Talk about a “day that will live in infamy”: on this date in 1921, Adolf Hitler became the leader of the Nazi Party, aka the Nationalist Socialist German Workers’ Party. You know the rest.
I’ve been remiss in writing Warm-Ups and similar multiple issue posts: on a time/views basis, they are the least efficient use of my own limited blogging time, as they take about twice as long to prepare and attract about half as much attention as the single issue essays—don’t ask me why. But looking at my list, if I don’t give due attention to some of these backed-up stories now I may never get to them at all. Soooooooooo…
1. The Navy Joan saga, cont. As discussed here, President Biden officially made his son’s 5-year-old love-child Navy Joan Roberts, a non-person by refusing to count her among his grandchildren literally, as he told staff that they were to only acknowledge that he had six grandkids, not seven. This, despite his repeated paeans to family and his love of his grandchildren. This is a major indictment of Biden’s integrity, fairness, courage and character, and the majority of commentators, even some in the pro-Biden propaganda corps, were appropriately critical. Enough so, it seems, that Joe’s”s advisors decided that he had seven grandchildren after all.
President Biden publicly acknowledged his 4-year-old granddaughter, Navy Joan Roberts, for the first time yesterday, saying in a statement that he and the first lady, Jill Biden, “only want what is best for all of our grandchildren, including Navy.”
The reversal deserves no applause. His initial cruel handling of yet another situation created by his Black Sheep son was signature significance: decent people don’t act like that, ever. That he changed his position only after it appeared that his already miserable poll numbers might suffer is redolent of the disgusting machinations of Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, when a Dick Morris poll indicated that the public wouldn’t tolerate him lying about the affair. If you need a poll to tell you what conduct is unethical, then you’re hopeless ethically. Clinton was hopeless, and so is Biden.
2. In a provocative exchange in the comments on this post, a long-time esteemed commenter wrote in part, “How can payback possibly be unethical?” A recent addition to the commentariat replied in part, “[Y]ou don’t belong within a thousand virtual feet of an ethics blog.” It’s a more complicated ethics issue than it appears at first blush. Revenge is unethical; “tit for tat” is unethical. Retribution is unethical. However, sending a clear message that certain unethical conduct by others will have guaranteed negative consequences is often not only ethical, but essential to preserving order, safety and societal standards. That’s not “payback.”
3. One more reason to ignore women’s soccer: most of the U.S. Women’s soccer team slouched and grouched through the playing of the national anthem. It’s not “unbelievable” or “shocking.” It’s just disrespectful and offensive. The team represents the United States of America: the players are obligated to represent their country with honor. If they can’t, they shouldn’t take the field. Having a leader like professional Marxist asshole Megan Rapinoe probably accounts for the cultural rot on the team. The players should be disciplined: if they won’t show proper respect to the anthem, they should stay in the locker room, or better yet, get a real job.
4. Gaslighting or incredible lack of self-awareneess? Mehdi Hasan, who has a show on MSNBC, actually wrote on Twitter (or “X”), complaining that his pals haven’t been successful in smothering the Hunter Biden saga, “Imagine if liberals or the Dems had a nationwide messaging apparatus, an actual propaganda arm, which pumped out Jared Kushner’s name and alleged misdeeds daily, 100s of times. Then you start to understand the messaging imbalance in this country & how GOP gets away with so much.” In the same brain-exploding vein, CNN’s host Sara Sidner told GOP Rep. Tim Burchett, “I don’t have a base. I’m a journalist. I don’t have a base, Democrat or Republican…You don’t know my politics, sir. You really don’t know my politics.” To which Burchett replied, “Nobody believes that, ma’am.” Do the woke mainstream media hacks that dominate our news coverage believe it? I bet they do. Bias makes you stupid, after all. And arrogant. And incompetent, And ridiculous.
5. What is a reasonable take-away from this story? Whistleblower David Grusch, who served for 14 years as an intelligence officer in the Air Force and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency,testified under oath before the House Oversight Committee’s national security subcommittee that a “a multi-decade UAP crash (UAP is the new euphemism for “UFOs”) retrieval and reverse-engineering program” has been underway for years and that he had interviewed officials who had direct knowledge of aircraft of “nonhuman” origins, and that non-human “biologics” were recovered from some craft:
It sure seems likely that the government has been lying about this matter…and thus an unknown number of other matters….for a very long time.
