Thoroughly Disgusted Ethics Sign-Off, 5/15/2022: Our Despicable, Untrustworthy Media, And More

Well, I’ve about had it. I just spent 45 minutes that I will want back on my deathbed trying to find an actual link to the Buffalo shooter’s “alleged manifesto.” Maybe you can find it, and good for you, but it should not be that difficult, and I am sick of this crap. These sources are counting on most readers simply relying on their interpretations, and their interpretations cannot and must not be trusted. The word from Protect Democrats Media Central went out that there was an opportunity to politicize the shooting, which left 10 dead, by blaming it on Fox News and Tucker Carlson. In one particularly odious headline in Rolling Stone, this reasoning was used to impugn all Republicans: “The Buffalo Shooter Isn’t a ‘Lone Wolf.’ He’s a Mainstream Republican.” Nice. Yet I couldn’t find any such smear piece that allowed readers to read what was driving this theory.

Over at the reliably conservative PJ Media, Matt Margolis provided his debunking of the Fox/Tucker narrative, writing in part,

A search of the entire manifesto also yields no mentions of Tucker Carlson and specifically mentions “the internet” as where he got his beliefs…the shooter describes himself as “authoritarian left-wing,” but the left [is] trying to blame ‘right-wing extremism’…Later in the manifest, the shooter insists, “I would prefer to call myself a populist. But you can call me an ethno-nationalist eco-fascist national socialist if you want, I wouldn’t disagree with you.” He also repeatedly attacks capitalists, and rejected the conservative label because, he wrote, “conservativism is corporatism in disguise, I want no part of it.”

But Margolis doesn’t link to a copy of the document either! Why should I trust him? Why should I, or anyone, trust any of these biased, manipulative messengers? Let me see this “alleged” manifesto, and I’ll decide who to blame. Believe me, I’ll be happy to point the finger at Tucker Carlson or Fox News if the text supports that. Now over at Liberty Unyielding, a right-wing site, the case is made that “The Great Replacement” is really a Left-inspired concept, and implies that this makes the other side of the ideological divide blameworthy for the 18-year-old’s rampage. But that site only links to a single page of the 180 page document!

I’m sick of our rotten, unprofessional, arrogant, unethical communications and information networks and agents. They are all untrustworthy. I detest every one of them.

1. Word Games. Right now, the party using Orwellian techniques is overwhelmingly the Democrats . T’was not always thus. My introduction to the cynical use of euphemisms to confuse the public was during the Nixon years. Lying was “stonewalling.” The Watergate burglary was a “covert operation.” Later, during the Bush II years, I learned that “enhanced interrogation” meant torture. But Democrats championed the most deceitful and destrucive euphemism of them all: “choice,” which neatly disguised the reality of what the choice was and did. For more than a decade, Democrats have increasingly employed deceptive language to slip unethical conduct and positions by the public. Illegal immigrants are labeled “undocumented,” “migrants,” or just “immigrants.” Riots are called “mostly peaceful protests,” and when conservatives are rioting, it is called an “insurrection.” Secure voting regulations are referred to as “voter suppression” measures. Censorship is “fighting misinformation.” I’m sure you can fill up your own list.

Now, as the mid-terms loom and Democrats, having made a mess of just about everything imaginable in record time, are, true to form, looking to cover-words and an euphemisms as metaphorical life-preservers. Here’s the House Pro-Choice Caucus’s new language directives, for example:

I guess they figured out that the jig was up on “choice.”

2. As if on cue! Right after I entered today’s ethics quiz challenge for discussion, esteemed commenter Adimagejim was moved by the Margaret Atwood post to reveal that she had been hired by his company as an “educator” to teach “women to deconstruct the patriarchy and its evil twin capitalism.” These bits of instruction are also being offered by the management…

If forced into such an indoctrination camp, I would openly dispute much of this. It becomes the obligation of those who object to enforced ideological conformity to do likewise. People better learn that quickly, and fulfill their duty to confront.

