Michael West, who used to weigh in here far more frequently than he has been able to in recent years, issued a well-timed commentary in last week’s Friday open forum. It’s a perfect intro, if a bit ironic, to a post I’ll get up today if climate change doesn’t kill us all about the intractable reaction some have had to yesterday’s heresy that Donald Trump has officially jumped the legitimate Presidential candidate shark. The recent ban-ee actually sounded like Trump, warning me of dire consequences should I not succumb to his arguments and dance to his off-key tune.
Here is Michael West’s Comment of the Day on the most recent open forum:
***
On the widening worldview dichotomy, objectivity and debate:
Can a progressive commenter ever last here anymore?
The complaints that this is a conservative echo chamber have some practical merit – in that most of the commenters here have a libertarian or conservative lean. The progressives all left, mostly of their own accord, many because their own assertions painted themselves into logic corners from which all they had left was the vitriol that eventually got them banned.
Therein lies the question – can a progressive commenter last here without admitting that their entire train of thought has gone off the rails? And once a progressive commenter does have that realization – can they honestly remain progressive anymore?
Jack runs a pretty objective / unbiased as much as possible debate forum – but if any particular worldview has gone so far outside the bounds of reason that even objective analysis of their opinions that leads to that conclusion renders even objective moderation to look very biased – what is that out-of-bounds worldview to do?
Storm off in a huff and complain that the blog is an echo chamber…
Again, the question, can a progressive commenter last here without at least surrendering the ground upon which much of their contemporary dialogue relies? I don’t think so. They are either likely to stop being progressive or they will leave anyway.
And all because they just can’t admit that Donald Trump was treated wildly unfairly from the get go and almost every single controversy that followed flowed directly from that unfair treatment.
Ethics Alarms 
I think this is yet another symptom of the self-sorting unfolding in society at large into separate spaces and bubbles, physically and online. Sadly, we’re splitting into two polarized groups/sides with very little in common.
Call me partisan, wrong, or whatever, but I blame the left for this because while the left and the right have always disagreed on many issues (political, economic, social), we at least held in common the love for and pride in the US, its constitution, its institutions, and the many positives in its history; it’s the left that has turned its back on these things and thus is destroying what we have in common.
Case in point: I never thought I’d be indifferent to US team/athlete(s) losing, let alone cheering against it/them, but I was giddy watching the USWNT get bounced out of the World Cup (and especially that ungrateful loudmouth shanking her PK), and can you blame me after the way these brats repeatedly disrespect the US flag/anthem and badmouthed the US?
I’m sure there are myriad reasons, but in my limited experience, Jon Stewart is a large factor. He effectively taught a large generation of young people that politics is something they should be thinking about often (because funny!) and more importantly, that anyone who disagreed with progressive politics wasn’t just wrong, but was actually very stupid.
Terrific observation.
True, but it should also be noted that this kind of humor inspired a lot of other comedians to go in the same direction. And, just to finish off the thought that anyone who disagreed with progressive politics was not only bad but stupid, this meant that those people could be disregarded and ignored without even bothering to engage with them. After all, it’s pretty easy to just ignore someone rather than try to persuade him.
Ron-in-Chicago,
I agree with you, but I think I would specify progressives rather than liberals.
Liberals and conservatives used to disagree and argue and fight, but they were operating under the same set of rules, with similar goals about the overarching goal of acting in the best interests of the country.
Progressives have essentially changed the rules. Leaving out John Lennox’s “Imagine,” you have this from Bobby Kennedy:
“Some people see things as they are and say, ‘why?’ I dream things that never were and say, ‘why not?’ ”
That has, in essence, become the Progressive playbook. Think of something new and work for it to become reality. Probably the best example of this comes with transgenderism. It started with homosexuality (actually, it probably began earlier with Suffrage and Civil Rights). Homosexuality presented a social dispute that created complicated issues about the interaction of state and federal law. It was a fertile ground for battle for 50 years or so.
Then, suddenly, it was over.
There was nothing more to fight about about wedding cakes and websites.
So, gender became the issue. Suddenly, this is the new fight. Bobby, what do you think about having 24 genders, letting biological males share sports locker rooms with women, letting men compete on women’s team, and allowing the medical community try to retro-fit boys into girls and vice versa?
Why not?
Now, people who five years ago could not have even batted an eye about transgenderism is convinced that they have been on the right side of this question before they even conceived of it and anyone who disagrees with them supports genocide. This has been the insidious indoctrination in civil rights: if it can be framed as a civil rights issue, it is; and if you oppose it, you are as bad as a Klansman.
With transgenderism, I think the progressives have found a new fight that they probably can’t win. You probably cannot have a community if it is that confused about how it is ordered. And, it does not matter if they can’t win. The point is to have something to fight for. But, they always have a fail-safe position. Next up is pedophilia. Bobby?