6. This is as good a response to an unfair and inappropriate question as any: Donald Trump was criticized by conservative pundit Peter Heck by a thoroughly Trumpish response to a woman who asked, at an event in Iowa, “My question is how has your faith grown since you decided in 2015 to run for president? And who has mentored you in your faith journey?” Of course, Trump has no discernible religious beliefs, and unlike most American politicians, he doesn’t fake it to garb evangelical votes. Trump’s answer was a classic non-answer, in which the message was clear: “my faith is nor germane to my candidacy, and I have no mentor, not that it’s any of your business.” Here it is:
Heck huffs, “Remember that the testimony of multiple high-profile Christian figures in the previous two presidential cycles was that Trump was a “baby Christian,” and that he was growing in his faith.” Well, they were obviously lying. More Heck: “Anyone who has actually been a baby Christian at some point knows the excitement and thrill associated with the early days of your walk with Jesus. You can’t get enough. You know just enough to be dangerous, but it’s an exhilarating process of trying to grow in the faith slowly and steadily…”
Yes, we’ve heard the posturing of aspiring advocates of theocracy, like former governor Mike Huckabee, currently hawking sleep aids in TV ads. He ran for President, and has made arguments that certain Supreme Court rulings were void because they violate “God’s law.” The Founders wisely rejected that model, and the less a politician claims to be guided by God in his or her decisions, the safer we all should feel, and are. Here was Trump’s “answer”:
Such a great question. You know I’ve seen so much heartache and turmoil. I was a developer, and I did other things, and you know I, I had a wonderful, I had a wonderful life before all this stuff. I didn’t know what a grand jury was, I didn’t know what a subpoena, what is a subpoena? I had a wonderful life. I’m so glad, they were asking me the other day, a little bit different question, ‘Are you glad you did it? You had a great life, are you glad you did it?’ I couldn’t be more glad, I’m so happy I did it. Because, I’ve made America great, we can do it again. (Applause) Right now, we do not, we are not a great country. But I’ve gotten to know, because of this, evangelicals.
I mean, I know so many people. And they feel so good about themselves and their family, and they base it on religion. I had never had that kind of an experience where I got to know so many, and Franklin Graham , and Paula White, I mean I know so many people that are so incredible. Religious people.
And not just Christians, not just evangelicals. Uh, you know, when I look at the Catholic faith, you take a look at what the FBI, no but look at what the FBI is doing to Catholics, they made them like the enemy. They made them, it’s horrible. How could a Catholic ever vote for a Democrat or a guy like Biden again after the experience they are going through. But I have met some of the finest people that I wouldn’t have had the privilege of meeting if I weren’t President. And they’re religious leaders and they really are incredible people.
The message is pretty clear and shined through the double-talk. Says Heck: “No one who has encountered the real Jesus would miss an opportunity like this.” I would say, no one who can be trusted would claim to have “encountered the real” Jesus. There are oodles of reasons not to want Trump to be President, but his refusal to pander to lovers of theocracies isn’t one of them. That question doesn’t belong in American politics.
7. Finally, a Hillary note. I again want to make it clear: I feel genuinely sorry for Hillary Clinton. She has had a humiliating marriage. She [NOT “He”]came within a a metaphorical hair of being the first woman President, and lost because she blew it. Losing the Electoral College after winning the popular vote is a fluke, and it’s only happened to four other candidates, two of whom got to be President anyway during their lifetimes. It has to feel terrible. But she has embarrassed herself with dishonest, bitter, divisive demagoguery ever since. For example, Hillary responded to a tweet from the Center for American Progress, that blamed “MAGA Republicans” for hot summer weather. Hillary: Hot enough for you? Thank a MAGA Republican. Or better yet, vote them out of office.”
There is literally nothing “MAGA Republicans” have done that has had any effect on the weather this summer, and there is nothing they could do. Hillary knows that, and she declared it anyway, because she thinks the American public is stupid, and has the same regard for the truth as her husband.
Ethics Alarms 
7. Hillary’s been awful forever, not just since she lost the biggest prize in politics to a rank amateur. Who writes their senior thesis on Saul Alinsky?
“He came within a a metaphorical hair of being the first woman President”
Probably one of your funniest typos.
Thank you. I wish I could say it was intentional. [Fixed]
2. “However, sending a clear message that certain unethical conduct by others will have guaranteed negative consequences is often not only ethical, but essential to preserving order, safety and societal standards.”
Is that not why the instinct for retribution and revenge exists in the first place? Because it is evolutionarily advantageous to guarantee negative consequences for unethical conduct?
One of the major principles of ethics is trust. As such, what makes punishment or retaliation ethical is that people can trust an impartial system to determine the extent to which it is warranted. Different people have different assumptions about proportional responses, or even what is an offense in the first place. Standardizing infractions and responses across society in th form of “justice” allows us to establish the trust which makes retaliation ethical.
Without some sort of justice system, we see things like people getting beaten up for minor crimes, actions that aren’t crimes, or crimes they didn’t commit. Even revenge for a murder can turn into a cycle of revenge, if people disagree on who committed the first wrong. Retaliatory situations can escalate and who is at fault and entitled to inflict punishment is not something that people can be counted on to handle themselves.
In situations not covered by the justice system, any attempt at “sending a message” must be coherent, consistent, and clearly explained. Ad hoc responses will not have the desired effect because they do not represent “guaranteed negative consequences”. We would need to spell out, “When you do this, it violates this ethical principle. To disincentivize your behavior, we will do this other thing, and here is why we think it is fair.”
