Invoking section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, President Trump has deployed National Guard troops to D.C. and is taking over the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to “help reestablish law, order and public safety” in the city. The President has the power to do this for 30 days; anyone calling it a frightening use of autocratic power is in the revolting camp of those who believe that any legitimate exercise Presidential power is fascistic and dangerous if this President is the one exercising it.
Naturally, Trump being Trump, he has been exaggerating the extent of D.C.’s problem. PBS, which, to its enduring shame, used phony factchecking site PolitiFact to challenge Trump’s hyperboles, noted that Trump’s stats were from 2023 and that “at least 49 other cities in the world had higher homicide rates” in that year. Oh! Then what’s all the fuss about? Here’s one: none of those cities is the capital of the United States of America. D.C.’s crime and murder rate are above the national average. The nation’s capital should be a model of safety, public civility and fealty to the law, not a city that’s “not as bad as it used to be and you can find others that are even worse.”
It is unconscionable that D.C. is the dangerous city it is. It was considered dangerous when I moved there to go to law school, many decades ago. The progressive narrative to attack Trump’s move is that level of violent crime are coming down from last year. Yes, it is coming down from an unacceptable level and will be at an unacceptable level still. This defensive logic is literally Rationalization #22 “It’s not the worst thing.” Maybe not, but it’s still terrible.
Congress or a President should have intervened in D.C.’s crime problem long ago. They didn’t, because they were afraid of being attacked as racist: D.C. is overwhelmingly black, and the serious crimes are committed overwhelmingly by blacks. Trump isn’t afraid, because the Axis of Unethical Conduct calls him a racist regardless of what he does, and he can’t lose any votes in D.C. because he never had any.
Naturally, the news media is characterizing the D.C. policing take-over as “racist.” When a large, Democratic-run city ceases to have a disproportionate amount of crimes committed by its black residents, I’ll be ready to consider such complaints. Black America has a serious crime-culture problem that will not abate until black leadership and community leaders accept responsibility and begin leading the community away from toxic lifestyle choices. That, however, undermines the perpetual victim fiction, so it isn’t going to happen.
Absurdly, the D.C. City Council makes the prosecution of juvenile—and often young non-juvenile—criminals an exercise in futility. They are often not charged and if they are, seldom get anything but light sentences. Trump’s troops won’t be able to do anything about that, but maybe D.C.’s voters will begin to see the wisdom of serious law enforcement.
D.C., one must remember, elected a convicted felon ex-mayor to the City Council, and he has a statue in the city representing him as a hero. Many other members of the city council in the past have had criminal records, either before or after their tenure. Many were juvenile offenders. No wonder they are sympathetic to young offenders.
I heard one Democrat fuming over Trump’s latest adventure by complaining that “he seems to think he should get involved in every problem.” If a President has the power and opportunity to fix a problem that other elected officials refuse to take on, he should get involved.
Trump’s critics look foolish and desperate attacking him for the D.C. action, and, as is now the norm, are lying as hard as they can. Slate: “D.C.’s 700,000 residents will live the next month under a police force that has been openly encouraged by the President to commit acts of brutality against civilians.” This is news for the Trump Deranged, because they will believe anything.
Ethics Alarms 
Most of the arguments espoused by Bowser and her allies center on the notion that crime rates are down year over year. As far as I am concerned that is like saying someone is only beating his wife every other week instead of weekly. The critics also fail to explain why FBI crime stats differ substantially with local stats. The critics conveniently leave out the fact that one or two senior leaders of the DC Metropolitan Police were fired for falsifying violent crime stats by charging people with misdemeanors rather than felonies to show decreases in violent crime, and the AG for the District rarely ever seeks convictions for what should be felonies but instead pleads them down which results in just a smack on the wrist.
What is most annoying is that despite the numerous car-jackings, muggings, and murders pundits are claiming that the most serious crime problem occurred on January 6 when that rowdy bunch tried to overthrow the government.
When the 19 year old DOGE member was accosted and attacked and beaten mercilessly by a gang of young people for what I assume was to be an carjacking the police were only able to arrest 2 of the attackers. Both it turns out were juveniles. This attack occurred between 3 and 4AM. I suggest that the police should level child neglect charges or something more serious against those who have custodial care over those kids. We demand that parents who leave unlocked weapons available for children to gain access be charged with serious felonies so what the hell is the difference if the kid uses a gun, a knife, an ax, hammer or just his fists. No child should be roaming the streets at that time of night.
Exactly!!
…and the Bee is right with you…
https://babylonbee.com/news/democrat-mayors-report-violent-crime-down-40-since-they-redefined-violent-and-crime
Addendum:
A day after “Liberation Day” people interviewed in Ward 8/Anacostia were complaining that they had not seen any of the additional law enforcement and that they felt it was all being deployed in more affluent areas. That is probably true but the money quote was DC may have a crime cold but Ward 8 has pneumonia.
It is interesting that Mayor Bowser has said little in response and that Maryland’s illustrious Senator Chris Van Hollen introduces legislation to prevent Trump from federalizing the police while not doing anything to help fight crime in the nation’s capital.
Someone like Adam Schiff must have gotten to Bowser and told her to toe the “anything Trump does is bad” talking point. DC mayor dramatically changes tune on National Guard takeover as she calls for residents to fight back against ‘authoritarian push’ | Daily Mail Online It’s what the Dems are running on in 2026. Cooperation is verboten.
