The full tweet:
“What happened to Lahaina is a tragedy. Thousands still missing, including children. Everything that could’ve gone wrong went wrong. Sirens didn’t go off, water that could’ve been used to put out the flames was restricted, and power lines kept operating despite the danger posed by hurricane winds. The governor of Hawaii can’t even maintain proper eye contact with the camera as he talks about the systemic failures that led to this avoidable catastrophe. Will anyone be held accountable? Given the relative media blackout, it looks like they’re trying to sweep the situation under the carpet like so much ash. When Hurricane Katrina happened, it’s all the media would talk about. What’s going on here?”
Well! The conservative writer asked the key question that should begin any ethics inquiry. For some reason, no writers on the Left, or mainstream media pundits that I’ve encountered, have candidly ventured to explain what’s going on, and by “for some reason” I mean “for the obvious reason”—they don’t want to assign responsibility where it belongs, because they don’t want to a) undermine the Biden Presidency like they set out to kneecap President Bush over Hurricane Katrina or b)emphasize the human botches that allowed the fires to get out of control, because eventually the disaster is slated for the climate change propaganda arsenal. Then there is the DEI connection that we have discussed.
“What’s going on” is blazingly apparent to anyone who remembers how the news media and its progressive and Democratic allies covered for the gross incompetence of corrupt Democratic New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin (he was, after all, black, so the accusations that the Bush let New Orleans suffer because he didn’t care about black folks wouldn’t fly if Nagin was found accountable) and fellow Democrat, Governor Kathleen Blanco. The contrast in media coverage couldn’t be more obvious.
Bush was slammed because he was on vacation (not that Presidents are ever really on vacation) when Katrina hit. President Biden vacationed twice during the Maui disaster, first at Delaware’s Rehoboth Beach where he has a vacation home, then at the Lake Tahoe home of billionaire climate change activist Tom Steyer, not that there’s anything wrong with Biden accepting such a gift from a billionaire activist, because he’s not a conservative Supreme Court Justice. The media, aided by manic black rap star Kanye West who hijacked a TV telethon for the Katrina victims to tell America “George Bush doesn’t care about black people!,” beat the “Republicans are racists who only care about the rich and white” metaphorical drum based on pure toxic bias.
When Biden was first asked by reporters about the wildfires and the federal government’s response, Biden kept riding his bike and said, punting, “We’re looking at it.” Later he issued a bizarre “No Comment” when asked about Maui. The non-conservatives didn’t blink. [“No comment” meant “I don’t know what I think about this situation until my handlers tell me what to say, and then I’ll no what I think.”] They didn’t raise hell even when the astoundingly incompetent White House paid liar Karine Jean-Pierre, responding to Maui questions from assembled reporters, mispronounced Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono’s name, called her “he,” then mispronounced Hawaii Senator Brian Schatz’s name as well. Conservative website RedState observed what mainstream media commentators should have observed if they didn’t see their jobs as protecting Joe: “Nothing says ‘we care’ about those suffering like the White House not even knowing the names of both senators from Hawaii, and in the case of Sen. Mazie Hirono, not even knowing she’s a woman…. Jean-Pierre’s flubs make it seem like she did zero leg work, and in turn, that makes it seem as if the administration isn’t taking the situation seriously.”
Then the rewriting of history began with fill media cooperation. Yesterday, as the Presidential entourage was en route to Maui to do the de rigueur empathy tour—Joe might have several opportunities to sniff some girls and feel up some women during all those hugs— three weeks after the wildfire began, White House spokesperson Olivia Dalton said President Joe Biden will “make sure that he communicates that not only have we been there since day one, has he been there since day one.” Oh. Well I guess there’s nothing to complain about, then! No mainstream media critics have flagged this obvious falsehood; if Donald Trump had said something like that in the same circumstances, it would have been instantly “factchecked” as a lie.