3. Back to the horrible, untrustworthy news media…Well, at least we know where the mainstream media stands. Margaret Sullivan, the last and most blatantly unethical of the New York Times’ “objective” ombudspersons before the hypocrisy got too think even for the times and it eliminated the position, is now with the Washington Post. True to her belief that journalists shouldn’t be objective, she has a column today titled “Democracy is at stake in the midterms. The media must convey that.” You know what that means: save democracy by voting for the party that has kept a bunch of pathetic conservative clowns locked up so they can be sentenced in show trials as the media calls them “insurrectionists” knowing that they aren’t.

Save it for voting for the party that set out to cancel the election of the last Republican President, contriving a false accusation of collusion, using the intelligence community as a tools, and pursuing two unjustified partisan impeachments.

Save democracy by voting for the party that imposed unconstitutional restrictions on travel and public gatherings except when a Marxist, racist organization felt that protests were a good strategy; save democracy by voting for the party that advocated intimidation of Trump officials, and just supported harassing Supreme Court justices at their homes.

Save democracy by empowering the party that wants to pack the Supreme Court, gut the Second Amendment, limit the First, and refuse to enforce our immigration laws.

Save democracy by endorsing a political party that uses the media as its propaganda organ, and that empowers and encourages corporations to take actions against dissent that the government cannot.

You know what’s scariest about that list? It’s not nearly complete, and I could write it off the top of my head.

The rationalization for this near exact mirror image of reality is, of course, Donald Trump’s words impugning the legitimacy of the 2020 election, much as Hillary Clinton denied the legitimacy of Trump’s election, with the news media’s approval, of course. How will the Post et al. march to Sullivan’s tune? I assume with columns like this one by the revolting Dana Millbank, comparing the looming reversal of Roe to 9/11 and the 2008 financial meltdown.

The Democrats have decided that their slim reed of holding power depends on promoting fear, panic and fury, and they are already falsely shouting “Fire!” in a metaphoric crowded theater.

All to save democracy, of course.

39 thoughts on “Thoroughly Disgusted Ethics Sign-Off, 5/15/2022: Our Despicable, Untrustworthy Media, And More

    • A second declaration of independence would in fact be the kind of “insurrection” the Democrats are shrilly shouting about….

      • The insurrection that the Democrats hope to push Republicans too so they can enact ALL the draconian changes to this society they desperately want. In the mean time, they’ll continue to push their own incremental insurrections with media top cover until they also eventually get what they want.

        I don’t have high hopes for the next 10 years if the political realignment that’s been ongoing for 2-4 years now doesn’t completely ransack the current Democrat party.

    • I skimmed it, it’s a lot of info on weapons, armor, and gear. Seems surprisingly well written. There are parts where he seems to support thE left and parts where he seems to support the right. Mostly
      , it seems he hates them both.

      • This is invariably how these things turn out. Most people are more complicated than the simple left/right paradigm, and even more so when you take into account the level of mental illness needed to do something like this. I’m annoyed every time any side takes the opportunity to play hot potato with a shooter’s loyalty against the backdrop of something like this.

        No one wins. There is no benefit. It is convincing no one. It is doing further harm.

    • Thanks for the link (surprised it hasn’t been taken down yet). I read (but didn’t confirm) that portions appear to be copy/paste from the New Zealand mass shooter’s manifesto.

        • I found the link in a tweet from a mainstream media source (conservative side of the aisle). Sorry, but I can’t remember the name of the guy – Charlie Kirk maybe?

        • Ultimately in a Glenn Greenwald found here:

          I wasn’t really looking for it but a few minutes after scrolling through twitter I went to Ethicsalarms and saw your post. I remembered reading in the comments about it that someone said it was in the article. From there it took me about 2 minutes to track down where I saw the comment and said article (I think I saw the PJ Media source first).

          I see now that Glenn is talking about how it is being actively blocked and is encouraging people to read the article to find the link in the article (He even has a picture of where the link is in the article). No one else seems to be doing this.

