by JutGory
A repetitive, if not constant, topic here is whether or not this blog is a right-wing echo chamber that is inhospitable to left-wing or progressive commenters. With the recent hit and run by A Friend and a short visit from Ryan Pell, the topic again was front and center for a brief moment. While one of my recent comments about that suggested that progressives had greater difficulty staying here because they were less inclined than conservatives to follow the rules. Some of those comments can be found here:
I am not sure if that was completely right, but likely not entirely wrong. It is certainly not fair to say conservatives are ethical and liberals-progressives are not. There are ample counter-examples posted on this blog on both points. Then, an alternate explanation occurred to me. The reason why liberal/progressives do not seem to last long here may be because they are not here to discuss ethics; they are here to discuss politics. The topics, while overlapping, are different. Politics presents arguments to win, and facts to spin. We all have “our side,” and the goal of politics is for your side to prevail.
Ethics is not always so cut and dry. It does not present arguments to win, but issues to be explored. Sometimes issues seem unethical, but are not (ICK!). Sometimes they seem unethical, but they are not (lawyers who represent awful people). Sometimes they are clearly unethical (lawyers who steal from their clients), and sometimes they are obviously unethical (Ficks) and act as cautionary tales. Sometimes we have Ethics Quizzes, where the answer is not obvious, is not possible (Zugzwang), or even determinable (Ethics Incompleteness Theory). Ethics just provides you different tools for analyzing things, whether it behe Rationalizations List, the Ruddigore Fallacy, Moral Luck, or Signature Significance. These things help to analyze the questions; answers may not be included.
That is not politics.
Then, Kate Novak appeared and has yet to be banned (as far as I know). Since that time, a Skittles post got 42 comments; Clarence Thomas got a puzzling 13 (I am surprised it was not higher); the ABA got 21; Obama got 68; Best Buy got 8; Painkiller got 18; a comment on Painkiller got 16; Ethics Zugzwang Part 2 got 30; Wander Franco got 21; K2 got 6; American Airlines got 12; Adam Wainwright got 5 (baseball posts do attract few comments); Fulton County (a Trump post) got 51; RFK, Jr. got 15; Denise Yun got 13; and Oliver Anthony got 11. There is a pattern here. It’s not bright-line, but there is a pattern. Political posts tend to get more traffic, because it is easy to have opinions on politics. Frankly, I usually find the political posts more interesting. But, this is not a political blog; it’s an ethics blog; unfortunately, simply chronicling the unethical behavior of politicians could take up the entire blog. That this is not a political blog is the only reason Wander Franco, Adam Wainwright, and Oliver Anthony even got any attention at all.
If your interest is ethics, you can criticize Trump in one post and commend him in another. You can condemn Biden in one post, and defend him in another. Would I have the time or interest, I am confident that I could find positive and negative posts on any number of people. Right now, I am drawing a blank, but a recent positive post about Tucker Carlson serves to offset the many previous posts that excoriated him. And, then there is Harry Reid and, of wait, I can’t think of a single positive post about him (though I hear one is out there). Perhaps a “litmus” test about whether you are here to discuss ethics, as opposed to politics, is whether you can articulate an ethical criticism of someone on “your side.” If you look at Biden, Hilary, or Obama and can’t bring yourself to point out their awful qualities because they are on your side, you are not here for ethics. On the flip side, if you can’t look at the “other” side (Trump), and give him some credit for something (anything), you are not here for ethics. Another “litmus” test might be whether you have even bothered to read, much less comment on, one of the non-political posts (bonus points if you commented on a baseball post).
If you are here to debate politics, you probably won’t last long, because that is not what we discuss here—at least not directly. In theory, we only discuss politics insofar as it relates to ethical issues—and politics often implicates ethics. So, to the extent that the commenters here are here to discuss the ethical nuances of current events, it could be described as an echo chamber—just an echo chamber with many different voices.
Ethics Alarms 
Any venue that is not exclusively lefty/progressive is deemed and echo chamber by lefty/progressive people. Lefty/progressives do not discuss issues, they toss out a talking point, and if it is not accepted as gospel truth, they immediately default to ad hominem attacks and say, “EA is a conservative echo chamber!”
