After a long period of wan responses to the weekly Ethics Alarms free-for all, the last two installments have been historically lively and erudite. I am hoping for another round of equal quantity and quality.
I would like someone to explain to me the strange phenomenon of the EA collective posts, like this one yesterday combining 6 topics to which I would usually devote full individual posts to, attracting such few comments. It is one of the reasons I suspended the practice of doing one of these every day. I know if the MIA veteran EA commenter Eeyore were still roaming this blog, the photo of Sydney Sweeney in all of her—well, something—would have inspired a reaction, and probably a funny one. (I miss Eeyore.)
Anyway, let’s see if you can keep the streak of superb open forums going….
Ethics Alarms 
“(I miss Eeyore.)”
I do, as well.
PWS
Okay I’m game! A person whose videos I like to watch commented a while back that the way he avoids tiresome conversations with relatives with whom he disagrees is by simply agreeing with them instead. Apparently (I didn’t watch that particular video) many of his viewers were outraged and abandoned the channel in disgust (after elaborating in detail–of course!–the reasons for their imminent departure).
My two questions: 1. What if any are the ethical implications of agreeing with a sentiment you don’t (privately) share to avoid what would otherwise be a disagreeable conversation that might fray a relationship? 2. Have you/do you use this tactic yourself, and if so, with what results?
This kind of matches my initial reaction, but when I keyed in on the people with whom he uses this technique (relatives) it altered my take a bit, because (1) the relatives in question probably already know he doesn’t share their views and (2) with relatives there is sometimes collateral damage to consider when things blow up because you are jointly connected to others. So maybe there’s value in a “keep the peace” strategy if you feel that openly disagreeing would accomplish nothing positive and might create a lot of stress (I’m imagining a Thanksgiving dinner context here).
Yes, I would agree that there is a such a thing as the right time and the right place.
It could be that this person has an agreeable personality. Agreeableness is one of the big five traits in the OCEAN model of personality. A person who has an extremely agreeable personality tends not to stand up for himself (and his family), is a poor negotiator, is too gullible, gets passed over for promotions, risks being used as a doormat, or fall prey to scams.
It also could be that this person is a “nice guy”. Being a “nice guy” is often strategical, as “nice guys” want to accomplish goals by being liked. This strategy is flawed as other people see through it, believe the “nice guy” is insincere and has a hidden agenda. The strategy also projects personal weakness such as dependency on validation and approval. Hence “nice guys finish last”.
It is more ethical to be less agreeable by standing for something, even if that stand is not popular.
Agreeableness is not the same as tact. Tact may express itself in avoiding disagreeable conversations. There is no need to always talk about certain topics such as politics at social events and family gatherings.
Thanks for articulating the distinction between agreeableness and tact. In a “not the right place or time” situation one approach for a tactful (but not agreeable) response is either to say something relatively bland “Is that so?” and change the topic or substitute a nonverbal that indicates mild disagreement (raise eyebrows with a skeptical expression) say nothing, and move on to another topic. Those at the other end of the agreeable trait will often spout deliberately provocative opinions explicitly to set off a negative response. Not taking the bait means not rewarding this behavior.
Sounds like an interesting strategy for dealing with insufferable lefties. Just let them ramble, nod in agreement from time to time and see how far out in space they go.
At a party, a stranger told Mrs. OB she had divorced her husband because he didn’t dislike Trump sufficiently! You can’t make this stuff up.
Two excellent history-based projects have been released.
I saw the 2025 release “Nuremberg” starring Russell Crowe as Hermann Goering on closing night of the Heartland Film Festival. It is being released in theaters today. The film is based on the book “The Nazi and the Psychiatrist” by Jack El-Hai which I just finished reading yesterday. The story examines the relationship between psychiatrist Douglas Kelley who is sent to Germany to assess the mental state of those scheduled to be tried at the International Military Tribunal at the end of World War II. Kelley’s sometimes combative, sometimes cordial relationship with Goering is the focus.
Like all films based on real events, the movie takes some license. The timeline is condensed as is almost always the case. But I do recommend it for its execution and examination of certain principles, such as issues regarding the legitimacy of the tribunal, issues of doctor/patient privilege (nominally handled, but present), a doctor becoming too friendly with his patient and the hubris involved in underestimating one’s opponent. Mr. Golden was looking forward to seeing Michael Shannon (as Supreme Court Justice-Turned-Chief-American-Prosecutor Robert Jackson) getting into a shouting match with Crowe’s Goering. I advised him that it would happen only if the filmmakers ignored the facts of history. Such is the lot of one who goes into a movie knowing how the real thing went down).
