Last week, because of my training schedule, the Friday Forum was on a Thursday, so theoretically there ought to be more pent up ethics issues that Ethics Alarms has missed than usual. I bet there are more than usual for other reasons: as I predicted would happen as the Election to Save Democracy gets closer, EA has been set upon by single-purpose commenters whose objective is to discredit me and the site, usually by sealioning a single rebuttal to an essay critical of Harris, telling the truth about the rotting ethics of the Democratic Party, or defending Donald Trump against Axis smear attempts.
Typical was the exchange with a commenter on this post, who was determined to prove that Trump or his campaign using some video that was taken at an Arlington National Cemetery ceremony that he was invited to attend violated an “Army Rule.” When I told him that he needed to move on to another topic, as genuine and good faith commenters here do, he vanished, after wasting not just my time, but that of many commenters here as well.
No, I don’t believe that these are paid operatives; Ethics Alarms doesn’t have enough distribution or influence to be worth paying someone to do what the Trump-Deranged and knee-jerk progressives will do anyway for free.
I almost feel like I should apologize for the blog taking an obvious turn to substantially more political commentary this year, even more than in 2016 and 2020. Almost. I regard this as an unusually important ethics tipping point for the culture and the election. Trump is almost irrelevant (my opinion of the man, his character and his trustworthiness have only slightly improved since 2015): if the Axis strategy since Trump’s election in 2016 doesn’t finally result in the crushing rejection it deserves, all of those dire predictions about the fate of the U.S.A. will not be so hyperbolic after all.
But see if you can discuss something else….
Ethics Alarms 
lol I didnt “vanish”. You told me to stop commenting so I did.
What did you expect? “Oh the blog owner told me to shut up, let me merrily go comment on another post now”
Thor: “What did you expect? “Oh the blog owner told me to shut up, let me merrily go comment on another post now”
You’d be surprised.
-Jut
Yup. That’s exactly what I expect you, or anyone, to do when I say: “You’re cut off on this post.” I didn’t ban you.There are over 17,000 post to comment on, and (Let’s see…) 11, soon to be 12, since that one. This is what competent moderators do. And non agenda-driven commenters can easily move on.
Just not a very realistic expectation.
I’m thinking “why keep commenting if this blog owner just shuts down the conversations I want to have, maybe he’ll shut down the next convo too”
Well, if you have stuck around, and read the posts, and read the comment policies, and try to make constructive contributions, you are less likely to get “shut down.”
You just have to remember: this is not a political blog; it’s an ethics blog.
-Jut
My point is it’s stupid to think that telling a new commenter to stop commenting or they’ll get banned is a good way to get them to keep commenting on other posts.
Might I point out that the conversation in question went on for quite a ways before our host shut it down, and that was when there was nothing new to say for either side on the issue. While I can understand the frustration of someone just not GETTING what you’re saying, at some point you gotta make your closing argument, and let the jury decide.
Personally I think you’ve done better than other newbies that get themselves banned for treating this place like Twitter, so I hope you stick around. Just stick to the comment policies, don’t beat the horse once it’s dead, and you’ll be fine.
“Might I point out that the conversation in question went on for quite a ways…”
One thing that bothers me about this one and other similar discussions is that they seem to start off, and often continue, in the vein of the Python “Argument” skit, with the commenter essentially making a flat, unsupported claim and responding “is to” and “is not” to counters, without offering any real information, and repeating already debunked info.
Absolut. Or, they go a la Peewee Herman: “I know your, but what am I? Infinity!”
Unlike Jack, I think they are paid and one of their procedures is to “gum up the works.” It’s the only explanation for why they don’t quit. I think social media is patrolled and policed extensively by the DNC and other groups. It’s been adopted from modern day corporate social media marketing and sales strategies by political operations. Just a theory, but I’m stickin’ with it. Both OB Jr. and his wife work in restaurant marketing and for Jockey International, respectively. It’s mind-boggling the number of young kids they employ to be out on social media on behalf of their clients/company.