As far as politics goes, I still say that attacking parties is a waste of time when we can more effectively weaken their power by showing people what maintaining a healthy democracy looks like: publicly demonstrating the political conversations people should be having and showing them better policy options, so they can confidently reject the unethical political establishment and the “lesser of two evils” pattern.
Is that not why the instinct for retribution and revenge exists in the first place? Because it is evolutionarily advantageous to guarantee negative consequences for unethical conduct?
Fascinating theory. The instinct to fight back rather than always flee or submit is a crucial evolutionary gift. However, it is still a reflexive, emotional, non-rational, non-ethical instinct. If “payback” was the same as deterrence, then we would punish criminals like The Mikado in “The Mikado,” and let “the punishment fit the crime.” The Founders rejected that with the 8th amendment. “Payback” is emotionally satisfying, as when the gang-rape victim in “I Spit on Your Grave” sets up the last two of her attackers to die when one, trussed up, awakens to activate a device that pulls the trigger of a high-powered rifle shoved up another trussed up attacker’s rectum, so that the resulting gunshot kills the first rapist by emerging through the second rapist’s face. Nice! The audience cheers! Nobody feel sorry for the woman’s victims.
It’s still not an ethical response to the rape.
I thought that my second and third paragraphs covered the difference between personal revenge and punishment by the justice system.
It did. I just wanted to clarify the distinction in a slightly different way. WP still doesn’t let me comment on my own posts, so I have to hitchhike on the comments of others. The problem vanishes eventually, as mysteriously as when it appeared.
Re #5: All we really have is this guy’s word so far. I don’t expect the government to be a beacon of truth, but I’m waiting for this guy’s claims to actually be vetted.
That is prudent. But there have been a lot of similar whistleblowers through the years—decades, actually.
I’ll be waiting along with you. The concept of “under oath” is not a guarantee of actual truth. If a person actually believes that something they utter is actually true, fact, then it is *the truth* and they are complying with the oath. Others may see it differently, but unless there is evidence that the speaker knows that what is said is wrong and they intend to deceive by saying it, the oath stands. This guy may well fully believe every word he said, and the fact that no one else in a position to know agrees means nothing to him. And…. anyone who has ever served in the military will know that the elevation to higher rank does not purge some pretty bizarre ideas from their mentation. I will await confirmation.
[Note the absence of any X-Files references in this comment.]
5. This seems like a hoax. What motive would the government have to lie about extraterrestrials? Inversely, the incentives for revealing the discovery of intelligent alien life would be compelling, such as a) the ability to exert more control over the public “for their own safety” and b) the ability to use information on the capabilities of the aliens and access to their technology to bargain with other countries.
Fear identification tells me that they might be concerned about unpredictable public reactions in the first case, or espionage in the second. (Maybe they don’t want to try to control a public that is aware of aliens because it’s more work?)
Also, a crashed alien spacecraft means that an alien civilization detected our planet years or decades ago, sent a manned mission across lightyears of space, and catastrophically failed to adequately prepare for landing on Earth. That’s some improbable events combined with an improbable juxtaposition of competence and incompetence, even compared to humans.
Plot twist: There was a crashed spacecraft with a non-human pilot, but it wasn’t an extraterrestrial. It was a Sasquatch.
2. This is one I have been questioning myself lately. I understand that tit-for-tat is unethical, but so is removing all consequences for criminal or unethical behavior. The Democrats have gone off the deep end partially because they have been successful at removing all consequences for unethical, criminal and corrupt behavior. I don’t think it is unethical to hold criminal behavior to the same standard, and I don’t think the excuse that prosecuting criminal behavior is unethical because “it will damage democracy” flies anymore.
When consequences are removed, people notice. It is a base tenant of operant conditioning that removing punishment for a behavior leads to an increase in that behavior. Calling the reimposition of consequences tit-for-tat misses the mark, in my opinion.
4. It is either gaslighting or idiocy. I won’t try to guess which. Either way, it renders Hassan and Sidney unfit to be journalists. You cannot act as a reliable source of news when you are either too untrustworthy or too stupid to recognize obvious lies.
5. It looks to me like the US government is quite capable of carrying out conspiracies against the country and the world without getting caught for long stretches of time. Makes me wonder what other conspiracies they are involved in.
#5: Me too…
Regarding #3, congrats to the U.S. Women’s soccer team on making themselves and women’s soccer even less relevant (if that was possible); but hey they managed to get “equal” pay as the men’s soccer team even though they bring in a fraction of the money the men bring in—EQUITY!!!
Regarding #4, I don’t what would be worse: the MSM legacy news (most of both) actually thinking they’re objective and nonpartisan in conducting their jobs, or that think most people are stupid enough to believe that.