The movie is not streaming at this time. A fact that every Google result confirmed with me, with the exception of the site’s AI which assured me that “Judgement at Nuremberg” was available for streaming on Kanopy and MGM+.
Netflix’s “Death by Lightning” based on Candice Millard’s terrific book, “Destiny of the Republic: A Tale of Madness, Mayhem and the Murder of a President”. Michael Shannon (!) is Congressman James A. Garfield, recruited to nominate John Sherman as Republican candidate for President in 1880, only to be unwillingly nominated himself.
The first episode covers the nominating process, as well as scenes providing backstory on the troubled Charles Guiteau. Shea Whigham is corrupt NY Senator Roscoe Conkling and Nick Offerman is his lacky Chester Arthur. Conkling and Arthur want U.S. war hero and previous President Ulysses Grant to be renominated because history shows his administration will make their graft easier. Not liking that the impression is given that Grant was corrupt rather than his poor choice of friends. Also, Offerman’s Arthur kind of reminds me of David Warner’s looming, tough-guy manservant in “Titanic”.
Okay this is my cue to find the Millard book and put it back on top of my “to read” pile. Done!
“Okay this is my cue to find the Millard book and put it back on top of my ‘to read’ pile. Done!“
Hanging out here tends to…um…add to a person’s reading list; I literally have stacks awaiting me…mocking me…as I make my way through Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South
PWS
Now that sounds like an interesting one!
Just bought a copy, appropriately enough from Goodwill of Northern Georgia.
“Just bought a copy, appropriately enough from Goodwill of Northern Georgia.“
How often do we see symmetry like that in life…?
PWS
Millard writes engaging narratives. I enjoy her books immensely.
Millard’s book on Garfield is incredibly good. It’s a must- read and a must- own.
Millard looks like she might be an interesting author.
One of the nice things about running an online bookstore is that, if I decide I don’t want to keep a book, I can always put it online to sell. 🙂
UPDATE: I have finished the Garfield series and am disappointed. I do understand that time frames are often mixed and matched, as well as being truncated, in some historical pieces. I do understand the concept of dramatization. I am disillusioned with the way they played fast and loose with the facts. But, then again, that is often my lot in life.
And, after all, what do I know? I just now realized that I wrote one word in the title of the book completely wrong. The correct title is “Destiny of the Republic: A Tales of Madness, Medicine and the Murder of a President”, not Mayhem.
Argh!
You do recall, or maybe not, that the book was the inspiration for this post, which I encored on Presidents Day in 2021.
Not only did I recall that you’d written about the book, but I also remembered the post as I lamented how the series appeared to have Lucretia Garfield bolster Arthur’s confidence. I would love to see a follow-up series on Julia Sand’s influence on Chet. Of course, Netflix would probably turn it into a love story…
Any comment on priestys trying to administer religious sacraments to detainees in ICe facilities?
I keep hearing conflicting reports about it.
Hadn’t heard a thing about it. I suppose it’s alright as long as they aren’t slipping the detainees cakes with nail files in them.
If a priest’s duty is to administer to prisoners, then I see no issue with administering sacraments to detainees. If this is simply a PR move, then it is improper.
jvb
The priests in question marched to the front door and demanded to be allowed to administer sacraments.
Here’s a review of relevant rights and restrictions: https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/prisoners-religious-rights-law-and-religion This focuses on “prisoners” instead of “detainees.” I’m not a lawyer but I’m guessing these are legally equivalent?
Note that it’s AI generated, so take it with a large grain of salt.
Oops thanks for catching that! I saw a name and picture and failed to notice the AI warning… I guess “Sara Lee” is just a chatbot? The times we are living in… sigh.
MIAMI — FIFA has announced the creation of a peace prize, which it plans to award for the first time at the draw for the World Cup on Dec. 5 in Washington.
The prize, set to be awarded annually, will be given to the person who has “taken exceptional and extraordinary actions for peace” and “united people across the world”.
FIFA said the award, which Infantino will present this year, will be bestowed annually “on behalf of fans from all around the world.”
QUESTION 1: If an award is purportedly bestowed “on behalf of fans” does an organization have any ethical obligation to pay attention to how fans worldwide might feel about any nominees ? (Or maybe there are actually no nominees… just an internal conversation about what might be the most politically expedient choice for FIFA?)
QUESTION 2: The Nobel Peace Prize comes with an award of approximately $1M. What do you see as the chances that the FIFA version will match this amount, lest they be upbraided on Truth Social for being a “cheapskate” if they fail to provide equivalent cash?