Upon reflection, it’s pretty obvious what’s going on here, and it isn’t even news. It’s the biased media’s rotten journalism, manipulating public opinion toward its partisan agenda, and it’s been going on this whole century. It’s just more blatant than ever.
Ethics Alarms 
🤷🏻♂️ It pays to be the king and have the media in your pocket. Just think, we have four more years of this to look forward to.
Lester Holt and Kamala:
LESTER HOLT: Do you have any plans to visit the border?
HARRIS: I – at some point, you know – we are going to the border. We’ve been to the border. So…
HOLT: You…
HARRIS: This whole thing about the border – we’ve been to the border. We’ve been to the border.
HOLT: You haven’t been to the border.
HARRIS: I – and I haven’t been to Europe.
Some have compared VP Harris’ mastery of the English language in interviews to Handel’s Water Music…
They have said, “Handel’s Water Music is awesome and VP Harris’ conversation skills totally suck.”
They flew Marine One all the way out there (and back) so Joe wouldn’t circle over the town formerly known as Lahaina in Air Force One a la George Bush over Louisiana. Thank you taxpayers. Your tax dollars at work on the Biden reelection campaign.
It may be that the majority of the missing are children who were sent home from school because of the fires to homes without parents and were trapped by the flames. I find it odd that they have a count of the missing but do not know or will not acknowledge who the missing are in terms of age. The governor answered that question by saying I don’t know.
Chong’s comment on the governor’s eye contact was astute. The most inept media consultant or speech coach in the country would have told him to make sure he didn’t do that. It communicates shame, dishonesty, and cowardice.
Remember the Flint, MI water ‘issue’? Why did they blame the governor for that? Well, if you follow from the water department to the city all the way up, he is the first Republican you find. The people criminally charged for that were Democratic employees of the Michigan Department of the Environment that required that Flint remove the treatment to prevent lead leaching. Yes, the Flint Water Department plan had processes in place to prevent lead poisoning from occuring, but the State EPA required those processes be removed. In Hawaii, they haven’t been able to find a Republican official to blame this on, so climate change will have to do.
“Remember the Flint, MI water ‘issue’?”
Sure do, Lefty rewarded their supporters by poisoning them.
“Why did they blame the governor for that? Well, if you follow from the water department to the city all the way up, he is the first Republican you find.”
BINGO! To wit:
(bolds/caps/italics mine throughout)
“DEMOCRAT Mayor Dayne Walling led a cheerful countdown (04/25/2014) at the Flint water treatment plant to press the button moving the city over to river water.
“Walling and DEMOCRAT EMERGENCY MANAGER Darnell Earley even raised glasses in a toast and drank the water to show that it was safe. “ ‘It’s a historic moment for the city of Flint to return to its roots and use our own river as our drinking water supply,’ Walling said. ‘The water quality speaks for itself.’
“Flint’s DEMOCRAT city council had voted in favor of the move 7-1. DESPITE CLAIMS ABOUT THE POWER OF THE EMERGENCY MANAGER, THE SWITCH COULD NOT HAVE GONE FORWARD WITHOUT THAT VOTE.”
Oh my! All those Lefties out there with nowhere to hide.
It gets worse.
President Obama’s EPA knew all about it but failed to act, perhaps busy polluting waterways out in CO or trying to criminalize a trace gas essential to nearly all living things on Mother Gaia?
MotherJones and and and (GASP) Slate?
Oh the humanity, Lefty devouring their own! It’s almost too much to take.
Almost…
I’m pretty sure the Twitter account of Ian Miles Cheong (who just likes to stir up controversy and spread right-wing talking points for likes) isn’t a reliable source for anything.
Just because he has a popular Twitter account doesn’t make him reliable. Kim Kardashian has a lot of followers too.
KN – what a rather disingenuous comment. Let’s attack the speaker and avoid the content of the speech.
An astute set of observations is astute whether uttered by a genius or a dunce. It might be more surprising from a dunce but that fact doesn’t alter the content of the utterance. Same is true here whether someone is internet famous or not.