This is her previous response that must have elicited a major scolding: DC Mayor and Police Chief: We’re Getting More Resources And We’re Going To Use Them To Make Our City Safer | Video | RealClearPolitics
“PBS, which, to its enduring shame, used phony factchecking site PolitiFact to challenge Trump’s hyperboles, noted that Trump’s stats were from 2023 and that “at least 49 other cities in the world had higher homicide rates” in that year.”
Isn’t it funny that the Left just loves to compare the U.S. to other countries, often negatively? They compare our gun violence to third world countries when it suits them, but, when it comes to minimizing the violence in our capital city, noooo, we’re not the worst!
The level of violence in other world cities is irrelevant. President Trump is not the President of the countries in which those cities exist. He can’t do anything about violence there. He can do something about it here.
It’s an embarrassment that our capital city, which should be a center of art, education, culture and civics, has become so dangerous, especially when no one wants to address the problem.
“Black America has a serious crime-culture problem that will not abate until black leadership and community leaders accept responsibility and begin leading the community away from toxic lifestyle choices.”
Am I correct to sense that the narrative on race is shifting since the 2024 elections?
In 2024 Trump captured 25 percent of the black male vote. This is significant increase, as the blacks tend to vote lockstep Democrat. Barack Obama’s shaming black people into voting Democrats did not work this time.
There is a new term going viral at YouTube: black fatigue. Also: black exhaustion. All you have to do is go to YouTube and search on these terms. There are many influencers who comment on bad behavior committed by groups of black people, such as in Cincinnati and at Carnival Cruise. The influencers are almost evenly divided between black and white. I see this as an indication that a) white people are willing to break taboos on race by openly addressing the elephant in the room b) that black people are seeing the same problems, and addressing these as this type of behavior reflects poorly on all black people.
Another sign is the type of news that hits the news cycle in a big way. In the recent past stories about black man killed by white man dominated the news (e.g. George Floyd, Trayvon Martin). This year murder and violence from black men against whites got the spotlight in the news.(Karmelo Anthony killing Austin Metcalf, brawl in Cincinnati).
Democrat politicians will keep doing what worked for them in the past, namely playing the race card. It does not work as well as it did in the past. The narrative has been discredited. People are not as fearful of being accused of racism as they were in the past.
And that gives room for the Trump administration to act boldly, No more walking in eggshells around the topic of race. Just do what needs to be done, and call a spade a spade.
Thoughts?
I just finished Thomas Sowell’s Black Rednecks and Liberal Whites.
I found his research into the origins of so-called “Blackspeak” to have actually had its roots in Northern Britain from where the poor whites of the American South hailed to be interesting. Words like “dis”, “dat”, “ax” (instead of “ask”) were apparently commonplace pronunciations for these settlers who differed from their more cultured Tidewater cousins from the South of England. They also tended to disdain education and had volatile personalities that may have evolved into the honor culture of that same American South.
AMG, I do not quite following the point you are trying to make; are you reacting to anything I wrote, or is it more a general observation?
How does this relate to crime and antisocial behavior as we see today in DC? I am aware of an elevated sense of honor in the South, and of poverty in white communities in the Appalachians. However I do not see a southern white crime problem, or anti-social behavior problem as a result. The problems as we see today in DC are from more recent vintage, starting in the sixtees.
I’m sorry. This is what happens when I multitask. It was a more general comment. Your comment about the Carnival Cruise behavior was included in the Chris Arnell substack essay that Chris Marschner posted 08/09/2025 in the Cincinnati Beatdown thread called “An Inconvenient Black Truth”. That essay made reference to the Sowell book. My comment above was continuing that train of thought.
Cees, I think AM was simply sympathetically expanding upon your observations by bringing in Sowell’s theory of the origins of black pathology (with which I totally disagree). To say freed slaves modeled their behavior on that of hillbillys is preposterous. I think the problems go back to black Africa and a combative, matriarchal society that denigrates guys and fatherhood.
A couple of counterarguments here:
So in order to understand the pathologies we need to look at misguided social policies, exacerbated by a phenomenon such as “liberal white guilt” that excused these pathologies.
I’m fine with that theory as well. It’s the Patrick Moynihan observation. There’s another theory also, and it’s ironic, 1960s integration destroyed the black business economy. When everything was segregated, black people had to patronize black businesses. Once integration came on the scene, black people could patronize white businesses and the black businesses collapsed. All that’s left are barbershops that cater to black guys for obvious reasons. And think of the Negro Leagues. They were economically viable and well attended but obliterated by integration. Nowadays, you just don’t see many black people in the stands at MLB games. Or even any pro sports games. It’s striking. Almost all the athletes are black and almost ll the fans are white.
Intact families were indeed the norm, and then the welfare check replaced the wage-earning husband, leading to a collapse of intact families.
Because that’s how you keep control, you see; remove men from the family unit. It worked on the plantation.
Things were headed in a different direction once. Even MLK (whatever other flaws he might have had) was telling his people they had to change their behavior once, that they needed to keep reasonably clean, to not aggressively pursue sex with every woman that caught their eye, and stay away from drugs. Booker T. Washington tried very hard to convince white people that they had nothing to fear from black people.