And what do those kids do exactly? Do they make tons of comments on others’ blogs/social media pages, or are they mostly engaged with their employer’s own social media pages?
My understanding is that paid political propagandists usually spend their time making memes and making copy/paste comments then miving on. I’m no marketing expert but I don’t see the value in gumming up the works on random blog comment threads.
They go out and post positive things about the product/service/company they are working for and counter-balance negative comments that others have made. The goal is to keep the outfit they’re working for well thought of by people who visit social media and get their opinions from it. Gumming up the works is an attempt to obscure what they see as negative opinion.
Sure but why shut it down at all? Someone else responded to me who I was previously not talking to, so I responded to them.
That’s how conversations work.
Then I was told I wasn’t allowed to respond anymore on that post. Why would engage with a blog that does that?
Past a certain point, everyone is just rehashing what they’ve said already as infinitum. People get more and more upset, the quality of the discussion degrades; why not stop it before it goes into full donnybrook mode? At that point, it’s to about discussion, but about somebody ‘winning’. Cool off, re-engage on another post. There are plenty of other places on the net to fight.
Past a certain point, everyone is just rehashing what they’ve said already as infinitum. People get more and more upset, the quality of the discussion degrades; why not stop it before it goes into full donnybrook mode? At that point, it’s to about discussion, but about somebody ‘winning’. Cool off, re-engage on another post. There are plenty of other places on the net to fight.
If you’re referring to your reply to Willem Reese September 4, 2024 at 2:13 am (hope the link works), you essentially reiterated what you’d said in your reply to me, and since he was replying to that comment, he’d already seen your take. What got our host frustrated is that after your reference to the Army’s statement and your opinion on their policy, you weren’t coming up with new information or new factors, just repeating the same opinion over and over.
To illustrate, here’s a post where I disagreed with Jack: https://ethicsalarms.com/2024/08/21/in-utah-how-to-raise-an-ethics-dunce/#comments
I made my points, and even though I didn’t persuade him, I let it go, because I’d said all I could say on the matter.
Ok but are you implying if someone new joins the conversation I’m not allowed to respond? That doesn’t make much sense.
What doesn’t make sense to me is merely restating your position when someone provides a rebuttal. Is your policy to always have the last word, no matter what?
opinion on their policy, you weren’t coming up with new information or new
It wasn’t my opinion, I copy and pasted directly from their policy. Other people were rewriting the policy for some reason, so I was correcting them. For instance, someone (I forget who) stated it had to be a live political event or something. No one besides EC was actually acknowledging what the policy really said. It was odd.
Like I would say “this is the policy it says X” and then someone else who chime in “Well, since the policy says Y” and it’s confusing to me. So I would restate the policy. I dont know if people just kept missing what the actual policy said or what, but it had nothing to do with my opinion
As I’ve mentioned here before, the EA and the EA commentariat combined are the closest thing to a really good discussion section to an undergraduate course which is staffed by a really good professor and intelligent students I’ve been involved in since college. People in the commentariat share a desire to get a better understanding of something. And there’s a collegiality about the commentariat. If a person isn’t really interested in getting enlightened by Jack or the members of the commentariat, there’s no legitimate reason for them to be here. And if a person can’t behave in a collegial manner, they definitely shouldn’t be here.
Who wants a pool on guessing the date between Nov. 5th and Jan. 20th that Hunter gets his pardon?
I’ll go with the day the Thanksgiving turkeys get pardoned. Few will note the difference.
Biden said he had no plans to pardon Hunter. At the time, he was counting on that sweetheart deal Weiss gave him. Joe Biden has never said he will absolutely not pardon. Hunter.
That sounds reasonable…earlier rather than later. Joe’s people never know when one of his beach naps will turn into a dirt nap. They don’t want to bet on Kackles getting into position to do it, and probably wouldn’t trust any promise from her if she did.