If we are all for the women’s team demand for pay equity, then the Dallas FC 14U boys soccer team should be paid as well as Megan Rapinoe. Since that team stomped the women’s national team a few years ago.
I’m confused…what does “ sending a clear message that certain unethical conduct by others will have guaranteed negative consequences” even mean?
I know what payback is, and tit for tat. But I have no idea what they have to do with “sending a message”
Seriously? The criminal justice system, for example, does not employ “payback.” It inflicts punishment, establishing a precedent that that “certain unethical conduct by others”—i.e. “crimes”— will not be tolerated and will trigger unpleasant consequences routinely and predictably. It is not an emotional response, like “pay-back.” It does not exist to make the state, which carries out the punishment, “feel better.” It does not make society and the individual who broke the social contract “even.” The same applies to military measures taken against unprovoked aggression as in, for example, 9-11.
Why is this a difficult concept for you?
I’m just confused…in the other thread, who argued that sending criminals to jail is unethical or “payback”
You’re treading the line on about three ban-able offenses, RP: sealioning, trolling, and “The Stupidity Rule.” Shape up. Quick.
Jack, I’m asking for clarification on your point.
You said the idea of payback is complicated, then you said sending a clear message that unethical behavior won’t be tolerated is ethical (which you later mentioned the Justice system)
I just dont see how “sending a clear message” is related to payback. Are you saying the Justice system is a form of payback?
7-Seems those EVIL MAGA Republicans have gotten bipartisan support in their dastardly efforts to warm Mother Gaia to death: 08/20/2016-Hillary Flies 20 Miles By Private Jet From Martha’s Vineyard To Nantucket
It gets worse.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer resigns abruptly:
“Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat’s dream. If you control carbon, you control life.” –
2005: Dr. Christopher Landsea resigns abruptly, withdraws from participation in the UNIPCC AR4,
”(it uses) a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.” Landsea claimed the IPCC had become politicized and the leadership ignored his concerns.
2011: UNIPCC Lead Author Ken Caldiera resigns abruptly. “it is not clear how much additional benefit there is to having a huge bureaucratic scientific review effort under UN auspices…”
2014: Dr. Richard Tol (UNIPCC AR5 Working Group II) resigns abruptly from the writing team for the SPM/AR5– September 2013, disagreeing with the profile of the report which he considered too alarmist and putting too little emphasis on opportunities to adapt to climate changes
“The Panel is directed from within the environment lobby and not from within the science.”
Sensing a rather damning trend, here?
I do.
There’s more: Guess what Drs. David Legates, Timothy Ball, Will Happer, Murray Salby, Judith Curry, Joanne Nova, David Whitmore, James, Annan, Hans Von Storch, Bob Carter, Garth Paltridge, Willy Soon, Peter Ridd, William Gray, Nils-Axel Mörner, Freeman Dyson, Bjorn Lomborg, Myron Ebell, Kiminori Itoh, Ivar Giaever, Ian Plimer, etc., etc., etc. all have in common?
In his comically inept schlockumentary slide-show, Al Gore, Jr. breathlessly predicted a future ~ 20’/~6 meter SL rise.
Funniest thing; right around that same time, he purchased a SF Bay Area condo which (and this is where it gets GOOD!) sits a mere 10’/~3 meters above SL.
Delbert McClinton says it best: If You Can’t Lie No Better Than That You Might As Well Tell The Truth
RE: #7
I consider the use of the words MAGA Republican every bit as offensive as the words nigger, chink, kike, whop, dego or any other pejorative to describe a member of a group of people when used in this context. Substitute the word Jew or any of the others in HRC’s statement and it becomes an obvious slur.
The obvious intent is to convey the message that people who share that common culture or set of beliefs are to be diminished in the social order and to elevate the culture of the users of such terms on a superior plane.
If you want to argue that open borders do not threaten our national sovereignty and that nation states have no right to control who is permitted entry, you can make your case, but you must be willing to demand that all nations open their borders which would facilitate colonialization.
If you want to argue that climate change is anthropogenic, you can make your case, but you cannot use simulations or models that have no history of predictive reliability to prove your case unless we can use our own unproven models.
If you want to argue that people should not be able to develop opinions and speak freely about them because someone or group considers them hate speech, you can make your case but be aware that the words you use, and deem is appropriate, when you condemn others can also be called hate speech.
If you want to argue that there is a continuum of genders that people fall on and parents have no right to intervene when third parties reinforce a child’s sense of being, you can go ahead and make your case, but be aware that if this becomes normalized your children can be taken from you for other reasons.
If you want to argue that we should have proportional gender and ethnic representation in all facets of life without regard to merit, then go ahead and make your case and I await professional sports to take the lead on this.
People who are termed MAGA Republicans will be happy to debate the issues when they are given the same level of respect demanded by those who use the term as a disparaging epithet.
“ I consider the use of the words MAGA Republican every bit as offensive as the words nigger, chink, kike, whop, dego or any other pejorative to describe a member of a group of people when used in this context.”