That approach didn’t seem to work, and MLK was ultimately murdered. So the black community turned to the more militant folks like Malcolm X, like Amiri Baraka the elder, and so on. The thought was that white people could ignore marches and speeches, but they couldn’t ignore it when their property was being destroyed and they were getting killed. Some went far enough to say that white people just had to go. It’s easy to fill up on hate when you have little else in your life.
Unfortunately, this approach doesn’t lead to measured and wise leadership, and that’s why black politicians are frequently either little Idi Amins (if male) or just bloody incompetent (if female). I spent 20 years working for a majority black city, and some of the older black employees still talked about a bullet waiting for any white person who disrespected them.
Then came Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and “black lives matter” which gave them the fuel for the bomb, and then when George Floyd was killed the bomb detonated. You know what happened then, so I won’t rehash it. The thing is, it didn’t result in the realignment of society into some kind of social justice paradise, nor did it change every white person’s mind. An opportunity to really change this nation for the better was blown as those who actually wanted things to be better got pushed aside by those who just wanted to smash windows, steal stuff, and beat others up and feel justified for doing it.
It even gave them the opportunity to change presidents…but the president they chose turned out to be a complete failure. Just because he had been Obama’s second in command didn’t give him Obama’s skills, rhetorical or otherwise. You also know what happened there, so I won’t rehash it. Now Trump is back in power, and not hindered by a pandemic or really by much, since he doesn’t have to face the voters again and the opposition party has flushed whatever appeal it had down the dumper, and he’s decided this ongoing nonsense needs to end. It does not hurt that America has victim fatigue and protest fatigue and a lot of us are just damn sick of being hated and attacked and trashed and called names after four years of it.
Frankly, I’m of the opinion that black people who can’t deal with the fact that they have to share America with other people who don’t see it their way need to leave. Nothing is stopping them from going back to Africa or anywhere else in the world. If you are like Andrea X, who at least for a while ran retreats exclusively for black women in Costa Rica, and said her life was “much more breezy” since she decided to cut white people out of it, then I invite you to do so. Believe me, things are much better from where I stand where I don’t have to deal with black and brown people with inflated opinions of their own importance and who think I’m just a white person they have to put up with until I get replaced by one of their own kind.
The reckoning of 2020 has boomeranged, and this is just the beginning. Now maybe it’s time for us to even up the beatings and so on. There is, after all, a tendency for people to get hurt or even killed while “resisting arrest” and no one seems to know just how. Those who claim they know how usually can’t speak up with their mouths rearranged. Those who are persistent usually vanish into the system after an “anonymous tip.”
I’ve fantasized about a two state solution to the problem. Take Georgia, South Carolina and Alabama, buy out all the white people living there, and have all the people of color move to and run their own nation. They could name it Floydlandia. Problem solved. The displaced whites could take their money, move to the rest of the country and make a fortune rehabilitating the now empty (and therefore safe) former ghetto areas.
I say make it Alabama and Mississippi, we still need access to King’s Bay, GA and Hilton Head is too valuable. But, yes, a two state solution might work. Property values would take off like a rocket everywhere else. We’d have to repopulate some of the cities completely. Hey, what do you call a barn full of black people? Antique farming equipment! Honk! Honk! Wocka! Wocka!
You two obviously don’t spend much time in the south, bless your hearts. Y’all can keep your Yankee problems up north where they belong. The south actually seems to have far less racial strife currently, and Alabama and Mississippi are both perfectly pleasant states. Black culture isn’t monolithic.
No problem: California. Or New York state, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts.
The entire idea is stupid. You don’t fight a divide and conquer strategy by embracing the division. The root cause of all of these problems is the incredibly toxic leftist ideology being imposed on people. You want to fix things, fight the right battle.
Sometimes, “give ’em what they want” is a rational response.
the poignant insight I gained from my time in South Carolina (the hotbed of the revolution) is that the South was segregated socially, whereas the North was segregated physically.
in the South, blacks and whites lived together on different social levels.
in the North, blacks and white were socially equal, so long as blacks stayed in their ghettos
of course, by the time I spent time there, the social segregation was greatly diminished. I lived next door to a black family. There was nothing unusual about it.
-Jut,
I feel like am watching a rerun of Beavis and Butthead. Grow up, kiddos! The adults don’t think you are funny.
Heh heh, heh heh, huh-huh, huh-huh….
There is a new term going viral at YouTube: black fatigue. Also: black exhaustion
It’s all over TikTok as well. Ghetto fatigue, ratchet fatigue, etc. And yes, conservative Black influencers are calling out their community.
People are not as fearful of being accused of racism as they were in the past.
Because the term “racist” et al, has been completely diluted. The name calling carries zero punch, and those being called the names are simply shrugging it off.
The tide is shifting.
Talk about the brown, stinky tide… (inside joke with Jack)
Jack said if I have a beef with you, I should address it to you.
Okay.
Your racist jokes are offensive and, as you used them, have no place on an ethics blog.
OK. I promise I’ll get back to you as soon as your opinion becomes important to me.
I am going to add to this and philosophize on how to move away from the status quo on the disfunction that harms predominantly black communities, and to turn the page on the “conversation” on race. This is also a reaction to comments of Steve and OB.