Biden was also planning on a second term. If he pardons Hunter, the Right will go nuts but most people will move on.
jvb
My guess is Dec. 23 or 24. Heavy travel days and no one’s paying attention. It would be even better if those days came on a Friday this year, but regardless, those are the days for me.
I don’t think he needs a pardon. I think he gets a stiff fine and probation. The fine will promptly be paid by some benefactor
That’s a really INTERESTING take. I bet Mark Geragos has already got that agreed to. He wasn’t brought on to suggest Hunter just roll over. That goofball that gave Hunter five million will doubtless pay the fine. And I think that goofball is just a front for the DOJ or some other government entity.
If he is sentenced to jail time, I bet the pardon will come down with a flurry, er, make that a snowstorm of others at the last minute.
“…after wasting not just my time, but that of many commenters here as well.”
Millions of people already see the cemetery episode as yet another mark against Trump. If you think they’re wrong to see it that way and anticipate that their perspective will lead to problems, then learning how to engage with them and encourage them to consider your point of view is not a bad time investment.
Is that not one of the reasons we want Harvard to allow speakers that the students and faculty don’t all agree with?
it may be a good investment to try, but at some point you gotta cash out when you see diminishing returns. The phrase “beating a dead horse” comes to mind.
EC…Harvard should allow all manner of speakers on the campus, but no one has ever said that it must or should allow all speakers to hold forth during a class. For better of worse, I have styled this blog as an interactive seminar or symposium. I’m an ethics trainer, after all. One of the toughest problems I face is when an attendee won’t make a point and move on. Of course, I have deadlines in a seminar. On the other hand, my disruptive speakers have paid to be there.
But I’m thrown some of them out of class too…
I would love to hear a case study on an attendee whom you had to eject. I have been in some training where an attendee or two used every occasion to kvetch about how bad their job is, how bad management is, how much the company doesn’t truly believe in safe work practices, and so on. I’ve seen the trainers/moderators/speakers grow visibly frustrated, and even grow short with these disrupters, but I’ve not encountered a time when they actually ejected one of the attendees. On the other hand, I don’t know how well that would be received by the company that paid to have the trainer come and get the employees the training they needed.
EC you wrote:
Millions of people already see the cemetery episode as yet another mark against Trump. If you think they’re wrong to see it that way and anticipate that their perspective will lead to problems, then learning how to engage with them and encourage them to consider your point of view is not a bad time investment.
Why do millions see the cemetery episode as yet another mark against Trump. Where did their perspective originate? How did they even know the event was occurring given that it was not publicized or open to the public. Was it because the media got wind of it and characterized the event in a negative light by focusing on an uncorroborated statement by an employee whose behavior from the opposing perspective was described as a mental break. Could this employee’s political leanings have played a role in how she interpreted the events of the day? The fact that the employee made the point she wanted to remain anonymous because of fear of retaliation by the Right speaks volumes regarding her motivations. In truth, we have no idea what exactly transpired. Without any corroboration from a neutral third party neither side should be treated as a complete and truthful testimony.
I would like to say that millions of others see the cemetery episode as another mark against Team Democrat because no matter what Trump does they will find fault with whatever he does unless they can claim whatever success that may result as their own.
I believe your intentions are good but it seems as if the only people that need to learn how to engage their opposition in a constructive manner are those we could describe as leaning Right. Admittedly, that is my observation and I could be wrong. I have yet to recall where your tools for engagement are directed at someone like “afriend” or any of the other banned commenters.
Telling me that the Army is right in not allowing Trump’s team to video the event despite the fact that the families got Congressional approvals that specifically permitted it, because the Army has internal rules against creating political ads, then telling me that persons crossing our border should be allowed despite our laws to the contrary seems like only one side determines what rules are to be followed and under what circumstances for the purpose of maximizing political leverage against its opponent. In that thread I made the comment that this was turned into a political event when the media got hold of the employee’s story. The gold star families would not have created anti-Biden/Harris videos had they not been attacked themselves and felt the need to correct the prevailing media constructed narrative.