  1. 2.) “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough”. That’s a “micro-aggression”? This illustrates perfectly the damage that teaching CRT (or CRT-inspired) content does: imagine the impact of telling a black child that they can’t possibly succeed because of an all-pervasive, often unacknowledged and difficult to discern, racism that resides in all systems and all (white) people. It explains all disappointments and renders effort futile.

    Notice also the implication that only white people can be (and are) racist. In my own (admittedly, limited) experience, white Americans are the least racist group of people, generally acutely aware of their own biases and repulsed by expressions of racial bigotry. In the three groups comprising the “people of color” used in the document, I’ve found racist sentiments (against one or more of the other groups, some sub-group of their own group, or, of course, white people) freely expressed without any hesitation (I’ve had to warn a couple of people new to the U.S. to keep such thoughts to themselves).

    • I was amused by “macro-level microaggressions.” Wouldn’t that simply be aggressions? And an example is when tv shows feature only white people. Good thing that’s checked off the list, then! Darn that Frasier for being so racist.

  2. I read part of it. It’s junk, just true white supremacist (as in focusing on the balck and brown races trying to wipe the white race out by greater fertility rates) and violence-oriented hatred, with no new insights. There are also no new insights form the mainstream media, everyone is just working their own sides of the street. Unfortunately, I don’t think the population is going to go for the Republican=racist narrative anymore. The people who push that have shot their bolt.

    1. Word games? Deception combined with bullyig is more like it.

    2. More of the same. When I was in college some of the faculty would bully students into using hyper-gender-inclusive language. Some would just shame, but others would assess severe penalites for using gender-specific pronouns even once. Heaven forbid you think saying “his or her” every damn time was cluttering and distracting. Now they want to control everything you say, and if you are a white person, especially a white male, they want you to walk on eggshells, afraid to say a word or express an opinion, lest you be accused of being a racist.

    3. Yup, that list is nowhere near complete, which is pathetic and scary at the same time. Here’s the thing: I don’t think it’s likely to work. The pandemic is for all practical purposes over, and the left no longer has the street to itself. The country is neither ready for nor interested in another Summer 2020. At this point people are more concerned with keeping their cars gassed up and feeding their families. They are not interested in another revolt. What’s more, now Trump isn’t up top to concentrate the hate on.

    • I think that guy in Buffalo has at least made clear what a white supremacist is actually like. Recently, every white person has been deemed a white supremacist. Maybe this guy’s presence can bring some nuance and clarity to the issue of white supremacism? Of course, Dylan Roof’s existence didn’t do much on this front.

      • The unfortunate fact is that America is still over 70% white and only just under 13.5% black, as opposed to the almost 90% black/coloured against 8% white of South Africa. The black population CAN’T take over here and start killing white people or running them out of town with no recourse. However, the saying of the quiet part out loud that’s started recently shows there are a fair amount of them who’d love to do just that if they could.

  3. 2) People ask “Where are you from?” for different reasons but I think fundamentallly, most of the people are just asking out of curiousity. I’m a white maie and grew up in lower Delaware; it seems many of us have somewhat of a southern accent in that region. I’ve been living in NY ever since I graduated from RIT and people ask me all the time, “Where are you from?”; not becuase of my looks but because of my “accent”.

    This whole microagression is bullshit to me. WTF is a microagression, is what enters my mind every time I hear the term. It’s a made up concept so people can feel offended. If I ask someone where they are from it’s out of interest or curiousity; not with the implications “You are not American” or “You are a foreigner”. How can people be friendly and civil with each other if everyone has to worry about fucking microagressions? It’s a bullshit concept and every time I hear the term it gets my dander up.

    This is a tangent at best but over at Legal Inserrection I read where a middle schooler was charged with sexual harassment because they wouldn’t use one of their classmates preferred pronouns.
    These people have lost their minds.

  4. So much I want to comment on…

    “Word Games” tying in to the shooter.