Works for me, Cees. The problem needs to be solved, regardless of its historical source.
I mostly agree with you, especially on the idea that Americans should be embarrassed at how they let themselves be played 5 years ago and victimhood and learned helplessness have to go. OK, vigilantism is not a good thing, objectively and in the best of all possible worlds, BUT, and here’s the great exception, when the other side is attacking you and those who are supposed to protect you can’t or won’t, then you are responsible for your own safety, and sometimes to protect your safety, you have to send a message to the other side that if they continue what they are doing, you will do the same to them. During the Troubles you might think twice about shooting Stewart dead as he leaves the pub on Friday night, because you know if you do that, Sean or Paddy or Liam, and you know not which of them, is going to get grabbed off the street within 24 hours and taken on a ride that’s going to end up with him face down with a bullet in his head.
Steve, if I am correct you are a lawyer. Would you expound on this from a legal perspective?
Not sure how to answer that. Can you clarify as to what you are looking for?
It is the following phrase that I have questions about:
“BUT, and here’s the great exception, when the other side is attacking you and those who are supposed to protect you can’t or won’t, then you are responsible for your own safety, and sometimes to protect your safety, you have to send a message to the other side that if they continue what they are doing, you will do the same to them.”
I am in favor of 2A and the right to defend ourselves. But this should always come with a warning that we should know the local laws that regulate self-defense, and act accordingly. I do not want to get myself in legal trouble simply because I want to send a message. Certainly not in a state like New York, with Soros backed prosecutors like Laetitia James and Alvin Bragg.
That’s always the risk you take. However, it’s better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6. You should absolutely know the laws regulating the use of weapons and self-defense in your state, and, if they are too strict, consider being somewhere else. New York is ridiculously strict, especially in the City proper, but a lot of the upstate counties are much more practical.
Funny story, I wrote a blog post in 2022: Lying To People With Statistics.
The point being made is largely correct: DC is a relatively dangerous city. And it is special, as the Capital City of America. But depending on what you call a city, DC probably doesn’t actually crack the top 10 in raw numbers, and definitely doesn’t crack the top 20 per capita. Not that it really changes anything, but we might as well be correct.
I’m sympathetic to the general point of the administration, I just don’t think that 30 days is going to make a difference, and then what happens at the end of it?
Best case would be that Trump has a heck of a plan, steamrolls the criminal element, and processes enough of them that it actually puts a dent in DC’s criminality, then turns the keys over at 30 days and draws a juxtaposition: This can be done, I did it, you can too!
And that’s possible… But it’s also possible that he doesn’t get a whole lot done and the optics will be awful.
The “optics” will be made “awful” by the AUC. Right minded people will say, “Jesus H. Christ. At least he tried something. The problem is intractable!”
That’s not really how Federal politics works though… People don’t really go: “Aw, shucks, well… At least they tried”. Frankly, things might be better if people did. No, if this fails, then Trump failed to do something he set out to do, and he’ll wear that failure like a weight. It won’t be enough on it’s own to do anything, but you weigh anyone down with enough failure anchors, and they’re done.
HT. “Come on, man.” Did any of Joe Biden’s innumerable blunders ever have any negative effect? Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine war? I think Trump’s base will have no problem with failures. They beat the hell out of not trying or actively making things worse. The Dems, of course, will harp on any Trump action endlessly. And they even complain about his successes. They think a president who actually exercises executive power and does things is “a threat to democracy.” And don’t forget, Trump is term limited.
“Did any of Joe Biden’s innumerable blunders ever have any negative effect? Afghanistan withdrawal, Ukraine war?”
Uh….. Are you kidding? Yes.
The Afghanistan pullout in particular was the entire turning point of his administration. That was the point in time it all came crashing down, he went from being net-positive to being 20 points underwater on everything following that. It was the event that gave people internal permission to regret their vote in 2020.
I have some questions about this as well.
One thing that Trump does is highlight issues by shining some bright stadium lights on it. Similar idea as DOGE, but this time on crime, and how this is handled in a very liberal jurisdiction. And as DOGE this will be temporal.
So let’s assume that crime is down for the next thirty days, and then the DC establishment takes control again, and crime rates return to what they were before. Then Trump has not reduced crime permanently, but has definitively illustrated that the crime problem has a positive correlation with how law enforcement operates in ultra-liberal cities as Washington DC and NYC. So I see as one of the main purposes of this operation to move the narrative on crime.
(And Trump feeds on TDS, and knows that if his unsubtle ways drive the left crazy it only works in his favor).
It is disheartening when a blog that styles itself as an ethics site tolerates comments and so-called jokes that, if not racist, certainly lean in that direction. I recall reading some time back that racist comments would not be allowed on this site. I also recall that using words that are similar to an offensive word is really no different than using the offensive word, such as using ‘frickin’ in lieu of ‘fuckin’. A third thing I recall is that long-time, prolific commenters are granted a bit more tolerance when it comes to offensive comments. I don’t recall a good explanation of why that would be.
So, here, we are confronted with a proposal for segregation. That may have been tongue-in-cheek, or it may have masked a racist impulse. No real clue which it was, other than the comment history of the proposer.