I would like to point out that to have constructive engagement both sides must be willing to alter or moderate their positions. It does not help if one side uses pejorative language such as homophobe, transphobe, racist, bigot, Nazi, or fascist to describe its opposition for the purpose of eliminating the legitimacy or merit of the opposition’s arguments. If one side is told they must be open to alternate points of view while simultaneously implying that the other has no obligation to consider any opposition to their point of view then any tools that allow this condition to occur will be invalid.
I am willing to invest time in constructive debate with other like minded people. I am not willing to spin my wheels trying to persuade the intransigent with evidence they immediately claim as disinformation.
“Why do millions see the cemetery episode as yet another mark against Trump. Where did their perspective originate?”
You’re asking the right questions. “Where did you get that idea?” is one of the single most useful questions I’m aware of. The next step is asking it seriously and not as a rhetorical tool along the lines of, “People don’t share my distrust of these sources because they’re willfully ignorant. That’s not my fault. Why should I have to deal with them? Why do I have to be the adult?”
“…as if the only people that need to learn how to engage their opposition in a constructive manner are those we could describe as leaning Right. Admittedly, that is my observation and I could be wrong. I have yet to recall where your tools for engagement are directed at someone like “afriend” or any of the other banned commenters.
You raise a good point; I should start showing the newcomers and visitors how to use the Values Reconciliation Method as well.
Keep in mind that engaging with someone on politics isn’t doing them a favor out of the kindness of your heart. It’s what lets you be more effective at persuading them to reevaluate their opinions. It’s practical, not generous.
“I would like to point out that to have constructive engagement both sides must be willing to alter or moderate their positions.”
You think people can just decide in advance that they won’t change their positions, that it’s a completely voluntary process? People don’t expect to change their positions, but they will find it happening anyway. The trick to starting out is to respectfully articulate one or more legitimate reasons why someone would hold their position, assure them that you would like to find ways to address their concerns, and let them know that you also have concerns which you would like to be addressed.
They expect you to brush them off, because they see you the way you see them: selfish, brainwashed, and not worth talking to. When you show that you can understand and support what they care about most–their concerns, if not the methods by which they think those concerns will be addressed–it breaks their script. They can’t see you as a troll/drone/sheep/NPC anymore. Their brain has to make sense of you as a person, and that means learning about what you’re concerned about that leads you to criticize their methods and conclusions. “This person understands me and they still disagree! What’s going on?”
“Intransigent” just means you don’t know how to move someone. You don’t move someone with evidence; you move them by addressing their fears about outcomes. That’s all covered in my workshop.
It comes down to a decision: Would you rather leave the intransigent people to their own devices and watch them take over the country, or would you rather make an effort to influence them to reconsider their positions and show them what they’re overlooking?
Exactly, thank you. I’m also slightly annoyed I was told to stop commenting on that topic but then expected to comment on other things. I thought we were having a fine conversation.
Seems there’s no real way to interpret the rules here. How am I to know the host is sick of a conversation? Why would I keep engaging with a blog where I have to walk on egg shells and worry about annoying the host when I’m just defending my position? I wasnt even talking to him when he chimed in and told me to stop or I’d be banned. And this is after someone else who I wasnt having a discussion with made a comment.
Is there a limit on how many contrarian comments can be made? How is one to know where that line is?
It seems to me that the host is okay to let conversations he agrees with go on for as long as they want. Not sure why he feels the need to shut down any conversation really.
Chris made a good point that I’ve been neglecting to show newer people the techniques for engaging on points of disagreement.
If you take a look at my comments on the cemetery issue, I was actually approaching from a point of view closer to yours. I made no assumption that Trump was in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations by taking and posting the footage. That meant my starting perspective opposed Jack’s, and you can see how I handled the situation.
I’m developing a workshop that shows people how to reconcile disagreements effectively, using a handful of concepts to break down situations into the pieces people care about most and a three-step process for identifying people’s values and finding mutually agreeable approaches. Would you be interested in trying it out?