Well, that’s insane. Unlike any of those terms, “MAGA Republican” was chosen by the group themselves, not put on them by another group. This term has also never been used as an instrument of oppression (unless you honestly think Trump supporters are an oppressed class).
” ‘MAGA Republican’ was chosen by the group themselves, not put on them by another group.”
Not in the pejorative; try harder.
So what? That makes no difference to Chris’s argument. “Progressive Democrats” wasn’t chosen by the ingroup as a pejorative, but is often used that way by the outgroup. Does that mean it’s as bad as the n word when Republicans use it to describe me? How about when they call them “Marxist Communist Democrats?” That’s not even an identifier 99% of Democrats would apply to themselves; is that as bad as the n word? I would be embarrassed to argue that it was, and if I did, I’d (rightly) be called a whiny snowflake.
There are many documented episodes of people with MAGA caps being assaulted, battered, harassed and, in the case of Nicholas Sandmann, defamed by the media just for wearing one.
Are you suggesting that this is enough to make them an oppressed class in America?
Even if that were true, it would not make “MAGA Republican” a slur. If someone beats up an African-American person while shouting “African-American” rather than the n word, that doesn’t make the former term a slur either.
Silly straw man. Chris says it is widely used as a slur. It is. It’s viewpoint discrimination. Ironically, California is the only state that has a law preventing employers from discriminating on the basis of political affiliation, but that law makes no distinction between parties or positions.
This is an ethics blog. Mistreating someone solely because of their political views is just as wrong (and stupid) as mistreating them for any other reason, including race.
“ Silly straw man. Chris says it is widely used as a slur.”
No, he said it’s as bad as the n word and the k word. That’s the argument I responded to, which is not at all a strawman. It’s what he said.
You didn’t answer me question: is calling a Democrat a “Marxist” a slur? If so, is it as bad as calling someone the n word?
“It’s viewpoint discrimination.”
What is? Merely using the words disparagingly, as Hillary did? Or using them while physically attacking someone? I’m not following.
It depends if the Democrat is a Marxist. There are plenty of members of Congress who are Marxist. bernie Sanders is a Marxist. BLM is a Marxist organization. “DEI” is a euphemism for Marxism-Lite.
Ok, but if you call Joe Lieberman a Marxist, that’s still not as bad as calling a black person the n word. No reasonable person thinks those are comparable situations.
Does anyone? Calling someone a Marxist = calling someone a fascist. “Nigger” is an undeniable denigrating, dehumanizing and hateful slur, like cunt, kike, wetback, spic, Jap, gook, fag, dike, and “tranny.”
“Does anyone?”
Yes! Chris Marschner does. That’s exactly what he said:
“I consider the use of the words MAGA Republican every bit as offensive as the words nigger, chink, kike, whop, dego or any other pejorative to describe a member of a group of people when used in this context.”
No, he didn’t. He said it was “just as offensive,” clearly meaning “when used as an insult or means of denigration.” He did not say it was “the same”—he said the use of MAGA Republican was just as offensive to him. Using “nigger,” of course, will get you fired. “MAGA Republican” as an insult is undeniably more acceptable to those who wield it. Might Chris legitimately feel that what that slur is intended to convey is as denigrating to conservatives as “nigger” is to blacks? Why not? Joe Biden gave a speech calling MAGA Republicans fascists, equating them with the purveyors of genocide—not hateful enough for you?
I am not understanding your distinction between “as offensive,” which is what Chris said, and “as bad,” which is what I said he said.
Sure you do. being offended is subjective and personal. Being bad is objective. I am more offended by “Imagine” than, say, “Dixie,” which is a great tune, but objectively, “Dixie” is worse.
Got it.
I am not sure that is a distinction Chris was intending to make, but only he can answer that.
“This is an ethics blog. Mistreating someone solely because of their political views is just as wrong (and stupid) as mistreating them for any other reason, including race.”
Why is it wrong to treat someone poorly who you don’t think is a good person based on their personal viewpoints?
The terms “benefit of the doubt” and “taking the high road” come to mind. You are not the judge of another person’s soul, and people deserve basic respect and politeness. Sometimes they do bad things which result in negative consequences, but that’s different from being hostile to someone who expresses a viewpoint you don’t like.
With all due respect, what are you doing here? You obviously have no more understanding of ethics than a cocker spaniel. Why not treat someone poorly because you don’t like him or her? I think you need to start with basic ethics, like The Golden Rule, and maybe after some study and mentoring, you’ll be ready for Ethics Alarms. Maybe.
The entire conversation is about trying to establish a set of somewhat objective principles or criteria that differentiate vindictiveness from social consequences. Under what circumstances do you shun a person? Boycott a company? Call for other people to do the same? How can we make sure that such actions are constructive for society and not destructive? Does it matter if different people have different ideas of what is intolerable behavior?