Why not?
I don’t know if progressives can last long here. Too many of them come in here, create a lot of turmoil over a short period of time and then burn out. But, even for calm, thoughtful progressives, I guess the litmus test would be whether they are John Lennon/Bobby Kennedy progressives. Lennon and Kennedy were not interested in reality. I suppose you could be a progressive that deals with reality. But, that probably just makes you a liberal.
-Jut
Points well taken, but if you noticed I did not use the term “liberals” and specifically used the term “left” instead for those very reasons you articulate. In fact, I always avoid using “liberals” so because I don’t think of today’s lefties as “liberals” (knowing what liberalism truly entails, which today’s left/lefties do not believe in or uphold). In fact, I don’t even call today’s left/lefties “progressives” for similar reasons. Progressiveness implies positive change or change to improve/advance, as “progress” suggests. Many of the things lefties are pushing or doing nowadays are at best just idiotic, unwarranted, and unnecessary changes, and at worst are reversions to older evil things (like segregation and discrimination) even though they painted as something else
I tend to make the same distinction between progressive an liberal. Your analysis is spot on in my opinion.
The Democratic Party (progressives or closet progressives) have perched themselves on their hills to die on, they’ve made their choices. If they can’t properly support their nonsense they attack with ad hominems and go silent as they retreat back into their ideological bubble, that’s their tactical pattern. Here at Ethics Alarms, most (not all) of the participating Democrats/progressives seem to be hit-n-run trolls. I really appreciate the few classic liberals that choose to participate here and argue in good faith, unfortunately there are a few like that that left for one reason or another.
The sign of a potential banned commenter is any time the comments to a post get into the fifty comments range. Potential banned commenters are not interested in engaging in discussion. They aren’t interested in “give and take.” The are only interested in disrupting the comments section. They simply bat back other commenters’ responses as if they’re whacking a shuttle cock back over the net (hence the tell-tale high volume of comments). They’re simply playing an irrational game. They are like Pee Wee Herman (may he rest in peace) squealing, “I know you are, but what am I? INFINITY!” It’s a very weird but consistent behavior. Again, the clue is large numbers of comments. The potential banned commenters take advantage of the regulars’ desire to engage in a “give and take” and turn it into a destructive dance. The only explanation I have for their behavior is they are paid to disrupt EA by some leftist entity. Doing what they do for compensation is the only thing that makes any sense. They’re too diligent and persistent to do what they do for any other reason. I assume they can point their paymasters to their instances of blowing up EA as justification for their being paid. Their participation in the EA comments if bad faith personified.
I wish. EA’s traffic is down about 40% since its halcyon days of 2016. We’re still the best read ethics blog on the web ( as far as I can determine), but I can’t believe it has enough perceived influence to be worth anyone’s money to disrupt.
I truly believe they have a cover the earth approach to policing the internet. See, e.g., the Twitter files. The government went after anybody and everybody. I also think your inherent rationality and lucidity attracts their attention, alarms them, and justifies their paying people to disrupt EA.
They’re not being paid, this is how this type of liberal really are, for free. I know people in real life who are like this, who argue exactly the same points in the same ways. Willing to viciously insult and shout people down to prove their point and their superior intelligence. They are SO sure they’re right about everything. It’s quite like a cult. They all hammer and are aggressive over the same points, and all use the same buzzwords and all shout like ill-reared five year olds.
“Storm off in a huff and complain that the blog is an echo chamber…”
Most, probably 9 out of 10, people I see arguing with Jack are eventually just banned for not following seemingly arbitrary and loosely defined (I’m sure on purpose) rules that can be interpreted by Jack whenever and however he wants to justify a banning.
Like the “stupidity” rule which is essentially “Hey if I don’t agree with your argument and think you’re an idiot, you get banned”
Like how he banned me for a second for no reason.
Jack demands respect and claims he’s similar to a professor, but treats his “students” to nowhere near the level of respect a professor would give his students. Like randomly insulting them and calling them names.
So to recap, most people are banned.
I’d love for Jack to show how many commentators he’s banned over the years and how many new comments he doesn’t let through in the first place.
Ryan Pell: “ Most, probably 9 out of 10, people I see arguing with Jack are eventually just banned for not following seemingly arbitrary and loosely defined (I’m sure on purpose) rules that can be interpreted by Jack whenever and however he wants to justify a banning.”
Not as arbitrary as you think.
One rule: give Jack a real name. It is an easy gatekeeper type rule to follow, yet I think I have seen someone banned after several warnings that Jack wanted to know who the person was.