QUESTION 3: What other sport or professional organization might we expect will quickly follow suit and come up with their own “Peace Prize”? Wrong answers only…
This is just virtue signaling. You can add the FIFA Peace Prize to the TV Land Awards, the MTV Video Awards and the other superfluous prizes handed out like prizes from a Cracker Jack box.
As Jack already mentioned, they were not too many reactions to the six topic post yesterday including Sydney Sweeney’s attire.
As the majority of posts on Ethics Alarms is about politics (which I love to comment on by the way), and there are many other topics that may generate a lively debate, I am going to comment on something that inspired by and tangentially related to yesterday’s post about Sydney Sweeney: how to dress appropriately in public.
Below is a video about TikTok’s Office Siren trend, that encourages women to dress provocatively at the work place, in order to garner male attention:
The question is: if a man looks at a woman in the workplace a little bit too long, is that hundred percent his fault? Or should a women take efforts to dress appropriately and modestly in order to prevent situations to occur that may arise to claims of sexual harassment?
I consider dressing appropriately (swimsuits are appropriate at the beach, but not at funerals) to be on the same level as everything else we do that passively affects those near us.
Be considerate: shower regularly, don’t wear heavy fragrances, don’t make rude noises or smells if you can help it, and don’t dress in a way that negatively affects others.
There’s a lot of judgement and room for disagreement in what’s appropriate, but the knee-jerk reactionary response that people (women) have no social responsibility in the way they dress is just as wrong as the idea that men should get to control how women dress.
“….is just as wrong as the idea that men should get to control how women dress.”
But do you agree that an HR department should be able to set and enforce dress code standards? Or restaurants and supermarkets?
Yes, just based on the idea that you should get to control your own property.
What’s important for women to realize is that they will be constantly judged by their clothing and general appearance in a way that men rarely are. Just the reality. Many of those judging are other women. Notice that you have posted a video made by a woman talking about how other women dress, and the woman who is reprimanded at work is reprimanded… by another woman.
Going on the job market (this was a long time ago, but I doubt it has changed much) involved lots of conversations with other female grad students (and the single female prof in our department) about how various outfits would be judged… from size of heels — too flat or comfortable looking signals “frumpy and unprofessional”, too high might be perceived as a dominance move or “flirty”, also potentially a problem. But, of course, you’ll be walking back and forth all day so blisters can be a problem, so maybe have a spare set of comfortable shoes stashed for walks between buildings (unless, oh dear, someone is walking with you) so you don’t end up limping by the end of the day. I had a wonderful female colleague who almost didn’t get a job offer because of her shoes (apparently this was a topic of conversation — the shoes–heels too high– indicated that she would have trouble fitting in to “our culture”). If you have larger breasts you must dress to minimize/hide this feature lest it signal that you can’t be a serious scholar. No bare arms (remember the shocking sight of Michele Obama with toned arms in a sleeveless shell!) Ditto need to carefully consider hair, makeup (norms vary depending on WHERE you are interviewing — Texas is very different from Oregon), yadda yadda.
I saw a little clip of Michelle Obama being interviewed about her new book on fashion, and the interviewer asked her about Barack’s tan suit “scandal.” Apparently he complained to her and she just laughed at him and said “Welcome to my world”. She was expected to have a different dress for every public occasion (and there would be articles and judgments made about each one), while Barack just wore the same tux over and over again. Tan suit lesson learned!
“What’s important for women to realize is that they will be constantly judged by their clothing and general appearance in a way that men rarely are. “
Men are definitely judged for their appearance at law firms, investment bankers, business consultancy firms, where projecting a professional image matters. Think about TV series like “Suits”, “Mad Men”, and movies like “Wall Street”, “Margin Call”.
Just the reality. Many of those judging are other women. Notice that you have posted a video made by a woman talking about how other women dress, and the woman who is reprimanded at work is reprimanded… by another woman.
Why are women more judgmental then men about other women’s style and behavior?
“Why are women more judgmental then men about other women’s style and behavior?”
Well for one, in general they are paying closer attention, especially to matters of style. You have offered counterexamples for men, but the problem is more easily solved for men — a couple of suits, maybe 5 shirts, a choice of 10 ties, and they are good. Most other men will not know the designer of other men’s suits, or whether they might be a few years out of style. They will judge “expensive, fits well” or “not, not.”