As I observed a while back, whenever the comments approach or exceed forty or fifty, that’s a sure sign a lefty/progressive troll is at work. The EA commenters invariably make the mistake of engaging with the spitballer du jure in good faith and try arguing with him or her. But the spitballers are not here for that. They’re simply here to disrupt things. That’s why I think they are more often than not paid social media monitors for various lefty/progressive entities.
Just my take, Jut. Yours, as usual, is more nuanced and thoughtful.
Other Bill wrote, “As I observed a while back, whenever the comments approach or exceed forty or fifty, that’s a sure sign a lefty/progressive troll is at work.”
I get your point but, it could also be a sign that a non-lefty is intentionally trolling someone.
Not very often, Steve. At least that I’ve seen. But you’ll go into battle with anyone!
Thanks, Other Bill.
Your point is well-taken and has merit, as far as it goes.
What I was tryin to get at was not, “what am I doing here?” or “what are they doing here?” but “what are we doing here?” This was kind of my take on the purpose of the blog.
And, sometimes that is difficult for new commenters to fully understand (I know I did, until I was able to compartmentalize a bit), particularly commenters who have a particular agenda.
-Jut
You’re welcome, Jut.
I first found Jack when I was curious about the annual survey the American Society of Civil Engineers (or some such) would put out every year grading the country’s physical infrastructure. They’d invariably give a lousy grade. And I thought, “Wait a minute, boys. Aren’t you a little prejudiced here? Won’t alarming people about bridges falling make more work for, you know, American Civil Engineers?” And, sure enough, Jack had posted on it.
For me, I think I’m here to see hypocrisy exposed. To me, hypocrisy is the deadliest sin afflicting contemporary society. And of course, all politicians can be prodigious hypocrites, honestly, Democrats more so than Republicans, liberals more than conservatives. To my way of thinking, that’s where ethics and politics so often intersect in the world wide world and here at EA.
Other Bill wrote, “For me, I think I’m here to see hypocrisy exposed. To me, hypocrisy is the deadliest sin afflicting contemporary society. And of course, all politicians can be prodigious hypocrites, honestly, Democrats more so than Republicans, liberals more than conservatives. To my way of thinking, that’s where ethics and politics so often intersect in the world wide world and here at EA.”
Nicely stated.
Thanks Steve. Have to thank Jut for getting me to ask myself what I read EA for. Beside the jokes and the baseball posts. Hah.
…“what are we doing here?”
You’re probably right. “We”, for the most part, I think, understand that this is not a general news or single-focus issues website with a comments section. It’s not even, for example libertarian Reason, with its insult-riddled bloodbath commentary. It’s Jack’s blog, and his rules, and most regulars are generally (rolls eyes) civil. This is maybe difficult for a first-timer to fully comprehend and adjust to, especially if their socio-political leanings are counter to the majority of usual commenters (Is there any serious argument against most here being right/libertarian/classical liberal?).
It’s difficult to go into a less-than-friendly environment and try to hold your own. I don’t know the average age of most who attempt it; is it possible that they skew younger? I’ve read that studies show an increasing tendency among the younger to have a stronger sense of entitlement and rates of narcissistic personality disorder (20-somethings 3X that of 65+). The left-leaning ones who have survived here, do seem to read as more mature. (Thus do I imply that the offenders are probably all just crazy 😉 )
Awesome post!!
Well done JutGory.
Thanks, Steve.
Bygones (if you want a vague Ally McBeal reference).
Because, when I say, “Bite me,” it’s all issue specific.
It’s not about our personalities. It’s about the issues.
This is one aspect that I like about lawyers. “Professional courtesy” is treated by lawyers as sort of an inside joke, like honor among thieves.
My firm interviewed somebody yesterday. She interned briefly for a firm we were fighting with over the last couple years. She listed as a reference a lawyer I butted heads with quite openly. Her lawyer was younger and I thought the lawyer had some of the problems many young lawyers do.
I conveyed to her that I butted heads with her former supervisor, but that’s just part of the business. Why? Because my adversary today nay be my ally tomorrow.
The moral is: if I insult any of you on a given post, that does not extend beyond that post. If we all have the same mission, that is the big picture; squabbles are the small picture. It’s not personal. It’s just about the issue at hand.
-Jut
I completely agree and ditto. Thick skin really is an admirable trait.
I find issue with your otherwise well-thought-out post. No bonus points for commenting on baseball posts!
