your surprise. But you should not be surprised. It’s everywhere now in public spaces of all types. Whatever you think is the point you’re making at the time, I can almost guarantee you it won’t be taken that way on first glance by stranger seeing a video. Please be careful about this – I mean it.

    • Talking to someone is not criminal or provocative. I’m a lawyer: I have no idea what you think a video is going to show that I care about or should fear. I am not going to shrink from the necessary confrontations in life because a public area might be recorded. What a terrible way to live. Ethics, as the saying goes, is what you do when you think nobody is watching—it’s also what you do if everyone might be watching.

      • … to which you will want to bring all kinds of context when the video is released in the middle of something or at a different angle. Except you won’t be able to provide that context. Even something like a man talking loudly to a woman when the two are strangers will immediately generate an out-of-context (from your perspective) reaction from everyone else who’s watching. Plus which, you know how in society today, people’s reaction to anything perceived as negative is to take it personally – for example, customer service agents who react negatively to complaints when you are simply talking about a corporate problem and you couldn’t care less about the person who happens to have the customer-facing responsibility. Yeah you’re a lawyer, you’re also a theater stage director and I think you ought to put on that hat instead and figure this out. My advice stands, and I bet other people reading this are nodding along even if they don’t dare address this forum directly.

        • Why wouldn’t they “dare” address the forum directly?
          I’m not going through life quailing at what others might unjustly conclude when I am discharging a citizen’s ethical obligations. But I should write about the camera problem, which greatly facilitates illicit social control.

          • I don’t know if I already told you this, but, when I attended the St. Patrick’s Day parade in NYC, I was approached by WABC shortly before the actual marching began. The reporter asked me first what I was feeling about the parade being back, to which I responded that it was great (kind of a dumb question, would have I have taken a day off work and stood in less than ideal weather if I didn’t like the event?). After that she asked me what I thought seeing all these people out and unmasked (very few people were wearing masks, and almost none of the marchers). I said that I was vaxxed and boosted, and if that didn’t work a mask wouldn’t change anything, and we’re all grown-ups out here and responsible for our own safety and health. The footage was not later used, but I’m not upset. I wasn’t going to aid them in fearmongering by giving them a sound bite about hoping that this did not turn into a superspreader event. I went to two other parades and five airshows last year, unmasked, with people bunched up against the barricades, unmasked, in the hopes of getting the perfect picture. None of them turned into supersreader events either. I went to my first live concert the night after the parade. You had to show your vax card to be unmasked in the theater, which almost everyone was. That also did not turn into a superspreader event. I’m done with hiding my face in public, or anywhere else unless the owner mandates it and it’s necessary that I go there. You want to mask up, go right ahead, your face, your business. But don’t try to use me as a pawn in fearmongering.

  7. A nextdoor MS age neighbor girl walked past fully masked yesterday; it was below freezing with a stiff wind. Were there ever an environment where the chance of catching The Vid was less than zero, that would have been it.

    The kicker? Her Father is a virologist whom I haven’t seen masked in well over a year.

    IMO, Lefty masking is the equivalent of a portable, virtue-signaling yard sign; EVERYONE knows you’re Dialed In.

    • My husband and I found that wearing a cloth mask when walking outside on a really cold day helps keep our faces warm. Is it possible that she just didn’t want a frozen nose?

      But, yes, you are correct that it’s pointless for the purposes of avoiding germs.

      • “My husband and I found that wearing a cloth mask when walking outside on a really cold day helps keep our faces warm.”

        To put “really cold” in perspective, where do you live? I run outdoors year round, 22°F/-5.6°C this morning, with a bracing NW wind pushing its…um…influence lower; it’s been worse, but I very rarely cover my face.

        “Is it possible that she just didn’t want a frozen nose?”

        Fair point; who wants one of them there, am I right? But the rest of her was grossly underdressed (I shivered just looking at her!), so not so sure that was her concern.

        I shared this with my lovely and long suffering wife (a career Lefty) who made an unconvincing effort to explain that this wasn’t out-of-the-ordinary.

        Had to stop by the local…um…upscale grocer today; masking was evident-n-plentiful; interestingly enough, that’s not the case in the other grocers I frequent.