Sure!
I’d like to point out though, and maybe you disagree, but Jack seems to give more leeway with people he’s familiar with and have been around awhile. I think hes admitted that. Not sure that’s a good policy since it seems like “having a favorite”
I’ve seen Jack mention he treats the blog like he’s a professor, but it would be unethical for a professor to have less patience with a new student than one they’ve had before.
Great, much appreciated! You can use the buttons at the bottom of the site to schedule a meeting, or to email me so we can work out a good time. The workshop is two one-hour modules that can be done back-to-back or separately. Looking forward to hearing from you! https://www.visionaryvocabularies.com/
Leeway on disagreement is a matter of trusting that someone is willing and able to engage in a reasoned discussion. That said, one major difference between Ethics Alarms and a real classroom is that on Ethics Alarms it’s fairly easy to ignore someone if so inclined, so that ought to lower the stakes for allowing someone to post something even if one doesn’t think it’s sufficiently well-reasoned.
Leeway on treating people with disrespect is… blowing off steam, I guess? I don’t think it’s a good idea, either.
NOW the original comment shows! Please delete this one.
I was thinking about how ‘official lies’ change our culture over time. A few decades ago, I found out that forensic analysts are required in court to state that a Ph.D. Analytical Chemist is no better at analyzing evidence than a B.A. forensics graduate. Now, this is absurd, but I was told that they had to do it or the lawyers would claim that you can’t trust an analysis done by anyone with less than a Ph.D. However, I wonder how this lie that understanding things better does not help you in any practical way whatsoever has altered our view on education. A colleague went to speak to our state’s medical school about their PA program. He asked the faculty there if they would rather have an applicant with a 4.0 who took the bare minimum coursework to apply (General Chemistry I, Algebra II, basic anatomy, basic microbiology, and basic physiology) or a student who also took Calculus II, calc-based physics, General Chemistry II, Organic Chemistry I and II, Biochemistry, Advanced Biochemistry, and Genetics with a 3.5 GPA. They said the former because the extra understanding of biology, genetics, and physics doesn’t help you practice medicine. You only need the base requirements and anything extra will not make you better at your job.
I am afraid to seek medical attention from these people. I witnessed a guy accidentally shoot himself about 3 years ago and I don’t think I would have sought medical attention. I would have just taken care of it myself.
Ryan, along your lines, I was just talking to our optician about the guy he recommended we have do my and Mrs. OB’s cataracts, a Dr. Petelin. By way of introduction, he said he prefers Dr. Petelin because a technician who works for Dr. Petelin said he had worked at another shop and “this guy’s patients’ eyes look better one day post op than the other guys’ patients’ eyes look a week post op.” But more importantly, I think, and to your point, our optician said of Dr. Petelin, “He’s just really smart.”
I sometimes get seen by PAs at our dermatologist’s office when I find a spot, but I always see Dr. Halmi for my semi-annual screenings. Plus, he follows up on anything the PAs do. He’s great and he’s probably around sixty and he’s a PHYSICIAN. He has education, experience and judgement. I have a hard time not thinking of PAs as the equivalent of paralegals. Paralegals are not the equivalent of lawyers.
A few years ago, I stumbled upon this blog and have been a devoted follower since. The regular comment contributors have a diversity of backgrounds. While many are from the legal profession we have representation from university educators, engineers, law enforcement, scientists, and business professionals. They seem to be of above-average intelligence. Most reside in the United States with a smattering of other countries thrown in. I would also guess that most active participants would be in the 40+ age category. I mention for the benefit of those new to this blog. It has been my experience that harmony can more easily be achieved when cultural differences are taken into consideration.
Occasionally, we have a new commenter enter the fray and they end up getting banned. Thor seems to be on his way. He laments “Seems there’s no real way to interpret the rules here.” In an effort at an outreach to Thor and future confused or misguided soles, I offer the following commentary. Much of this falls under the heading of common sense and decency. While that means none of this should have to be explained. I acknowledge I am in the over-40 retired group so what is obvious to me may not be so to younger people. Our culture has changed significantly over the years.