We also are confronted with a joke that at least leans racist, but, seems to be considered okay because the punch line is not delivered (not unlike repeated references on this site to a lawn sprinkler). Frickin clever, maybe, but not as I see it. Then a follow-up, a comment where the meaning is not stated explicitly, but is clear enough, and the impact of which is worsened by labelling it an inside joke with the host of this ‘ethics’ site. If it really is such an inside joke, then that would help to explain the tolerance for some comments that appear here, but should not.
One need not be hypersensitive to see how this stuff is wrong, but it appears the commenters do not see it that way. TDS is a fairly well known concept, and one effect of it is a kind of blindness to one’s own anti-Trump bias. WDS as a term has not really caught on, but there certainly are those who are so strongly anti-woke that they do not see their own, unethical, bias as they lean in the direction of racism.
OK, I’m going to have to check the comments to see what you’re referring to. Right now, because of my mobility and pain issues, I have not been able to monitor the blog as closely as usual, and I’m sorry for that. I have not seen any racist jokes or comments.
On that topic: I don’t censor Ethics Alarms. I warn pre-approved commenters when I feel comments crossed a line, and have several remedies at my disposal.
Don’t put “ethics” in quote here again. I’m doing my best; I can’t be fairly impugned for what I didn’t see.
Now I’ve reviewed the comments, and I still don’t know what all of your comment refers to. You have an obligation to make your complaints specific. I don’t have time for puzzles For example, what is the offensive word not explicitly stated? I didn’t see it. Furthermore:
1. My policy of not censoring established commenters is based on the fact that they are accountable to all here, and they write what they write at their own risk. I’m not going to get into drawing strict lines about what is offensive, to whom or why.
2. I expect this forum to be self-policing. If you have a beef with Steve-O, tell him. He’s a valuable resource here: yes, he’s crossed the lines in the past…”brown stinky tide” was an example. It’s irrelevant to the post, and not worth explicating.
3. Yeah, that joke is inappropriate. You can read my ethical theories on jokes: I believe jokes are utilitarian, and if they make an audience laugh, they aren’t unethical. Was Eddie Murphy’s “Buckwheat” character racist? It was funny: if you think it was racist, don’t laugh and don’t watch Eddie Murphy. If you don’t like Steve’s jokes, don’t read his comments.
4. For the record, I don’t regard Steve’s joke as racist. It is clearly going to offend some people and with justification. It’s a deliberately crude and insensitive reference to historical fact, and derives its humor, if any, from its deliberate insensitivity.
5. Playing the racist card in any attempt to discuss race issues is unproductive and inhibits discussion and debate. People here should be free to say what they think without risking being labeled, tarred or branded.
I wasn’t referring to a specific word. I used ‘frickin’ as a sort of analogy. If someone posts enough a joke to make it clear what they mean, then it is the same as posting the entire joke.
As to the rest, I’ll stand by my comment, except that I do apologize for putting single quote marks around ethics; I should not have done that.
My “two state solution” is not proposed in jest, nor is it racist. It would have to be agreed to by both sides and financially equitable. It wouldn’t be imposed. It would be a matter of giving people what they want. If you haven’t noticed a fairly strong and strident desire among various black leaders and public intellectuals to essentially rid themselves of their white overlords, you haven’t been paying attention. “Crackers,” “white devils,” separate dorms and graduations, the re-ascendance of HBCUs, Ibram X Kendi, take your pick.
Alternatively, if you want to consider the “two state solution” a reductio ad absurdum, that’s fine as well. Still not racist. Just making a point using a common rhetorical device, of which I am particularly fond.
“… buy out all the white people living there … have all the people of color move to … .”
If you meant ‘offer to buy out willing white people’ and ‘allow willing people of color’, then you should have said that. Your wording implies mandatory segregation, i.e. racism.
Promoting segregation might not be exactly racist (I think it is), but it sure leans in that direction.
I’m aware of the Black leaders and intellectuals you refer to, but I have little time for them and they don’t have much impact on my thinking.
I prefer solutions that allow for all American citizens to live together in harmony, without mutual suspicion, and a radically different tone on race issues. I do not believe in segregation and two state solutions, both on grounds of principle and practicality. The dream of MLK should still inspire us today. The solution to identity politics of the left (Kendi et al) is not identity politics of the right; we do not want a woke right.
In 2008 I hoped that Obama would change the tone on race, and move the USA to a post-racial society. To his eternal shame however he exacerbated racial tension, and the narrative on race by the progressives and Democrat Party has become extremely toxic. Now in 2025 it is clear that they have jumped the shark in the “conversation” on race, and we should feel free to be frank and fearless in debates on racial issues.
However one of the side effects of the dysfunctional racial “conversation” is that it has harmed the immune system in the USA against racism. Some people are unafraid to say the N-word. At Ethics Alarms a coupe of months ago there was the case of Shiloh Hendrix who used that word, and avoided being cancelled using a GoFundMe campaign. (As an aside, the point has been made that she may have destroyed cancel culture in the process, which is a good thing).
There are voices that we should not be afraid of the term “racist” but proudly embrace the term instead. When I searched YouTube on “black fatigue” I came across the channel of a tradcon influencer Lilly Gaddis making this exact point; her videos address the same issues as discussed in this post (Cincinnati, Carnival Cruise), but from a sense of white superiority. She has been fired from a job in the past for using the N-word, and has gone viral after that and has even been interviewed by Piers Morgan.
