This turned up on my Facebook feed this morning.
Nice.
Among the dozens of immediately likes, “hearts” and LOL emogis, right at the top, was the name of a long-time dear friend, usually wise, kind, and rational, a religious woman who believes in the Golden Rule. But she is hopelessly Trump Deranged, so all of those qualities go AWOL when the President is the topic.
I thought a lot of the attacks on Michelle Obama from the Right were vicious and indefensible, but her conduct was being criticized on its own terms rather than simply consisting or contempt for having the bad taste to marry Barack. Michell also kicked the bees nest more than any previous First Lady and had more than her share of well-earned ridicule…
….but no First Lady has ever been savaged like Melania. (Rachel Jackson’s treatment by her husband’s opponents was the closest.)
If she were not a public figure, a public statement that Melania was a sex worker would be per se defamation. But she’s the President’s wife, and apparently even to good Christians when they are Trump Deranged, Melania is fair game, just as David Letterman (who is scum, in case you have forgotten) thought it appropriate to suggest on national television in 2009 that Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter had sexual relations with Alex Rodriguez, the Yankee All-Star steroid cheat.
Please get well soon, my friend.
Ethics Alarms 
What?
“Melania is [considered to be] fair game, just as David Letterman (who is scum, in case you have forgotten) thought it appropriate to suggest on national television in 2009 that Sarah Palin’s 14-year-old daughter had sexual relations with Alex Rodriguez, the Yankee All-Star steroid cheat.”
If there is something more then a tenuous connection between that FB post about Melania and the Letterman quote, then you should make that clear. If there is not, as I suspect, then that comparison should have been omitted.
Okay, I’m a dumbass as has been pointed out (alleged?) here, but, most of the readers and commenters here are literate enough that an analogy from long in the past is unnecessary. The post can be dissected without that, if such dissection even is needed.
I have a dear relative who is attracted to any and everything negative about Trump so she can attract likes and angry faces. “This turned up on my Facebook feed” smacks of the same thing, but from the opposite direction. The approach seems to be, ‘Let’s see, did someone say something bad [good] about Trump or a family member, and how can I use that as a further example of TDS [how Trump is evil].
There is a concept that anger can be addictive, that it engages the same brain reaction as a number of addictive substances. This is where the supposed ‘duty to confront’ seems to create more problems than it solves. If the confrontation produces nothing more than anger, it seems to be counterproductive. Here, will the FB poster see this on Ethics Alarms and recognize their ethical failure? Doubtful. Would direct confrontation make any difference? Also doubtful.
On a routine basis, I see many posts and comments that I find disagreeable. I slide on by those, look for more thoughtful posts that help me overcome my tendency toward dumbassery, and fairly quickly conclude my allotted FB time of about 3 minutes per day.
As to that dear relative, I do a FB search periodically to see if there is something worthwhile about nieces, nephews, grandkids, and so on. But, turning off that ‘follow’ thing and ignoring superficial gratuitous posts has saved me from a lot of addictive anger.
“I slide on by those, look for more thoughtful posts that help me overcome my tendency toward dumbassery, and fairly quickly conclude my allotted FB time of about 3 minutes per day.”
FWIW, that’s three (3) minutes more than I’ve ever spent, there.
PWS
I don’t understand that you don’t understand. Letterman, who hated Palin, implied that her 14 year old was having sexual relations with a baseball player. The meme attacks Melania as a prostitute because she is married to someone whom the maker hates. Analogy: false sexual allegations against family members who have literally done nothing to justify it. Was that so hard?
Call Trump a con artist? Fine. Lazy, but goes with the territory. Call his wife a whore? Over the line.
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough. I just didn’t think an analogy was needed at all. Here, it seems like a gratuitous slam on Letterman.
He was actually pointing out Letterman’s gratuitous slam against Sarah Palin through her minor child. Traditionally, the wives and children of politicians have been considered off-limits. Recently, though, the rules of “fair game” have expanded to include them if they are related to a Republican.
During Trump’s first term, Chelsea Clinton took to Twitter to proclaim that the minor child, Barron Trump, should be left alone. A woman countered that he was Trump’s child so that made him “fair game”. Chelsea argued that it didn’t and was surprised that such an attitude would come from an adult.
Recently, Barron Trump was in the news – what news reported it, that is – for calling the authorities when an online friend was being beaten up by her boyfriend. I’m sure there are articles out there about it, but the two I saw prominently in my news feeds with ridiculously weighted headlines. One headline quoted the dispatcher as calling Barron “rude” when she asked him how he knew the victim and he didn’t understand why that was important. The other headline quoted the attacker as having been irritated that his girlfriend was always talking to Barron.
Name any adult child of a President who, upon calling emergency services to help a woman in the process of being battered, would face poisoned headlines such as these.
““This turned up on my Facebook feed” smacks of the same thing, but from the opposite direction.”
Good observation! It is in line with my own observations (which, of course, inspires me to think it good!). My take:
Trump Derangement Syndrome comes in various flavors and levels.