    I waffle. “The Great Replacement” was, in fact, despite how hard they’re trying to peddle away from it, a contention from the left. The idea was, in the wake of Obama’s first win, that the left could cobble together an alliance out of the diaspora of the dispossessed and create a winning coalition forever, particularly as the parts of the diaspora were growing faster than the population at large.

    It isn’t controversial to say that they held these views, at least then, which was only 10 years ago. James Carville wrote: “40 More Years: How the Democrats Will Rule the Next Generation” in 2011 saying explicitly things like “Demographics are Destiny”. Caville wasn’t a historical supporter of Obama, saying things like “If Hillary gave up one of her balls and gave it to Obama, he’d have two.” in 2010, but he had been around the party as an insider for decades. There is an approximate zero percent chance that he wrote the book without having floated these ideas internally to a general approval.

    The problem (or maybe the internal solution to the problem) is that the idea was bunk. The alliance was always tenuous at best, and there are all kinds of great reasons for that. For example; It takes a certain amount of privilege to care about someone else’s problems, and when you treat all political issues like a zero-sum game, people will see things through that lens and wonder why those resources aren’t going to them. The groups also didn’t play nice together, as an example, in poll after poll, we find that racial minorities have a particularly hostile view towards LGBT people and causes than the population at large, regardless of political affiliation. Square that circle. But most importantly, and germane to the great replacement theory is that the diaspora aren’t monolithic voting blocks: Over time, particularly between the first and second generation, immigrants, illegal or otherwise, become more Americanized and their voting habits drift to the right.

    “Demographics are Destiny” was predicated on the idea that they owned the allegiance and votes of racial minorities in perpetuity. This was not, and was never actually true.

    My point, in a very roundabout way, is that “replacement theory” isn’t a “right wing conspiracy”, it’s right wing people taking Democrats at their word. And really… They still believe this. They won’t say it out loud, because saying that their plan is to fundamentally change American culture by importing as much foreign culture as possible isn’t even that popular on the left, but actions do speak louder than words, and their behavior in regards to the management of the the American/Mexican border speaks volumes.

    And really… Regardless of whether “replacement theory” or “Demographics are Destiny” are bunk, in the short term, you are importing hundreds of thousands of unskilled laborers into a market flush with unskilled laborers. This doesn’t matter to the Democratic elite, because it’s not their jobs that are going to feel the competitive squeeze… No, they’re going to have to hire more staff to provide services. And the damage that does to the economy and social fabric are material.

  5. All of these “protect Our Democracy™” people seem to miss the glaring flaw in their talking points. If Our Democracy™ is as horrible as they claim — chock-full of white supremacist Nazis, murderous police, and dozens of other bogeymen, crushingly oppressive to everyone who isn’t a white dude, thoroughly infested with “rape culture”, animal cruelty, xenophobia, and environmental destruction — why the fuck would anyone want to preserve it?

    The obvious counter to that is that all of those things were brought about by corruption and outside influences, not by Our Pure And Beautiful Democracy™, to which I’d rebut: if Our Democracy™ failed to prevent any of that parade of horrors, then why protect it?

    • COTD worthy stuff.

      If the U.S. is so terrible, why do people keep over running the borders and over-staying visas to get in? Shouldn’t the population be in precipitous decline? Shouldn’t people be leaving the country in droves? Shouldn’t the Squad be warning people away?

      • Precisely. Why do the people who claim that America is deeply, unsalvagably racist desire open borders and encourage illegal immigration? They’re luring those poor unsuspecting brown folks into a trap! Encouraging someone to migrate to a country where they will be oppressed, abused, and murdered with impunity by the police is downright evil. Unless, of course, those anti-America types are full of crap and don’t believe one word of the bullshit grift they’re running…

  6. Re 2: Surprised that the word white is capitalized along with the other groups mentioned. Thought that was discouraged by current writing and style guides. Also, under the Criminality row in the message column “you ate poor” instead of you are poor.

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.