I’m thinking of the scene in Legally Blonde when Elle realizes that the witness who claimed to be having an affair with the accused (a woman) is lying because he is actually gay. How does she know? Because he insults her by claiming she is wearing “last season Pradas.” As she says (overgeneralization, but not generally false), gay men know fashion, and straight men don’t. To demonstrate this, she asks Warner (standard straight male lawyer, wearing what is presumably a perfectly acceptable suit) what kind of shoes she is wearing, to which he replies “black.”
Here’s the clip for those not familiar…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6uGId-a758
“a couple of suits, maybe 5 shirts, a choice of 10 ties“
Shoot, even after retiring and donating much of my professional wardrobe, I have more of each; especially ties.
IMO, ties to guys like me are like (also IMO) shoes are to women.
PWS
You also mentioned that women tend to have a negative opinion about a coworker being dressed too flirty. Do you want to expound on that?
Actually what I wrote is that when considering wardrobe for a job interview visit, reflecting on the size of shoe heel is a thing and “too high might be perceived as a dominance move or “flirty” Both men and women will likely notice distinctly high heels. They make a point (literally AND figuratively). But what point will they make? For some men, dominance move = “flirty”… which they may interpret either positively or negatively (depending on circumstance).
As a woman who is not a fashionista I wouldn’t be able to tell you the shoe designer (unless the soles are red) but I’d notice whether she wears those high heels with confidence (good! high confidence/dominance is a plus for me) and whether they are a nice match for the rest of her outfit… for “flirty” I’d definitely be thumbs down on a “siren” look see-through blouse a la Sydney Sweeney. Distracting to men and women alike.
The larger point is that I doubt men considering their wardrobe for a job interview visit devote any attention to how the heels of their shoes will be interpreted, and this is reasonable. Just don’t wear Birkenstocks to the interview, okay? Closed toe only.
Maybe I’m just clueless about the significance of every choice in men’s suit/shirt/tie outfit (could well be!), so I guess I should be more curious. Asking PWS in particular, would you spend much time considering which of your 100 ties might lead to negative inferences in a job interview (re your personality or intellect) and which might seem suitably neutral?
“would you spend much time considering which of your 100 ties might lead to negative inferences in a job interview (re your personality or intellect) and which might seem suitably neutral?”
Not 100, but better than half that.
I was a self-employed independent contractor my entire career, and my last job interview was nearly 45 years ago, so I can only speculate.
But my choice would lean conservative, not too busy/skinny/wide, complimenting the shirt collar (razor straight, with stays), but definitely not THIS ONE.
PWS
Haha! Is “this one” actually part of your collection?
An esteemed part, and involved in a number of memorable evenings.
PWS
My impression is that women may come down harshly on women who are considered “flirty” as a threat. Women also tend to be more eager to slut shame than men. Men prefer not to comment on female clothing style, except when it is their partner or a daughter. At the office, men prefer not to feel uncomfortable around a women who dresses for attention, but not necessarily from you. And HR wants to reduce the risk of sexual harassment complaints.
At the job, and specifically at a job interview, the way a person dresses is an indication of professionality. If you dress like a slob this may indicate lack of attention to detail, and to how serious you take your work. The color of your tie is not that important; wearing well-maintained shoes and being well-groomed is.
In big finance and big law, a suit is used to project power and status. If an associate wears a relatively suit off the rack, indicating that he does not like wearing a suit, that suit is called a “kick me” suit; and it makes you look like an errand boy.
I guess I should also note that given my advanced age and how long it has been since I was on the job market I may well be completely out of touch with what inferences my younger colleagues either make or worry about others making when “dressing for success.” The palette has gotten so much broader, including the number of colors in one’s hair, visible tattoos, piercings, etc…
I stumbled onto this quite by accident, did anyone else see it?
DHS Exposes how FEMA Officials Under the Biden Administration Systematically Refused Aid to Disaster Survivors on Purely Political Discrimination, Refers Case to the Department of Justice
PWS
I remember seeing something about a field worker accused of doing this (in Florida, I think?), who was then fired. Don’t remember any information at that time suggesting this was directed by anyone higher up. Considering the source of the current claim (DHS Secretary Kristi Noem) count me open-minded but also somewhat skeptical pending the presentation of evidence.
Yeah, that a YEAR AGO, while this late last month. Your Kristi Noem induced hesitation is understandable, but FWIW, it has been referred to the DoJ.
I keep an ear to the ground for such things, but this is nearly three (3) weeks in and this is the first I’ve heard of it; you’d think that Conservative news aggregators would have POUNCED.
PWS
Did You See This Jack?
Cleveland Guardians pitchers indicted for scheme to rig bets on pitches thrown
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/cleveland-guardians-players-accused-rigging-pitches-rcna242871
Sure did…just posted on it.