This is what people are confused about. They’re getting mixed messages when you and others say that this social punishment is good but this other one is bad, because the difference is not as clear as you assume it is. You may not be wrong, but it’s important to make sure everyone can understand the theory behind why you consider it ethical to shun one person but unethical to shun someone else.
Shunning isn’t “payback.”
I took a look at the original comment that prompted item 2. It sounds like the working definition of “payback” is “inflicting the same sort of unethical behavior on its original perpetrator”. Is that right?
If so, it makes sense to me, because of the whole “two wrongs don’t make a right” principle. It does leave room for instances where “social consequences” happen to look the same as the original unethical behavior because the original unethical behavior looked similar to ethical social consequences. For example, shunning someone because they shunned you for no reason. It looks like payback in kind, but it’s still just social consequences.
To clarify for the commenters who favor the “tit for tat” (rationalization 7) approach–at the end of the day, when people start trying to use unethical tactics against the original perpetrators, they start to forget what they stand for. More rationalizations come out. #14, Self-Validating Virtue: It’s okay for us to do it because we’re the good side. #2, They Had it Coming: they don’t deserve ethical treatment. Soon enough there isn’t a side capable of upholding the values they swore to defend. Nobody is building the world they want because they’re too busy tearing down other people’s worlds.
I’m going to amend a quote from Batman Begins here.
Ducard: “Your
compassionethics is a weakness your enemies will not share.”Bruce Wayne (future Batman): “That’s why it’s so important. It separates us from them.”
Ethics isn’t about merely winning; it’s about making sure that the world you win is still worth living in.
My job is to demonstrate that showing others your vision of that world worth living in is how you win. That’s what Visionary Vocabularies is about.
Shunning with an RPG-7 however gets close to the line.
Here’s what I mean…
When you walk your dog and want to yell at a jogger or yell at a mother who is playing on her phone and not paying attention to her daughter, how is that any different than what I’m advocating for?
You’re treating someone poorly who you don’t think is a good person based on things you disagree with. Same concept but it’s just political view points.
An extreme example but it’s the same way I wouldn’t give respect to Nazi.
I am now leaning toward invoking “The Stupidity Rule.” I have never “yelled at jogger.” If I “yelled at a mother” for paying attention to her phone instead of her child, it would be in the interests of the child, not as “payback.”
If your comments don’t show a major uptick in IQ rapidly, I fear you will lose your commenting privileges. After this comment, I don’t have much hope.
I concur. Just because people divest a word of its useful definition and use it to mean “people I don’t like,” that doesn’t make the word inherently a slur. They might be attempting to use it as a slur, but to base criticism on that intent is to say that “MAGA Republican” is inherently offensive and nobody should say it, which is not true.
Arguing over name-calling and whether or not a name is appropriate and whether or not it means a bad thing is just bickering over semantics, anyway. We can issue a correction about what the word means and who it applies to and then move on to the core disagreement.
What part of “in this context” did you not understand. Of course, the idea was to convey to the reader that this group is a bunch self-serving Neanderthals who care little about others. How is this context any different than another term that suggests that another group is dumb, shiftless, lazy and sexually immoral; or, that another group uses the term Rothschilds to convey that Jews are greedy misers who will screw you over and exert too much influence on events. Why am I not allowed to find some term I deem a pejorative epithet when used in this context offensive? Am I not every bit entitled to object to a label as a minority. Everyone from time to time is in the minority. Where is my equity in this equation?
For years, Catholics were held in contempt by Protestants who viewed them as being servants of the Pope. Even just a few years ago, Diane Feinstein stated that Amy Coney Barrett’s Catholic dogma lives loudly within the then prospective and now justice. That statement was designed to convey the same type of anti-Catholic bias that has been part of the American political scene since its inception. Maryland is known as the “Free State” because it was the only one that allowed Catholics to practice freely. That was not the case elsewhere.
“This term has also never been used as an instrument of oppression (unless you honestly think Trump supporters are an oppressed class).”
You are kidding right? Whose supporters have been denied service at restaurants. Whose supporters are described as Nazis and fascists for the purpose of instilling hate of them? How many faculty have lost tenure and jobs because they espouse ideas similar to Trump’s? Whose supporters are banned from speaking or forced to pay astronomical security fees because of expected violence initiated by those in opposition? These events have been discussed here many times. It does not matter who is the object of derision such terms are inherently unethical when used to marginalize another group or to suggest some type of unworthiness.
What you are arguing is that only minorities may claim the mantle of oppression and are allowed to decide what terms are acceptable use within their community but not by those who do not share similar characteristics, and when they decide to be offended, they can exact retribution even if the term used was not used in a pejorative context. That is political power and from that power comes the ability to marginalize and oppress another for political and economic gain.
I grew up in a predominantly Black city. I went to junior and senior high schools where whites were extorted, ridiculed and often beaten. I won’t claim to be marginalized but then neither were they for they were in the majority.