So I would like to enjoy a frank debate about all matters race without too many taboos, while still recognizing a number of guardrails that should not be crossed. It is still too easy to beclown yourself in this debate, invalidating everything you say (this is not personally directed at anybody in particular).
Of course the idea of apartheid, even voluntary apartheid, is repugnant. But minorities have to accept that there are intrinsic disadvantages of being a minority. I’ve been the only male in all female organizations. I’ve been the only straight guy in a theater production. Majorities have an ethical obligation to fight bias and avoid unfairness, but human nature dictates that being in the minority is going to be trying sometimes. If you are going to be bitching about it without end, then go where you can be a majority.
Apology accepted. It was a justifiable comment.
My policy of not censoring established commenters is based on the fact that they are accountable to all here, and they write what they write at their own risk. I’m not going to get into drawing strict lines about what is offensive, to whom or why.
This response is confusing because it doesn’t answer the question. It also calls into question your claim that you don’t censor the blog. You may not “censor” the blog but you absolutely moderate it.
If you don’t moderate it, you get embarrassments like Turley’s otherwise excellent blog, where “Anonymous” will hijack a thread to make an irrelevant point repeatedly. I don’t censor the blog. I moderate commenters: a comment that warrants a suspension, time-out or banning will always be posted. Unauthorized posts by banned commenters is a separate issue. Those posts are eliminated for being in breach of the rules, not for content.
Exactly, and being a long time reader but recent poster, I’ve absolutely noticed this too.
“A third thing I recall is that long-time, prolific commenters are granted a bit more tolerance when it comes to offensive comments. I don’t recall a good explanation of why that would be.”
Think of the effects this has over many years. Naturally, commentators who stick around and visit the blog the most are ones who agree with the blog. This is true of all blogs.
But, new commentators who disagree with the blog may try to join the discussion, but are quickly chastised since they’re treated differently than long time commentators, may have a whole other post written about their comments by Jack (why?), and then quickly leave since they’re treated differently and accurately view the blog as an echo chamber.
This undermines the integrity and consistency of the blog moderation.
It essentially becomes a club of liked-minded individuals who are allowed to say and do whatever they want since they’re part of the “in crowd” and outsiders are quickly ganged up on, not only by other commentators, but by Jack.
Long-term commenters are emboldened to push boundaries, while new commentators feel alienated or silenced, reducing diversity.
So new commenters are more likely to leave if they encounter hostility that appears sanctioned by Jack, since he also has a bias against older commentators he knows or is friends with. He may be less inclined to moderate them and more likely to chastise newcomers.
I see it all the time.
It’s essentially bending the rules for friends. Sure, that makes sense in many situations in the real world like letting your friend to call you an idiot, but not a stranger.
But this isn’t really ethical in the context of a blog when you’re supposed to maintain impartial standards and a welcoming environment for newcomers.
Selective leniency shows that relationships outweigh rules (again, why?), which ruins trust and undermines the credibility of the blog.
Rinse and repeat = echo chamber and decrease in quality of the blog.
Just go back a few years and read the diversity of comments. All gone now.
I also suspect Jack didn’t notice the racism since he scrutinizes new commentators more.
The “Comment Policies” for this site are available for everyone to read who wishes to, and sadly, a great many – particularly around election times – who descend on this place and are summarily bounced for various forms of bad behavior never bothered to read them even once.
If you read them, you will see that there is special dispensation for long-time or regular commenters that may not be extended to everyone. Those individuals may get away with a wee bit more than others.
This should come as no surprise to you…you likely experience this kind of preferential treatment every day. The times a police officer pings your car with radar when you’re speeding, but because you have a clean record, he/she lets you off with merely a warning to slow down a bit. The time you’re late with a mortgage payment or the electricity bill, but when you call the company, you hear that it will waive late fees because you’re so reliable. The time users of your software uncover a bug in the code you’ve written, but because you’re kind and otherwise completely dependable, they say “no problem, we’ll wait until you fix it.”
Commenters with long track records of dependability at Ethics Alarms get a bit of leniency. I experience that leniency in my everyday encounters…I can tolerate that some will get that here as well.
If you read them, you will see that there is special dispensation for long-time or regular commenters that may not be extended to everyone. Those individuals may get away with a wee bit more than others.
Right, I just laid out why this is an issue on this blog that’s moderated.
I view this as a false characterization of the blog, and substantially unfair.
1. If a friend violates comment policies, I will ban him or her. “A Friend,” for example, is, or was, a real friend.
2. If a first time commenter isn’t passed through moderation, it is NEVER because of a viewpoint, but because of the quality or tone of that first comment. Then I give the commenter plenty of leeway to prove my judgment was correct. If they start violating the rules, they usually get a warning. Again, mere viewpoint will never get anyone kicked off. Making unsubstantiated statements and refusing to debate in good faith will
3. “Here’s Johnny,” ironically, is a beneficiary of the policy favoring established commenters. He frequently take positions just to mix it up or to tweak me; it’s obvious, and if I recall he’s admitted that. But he’s analytical and constructive. A new commenter who put quotes around “ethics” or implied that I am a fake ethicist would get slapped down and suspended.