Rather?
My British English background, I guess. Next time it will be wholly rather than rather.
No, my mistake. That’s a legitimate use of rather. I just read it with typical crude American liguistic bias.
Ah, I see. Nothing to see here then? A nothingburger, in fact? Sirens actually did go off? Abundant water was provided? Nobody in charge was at fault for decisions that put lives at risk and did, in fact, cost lives? I’m sure the government of Hawaii would be happy to push that narrative and quite a few people who only spout Democratic Talking Points are more than willing to disseminate it, too.
So the governor maintained perfect eye contact throughout? The video says otherwise. Cut the trolling, KN. It isn’t welcome here.
Kate Novak,
Show some good character and apologize now. You can do better, I think.
Wow. You really are an idiot, aren’t you? The video speaks for itself. Every point he made is factually correct. What you or anyone else may think of Chong doesn’t alter reality. If he points out that the shy is high, it is idiotic to challenge that assertion because you don’t like his politics. He asked the right question. I answered it. You’re evading and deflecting.
Did you just call me an idiot?
He was just stating the truth. Your posting so far here has been pretty idiotic, and makes you sound like a paid Democratic troll. It’s not that we hate liberal people, but come on, you can do better than just parrot the party line. If I want to read that I can go to Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.
Or the New York Times…
Disagreeing ≠ idiotic
Only actual idiots think that and use insults are arguments.
Kiss my ass!
But suddenly a new contender has emerged.
I said you were a shit-stirrer, and this seals the deal. You’ve been here what, a week? I haven’t seen you write anything that isn’t Democratic Party talking points, which I have neither the time nor the inclination to respond to. You’ve been using disingenuous and deliberately annoying tactics, even after the moderator has told you to desist. Now you’re acting like somehow, you’re the wronged one after you’ve been gaslighting and needling the regulars here and some of us are sick of it and telling you to get bent, although admittedly in my case not very politely. You’re also trying to play “gotcha” with the owner of this site, who does not have to answer your stupid question at all, but especially doesn’t have to answer it when the record speaks for itself. No doubt you think of yourself as the master of the armor–piercing question, but really you just come off as another annoying, left-leaning, and not all that bright troublemaker. We’ve seen off what, half a dozen of those?
Well, since you called her a shit-stirrer, I guess there’s no need for me to consider whether anything she’s said is true, or whether her arguments hold water.
Isn’t that how it works?
Sealioning. You know I did. The alternative is a deliberate false propaganda merchant, which I believe is worse, but if you would prefer that diganosis, I’ll accept it.
I know you did what?
Call me an idiot?
Also, that’s not what sealioning is. Learn what the phrase actually means.
Will you listen to this crap? I’d look at the comment policies, Little Miss Knows All.
Cheong is a right-wing shit stirrer with an agenda on Twitter and nothing more.
He’s part of the right wing grievance culture on social media whose only goal is to increase his follow count.
He can’t and shouldn’t be trusted as a news source or ethical analysis of anything.
Haven you said that about others before?
Even if what he said is true, you should find a better source.
Also, to your points about Cheong’s points…there’s no “relative media blackout”, the governors eye contact was fine (that’s a cheap shot/gotcha either way), there’s huge media coverage and no one is sweeping anything under a rug…the fires are getting HUGE media coverage.
Fox AND CNN have been critical of Biden’s “no comment” comment.
So I have no idea what he’s talking about.
-Kate
You should look into the mirror if you want to see a shit-stirrer, Kate. You are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts, and gaslighting, which is what you are doing now, is discouraged here.
You really don’t get it, or if you do, you are being deliberately obtuse. Nothing Chong wrote was untrue. It wasn’t even opinion. His flaws, real or imagined, and his right wing bias does not change what are simply factual observations. Sirens didn’t go off, water that could’ve been used to put out the flames was restricted, and power lines did keep operating. He could have listed a lot more. If your standard, and it apparently is, that even valid facts and observations from someone you disagree with should be treated as false, no wonder you’re so immune to reasoning.