        Masking is a personal choice, like tats-n-piercings without the commitment, and with which I have no problem; when the choosers expect me to validate their choices…THEN we may have a problem.

  8. I am begging you not to do this.

    As someone who still masks up in stores just to err on the side of caution, I do think there is a sensible debate to be had about how effective they are. But if you, a stranger, try and rope me into that debate while I am trying to order a sandwich, you are going to be the one who ends up publicly humiliated.

    I don’t know, maybe that would do you some good. Between posting 3-5 blog posts every day and accosting strangers in public places, do you ever stop to consider that maybe your opinions are not the most important things in the universe?

    • This comment (at least the last paragraph) is a fair example of why this blog has turned into an “echo chamber” as some put it.

      I wouldn’t speak that way to a guest, much less my host. If people who think differently from me cannot bother to be the bare minimum of civil, I feel I’m not missing much by avoiding them.

      • It is not civil to accost people in stores because they are taking health measures you disapprove of in a pandemic. Nor is it ethical. Such behavior should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms.

        As for whether and why this blog is an “echo chamber,” I find it odd to blame one of the lone left-wing commenters for this, and not the host for acting like a parody of a right-wing extremist. And yes, if one is publicly contemplating accosting people for wearing a mask in an indoor public place, that’s exactly what one is, no matter how much neutrality and objectivity one claims to have.

        • Interesting. So publicly sharing his thoughts (which he did not act on) proves he’s a right-wing extremist?

          Yes, I think the blame is pointing in the right direction.

        • For what it’s worth, I mostly agree with you. Jack should not verbally accost people for wearing masks in public. I don’t think such behavior should be “discouraged in the strongest possible terms” simply because I’d rather save those terms for things that really matter, like leaving shopping carts in between two parking spaces.

          • What would you accost someone for? I am quite certain the needless masking of children is child abuse. I think wearing symbols that support abusive government power has to be challenged. If you don’t think the mask cult is worth taking positive action to counter, you couldn’t be more wrong.Passivity in this case will be disastrous.

            • In this case, the child could have a cold and her parent is trying to prevent excessive spreading of germs.

              Even if everyone were healthy and the parent is simply trying to install a healthy respect for sheep-like obedience to government edicts, I’d still stay away from accosting the parent.

              There are many people out there who believe that I’m abusing my children by taking them to church with me, and these people would largely use the same arguments that you’re using. I think their religion (adhering to useless, performative edicts that come from government agents) is dumb and destructive, but again, they feel the same way about how I’m parenting.

        • This is too rich to pass up:

          It is not civil to accost people in stores because they are taking health measures you disapprove of in a pandemic.

          You need to catch up on your blog reading. Societal ethics are created by public judgment and action: if a responsible citizen sees damaging behavior, then that citizen has an ethical obligation to confront the wrongdoer. Asking a stranger a question is not uncivil. Nor is attempting to persuade that stranger that his or her conduct is misguided.

          Nor is it ethical.

          I believe masking young children is child abuse, and I believe that encouraging the public to yield personal liberty to fads, mobs and intimidation is scietally destructive. Believing that, it would be unethical NOT to take action. (I have seen scant evidence yet that you know what “ethical” means, but I can justify intervening with the mask wearers by way of all three major ethical systems.

          Such behavior should be discouraged in the strongest possible terms.

          That’s an unsupported and unsupportable assertion.

          As for whether and why this blog is an “echo chamber,” I find it odd to blame one of the lone left-wing commenters for this, and not the host for acting like a parody of a right-wing extremist.

          First warning: I am not a “right wing extremist,” nor do I act as a “parody of one.” That’s an unsupportable insult, and demonstrably false.

          You have until 7:00 Pm tomorrow to apologize. Here. “I apologize” is good enough.But you need to do at least that, and if you fail, every comment between this one and 7 will vanish.

          I would miss you, but you have crossed a line that I do not let commenters cross.

    • Katie,
      Jack’s opinions may not be the most important things in the universe, (Ithinkheknowsthatbtw), but they’re interesting enough for you to read and comment on and for that you might consider gratitude instead of insult.
      Jack is providing you with material that affords the opportunity to practice writing and to hone your argument skills and you are obviously really into it.
      Were you in a crabby mood when you penned that comment or have you been doing a slow burn over comments Jack has made to you?