I don’t have a useful retort to that. I’m just here for the bonus points.
Many newcomers here also fail to familiarize themselves with the format of EA. I read almost every entry before I made my first comment so that I understood how this site was designed to work. The Rationalizations List would stop a number of comments, as well, if newcomers would read it first.
Because I doubt many new commenters did either. They find a post they don’t like, jump in and start commenting on it as if it were a personal attack instead of an attempt to dissect the issue involved.
These types of drive-by posts aren’t intended by those inclined to make them as having staying power. They’re just pot shots taken at the commenter’s perceived enemy. Too bad as ethics would be a good subject for many of them to embrace.
If one reads the comments on unmoderated blogs such as Prof. Turley’s, you’ll quickly determine there’s a civility in the EA commentariat unlike most anywhere else. Most comment sections devolve into sewers in about 2.5 comments. I can’t believe the abuse Prof. Turley gets in his comments. Inexcusable and just plain rude. Rudeness is not tolerated here by either Jack or the commenters. But that’s not to say the elbows can get a little sharp around here.
Other Bill wrote, “If one reads the comments on unmoderated blogs such as Prof. Turley’s…”
FYI: Turley’s blog is moderated but since Turley is a purest about free speech their tolerance is really really high. Here’s a comment from a regular troll that was moderated…
This particular Anonymous (there are multiples) has a very well known pattern of trolling and he cannot be reasoned with under any circumstances, he usually get’s a well earned rhetorical hammer right away from most commenters if they catch the comments before they are deleted. Turley’s moderator routinely deletes comments posted by this Anonymous. There are a few wildly uncivil trolls that have actually been banned over the last couple of years, but I think I could count them on one hand.
Excellent analysis, and I believe you’ve come pretty close to the mark.
It also gives me pause to think more on my own motives and actions when I am commenting here. I will say that it took me a while to become comfortable commenting, and over time one learns a fair amount about the online personalities of the various regular contributors here.
As you all are probably aware, I am one of the baseball nerds here (go Rangers!), and it’s kind of sad but I do understand why those posts tend to garner fewer comments. Could it be that baseball offers more clearcut issues for this blog, and everyone intuitively understands?
I think this is pretty much on the nose.
Well stated, I wander around here as a way to check my views and such. I often don’t agree with the ethics, but that is mostly a failing on my part.
What a really all boils down to is that most of the lefty/progressive people who have come on here have been by nature rude and by nature bullies. As you pointed out, they don’t come here to discuss any kind of issue. They come here to disrupt things and tell us conservative types what idiots we are. A lot of us who are more inclined towards the right here are the left’s worst nightmare: articulate, intelligent conservatives who are not subject to them getting us in trouble with the boss or being intimidated by them threatening to pop their corks. Unfortunately, some of us also have other obligations and can’t constantly be writing term papers here. Moderation here also will not just sit back and let them be as nasty or as rude as they want to be, and accuse those of us who disagree with them of pedophilia, other deviant sexuality, or just generally being losers. 99 times out of 100 that’s where comet sections on yahoo, youtube, or a bunch of other sites end up. Unfortunately, we also can’t pop them one in the mouth when they go too far. Yes, I know sometimes I sound like I’m obsessed with violence, but, when all else fails, that’s the default and it’s the one way to shut someone up, possibly on a permanent basis. I only got to where I got because I managed to dodge the consequences of finally letting a bully have it and his face and the corner of a metal dumpster getting to know each other real well, when his faculties were not, after all, impaired, and, as was common in the late seventies and early 80s, unless somebody was killed or permanently injured, parents and authorities alike tended to sweep beatdowns under the rug as just a rite of passage and a way of learning where the limits are.
Unfortunately, we can’t teach these troublemakers a lesson the way I’d like to, but, we can make it very uncomfortable for them to be here and the boss here can make them disappear if they overstep.
This is not an echo chamber, but there are far too many Lefty echo chambers out there that people from that environment will think this is an echo chamber.
“the left’s worst nightmare: articulate, intelligent conservatives “
Bravo Indigo
November Golf Oscar!
“Liberals Claim To Want To Give A Hearing To Other Views, But Then Are Shocked And Offended To Discover That There Are Other Views.”― William F. Buckley, Jr.
