“Unhinged” is a Russell Crowe horror movie about a woman in a bad mood one morning who honks angrily at the driver of a car in front of her when a light turns green at an intersection. Unfortunately for her, she finds out that she has triggered a lunatic who decides to ruin her life as revenge for her impulsive honk. In the background to this Very Special Comment of the Day, I am the equivalent of the woman, and the author, “Stacey’s Friend Chad” is Russell Crowe, if the Russell Crowe character waited over six years to decide to go on his rampage.
Welcome to my world. I woke up this morning to not one but six posts scattered around Ethics Alarms by a commenter whose first comment had him banned from Ethics Alarms on this post, a tongue-in-cheek bit of fluff that I wrote in 2017 after reading about a flag dispute between Romania and Chad. Two commenters didn’t appreciate my whimsy (out of over 40 comments—I’ll take that ratio any day), one of whom was writing from Romania to defend his country, and another who launched into diatribe about my “dishonesty.”
Normally such a comment wouldn’t get out of moderation, but I was in a bad mood that day for some reason, and posted the comment just so I could abuse the jerk for all to see. That was stupid and unethical. I’ve done it a couple of times, and even warn commenters about my occasional outbursts in the Comment Policies above, but still, reading what I wrote in 2017 is embarrassing. This is my penance: that banned commenter returned with a vengeance this morning, and it is all my fault. Thus for the second time I’m posting one of his attack comments instead of sending it to spam hell immediately (which is where the other five comments are now.)
I’m hoping I remember this episode the next time I’m tempted to call a commenter a “butt-head.” Here you go…
***
Unbelievable. What an absurd and explosively embarrassing and unhinged seethe fest. Are you actually crying, Jack? Imagine if I pointed out all the typos and ESL tier writing you unabashedly vomit up in your attempted writing. You’d probably need a hug from your wife’s son to calm you down.
“WELL Y-Y-YOU ARE BANNED!!” Hahahahaha.
I can’t believe you left that reply up for the last 6.5 years.
“Jackass,” “Jerk,” “Butthead!” What a serious and not at all emotionally unhinged and ridiculous person you are; a nice balance to your excellent writing skills and near understanding of the history to which you ignorantly opine and editorialize. You’re also dangerously close to grasping what the actual meaning of the word, “ethical” is.
What a lovely picture you paint, Jack. Imagine my devastation to find I too have been banned for shining a spotlight on your parade of ignorance and translucently thin-skin. Please take cheer in knowing I literally laughed reading your last comment — all the sophistication and excellent English one might hope to find from a 6th grade SPED student at an inner city public school in Detroit.
My only regret in leaving this website, now and forever, which is clearly moderated by a hysterical prig with the self-awareness of a coked-up chihuahua, is I’ll never know which Reddit boards you also moderate with an iron fist (it most certainly appears that you do indeed exert a precise and serious fisting, Jack). Your delicate sensibilities no doubt lead you to enforce a very hardline position on any/all wrong think, all non-NPC opinions, and especially any naughty expression that threatens your evidently already near-shattered ego, or hurts your precious feelings.
I do hope your therapist can help you parse this terrible mirror-gazing I’ve forced you to endure. If nothing else you can ”borrow” some of what I’ve written here since you clearly need all the help you can get (steal) when it comes to articulating original thoughts in a textual format (protip: I just pointed out the unequivocal and objective fact that you are a sub-marginal writer, and luke warm intellect).
Bye, Jack. Have a great day 🙂
Ethics Alarms 
That entire comment is ad hominem and the writer appears to be a bit obsessed. The writer comes across as a sophomoric imbecile trying to kick sand on Jack’s feet and then run away.
A-S-S-H-O-L-E.
In all fairness, Jack, you said you were hopped up on cold medication the day you made the post, so that might have influenced your posting. That said, it was probably not a good idea to post something that could be taken the wrong way, albeit by only certain people. I doubt you thought that you got people from Romania here, but another time you did get lashed out at by at least one person from Portugal regarding that country’s drug policies, so that should have occurred to you. That doesn’t justify this sophomoric rant and personal attack by this idiot, though.
BTW, the best bet for Romania to deal with this issue is to stick the rather colorful national coat of arms (a gold eagle on a blue shield with other decorations) on the yellow stripe of the current flag, maybe with the new addition of broken chains on the eagle’s legs to signify the liberation from Communism.
Yup. All true. I get a lot of hate mail, but not usually six years after a post.
Having gone back and reread your comments about the flag, I noticed a lot of errors in your analysis along with counter arguments you did not address. Also a few pigheaded comments from you as well.
The major issue is, does a country who is forced to change their national flag because their country was taken over, disallowed from reinstating their national flag after they regain freedom, all because another country started to use their same exact, old national flag?
I would say no, Romania has no ethical obligation to not use their flag that was despotically outlawed just because another country decided to use it.
You’re essentially arguing “finders keepers” and that’s just not a convincing ethical argument to me and others.
If Romania decided on their own to get rid of their flag, you would have a point, but they were forced to give it up. Chad should have known the history of the Romanian flag and known it was out of use only because Romania was currently occupied.
I side with Romania on this.
I’ll cop to pig-headed.