I would distinguish between two forms of “primary” TDS:
1a: obsession characterized by negative emotionality
1b: obsession characterized by positive emotionality.
Those exhibiting form 1a are a constant focus of this blog (my mother qualifies!); those who have spent their lives following Trump around clothed from head to foot in Trump “merch” and have spent money they can’t afford on all manner of Trumpian “products” exemplify 1b.
The constant focus of this blog (have there been three consecutive days without a siingle mention of TDS? Perhaps? That would be a good sign) on 1a sufferers is a *possible* symptom of what I would call “secondary” TDS:
2a: obsession with tracking, attacking, denoouncing etc. those exhibiting form 1a (or it might simply be a stimulus/response effect of such posts getting lots of engagement of a community that also has some symptoms of 2a).
2b: obsession with tracking and attacking those exhibiting form 1b (several comics do this but it’s not necessarily evidence of 1b — making fun of easily ridiculed behavior is actually their day job).
This notion of primary and secondary aligns (in a general way) with other primary and secondary impacts of toxic addictions/obsessions. Hence we have the primary affliction of addiction, and also the secondary affliction of those in the blast radius who are trying to cope with primary sufferers.
May all those afflicted find a way past their troubles.
I anticipate a general easing of ALL symptoms once we transition to replacement POTUS JD, the primary driver of all of this disruption (both political and emotional) recedes into history, and attention shifts to managing the aftermath.
We live in interesting times, for sure!
I have no idea what the hell you are saying, or think you are saying.
This is an ethics blog. Also one with a sub-topic of the American Presidency and leadership, as well as American culture. The venom being focused on this President is unprecedented, and denying it is to deny a crucial cultural development with ominous long-term consequences. The effort to demonize the President for doing his job is literally getting people killed. The divisive social media influence is creating excessive anxiety and injuring relationships, as well as making democracy difficult. All of these are legitimate concerns of an ethicist. One has to understand what is happening and its causes in order to fix it. Thus my posts regarding people I know well deliberately hate-mongering are aimed at taking the temperature of the culture and the damage being done by a radical, cynical, destructive sub-culture in out society.
I can do this, and am qualified to do it, because 1) I treat the POTUS as I do any other one, not being a reflexive supporter nor a hater 2) I see his performance and that of his irresponsible foes in historical perspective, and 3) I assess the unethical conduct of those creating this dangerous mess, using ethical analysis techniques that I have studied, practiced, and continue to try to perfect. I am in no way addicted or “afflicted” or except perhaps by pompous cynics who think it is helpful to make snide comments without committing to substance.
“I anticipate a general easing of ALL symptoms once we transition to replacement POTUS JD, the primary driver of all of this disruption (both political and emotional) recedes into history, and attention shifts to managing the aftermath” is “This too shall pass,” above-it-all bullshit that superior and condescending bystanders and pseudo intellectuals have used to appear superior by not committing to anything over centuries, throughout wars, revolutions and other threats to civilization. Their passivity abets the villains.
I spend about 4 hours a day looking for topics and composing commentary and analysis. “Ah, well, how droll, you silly people getting all upset about such temporal matters!” is an obnoxious response, and reflects very poorly on the character of the commenter. It also doesn’t help…if this is indeed what your comment was saying.
Hmm… well, I’ve been considering whether or not to respond, but in an attempt to counter the “passivity” which is allegedly among my many poor character traits… and I would prefer NOT to abet villains (although perhaps I is one?)
__________________________
I was replying to Here’s Johnny‘s comment, and quoted the key passage that caught my attention directly in my response.
Your response:
JM: “I have no idea what the hell you are saying”
Q: If you are indeed truly mystified, how is it you are able to learn so many things about me by reading my allegedly incomprehensible response? E.g.:
“pompous critic”
“condescending bystander”
“pseudo intellectual” (my personal favorite!)
Holly
AKA a person of poor character whose passivity abets villains
There’s a word that’s routinely used to describe an observed tactical pattern of posting messages in an online community that appear to be a deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
There are times when respectfully challenging others on a forum such as this, including our host, is reasonably appropriate and then there are other times when it’s not.
Life is all about choices.
In reference to Holly’s reply, it’s my personal opinion that…
Sometimes it really is just better to stop, self reflect, and choose to remain silent.
I think you can do better Holly.
I won a 1,000,000 bet with myself that you would glom onto the seemingly inconsistency between not knowing what the hell your comment was saying and my characterization of this variety of comment.
Actually, “pseudo-intellectual” was the most apt description, cliche that it is. That is the kind of commenter whose primary goal is to appear clever and deep without contributing anything but pretense to the discussion. I’ll second Steve: you can and should do better.
“you can and should do better”
Indeed! That makes two of us, no?
I very intentionally wrote the following so Holly could learn from it…
Then Holly wrote the following as a reply to Jack’s “you can and should do better” statement…
Holly chose to ignore what I tried to teach her and spout that childish “and you are too” immature grammar schoolyard styled nonsense. This was a moronic choice.