I have heard President Biden and numerous other elected officials use the term to denigrate those whose political ideals align with Trump’s. But Trump is not the only conservative. To me, the term MAGA republican is no different than being called a honkey or cracker by a black person when it is used by a political operative to denigrate its opposition. These terms are used when the speaker believes that no harm or cost will accrue to him of her because the speaker knows that numerically the political winds are in the speaker’s favor.
You are of course “allowed” to think calling someone a MAGA Republican is the same as calling a black person the n word, and I am allowed to find that ridiculous. It doesn’t pass the laugh test. Go tell someone in a bar that that it’s the same as saying the n word—make sure to actually say the word as you typed it here—and report back your results.
I was similarly struck, Chris. I had to remind myself what the letters M, A, G and A stood for. These are people who want to make America great? Is that a bad thing? Do Democrats want to make America terrible? I think they do. I certainly wouldn’t mind anyone making the stock market as great as it was a couple of years ago, never mind better than that.
The totalitarian left do use the term “MAGA Republican” as a slur. They hate us. It would not really matter what they called us, the hatred is going to be conveyed regardless. Do we really care that they hate us, though? The opinions of a bunch of illogical, brain dead, hypocritical bullies doesn’t particularly interest me. They hate everyone who does not give them blind devotion, instant obedience and groveling obeisance. If the cost of standing up to the bullies is living with their hatred, I can live with it.
NP
Just for edification purposes I developed my initial thoughts to point out that those who are quick to claim offense at a word will defend to the death that their favored group(s) has/have a monopoly on determining what is hateful rhetoric and MA did not disappoint. Conceptually, that is a hallmark of marginalizing and discriminatory behavior.
MA was quick to establish that I had no right to be offended. In MA’s mind one slur was worse than another based on who uttered a given word and who was the target of the term. A slur is a slur when it is used to connote a disparaging or degrading opinion of the target. It really does not matter if I were offended or not the point was to showcase the idea that those who are easily offended will not see that offensive language must be viewed contextually and not universally banned from the lexicon. It was just the other day Eli Crane (R) innocently used the term “colored people” and was immediately chastised by the Congressional Black Caucus. I suppose the NAACP decided not to weigh in on this event for obvious reasons. The term MAGA Republican can be a badge of honor by some but becomes offensive when it is used to denigrate a group of people.
“ MA was quick to establish that I had no right to be offended”
Strawman. I never suggested you had no right to be offended.
Is calling anyone on the left a “Marxist” a slur on par with the n word? I am offended when people call me this, but I am not going to pretend it is anything like a racial slur that was used as a tool of oppression for generations.
“on a time/views basis, they are the least efficient use of my own limited blogging time, as they take about twice as long to prepare and attract about half as much attention as the single issue essays—don’t ask me why”
I think I know why. There are a lot of interesting things in this post. I enjoyed reading most of them. Then, I have comment paralysis. Which one do I comment on? Then, the comments are all over the place, some on one point, some on others. Which do I respond to?
I generally like the warm-ups better than the stand-alone posts, but I am less likely to comment on them.
-Jut
One of the reasons why single posts are getting more attention lately is if the post involves Trump or an anti-progressive comment Masked Avenger will invariably dominate/hijack the discussion with 30+% of the commentary. This plus the responses to MA results in about 2/3rds or more of the discussion preventing the other 1/3rd from getting attention.
I will acknowledge MA is a skillful debater, but MA’s responses are predictable and rather tiresome. MA is skillful at coming just short of trolling. For me, MA detracts from the discussion rather than enhancing the discussion. Of course, this is one commenter’s opinion, and as it has been said Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has one.
“However, sending a clear message that certain unethical conduct by others will have guaranteed negative consequences is often not only ethical, but essential to preserving order, safety and societal standards.”
Shouldn’t this apply equally to both Trump and his critics?
Even if I stipulate that he has been unfairly targeted by the media and Democrats…that shouldn’t make me ignore his own ethical conduct, or want him to face any fewer negative consequences for it. And elevating such a person to the highest office in the land (for a second time, after he abused it and tried to overstay his welcome the first) in order to impose a “negative consequence” on the media or Democrats is irrational, even as payback; cutting off your nose to spite your face. The proper punishment for the media pushing outright lies about Trump would be defamation suits and loss of ratings; the proper punishment for agents of the government who pushed such lies would be firings and convictions (if those lies were made under oath, or in official documents). We can’t select the president—the most powerful person in the world—based on what will best punish neighbors that we see as domestic enemies.
Not to mention Trump had merited his own negative consequences, through his horrible election after his election loss that you’ve written about, as well as his retention of classified documents. Electing him president again might serve to punish the left, but it would also reward him for loathsome behavior of the kind never before seen from a U.S. president.