What about the things I actually mentioned in my comment?
You also didn’t answer my question, did the writer of an ethics blog call me an idiot?
Ark.
Ark ark.
Ark ark ark.
🦭
Sigh.
You people really need to learn what these hip, new words the kids are using actually mean.
Asking someone to confirm they insulted them isn’t sealioning.
The right can’t meme.
In other words, “I know you are, but what am I?” Sorry, Pee-wee, not buying it.
NOTE: Kate NOVAK is banned in this reply. I didn’t want to keep anyone in suspense.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Repeating a question to the post author when the answer has been stated clearly is what the word means. So, in my book, is asking if the host wrote something that the host wrote, clearly and without subtlety. I said “You’re an idiot.” You asked, “Did you call me an idiot?” The question is just harassment.
You are banned. A. You’re not smart enough to comment here. B. You have slipped into repetitive partisan talking points rather than actual arguments. C. You are now quibbling over terms D. You are wasting my time and everyone else’s D. You’re an idiot.
Any comment you make from here on will be deleted, and any comments attached to it will be deleted. I won’t read anything from here on, even if you post the Great American Novel.
Kate wrote:
Cheong is a right-wing shit stirrer with an agenda on Twitter and nothing more.
Okay, even if I were to stipulate that, what difference does that make if he is correct in his observations?
The answer is none. Trenchant analysis can come from ideological opponents. Dismissing someone on the basis of perceived ideology is simple bias, and bias makes one stupid.
So stop it. If you have an observation to allow, please lose the bias and stop using talking points. They are unethical in the extreme.
He’s part of the right wing grievance culture on social media whose only goal is to increase his follow count.
Yes, like Ibrahim X. Kendi is a provocateur of black grievance culture, or the limitless X/Twitter/whatever trolls from the Left who get tons of media accolades. That doesn’t mean they are always wrong.
Both sides have grievances against the other, so what?. That doesn’t make every utterance by people you oppose wrong. If you have a rejoinder to his observations, then offer them. All I see so far is, “ZOMG, Cheong so right wing! Aaahh!”
Nobody wants to read that. Either respond to his analysis or leave it alone. Attacking the messenger as a justification to ignore the message is not helpful or useful, it’s just noise.
I took the liberty of checking out both the Bing News and Google News front pages, in Incognito Mode so my personal profile wouldn’t interfere with what’s being shown. Neither had the Maui fires on the front page. Apparently the surrender of John Eastman, and the killing of a shop owner by a homophobe are more important.
The first Maui Wildfire story on Google is about a house that survived untouched due to a new steel roof and a buffer of river stone around it in lieu of vegetation. The first story on Bing is titled “President Biden, first lady visit Maui to hear from survivors after wildfires”. Neither mentions the bureaucratic delay in water diversion. Neither mentions the transmission line maintenance that was deferred to pay for more green energy generation. Neither mentions the missing children. Neither mentions Jean-Pierre’s flubs, neither mentions Biden’s vacations. The latter only refers to the fact “President Biden had been criticized by conservatives for what they contended was his relative silence on the disaster”, well below the fold.
Sure thing, there’s no media blackout. Are you lying, or just blind?
In other words, “Republicans pounce”.
Kate Novak,
I agree with you on your sealioning comment. I take it your question was to clearly emphasize that Jack called you an idiot.
Having said that, your argument is little more than an ad hominem fallacy against Cheong.
Having absolutely no familiarity with him prior to today (as far as I know), none of these statements serve to refute his claims one bit:
“Cheong is a right-wing shit stirrer with an agenda on Twitter and nothing more.”
“He’s part of the right wing grievance culture on social media whose only goal is to increase his follow count.”
“He can’t and shouldn’t be trusted as a news source or ethical analysis of anything.”