If you’re not a lefty, you are not just wrong, you are immoral and beneath contempt. I suppose I need to read some Hawthorne again. He certainly treated the Puritanical strain in American culture.
Although a noob, I’m clear: Great discussions, mostly. (Just listened to Bob Dylan’s Most of The Time) That’s generally what I (hope to) get from this blog and except for not trolls themselves but their comments, I take a message from everyone. Yes some ground is re-plowed, we see the same crooked furrows elsewhere. It’s the effort to focus on ethics -once I figured out that is the focus- vis a vis politics – a place where ethics go to die.
This is a splendid discussion and a fantastic COTD (Comment of the Day).
I was reminded of the distinction made in economics between “Positive” and “Normative” economics.
Positive economics is the cold-blooded analysis of markets, prices, quantities, shifts in demand curves or supply curves, elasticities, etc. The focus is strictly empirical, without any attention to whether the consequences or arrangements are pleasing to moral sensibilities.
If JutGory’s COTD thesis is correct, many visitors to this blog who are liberal or left leaning tend to shy away from what might be called “positive” ethics, and jump straight to the political consequences of any ethical question. In that sense they are not quite on the same page that Jack Marshall wants us all to be on.
Great COTD! Thanks again!
Charles W. Abbott, Rochester, NY
P.S.: I could spend some time just amusing myself going through the old “Ethics Alarms Heroes Hall of Fame,” and skip some of the political “horse race” comments for a month at a time. There are some great entries there. If people leave in a huff (or get banned) they are missing out!
P.P.S.: Left / Liberal visitors might be taken aback and disoriented by our host’s sometime grudging sympathy / admiration for the stamina and resilience of Donald Trump, or our host’s criticizing the conduct of some of Trump’s detractors and foes. In my own experience, many people cannot discuss Trump rationally–as soon as you say anything positive about him it’s like admitting that you have a poster of Hitler on your wall next to your KKK robe and whatever else might be on the wall of a morally repugnant troglodyte with whom there’s no point in discussing anything.
One could say that for many visitors, saying anything dispassionate about Donald Trump is “signature significance” that demonstrates that the writer is morally compromised.
This morning I woke up frustrated by my post of last night. Isn’t all of ethics normative? It’s not clear that I’ve clarified anything by introducing into ethics the “positive / normative” distinction from economics, which seems to be a field that most people know little about in terms of analytical rigor.
(if you doubt the claim that most people lack analytical rigor, economists *love* accounting identities, but thinking with the aid of accounting identities is something that rarely occurs to most people. Sorry to digress.)
Here’s something that might be useful.
1. “Positive” ethics might be something like this.
There are rules. The rules are openly proclaimed and uniformly applied–the laws apply to everyone equally, “without respect for persons.”
We get into odd situations when the rules and norms and laws conflict. Positive ethics might examine such situations.
2. In that case, what is “normative ethics?” It might involve the study of unintended consequences, ethics zugzwangs, and so forth. “We want to have strict ethical codes, but such codes often don’t really seem to generate the sort of results that we were hoping we would get from the ethical codes.” How can we reach the sort of destination we want to arrive at? What do we need to do?”
3. Having taken a stab at that distinction, what is the difference between those things and mere “political partisanship?”
I’m not certain, but some partisanship looks like the cynical “To my friends, anything. to my friends, the law.”
That last saying is reportedly common in Latin America. A friend who spent some of his formative years in Brazil first drew my attention to it.
With the help of the internet I could find an attestation here:
https://www.quora.com/Who-originally-said-To-my-friends-everything-to-my-enemies-the-law
Thanks for reading!
Charles W. Abbott
Rochester NY
“To my friends, anything. to my enemies, the law.”
(listen to what I meant to type, not what I actually say when I type in a hurry.)
My friend who was trying to channel the Brazilian version produced a different construction.
“Anything for our friends. *The law* for our enemies.”
Oh sure . . . Jut gets an entire Guest Post but when *I* write something substantially the same, all I get is a measly “Thanks Dwayne“. I see how it is! It’s Rationalization #36 all over again!
Relax . . . I kid.
Great post, Jut, and I couldn’t agree more. As one of the few readers who was here when the site began, I can second the notion that the environment here is very different than most anywhere else–and that’s the selling point. I’m genuinely in awe of the effort that Jack puts in to make it happen.
–Dwayne