4. The echo chamber accusation is unfounded. Right now, the echo is because one whole side of the political spectrum has flipped out. Althouse, a liberal Madison lawyer/prof, has a more conservative commentariate than I do, and she, in my opinion, over-moderates, not allowing commenters to argue with each other, for example.
5. The blog content is, first of all, the posts. The comments are a great addition but still secondary. The qulity and variety of comments has never been higher, and they exceed in quality and variety any other blog I’m aware of.
6. Bite me. I did not and do not regard Steve-O’s joke as racist, and that’s a good example of why I don’t get into the censorship trap. I think it was in bad taste, but jokes can still be funny and in bad taste. What would you have me do with a one-off line crosser like that? Black it out?
7. We just had an esteemed, left-leaning commenter who had been given a column to write whatever he pleased just exit without so much as a thanks or good-bye because he couldn’t take the results of the 2024 election. And yes, if he crossed a line in a comment or a post, I would not have censored him. I solicit guest columns and have never rejected one yet.
8. Start your own blog if you think you can do better. This is still the most trafficked blog of its kind on the web, with the most comments as well. You’re welcome to take 15 years to try to top it. I get no income from this and spend, at least when I’m not ailing, 3-4 hours a day on it. It’s a public service. Anyone who doesn’t avail themselves of it is just harming themselves.
Brava!
PWS
That is a crucial aspect of this site that many simply ignore. It’s not as though conservative-leaning readers flocked here because the host was a Republican or because the content consistently favored conservative ideals or because Democrats alone got bashed. In other words, there was no echo-chamber here that drew conservatives.
A bunch of conservatives and liberals were here, but the liberals left one-by-one when the host had the audacity to look at issues involving the 45th President (and by extension, the 47th as well) through the lens of ethics rather than the lens of hyper-partisanship and lock-step Democratic-party loyalty.
The Left has almost single-handedly created the echo chambers on both sides of the spectrum, by consciously (and figuratively) packing their bags and going to their own hives. And by almost completely refusing to entertain opposing thoughts, their own thinking has morphed largely into incestuous, in-bred ideas that look more like insanity than logic.
for what it is worth, I think I am only here. E cause I (not going to correct that, lest it delete my whole comment) Ampersand linked to posts here and I was the opposition on his blog.
he jumped ship here and I rarely check in on Amptoons anymore.
not sure whether Jack or Barry got the short end on that trade
-Jut
I view this as a false characterization of the blog, and substantially unfair.
I know you do, but you would be wrong. For instance, you would say Bite Me to a new commentator but not to an old one. If I told you to Bite me, you would ban me. So, you hold yourself and your friends to different standards than you do new commentators or people you disagree with. This breeds a crappy culture on your blog that dissuades new voices from commenting. “Bite me” was totally uncalled for but it’s your blog, do what you want. Doesn’t mean you don’t come off like an immature jackass.
Again, this is all fine, it’s your blog. But it’s why it’s a boring echo chamber now.
I don’t get all that animated all that often, but here goes…
It’s commenters like you who are to blame for whatever level of “echo-chamberness” you believe exists here. Again, the liberals that frequented here pre-2020 (almost to a writer) left in a toot because the host – and the more conservative commenters here – wouldn’t bash a President as relentlessly and unfairly as they wanted. This place wasn’t “All Orange Man Bad, all the time”…and that just wasn’t good enough for them.
Since then, the liberals who have paid visits have mostly been of two ilks, 1) those coming in and repeatedly spouting one or two left-wing talking points like dogs with bones until they were removed, or (in your case) 2) those lurking around the edges and then pouncing on some peripheral issue and dragging it around the place.
You would rather whine about a one-sentence response from Steve-O – an individual who has written more in his years here than you may write in your lifetime – than add anything of real substance to the various discussions started by the host. And then you want to complain about the host’s commenting rules and hurl insults his way.
Listen, you might not like the host or the host’s rules, but when you’re here, you have to deal with both, just like the rest of us.
I would think you have thoughts about the pieces our host has published, and every Friday there’s an Open Forum, where you can offer up your own thoughts. But in typical left-wing fashion, it’s either “Orange Man Bad!” or “censorship!”.
The Left side of the political spectrum is in complete shambles nearly everywhere, and the Left is 100% to blame. Nobody here did that.
You claim “echo chamber!” but your contributions have done precious little to move even your own perceptions in a different direction.
Get your act together.
That there (heh!) ’bout sums it up, Joel; tour de force coup de grâce!
PWS
Selective leniency amounts to the unethical rationalization known as “the king’s pass”. I believe what it says elsewhere on this site” “This pass for bad behavior is as insidious as it is pervasive, and should be recognized and rejected whenever it raises its slimy head.”
I’m not a newbie here, but I’m wondering if my time here is misspent (some here would say ‘Yes!’ in a heartbeat).
But you know, it’s not. Regular commenters enhance the blog, and recognition and privileges are earned. The Comment Policies are explicit on this point, so new commenters know they are, in effect, on probation. ALL established commenters are held to the same standard. How many “kings” can there be?
No, Johnny, your time is not misspent. Your comments are wonderful even when I might not agree with your point.