Comment #1
You told me to stop commenting so I did.
What did you expect? “Oh the blog owner told me to shut up, let me merrily go comment on another post now”
Comment #2
I’m thinking “why keep commenting if this blog owner just shuts down the conversations I want to have, maybe he’ll shut down the next convo too”
My point is it’s stupid to think that telling a new commenter to stop commenting or they’ll get banned is a good way to get them to keep commenting on other posts.
Comment#3
Sure but why shut it down at all? Someone else responded to me who I was previously not talking to, so I responded to them.
That’s how conversations work.
Then I was told I wasn’t allowed to respond anymore on that post. Why would engage with a blog that does that?
Comment #4
I’m also slightly annoyed I was told to stop commenting on that topic but then expected to comment on other things.
Seems there’s no real way to interpret the rules here. How am I to know the host is sick of a conversation? Why would I keep engaging with a blog where I have to walk on egg shells and worry about annoying the host when I’m just defending my position? I wasnt even talking to him when he chimed in and told me to stop or I’d be banned. And this is after someone else who I wasnt having a discussion with made a comment.
Here is a column Steve Lopez wrote today.
https://archive.md/bFPpH
Feel free to comment.
Ethics Issue: Higher Crime Rates are back again where I live in Great Upstate, and achieving any sort of consensus on what to do about it is hard.
I live deep in the heart of Upstate New York, in the City of Rochester, which is a medium sized city between Buffalo and Syracuse, the part of New York State that lies between Albany NY and Erie PA.
Some years ago the Democratic Party legislators in Albany made some reforms in criminal justice such as “raise the age” and “elimination of cash bail for many offenses.” Those reforms, plus the depolicing that followed the death of George Floyd, have brought us higher crime rates again.
In the 1980s often the number of annual homicides in Monroe County (Rochester) trended around 40. Forty a year. High for a city in this part of the country, but we got used to it and it was concentrated in high poverty districts and among Black Americans. It went up during the crack epidemic, and the authorities managed to bring it down again, mostly by locking up those they could successfully convict.
A few years before COVID hit the number went down to 29. After COVID one year it was about 72. It’s now trending down again, so the newspaper headlines tend to say “Shootings, murder rate continues to decline” in Rochester. Such a headline is misleading, it fails to bring out the fact that everything is still worse than it was before the COVID lockdowns and depolicing.
WIth the elimination of cash bail and raise the age, it seems that kids under 18 can steal cars repeatedly, get caught, and be home in time for dinner. Here’s the latest high profile incident, in which a 17 year old repeat offender has been charged in the traffic related death of an 82 year old retiree who dedicated his retirement to things such as playing the piano at local retirement homes.
https://13wham.com/news/local/city-leaders-voice-frustration-over-17-year-old-repeat-offender-charged-in-brighton-crash
= – = – =
Not everyone agrees on what to do. The problem is concentrated in the cities, but the judicial reforms were enacted in Albany by the state legislature. NY State is trending toward a “one party state” like California, in which the Republican party is (so far) a permanent minority, never in power.
At any rate, people who live in the cities can’t do anything except vote in a different set of legislators. Rumor has it that many people can’t bring themselves to stop voting Democratic, no matter that the progressive wing of the Democratic Party brought us this situation, which of course wasn’t supposed to happen in the first place.
charles w abbott
rochester NY
I found this analysis useful. From about 4 years ago.
https://lawliberty.org/holding-voters-accountable/
I apologize for multiple posts. This article is reasonably accurate, with useful graphs as well as the “crime continues to decline” headline to lull the unsuspecting citizen into failing to recognize that things are still far worse than they were before the COVID lockdown.
https://www.wxxinews.org/local-news/2024-08-20/rochester-newyork-violent-crime-rates-declining
If crime is dseclining, why do they want to ban assault weapons?
Why do they want more gun control?