I also disagree that he doesn’t pander to religious people—that garbled response was full of pandering. (The FBI is targeting Catholics? What?) He’s just bad at it. I’d love if he said what you got out of it—that his religious beliefs are none of anyone’s damn business—but he clearly wants to be portrayed as not just a Christian, but as a savior of American Christianity. A lot of Christians buy this because they want to, but his response shows that it’s ridiculous.
Shouldn’t this apply equally to both Trump and his critics?
Of course. I think you can find multiple post here going back almost a decade that point out that Trump doesn’t believe in genuine ethics, just brute, reflexive, emotion-based and pragmatic reactions. He’s as addicted to “payback” as the Mafia. Hit back twice as hard. That’s his formula, and it has mostly worked for him. In politics, it has also lowered all standards of decorum and restraint.
I knew you would answer yes; maybe I should have directed that question more to the commentariat.
Also I had my own typo—“horrible election after his election loss” should be “horrible conduct after his election loss.”
Could you quantify “A lot”?
I live in the deep south. I am deeply deep in ecumenical church culture, and yet have never encountered anyone who thinks Trump will save American Christianity. Not even close. I will unflinchingly vote for him again, yet even mentioning his name is a conversation killer. What is your primary source for your narrative?
Personal experience. I have relatives who think this. And it’s a message that some evangelical leaders, such as Ken Peters, have pushed:
“I think President Trump is a miracle,” Peters said. “I think God picked Donald Trump, an imperfect vessel, to be the champion of his people.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1281422
Trump’s own son went further and said that his father “literally saved Christianity:”
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/520090-eric-trump-claims-his-father-literally-saved-christianity/
That article also cites a poll showing that evangelical Christian are more than twice as likely as most Americans to say that Trump is a religious man. Obviously there is some pandering going on, and it’s working.
Confirmation bias, as well as “Don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up.” Today my wife said, after watching “Spotlight” again, “How in the world can anyone continue to trust and want to belong to the Catholic Church? It’s also cognitive dissonance scale manipulation. They like Trump’s positions, so they contrive a belief without any evidence (indeed, evidence to the contrary) that he’s a religious man.
From my Catholic bias, I feel there’s an over-emphasis of the United States of America in God’s plan among Evangelical circles, and anything that helps align the USA to Christian values (such as the appointing of conservative justices that led to overthrowing Roe v Wade) gets a certain Messianic fervor in the evangelical circles. So I agree with MA that there are plenty of evangelicals that have an inflated view of Trump in regards to his Christianity.
However, in all fairness to the Evangelical position, David was an adulterer and a murder; Solomon, the wisest man to ever live, gave in to temptation and started worshiping idols; God identified Nebuchadnezzar, the Babylonian destroyer of Jerusalem, as his servant; and Cyrus, a Persian, was called one of God’s anointed. There is a fair amount of understanding of using weak tools, flawed tools, and even tools outside the faith to further God’s causes. I think it can be a fair appraisal of Trump: a very flawed instrument that God nevertheless wields in some ways for the good. That in no way excuses Trump’s behavior, his narcissism, his excesses, his tendency to punch back and punch down, and his million other flaws. And just like Samson, Trump might go down due to his own hubris, but take all his enemies down with him. I suppose we’ll have to see how it works out.
But as for the question: How in the world can anyone continue to trust and want to belong to the Catholic Church?
Fundamentally, no human institution can pass the test being placed on the Catholic Church. How could I trust and want to belong to humanity? We’ve the seen the same depravities in just about every circle. We’ve seen it in government, we’ve seen it in Boy Scouts, we’ve seen it in every religious denomination, we’ve see it schools, and we’ve seen it in sports. We’ve seen it in ancient cultures and present cultures; we’ve seen it in the third world, in the developing world, and in our backyards. It is a fiction that this is a Catholic problem; rather, it is a human problem, and it has emerged so visibly in the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church actually teaches the exact opposite of what some of its priests and bishops have done. The stance of the world has always been to surrender to temptation and try to justify evil as good. The world has tried to justify child molestation as good, healthy, or at least not harmful; the Catholic Church has never denied that such behavior is intrinsically wrong. That some members did not live up to that is tragic. But the Church itself, however battered, however filled with the worst of sinners, has not backed away from its stance that such actions deserve condemnation.
Just because I am a Christian and would prefer political leaders whose values lie within a traditional Judeo-Christian framework doesn’t mean I’m in favor of a theocracy. I believe that holds true for most Christians that I
know, certainly those with whom I worship. I often caution my Christian friends to be wary of putting too much hope in the promises of politicians (of any stripe) to fix what is wrong with this world: “Jesus isn’t coming back on Air Force One.” Surely, with the Democrats in power, a theocracy is the least of my worries.
Psalm 146: Put not your trust in princes, in the sons of men in whom there is not salvation.
1950 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
1960 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
1970 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
1980 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
1990 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
2000 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
2010 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
2020 Government: “UFOs Aren’t real”
2022 People: “Can we see Epstein’s Client List?”
2023 Government: “Check out these sweet UFO pics!”