I think Jack’s “leniency” policy is geared toward commenters and participants who have made substantive, substantial points to further discussions. Where he draws the line is when the comments break down into a “no, it isn’t; yes, it is.” point-counterpoint, which is boring and unproductive. I, for one, have learned a lot and many comments have made question my position(s), even to the point where I have had to admit I was wrong (shudder at the thought!!!).
I get that some may have taken issue with Steve’s joke. I read it, didn’t think it was funny, but Steve has made massive, impressive contributions to discussions on this blog. There are many commenters – and Steve is one of them – where I will want to read the comment carefully because it will be filled with gems. Steve is terrific at providing detailed historical perspectives on many posts, which are always great reads. You comments, too, are also worthy of consideration.
I wish some of the leftist/liberals hadn’t left. I can always count on HT and EC to give a left-of-center perspective, which many times makes me reconsider my understanding.
So, please stay and keep posting.
jvb
Thank you, John. You make a good point about the comments on here that are well worth reading and assimilating (yours, such as this one included).
I get more out of this site than I put into it, but there are some things that get my dander up.
Exactly, there’s no reason for a blog comment section to have different rules for different people. All it does is dissuade new voices that may dissent from participating. “Oh if I disagree with the consensus here, I’m going to be treated differently” like when Jack said “bite me” to me. Why would I keep commenting here if I’m treated that way but long time commentators wont be treated that way? After hosting a blog for over a decade, this policy starts to self select for voices who agree with Jack.
Marissa, I’m ending this bitch session. If you think the blog is boring, don’t come here. I think there are very good reasons to allow established commenters to have special privileges, I’ve stated them, and my opinion is the one that matters. (I have said “Bite me!” to established commenters, and more than once, incidentally. And if you’re here, you’re in that category.) Others have tried to explain to you why most of the left-leaning commenters fled, and they are accurate. I also greatly doubt that the comments and my interaction with commenters has much effect on traffic here: most readers don’t even check the comments, because on most blogs, they are crap. (Their loss.)
Being told “Bite me” is not being “treated” any way. It is my standard response to an obnoxious, ill-supported contention. It’s a retort. I get to retort on my own blog. I earn that right. My rules have worked out extremely well: its a good pudding here. The best of the Left’s advocates weren’t kicked off EA–Ampersand, Charles Green, Curmie, tgt, Jerry the George Mason prof, even A Friend. They quit on their own volition. They couldn’t stand the heat. That’s their failing, not the blog’s
“But it’s why it’s a boring echo chamber now.”
Don’t see it that way, not in the least; surely my failing, right?
PWS
My concern is whether we can have a mature conversation about a controversial topic loaded with taboos, such as race. Honestly, I am a bit perplexed about the fallout on Ethics Alarms yesterday, reaching sixty comments, and many of them angry.
I am not going to speak to moderation policies of Ethics Alarms; my observation is that the value of Ethics Alarms is greatly due to the frank discussions in the comment section. Other blogs have much less interesting comment sections, either due to no moderation at all, turning the comment section into a cesspool dominated by trolls, or in censorious over-moderation turning the comment section into an echo chamber.
Discussion about race is a taboo topic that requires both maturity and a thick skin when encountering expressions and sentiments that are uncomfortable. This is impossible when cancel culture rules, and commenters enter into hall monitor mode. The solution to bad comments is often better comments.
I am a bit disappointed in the quality of some of the comments; in my opinion they betrayed a lack of maturity, sensitivity, and a failure to read the room. I am not going to mention names, but you know who you are. There are plenty of thoughtful comments that allow for more substantive discussion (such as HT’s comment), and I am a bit sad to see that these are drowned out by all the noise.
Thanks for laying it out, but as the Comment Policy reveals, we’re not in charge here.
What exactly is it that you want to happen? Do you want the host to manage responses on this site using your Comment Policy instead?
After reviewing the comment policies, something I had not done in several years, I now am of the opinion that racist comments may be tolerated, to an extent, according to the policy.
Among the things that may lead to a sharp expression of annoyance or particular testiness is this: “7) Racist, misogynist and otherwise bigoted rants.”
Also, exhibiting racism or other bias “may” lead to being banned.
My preference in these instances would be different, but, then, I am a guest here, not the host.
HJ,
And by the way, my response above was supposed to be in response to a comment by Marisa deep in the thread, but WordPress on a phone doesn’t seem to maintain the threading correctly. My apologies if that appeared to be addressed to you.
I thought you were responding to Marisa, Joel, but it seemed like a good place for me to add a comment on the comment policies. No apology needed.
Your proposal may have the effect that particular viewpoints are cancelled, as they are deemed “misogynist”, “racist” ( and I am adding “sexist”, “homophobic”, “islamophobic” to the list as well), which will create taboos and preclude debate on important topics about which difference in opinion exist.
I see not reason why we should not be able to have a debate on issues highlighted by the manosphere, or about the book “The Bell Curve” from Murray and Herrnstein, without immediately flagging posts as “misogynist” and “racist” because we disagree with viewpoints.
Instead I would focus on rules of decorum, and ban slurs, off color jokes, ad hominem attacks, and other habits that make debate impossible.
Good points. With any of the ists or isms, there always is a problem of definitions. I would have a tough time defining off color (although I might know it when I hear it). But, serious reasoned proposals are far different than offhand jokes with at least a racist tinge to them.