It’s now quite clear to me that Holly’s purpose is to troll. You’re intentionally pushing buttons with your choices and the consequences of your choices are yours.
Have a nice day Holly.
Yeah, I had similar reaction. And that snotty, “and so’s your old man” retort is about a silly millimeter from official warning territory. I turn out about 2-3K words covering various ethics issues every single day, a lot of it very good even by my own high standards, and make an effort to respond to replies: in addition to the posts, I have made 68,500 replies. Holly has the gall to compare her two or three snarky comments on a good day to that output.
Holly,
Forgive me but after reading your comment this quote of Jacks from some years ago just popped in my head…
Nothing to forgive! I appreciate your input!
I’m curious:
Which of the 5 categories do you think apply in this case? (using a “check all that apply” response format, rather than “choose one”)
Holly A wrote, “Which of the 5 categories do you think apply in this case? (using a “check all that apply” response format, rather than “choose one”)”
Holly, I’m not going down this rabbit hole.
Holly, in the meantime, the damage being done to the nation while we wait out a new President may be irreparable. And TDS did not ease up from 2021-2025 when Trump wasn’t President.
“those who have spent their lives following Trump around clothed from head to foot in Trump “merch” and have spent money they can’t afford on all manner of Trumpian “products” exemplify 1b.”
I do not know a single person like this. Anyone who has followed Trump around clothed from head to toe in Trump merchandise he or she can’t afford represents such a small percentage of the population that it’s negligible.
There are people who support President Trump’s efforts in certain areas and do not support him in others. This comprises a large percentage of people in the country. It also comprises a large percentage of people on this blog, but not by design. A number of left-leaning commenters abandoned all hope when their heads melted in 2020.
There are also large numbers of really loud people in this country who would find fault with President Trump if he cured cancer, fed all the hungry children of the world and found a cheap source of clean renewable energy. They will not give an inch. Everything he says, does, thinks, dreams is held up to derision. The number of institutions that have disgraced themselves is long and disturbing.
It’s important to track incidents of Trump Derangement, especially in the news media and education. The Democrats’ strategy of “It isn’t what it is” appears to work on an appalling number of normally sensible, intelligent people. Especially if stuff starts getting pushed down the memory hole.
Lots of good points here.
Yeah, I don’t know any true nutso Trump cultists either. I doubt either of us have much contact with that demographic. I do have a cousin from rural Georgia who unfriended me because I expressed doubt early on that Trump 2.0 would usher in a golden age of vanquished inflation and national unity, but she recently accepted my friend request after belatedly discovering that maybe Trump is not, actually, a good Christian after all. She definitely fits the “normally sensible, intelligent people” category.
Re the true cultists, we saw some of them at the Jan 6 “tourist visit” to the capitol and there’s a posse of them who traveled to dozens of Trump rallies during the heyday, kind of a Deadhead vibe there.
Jordan Klepper has a whole series where he interviews the true believers at Trump rallies. Hard to believe these were previously sensible intelligent people but maybe? As you know TDS can have a really distorting effect on people’s mental outlook.
My view of your perspective is that you make a false comparison. You would have to better understand why about 50% of voters felt it necessary to vote for Trump. I will admit that all politicians engage in deception and lying and ‘trick’ people to get into office, yet that segment that did vote had genuine hopes and desires. So how can their admiration be equated as equal to the irrational rage (with psychological undertones) of so many Trump haters?
It seems to me you would need to better understand the irrational rage that the rage against him inspires. I.e. its psychological dimensions.
A Trump critical position is entirely possible and can be put forth cooly and rationally. I’ll give it a shot if you like … 😉
I agree with you.
Remember when a librarian rejected Mrs. Trump’s gift of Suess books and added insult to injury by proclaiming that the good doctor was racist?
Remember when Mrs. Trump’s Christmas decorations were panned and the song “Edelweiss” was deliberately interpreted to be Nazi-inspired because it was the ironic theme song of “The Man in the High Castle” (which Trump probably hasn’t seen) as opposed to it being a charming folk tune from “The Sound of Music” (which he probably has)?
This is just an escalation.
And that sex worker begat … Angelina Jolie! And Jon Voight became a clear-thinking conservative in, of all places, Hollywood.
I had no idea what “Midnight Cowboy” was about watching it in the theater as a sheltered sixteen-year-old. I also think I thought all movies were documentaries and simply followed people around … until the last scene of “Cowboy” popped up on the screen wherein Ratzo Rizzo is supposed to be approaching Miami on a Greyhound or Trailways bus and, because I lived in Miami I could tell, the bus in the movie was not heading south to Miami but actually driving across the MacArthur Causeway from Miami to Miami Beach so a helicopter shot could be used. Which made me think, “What the heck?” Boy, was I ever a dope. It’s funny how unevenly many of us mature and come of age.
Will be seeing the movie … I think Danny has a crush.