I still maintain that if a flag design is not being currently used by a nation, and the reason doesn’t matter, it is fair game for any nation that wants to adopt it to do so. I also hold that deliberately choosing a design that another nation is currently using is unethical, disrespectful, and irresponsible. Similar principles apply in property law.
I don’t know what “forced to give it up” means. The government of Rumania gave it up, and whether it was under compulsion or not doesn’t change anything. There’s no “totalitarian decisions don’t count” rule.
“Finders Keepers” is an absolutely ethical principle absent some authority that holds that something intentionally abandoned still belongs to the owner. Actors in Actors Equity must have a unique name. In “Shane,” Jack Palance was credited as Walter Jack Palance. He soon after changed it to Jack Palance. If another AEA actor had joined the union as Walter Palance, Jack could not suddenly decide that he had that name first and go back to Walter, forcing Walter Palance to take a new name. Same principle.
I know you’re not arguing if you lose your wallet, it’s ethical for someone else to keep it right?
It wasn’t intentionally abandoned though is my point. They were occupied by the Soviets after WWII and the old flag was outlawed. They were forced to change it unwillingly.
Once Romania regained independence, they reinstated their flag.
That’s totally ethical.
Chad “suing” Romania (and not the other way around mind you) is unethical. To tell a country who was forced to give up their flag that they can’t use it after they regain independence just because you now use a similar one is gross to me.
It would be like someone living in your house while you’re a political prisoner and then once you’re freed, you want to regain your property.
There’s also no reason they can’t both have the same-ish flag. Romania isn’t telling Chad to give up their flag.
Chad is in the wrong here.
“I know you’re not arguing if you lose your wallet, it’s ethical for someone else to keep it right?”
Bob, I stop reading comments that begin with deliberately dishonest statements like that. Try again.
I wrote about abandoning property, not losing it, not having it stolen. No comment introduced with an intentional misrepresentation deserves to be taken seriously, and I have sock drawers to arrange.
I dunno, “finders keepers” with no allowance for totalitarianism or force is a little bit of a loose standard. I’m working on a story now in which a character called the Earl of Huntingdon (a descendant of Robin Hood) has a family financial base which is built on captured treasures. Among other things, his great-grandfather was one of Clive’s officers, who defeated the Rajah of Shahjapur, who sided with the French, when the French historically lost the battle for control of India with the British victory at Plassey. In exchange for being allowed to keep his throne, the rajah gave the earl three large sacred jewels, the Eye of Agni (ruby), the Eye of Indra (blue diamond), and the Eye of Surya (taeffite), each worth millions in today’s money. These now form a large part of the family’s wealth to borrow against and losing them would cut the family’s net worth by more than half. The current earl inherited them from his father and grandfather, and they from further back, and the earl who captured them arguably made a legitimate deal, the treasure in exchange for a loser in a war being allowed to keep political power. Does the current earl have an obligation to return the gems to India? Does it matter whether or not the royal family of Shahjapur still exists (there are a few royal families still knocking around super-wealthy in India)? Or can he ethically say “Too bad. Too sad. Your guy backed the wrong side in a war and the jewels are mine by right?” What do you think?
Agreed and it goes to my point how Jack is ignoring the main feature of this issue…Romania was occupied and forced to change their flag.
Obviously you don’t give up ownership of something just because it’s stolen or you’re forced against your will to do so.
It’s why a lot of these relics are now being returned to their rightful owners.
It’s a law vs. ethics problem, much like the Elgin Marbles dispute.
As far as the flag goes, when would be too long for a flag to be unused for the nation to have a right to it? Never? A you know, I believe that populations have to accept responsibility for the governments they end up with. That’s harsh in the case of a foreign power that takes over—what about a native dictator? If another nation had adopted Germany’s discarded flag and colors once Hitler had adopted the red swastika banner, would Germany have the right to take back its flag after the Reich lasted for a thousand years?
Depends on the situation. How long has the country used that flag for? What does it mean? What are the circumstances?
There’s definitely a line, but wherever that line is, it’s way after the time Chad decided to adopt Romania’s flag. Which was about 10 years.
Romania had those tricolors before Chad was even a country.
And again, remember…Romania isn’t asking Chad to change their flag, Chad is asking Romania to change their flag.
That’s a big difference.
“I believe that populations have to accept responsibility for the governments they end up with. That’s harsh in the case of a foreign power that takes over”
I don’t agree and not sure how a country can accept responsibility for a government they didn’t want or vote for. Especially when they’re taken over or conquered.
There’s definitely a line, but wherever that line is, it’s way after the time Chad decided to adopt Romania’s flag. Which was about 10 years.
There’s definitely a line, but wherever that line is, it’s way after the time Chad decided to adopt Romania’s flag. Which was about 10 years. Why is ten years not enough? Why isn’t one tear enough?
Romania had those tricolors before Chad was even a country. So what? They didn’t have them when Chad chose its flag.
And again, remember…Romania isn’t asking Chad to change their flag, Chad is asking Romania to change their flag. How do you figure that? It’s Romania that adopted the design after Chad did. When Chad chose its flag, it was the only nation with the design, and it didn’t require Romania to do anything but maintain the status quo.