A lot of people get banned after coming on strong. Again, Jack says that he holds new commenters to a higher standard. With time and familiarity, you get the benefit of the doubt. Is that sort of arbitrary? Sort of. The problem is that many new commenters get banned within several days because they come in, respond to every comment made to them and eventually dominate discussions. Many have passed that criteria. And, at that point, they got treated like most other people. (Amepersand, Charles Green, and Meat Puppet Abattoir, or whatever his name is).
And, putting words in Jack’s mouth.
And, telling Jack how to run his blog. (I think the NYT Defender got banned for explaining to Jack how to improve his blog on repeated occasions.)
And, arguing in bad faith. Okay, that can get pretty arbitrary.
-Jut
I’d add that reading the rules, which are pretty open about just how subjective (not arbitrary) they are, is just being responsible and respectful.
I never want to ban anyone; if anything, I bend over backward NOT to ban the progressives and Trump Deranged. Many have been the subject of multiple complaints from other commenters. Generally, the banned commenters ban themselves: I warn them, and they deliberately refuse to back off.
Claiming that I don’t use the banning power in good faith, for example, is asking for it…”But I won’t…I won’t…”
If Jack didn’t moderate comments, EA comments section would turn into a run of the mill internet sewer in an instant. I’d be gone in minutes. Virtually all blogs’ comments sections devolve into juvenile name calling. Even Jonathan Turley’s blog. And Althouse. Comments to MSM outlets are unreadable.
Comments:
Most, probably 9 out of 10, people I see arguing with Jack are eventually just banned for not following seemingly arbitrary and loosely defined (I’m sure on purpose) rules that can be interpreted by Jack whenever and however he wants to justify a banning.
False. The rules are stated, and I almost always issue warnings before I ban anyone so they can shape up
Like the “stupidity” rule which is essentially “Hey if I don’t agree with your argument and think you’re an idiot, you get banned”
Nope. That rule allows me to get rid of people who have no business here, and demonstrate it with random, ill-reasoned and lazy comments like it’s any other blog. I access that rule very seldom, but when I do, it’s deserved.
Like how he banned me for a second for no reason.
In error, not for no reason. I apologized, I explained why it happened, and I reinstated you, and your thanks is to deliberately misrepresent the episode. Are you trying to get banned? Shall I reprint that comment? “…speech while committing a crime” As in you’re using your speech to lie to commit fraud.
I interpreted “you” to mean me, and the comment as accusing me of lying “to commit fraud.” I was wrong; I fixed it. Writing more clearly— “you’re”?—might have avoided the problem.
Jack demands respect and claims he’s similar to a professor, but treats his “students” to nowhere near the level of respect a professor would give his students. Like randomly insulting them and calling them names.
I don’t randomly insult anyone, and when I do it’s a diagnosis. Behave like an asshole, I’ll label you an asshole. I’ve been in lots of classes and taught many. No student who addressed the prof like the banned commenters would avoid being sanctioned.
So to recap, most people are banned.
Yup, that’s right, Ryan, “most people” are banned. Brilliant.
I’d love for Jack to show how many commentators he’s banned over the years and how many new comments he doesn’t let through in the first place.
None of your business, but for the record, I have banned an average of less than 5 commenters a year over 12 years, and over 300,000 comments, not including mine. I read almost every comment, and have responded over 60,000 times, a courtesy no other blogger I know of offers in such mass.
And almost every offered comment is allowed through moderation unless they are full of typos, racist, sexist, or just partisan ranting, “I agree,” or “You’re a MAGA/Left Wing moron!” AND no comment from a commenter so accepted is ever censored, unlike some other blogs, like Althouse, who moderates every comment and doesn’t post those that don’t meet her standards. I also allow as many links as a commenter deems necessary to make a point: many blogs, like Simple Justice, don’t allow comments with links.
It’s a lot of work. The proof that my methods are effective is the quality of the commentary here.
Bite me.
A famous professorial marginal comment on a freshman English composition at my college: “Is English your first language?
Personally Ryan, I think this comment misrepresenting Jack is you intentionally being an asshole and as such I think it deserves a warning. Jack is your host, be more respectful and clean it up.
No
And with this, Ryan Pell is now officially banned, as he apparently wanted to be. This is a new one for Ethics Alarms, an outright statement that a commenter intends not to be respectful of the host! Just as I would not allow anyone to remain in my home who informed me that he intended to be rude and contemptuous, it would be ridiculous to continue hosting someone who is similarly candid.
Well, no weenie he! I’ll give Ryan credit for that much. But he was operating in the margins from the start: I didn’t expect him to outlast Masked Avenger.
So, as usual, don’t respond to the inevitable defiant posts RP is going to send in: they’ll be down fact, and so will your replies.
Damn it, Jack, I was going to express my approval of his comment.
And I think you are wrong.
He said, “No.”
And this is what I believe he said “no” to. “Jack is your host, be more respectful and clean it up.”