      • Katie (and Tony c, in part), it seems to me that you are the one doing the accosting, insulting and, yes, rude and shameless scolding here. As one who has been following Jack (among other rare, truly heterodox sources), for the better part of a decade, you sound unpleasantly akin to that of several acquaintances of mine who are aiming, whether they know it or not, at dis-integrating the left, politically and socially. The “socially” refers to those who, among other foolishness, castigate others for their own public faults.

        To put the kindest interpretation on it, if you have mistaken this blog for a right-wing opinion mill, you haven’t been here long enough to know better and have ignored all the referrals to previous posts, including those on the core subject of Ethics. Or else you have been paying too much attention to several long-time commenters, searching in vain for your own echo chamber. Or, possibly, you have the-gall-of-the-woke which, instead of carrying on a conversation with a stranger — something I enjoy often on public transit and in shopping lines to neutral or positive effect for all — frets itself into a silent rage at any opinion that doesn’t square with its cant so that it later spews out on a free, anonymous “safe space” because it does not know how to engage others in peaceful debate.

        I have strong disagreements with Jack on two subjects and have delivered my opinions on them already. Now I just ignore the posts that deal with them (though I have also learned more than I wanted to about baseball along the way). Telling Jack how to ACT in any situation is ridiculous. Telling anyone how to THINK is … progressive … in the wrong sense.


  9. Jack, I’d also like to discourage you from this proposed confrontation. As I and others have said, there are valid reasons to mask and not to mask.
    To ambush an unsuspecting person, out minding their own business, and ask them to defend their masking seems mean-spirited to me. Imagine doing so about someone’s choice of clothing, or where they shop, or what they’re eating…! Call me a weenie, but it’s a serious discussion that should be had with people who are interested and ready to do so.

    • You need a better analogy than clothing, or the rest. We are talking about societally damaging conduct that the impact of which the purveyor may not be aware of. The children being masked, in public, at so young an age, is child abuse. I have accosted parents who hit their kids in public; so has my wife. I think that’s a better analogy.

      • I can only continue to disagree. In my mind, calling the masking of children “abuse” is comparable to modern progressives labelling transgressions as “hate” or “violence”. I just don’t see it. There are degrees of being civilly obedient and/or infectious disease-averse that are well short of being “conformist” or a “germaphobe” and I think masking a child can be done by people outside those extremes.
        Masking does, generally speaking, reduce the spread of infectious diseases. Its effectiveness is near-zero for current COVID strains, but I wouldn’t blame a parent for weighing the pros and cons and deciding masking is the best for his or her child. Maybe somebody at home is elderly or immunocompromised. Maybe the family is going to Europe next week and wants to do everything possible to avoid developing a respiratory symptom.
        Might the parent not have thought deeply about the societal harms of masking? Sure. But if we’re looking for better analogies, I would think about a person watching a high school football game, or playing at a casino, or making a liquor purchase. On a population scale, are there harms? Of course. On an individual scale, is there harm? Probably not. Would confronting a rando and demanding they defend their conduct be inappropriate? I say yes.

        • Maybe somebody at home is elderly or immunocompromised. Maybe the family is going to Europe next week and wants to do everything possible to avoid developing a respiratory symptom.

          Uh-uh-uh! That’s moving the goal posts! Keeping a kid ina bubble isn’t child abuse if being outside will kill him. I’m talking about continuing masking of normal, healthy young kids. It impedes spaeking and communication. It impedes social signal-reading. It impedes breathing. It impedes eating. Smiles are impossible. Laughter is harder.

          It’s a shitty way to live, no way to enjoy childhood, and making children live shitty lives for no good reason is child abuse

  10. Well, Katie got herself banned.

    If she pops back for a while, ignore her. In the thread above, she called your host a “parody of a right wing extremist.” That is obviously untrue as well as a stupid assertion, and I do not tolerate personal and baseless attack on me–I work too hard to present this content and promote discussion of it to be bashed for my trouble.