Those are all completely unpersuasive arguments against him.
Perhaps, the worst of all is this:
“Even if what he said is true, you should find a better source.”
Are you conceding that what he said is true, or not? Or, are you just stating as hypothetical?
Because, if you are posing a hypothetical, then, no, you don’t need to find a better source. If what he says is true, then he is as good a source as any. In fact, this statement may be the clearest illustration of the ad hominem nature of your argument.
-Jut
“I agree with you on your sealioning comment.”
Boy, I sure don’t. If I write X and someone replies, “Did you write X?” that’s sealioning in my book. Does she have to do it repeatedly? I don’t have the time or inclination to explain that yes, indeed what I wrote is what I wrote. Now, if she saked, “Do you really think I’m am idiot?” that would be different.
Anyway, it doesn’t matter. She’s banned. The fact that you felt you had to take the time to explain such an obvious ad hominem fallacy is reason enough.
You might be right about sealioning, but my understanding of it is that it has to be repetitive and pestering. A single question would not qualify.
But, that whole discussion is just a digression, anyway, and distracts from issue at hand.
As for the explanation of the fallacy, I think it is valuable because it is a fallacy that is very frequently misunderstood.
This was just a very good (maybe even textbook) example.
-Jut
argumentum ad hom____. See if you can guess the last four letters. And do please let us know what Kim has to say about this, if it’s a more convincing take.
It has been truly sickening watching MSM and legacy print media the last few years (since Trump’s victory in 2016) drop all pretenses of objectivity and professionalism, and going all out in assuming their role as the propaganda apparatus for the Dems/left.
We always knew that they leaned left (far left) and that they were biased in doing their “jobs”; I never thought they’d be this blatant.
I think they believe they’ve already won, with millennials becoming the largest voting blocks, with more and more GenZ coming online, and with more demographic change (though we’re not supposed to notice it, and definitely not to comment on it), and sadly, I don’t think they’re wrong.
I think the most trenchant question from Cheong is, “Will anyone be held accountable?”
I think many of us, especially those who see the same bias in media that you do (it’s hard to miss, but by reading the comments, I sometimes wonder) feel certain that accountability is only applicable to one side of the debate, and it doesn’t apply to the Democratic leadership of Hawai’i. Perhaps I’ll be proven wrong, and the people who live there may decide this is simply too much to overlook on the basis of ideology and vote the failed leaders out. I’m not holding my breath.
The media have, as has been demonstrated here many times, taken a side, and nowadays, they don’t even try to hide it. In fact, I see more and more pieces attempting to justify their position as the only moral alternative. As has been said here many times before, the moral certitude of the Left is breathtaking in it’s apparently unassailable scope. When you are so thoroughly convinced of your rectitude, any opposition can only be seen not just as wrong or misguided, but evil.
One can hardly blame the media for wanting to downplay evil as much as possible. Of course, when you do that, you are no longer doing journalism by any reasonable definition, but frankly, the media think that objective journalism is pure white racist/homo/trans/otherphobia and must therefore die. From a recent report in the Daily Caller (ZOMG! So right-wing!):
“[I]ncreasingly, reporters, editors and media critics argue that the concept of journalistic objectivity is a distortion of reality. They point out that the standard was dictated over decades by male editors in predominantly White newsrooms and reinforced their own view of the world,” Downie Jr.[Executive editor of the WaPo] wrote. “They believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading “bothsidesism” in covering stories about race, the treatment of women, LGBTQ+ rights, income inequality, climate change and many other subjects. And, in today’s diversifying newsrooms, they feel it negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.”
Has anyone noted the timing of Biden’s trip? I have friends in HI who are telling me that the perception there is that the Biden people needed a visit to stem criticism, but also needed to be far away when the awful toll of children is finally revealed by the state. So he was rushed out there before the really bad news surfaced, to avoid being tarred with the accounting for all these preventable deaths in a Democratic stronghold. At least, that’s what is making the rounds on the island.