I do not believe he was denying that you are the host. I thought he was responding to Steve’s command that he be more respectful and clean it up.
If you made that command to me, I would simply not respond, cool down, and come back later.
If Steve (or pretty much anyone else) told me how I needed to act on YOUR blog, it would have earned a “Bite me, cheesehead!”
Ryan Pell’s response was more succinct and had a Bartlesby-type quality to it, which I liked.
It was not Steve’s place to play bouncer or enforcer, or cheerleader, or anything.
Ryan Pell’s comment was vague enough that you might have (probably have?) misunderstood it.
-Jut
So Jut, I’m not welcome to express my opinion in this regard?
That earned a “bite me”.
Steve,
I think you have misunderstood me.
I have no problem with the expression of opinions. However, a command is not an opinion.
“be more respectful and clean it up” is not an opinion.
So, to answer your question: you most certainly are, as far as I am concerned.
-Jut
JutGory wrote, ” ‘be more respectful and clean it up’ is not an opinion.”
Seriously?
Think whatever your little heart desires Jut, but I made it 100% perfectly clear that what I was sharing was my opinion, you earned yourself another “bite me”.
100% perfectly clear?
Show your work,
-Jut
JutGory wrote, “100% perfectly clear? Show your work,”
Good God Jut, has English recently become a 2nd language for you?
My work has already been shown and it’s right there for everyone to see. Everything past the words “I think…” in that singular topic paragraph was my opinion, that’s exactly why it’s all in one paragraph.
I think you should stop being so transparently obtuse and give it a f’ing rest.
Geeze.
Steve,
A more clever response to this comment of mine would have been, simply: “No.”
-Jut
Maybe the funniest comment in many months. Bravo. I wish I had thought of it.
Statement: “Jack is your host, be more respectful and clean it up.”
Reply: NO.
How could that be more clear? “Be more respectful.” “No.”
Really and truly, Jut, he’s not worth all of this discussion. If he had not been hanging by a thread after his previous comment, I probably would have let “No” go. But I reviewed all 46 of his comments since 7/24: that’s less than two weeks. Every one was borderline trolling. Every one took an opposite position to mine, usually without a substantive argument. The very first, about the Country Western song, asked “why” I
didn’t think the Jason Aldean lyrics were “threatening,” which was the topic of the post. Asking questions that were already addressed was this guy’s trademark. Here’s one of the ones that caused me to consider “The Stupidity Rule”:
“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?”
Why? That’s something I once had to explain to my son when he was 8. And it was the exact opposite of what Pell seemed to be asserting in the Aldean thread! 46 posts like that was more than generous on my part, and then he states outright that he won’t be respectful and “clean it up.”
My conclusion: he was a troll, or a dummy, and he was not doing anything but wasting my time. And yours .
Afterthought: I think it was his “long-time reader” line in his first post that led me to OK it. I wonder if that was true…
BTW, what DID happen to the Masked Dickhead?
You mean Masked Avenger? He was banned at 7:47, 9/3, on this post: https://ethicsalarms.com/2023/07/31/on-the-ethically-depressing-gop-presidential-field/ I warned him gave him an opportunity to apologize for being obnoxious, and he doubled down. Like the also recently banned Pell and Engineer, he had made it clear that he was going to be not just perpetually adversarial, but derisively and insolently so. I don’t ask much: just that commenters who have other positions and opinions to advance do it pleasantly. Curmie would be the role model for this. Ampersand and Charles Green; Chris, before he flipped out. Windy City Pundit. It’s really simple: I’m not going to accept what I regard as abuse here: it has to be a positive experience, or its not worth the time.
I read through it. Ugh, that’s 20 minutes I’ll never get back. What an idiot. And then he tried to post calling you a stupid asshole? Nice.
Observing certain proglibots come on here all gung-ho and itching to show the benighted just who is the boss with the bigger brain can be an amusing side show. The fun really begins as their arguments are systematically deconstructed with logic and common sense. Now this is not something their ideological bubble time has prepared them for and that is when their bad manners really become conspicuous. In fact, bad manners is nearly universal with those who are tossed onto the intellectual scrapheap fuming, frustrated, and indignant.
A person has to work pretty darn hard to get themselves banned. Batman is tolerated after all.
Arguing in bad faith, nitpicking, name calling, openly disrespecting Jack, disregarding warnings too many times is a good way to be shown the exit. Being banned catches some of the more emotionally stunted and sheltered pasty white thin-arm proglibots off guard because hearing the word ~NO~ is not something they have experienced. I mostly blame mommy and daddy for that.
Plus, they are used to ganging up on conservatives and just bullying them into submission. This is one of the drawbacks of idolizing Antifa.
I guess what I am trying to say in perhaps an unnecessary verbose way is those who are banned are simply pu$$ies, and not the good kind.