    I gave Katie an opportunity to apologize and clear the slate, and she refused in her last post–now spammed, which will BE her last post unless she reverses course (She still has until 7 pm today to apologize, but this time I will require “I apologize” to be in all CAPS.

    I kind of liked Katie’s enthusiasm despite per penchant for stating assertions about topics she knew little, nothing, or misinformation about. If she isn’t in high school, she still thinks like a high school follow-the-crowd progressive.

    I’m thrilled to have leftish dissents in “A Friend’s” alleged conservative “echo chamber,” but if the new voices can’t restrain themselves from personal insults and follow the rules quite clearly posted here, then at least the echoes will be civil.

    • (sound of basketball being slam-dunked) I knew she wouldn’t last. She mentioned having a son, so I doubt she was still in high school You said it better than I can think up – she still thinks like a high school follow the crowd progressive. She can join a few others who I won’t name in the hall of the banished.

      • Well, I liked having her sparking debate, even if it often was with a misconceived comment. i think she was teachable, I really do. While she was here, she had more than double the comments of any other commenter (except me—cue AF to complain about THAT). She may surprise you: several eventual long time commenters have relented and apologized in the past after a bad moment or two.

        • I’ve bitten my tongue and apologized a few times, and I know sometimes I spewed a fair amount of venom. Not recently, though. Lately, though, I have to say I’m not impressed with the liberal newcomers. So far they sound like Huffpo or Yahoo alumni who just spout off without thinking.

    • I’m glad you like my posts, Jack. This will be the last one unless you reverse your preposterous “ban” on Katie and absurd lectures to her on manners.

      When I first posted under this moniker, one of your most frequent contributors, who made the mistake of assuming I was a knee-jerk liberal based on one dissenting comment, went ballistic and attacked me personally with a stream of ad hominems, profanities, and memes about trolling. Why? Because he disagreed with me POLITICALLY on that issue. Period. Did you ban him for breaking what have to be at least half a dozen of your “rules”? No. Why not? You know why not.

      I have discussed this with you separately. Watch this, everyone, because it will not follow any consistent “left” or “right” pattern. When Facebook and Twitter improperly censored the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s laptop, why did they do it? Because of the same fault in “fact-checking” and “disinformation” that is harming our public discourse. These decisions will ALWAYS and INEVITABLY be made in the direction of the political preference of the censor.

      I bet a lot of you are nodding along in approval until I point out this. You know how there are new stars with their own shows on Fox News like Greg Gutfeld and Jesse Watters? Sure, they’re both funny and have on-screen talent. But how did they get there? By serving on the 4-1 conservative majority on “The Five” and immediately interrupting the token liberal when he or she starts talking. Now put them on “The View” (forget for a moment that The View is all women) and see how easy it is then to do the same thing. It’s not! Just ask Meghan McCain.

      Repeat after me, folks: today, manners, looks, opinions are all judged one way: it’s PO-LI-TI-CAL.

      And that’s exactly what happened here. Katie has to be one of the most patient, kind, funny dissenters I’ve ever seen on Ethics Alarms. On one issue, one only, she got a little insistent, a little forceful, and you drop a nuclear bomb on her. Why, Jack? Because the mask issue is PO-LI-TI-CAL and she disagreed with you POLITICALLY, which you then redefine as manners. If you WANT a political echo chamber, Jack, for crying out loud, will you just finally come out and say so?

      Thanks for listening, and it will be nice if even one of the traditionally conservative (which is fine) regular commenters other than the hypersensitive ones endorses this comment. It’s up to the host to decide whether you hear from me again.

      • I stopped reading when you started trying to tell me how to run the site (AGAIN).

        There is nothing inappropriate in requiring participants here not to throw around fanciful personal insults devoid of justification, and no commenter is so valued that I would yield to that kind of threat. As always, whether one chooses to engage in the colloquy here is a mater of interest and following the house rules. It is entirely up to you whether you comment again. As for me, I will graciously forgive and continue to tolerate your presumptuousness and arrogance, as I always have.