I happened to catch an interview with someone who lives there (possibly a stringer from the sounds of it). He was relating that the sirens are tested every month, and seemed to work fine — but they didn’t go off for this.
He was trying to get somewhere and officials told him “This is a no-media area”, but had to let him in because he was a resident. One infers from that that the local government is trying to restrict coverage of this story.
He had been witnessing quite a bit of relief efforts for Lahaina — boat owners and operators, businessmen, I don’t recall who all were all pitching in to get supplies from other parts of Hawaii to the affected area. What he stated that he saw was primarily private efforts, with minimal presence of FEMA. That sort of private response to these types of disasters is something we see time after time — in Katrina, the Texas floods, and many other cases, and it’s very heartwarming and reassuring.
The banning wasn’t ONLY after the name-calling, neither was it because Kate disagreed. All she was an ad hominem argument, and it was the latest in a long line of poor argument attempts that she’s made on this blog. I personally wouldn’t have called her an idiot, but virtually all her posts have been idiotic, especially “Did you just call me idiot?” OF COURSE he did!
It’s really pretty simple around here. Don’t be a jerk. If anyone is incapable of acting according to that nostrum, they aren’t going to last long. And good riddance.
I think “Don’t be a jerk without significant positive contributions” would be a more accurate description.
Hard to argue with that. There are some really skillful commentors who can be both jerks and incisive. But I think for the vast majority, including the undersigned, “don’t be a jerk” is a good place to draw the line.
“She Who Will Not Be Named” left three post-ban comments, not a record by any means, but the mark of someone who has validated the banning. Naturally, like the Hound of the Baskervilles, “A Friend” weighed in for a post-banning comment of his own, which I also didn’t read.
What a great, classic, passive aggressive assumed name: “A Friend.” Nice.
And, he just popped up again on this thread..
Kind of like Whack-a-mole commenting; you never know when his head will pop up to chime in.
-Jut
Thanks—got it. It’s like someone telling you that you have spinach between your teeth: I appreciate it. I think AF sees it like photobombing. The funny thing is that he was never banned: he just demanded that another Kate-like commenter be reinstated or he would leave too. Following my unalterable rule from my days running organizations, when someone says “Do this or I’ll quit” my answer was, “Bye!” The self-banning only became irreversible after he continued to disrespect the forum by repeatedly commenting anyway. His posts are articulate, thoughtful, and sometimes even constructive: so far, he’s the only reader banned for sheer arrogance.
That earlier banned commenter was named Katie, btw.
I erase such things from my memory banks.
Well, I feel a bit badly about calling her an idiot. I have done that before, and usually apologized, but the commenter decided to reply to it in essentially the same agressive adversarial tone as all of her other trolling, this time with a Robert De Niro imitation (“You talking to me????”) and then a deflection into whether her response was “sealioning” (It might have been closer to “Taxi Drivering” but the point was and is that it’s obnoxious, and in this case, “one toke over the line Sweet Jesus.”)
Besides, she is an idiot. I had deleted the same diagnosis in two earlier responses before posting them. A conservative commentator on Twitter accurately listed facts that have been widely reported, and her argument was that because he is a right-wing activist despised by the Left, such facts should not be trusted when he records them. Her degree of mindless bias is hard for me to even decipher: how can anyone with a functioning brain come to that conclusion? The motto here (well one of them) is “Bias makes you stupid,” and stupidity on an epic scale means you’re an idiot.
Don’t feel too bad. Some people are like glow sticks, you have to snap them in half and shake them vigorously before the light finally comes on.
“Taxi Drivering.” Thank you for a hearty, tear-producing laugh. I’m happy I stopped by.
Yeah, I responded to Kate’s “did you call me an idiot” questions with, “You have brain for thinking, eyes for seeing, and both of those for reading. Go back, read all the responses, and figure it out.”
Then I didn’t post it.
To further my digression, I actually think it’s alright – if a bit harsh – to call someone an idiot. We should all be non-idiotic enough (and grown-up enough) to realize two things:
1. It’s the opinion of the name-caller, and he/she is 100% entitled to that opinion.
2. In most cases, being called an idiot doesn’t mean the person is one in the totality of their person-hood. It’s more a localized idiocy – the person’s thinking in this particular case is considered idiotic.
I don’t think I’ve been called an idiot in these forums, but at some point I will write something that will earn me that moniker. And I will remember my two points above before I start sassing.
The government declined to sound alarms to warn people Lahaina was on fire. The government declined to provide water to put the fire out. The government of Maui slaughtered its people and leftists are running around having a tantrum because people are pointing it out. The government is out of control and slandering people who point it out won’t make that fact any less true.
Joel,
I think those are good points to keep in mind.
To add to this line of thought, it seems to me in our culture of “acceptance”, that either one “accepts” what someone is, says, and does in totality, or one rejects that person in totality. There can be no middle ground. Thus calling someone an idiot regarding some narrow matter actually is an attack on that person’s entire being. In a similar vein, if one does something wrong in one area of life (such as being a conservative pot-stirrer), one can do nothing right in any area of life. And this by no means is limited to one party or one ideology. It tends to span the spectrum, though thankfully it is not all-inclusive of any label. To wit, though, to some conservatives, Donald Trump can do no wrong, and Joe Biden can do nothing right. There could be a bill that started in the Republican-held House, had broad bipartisan support and so passed the Senate, and was signed by Joe Biden, and some conservatives would hold even that as a reprehensible act.
A second problem I see (and maybe this is because all 4 of my girls are 9 and under, and I’m inundated by very childish attitudes every day) is that there no longer seems to be a desire in a great many (especially younger people) to rise to challenges. Everything must come easy, everyone must agree with me, I shouldn’t need to lift a hand to achieve success and adoration, and if that doesn’t happen, I am a victim that has to be compensated. The culture I grew up in held that if someone called you an idiot, you came back with hard evidence and strong arguments that showed you weren’t an idiot. If someone called you a slacker, you doubled your effort to prove him wrong. If someone accused you of gaining a position out of favoritism, you worked your tail off to show you deserved the position. You don’t demand respect, you earn it.
Excellent thoughts. You, sir, are on a roll!
Additionally, daughters are a beautiful thing…and you have some exciting times ahead of you.
Or you lived your life in such a way that no one would believe the idiots who called you this or that. Just remember, the only people you need to please are your spouse and your employer. Anyone else can take a hike. If someone calls me an idiot, I just ignore him. If someone calls me a slacker, I tell him to give me his phone number and promise I’ll get back to him as soon as his opinion of me becomes important. If someone says I got my job out of favoritism, I just shrug, because I know that isn’t true. You don’t have to center your life around proving your critics wrong. That’s high school mentality, where you struggled to keep your hair perfectly combed, your trousers just the right length, and your legs crossed sufficiently masculinely that the same troop of idiots wouldn’t give you shit. It didn’t matter, even if you brought everything in line with what they seemed to think was the way to go, they’d still find a reason to give you shit, because giving you shit is what they wanted to do. One of the best things I ever read was that one of those guys who gave me shit ceaselessly in high school eventually married a woman his family disapproved of, and they disowned him. He wasn’t even allowed to attend his own father’s funeral. Couldn’t have happened to a more deserving SOB. Now who knows what it feels like to be on the outs?
The attitude isn’t so much that I’m worried about what they think, or that I’m attempting to appease them, but that my position is hard to justifiably assail. Sure, some people are just assholes, and some people will never change their mind, and some people will try to tear you down out of envy and spite. But many more people start to look towards someone who works hard and surprises them by industry, competency, and erudition by granting them at least grudging respect. And that starts to build bridges and hopefully good relationships.