      • All Katie has to do is offer an apology for an unwarranted insult of Jack who even said he would miss her. Not a big deal and we all grow after eating a slice of humble pie. Saying “I am sorry,” are some of the most healing words on the planet and if sincere are the mark of humility and good strong character. Explain the situation to your son Katie and make it a teaching moment. Do not be a typical Lefty cupcake which I do not think you are. Prove me right.
        I enjoy Katie’s writing (mostofthetime) and her perspective. She is a good debater and a welcome presence despite her and AF’s hackneyed thoroughly disemboweled echo chamber assertions.

        Speaking of echo chamber: Both AF and Katie are still beating that (poor) dead horse long after the logic of their arguments have been soundly/objectively demolished, defeated, deconstructed, stripped bare and left wanting, or otherwise righteously pummeled into the ground devoid of all reason to exist.

        “If you WANT a political echo chamber, Jack, for crying out loud, will you just finally come out and say so?” Says AF above (still), despite the overwhelming superior arguments to the contrary.

        “As for whether and why this blog is an “echo chamber,” I find it odd to blame one of the lone left-wing commenters for this, and not the host for acting like a parody of a right-wing extremist.”
        A peculiar allegation by Katie, above.

      • Since it appears that A Friend has now self banned himself, here’s my closing replies to his final trolling comment.

        A Friend wrote, “Why? Because he disagreed with me POLITICALLY on that issue. Period.”


        A Friend is welcome to his own opinions but not his own facts; he’s intentionally lying with that trolling statement. It’s signature significant that he would resort to this lie again on his way out the door. A Friend is the one that appears to be thoroughly obsessed and he’s tried numerous times to project his obvious obsession on others.

        A Friend wrote, “Did you ban him for breaking what have to be at least half a dozen of your “rules”? No. Why not? You know why not.”

        That was specifically explained to A Friend and the fact that he keeps bringing it up is signature significant of a psychological snowflake. A Friend needs to get over himself.

        Frankly I wish A Friend had chosen to change your rhetorical style and I specifically mentioned it a few times in his time here but here he’s proven as he slams the door behind him that trolling is what he does.

        I would have liked to have had decent conversations with A Friend but his intentional lies have consequences.

        An Aside; A Friend argues exactly like some of the absolutely absurdly unethical New York City area progressives that I’ve come across in the past on Facebook. Their particular rhetorical style of unfettered haughtiness doesn’t go unnoticed. Does that make A Friend a progressive, nope, however as I’ve written before, if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. I’m not saying he’s one in the same and I won’t name specific names but a guitar playing musical friend of a friend that I ran into on Facebook immediately comes to mind, his progressive indoctrination thoroughly messed up his mind. Very similar rhetorical styles.

        Personally I hope A Friend can find it in himself to reincarnate himself around here with a new argue in good faith rhetorical style, I’d welcome some good faith debates with him but I’m not going to hold my breath. I also not going to weep for the loss of A Friend at Ethics Alarms, he chose his own path here; however, there is a loss of diversity in rhetorical opposition leading to the perception of an echo chamber.

        It’s my opinion that the following should be repeated to anyone, like A Friend, that makes a serious claim that Ethics Alarms is an echo chamber…

        FACT: If Ethics Alarms is perceived as an echo chamber then it’s only because those that oppose what’s being written here don’t have the intellectual fortitude to interject themselves into the conversation which would make Ethics Alarms seem less like an echo chamber.

        If those who oppose what’s being written on Ethics Alarms don’t have the intellectual fortitude to write their arguments here and then stand up for those arguments then they have no ethical grounds to complain about a perceived echo chamber that only exists because they are not comfortable participating due to their own intellectual cowardice. Intellectual cowards stay out of hot debates and find an echo chamber that they’re comfortable with.

        If people disagree with what’s being written on Ethics Alarms, all they have to do is present their opposing arguments in these threads with the full expectation that others might actually disagree with them and they might actually tell them that they disagree, that’s how debating works, they need to get over themselves.

        Don’t walk into a debate and expect to come out unscathed, to do so is immature. It’s a choice to be thick-skinned or a snowflake.

      • A Friend wrote, “This will be the last one unless you reverse your preposterous “ban” on Katie and absurd lectures to her on manners.”

        That stance statement, some other statements from A Friend regarding treatment of Katie, and A Friend’s rhetorical style makes me think that A Friend and Katie could be a rather messed up New York City couple.

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.