What amazing ethics stories will you uncover today?
I’m going to let Prof. Turley handle the follow-up to this post, which he did yesterday quite nicely. In “You’re Not Alone”: Reporters Comfort Those Triggered and Traumatized by Scenes of Patriotism” the red-pilled George Washington University Law School professor expressed his dismay and disgust at “how some in the media found the entire demonstration of patriotism to be intolerable and triggering.” He was speaking of the Axis media’s Trump Derangement that the Mad Left transferred to the U.S. hockey team. Turley wrote in part,
“The HuffPost even published an article with therapeutic advice for liberals triggered by seeing so many American flags. The liberal publication ran an article titled “There’s a Name for the Discomfort You’re Feeling Watching the Olympics Right Now.” It then published it a second time before the gold-medal hockey game with Canada — presumably to prepare its readers for the nightmare of the United States actually winning. The subheading read, “If waving the American flag or chanting ‘USA!’ turns you off right now, you’re not alone.”
“Senior writer Monica Torres began the article with this line: “While President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda separates families, and federal agents detain 5-year-olds and kill unarmed civilians, American athletes are winning medals on behalf of the nation at the Olympics right now.”
“Torres goes on to interview three therapists for this “story” about how the celebration of the United States team has forced many liberals into therapy over their trauma and “the cognitive dissonance of rooting for U.S. sports.”
“Los Angeles-based licensed clinical social worker Aimee Monterrosa explained that the “atrocities” of the United States can trigger feelings of guilt, despair, shame, anger” in seeing the country celebrate these sports victories.
“Expert Lauren Appio echoed how “waving the American flag or chanting, ‘USA!’ [can make] us feel grossed out or ashamed.”
I was going to write a follow-up to this post centering on the amazing comments by The Athletic, the New York Times owned sports website, which criticized the U.S. hockey team for taking a congratulatory call from their President and coming to the SOTU address. “This isn’t a neutral climate,” he wrote. “This isn’t a neutral president. And in a nation this polarized, the proximity carries weight whether the players are being intentional or merely naive.” Both The Athletic and Vox claimed the star of the Olympics was…wait for it…Elaine Gu, the American who accepted millions to skate for China, an international criminal and enemy of the U.S.
Trump is, of course, being criticized for saying in Tuesday’s performance, “These people are crazy.” I believe that statement was one of his best, and should have the same delayed effect as Ronald Reagan’s pronouncement that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.”
Because, you know, they really are crazy.
Over to you, Clarence…
Ethics Alarms 
What problems do you experience because someone you talk to doesn’t listen or doesn’t take you seriously? Do other people you know experience similar problems?
I’ll help get the discussion started, EC: in my entire life, I have never had anyone not take me seriously.
Even as a child? I’m impressed.
You raise a good point; I should clarify.
What problems do you experience because someone you talk to doesn’t listen or doesn’t take your concerns seriously? As in, they consider your concerns unimportant compared to other priorities, even though you think your concerns are very important?
Why should anyone feel that another person should prioritize exactly as you do?
One can be empathetic without having to see the world as another does.
If someone feels triggered because their beliefs are not immediately accepted as a priority then that person has serious emotional problems. I might also conclude they are displaying sociopathic tendencies. Finally, why is the behavior you described such that the individual feels marginalized only seem to be one sided.
I believe you are grossly mischaracterizing the premise of my question, and I’m interested in figuring out how that happened.
I was asking if people run into situations with the following conditions:
1) You have a concern you think is important.
2) Someone else is disregarding your concern.
3) You see this disregard as a problem.
You seem to be implying that nobody’s concerns should ever be taken seriously by anyone else, so any such situations reflect a deficiency of character on the part of the complainer. Do I have that right? Or do you believe there are counterexamples to this premise? Is it possible to have a concern that merits serious consideration from others?
I believe your question is still too broad. For myself, the problems I experience vary greatly based on two main factors. First, who is it I am talking to? Second, what is the immediacy and import of the topic to my life.
For example, I will react very differently when being dismissed on the feasibility of wind turbines in a net zero economy in Europe in an internet discussion than I will when my concerns are being dismissed by my husband when discussing something important about our family.
For any interaction, the problems encountered vary greatly. If I disagree with a stranger, the problems are minor. If I disagree with a friend of family member, the problems increase, and if I disagree with my husband, the problems are even greater. However, the subject matter is also of importance to this equation, almost like an XY plot of supply and demand curves. Some things are not worth more than the air they cost to disagree over. Perhaps my disagreement with my husband is whether or not an incomplete math assignment from my daughter merits losing family moving night or just cleaning labor. Other things are truly life changing, and the disagreement can cause problems as significant as contemplating a whole life revision to accommodate the indifference of the other person and the need to protect myself over what they dismiss. A stranger disagrees with my daughter’s medical condition and treatment and calls up CPS.
Spelling correction: “family MOVIE night”
I appreciate your considered answer, Sarah. The question is meant to be broad. It’s meant to invite people to share the kinds of issues that are important to them and the sorts of people whose agreement matters to them, specifically in the cases where those people aren’t listening about those issues.
You probably have consistent and robust communication with people who matter to you about situations that matter to you. Not everyone has that, and I’m looking to learn how to help those who don’t.
I think there is a problem with the assumption here, that communication will solve all problems. I have personally found that situations that matter to people that matter are the hardest to communicate over. There is a person who matters a great deal to me, and we have two main long-standing issues.
The problem with trying to communicate about these issues is that there is no solution that works for both of us. What works for one literally causes harm to the other (physically or mentally) and there is no middle ground.
Sometimes, an impasse is simply that, and the fact that there is an impasse with no solution is hard to manage, with one party having to take on the majority of the pain, whereas the other feels guilty for forcing the pain on the other.
At this point, communication goes down, because there is no solution and whomever is in pain, be it physical or mental/emotional will simply be upset about it the whole time, since the other cannot give ground without being the one in pain. Professional help, in this case, does not help because even they admit no solution can be found. The only solution seems to be for both parties to try and ignore it as much as possible, make changes in their approach to life that avoid the conflict, and just continue on in the broken situation when they have to.
It is true that people’s individual motivations (e.g. what they want out of life for themselves, or what environments they’re comfortable in) can be mutually incompatible with other people’s motivations (or other motivations of the same person). People also prioritize different costs, risks, habits, and trust differently from each other. These differing preferences create the fundamental liability of conflict. There is no abolishing fundamental liabilities, only managing them.
One approach for dealing with individual conflict is by managing our own motivations. We know that there will always be times when we can’t get something we want. When we make a habit of enjoying and pursuing multiple things in life, we lower the stakes for having to relinquish any one of them. When one path is denied to us, we have multiple other paths to continue along. Some paths we need to walk are painful, and we need support and recovery time in order to manage that pain and successfully challenge ourselves to continue.
Sometimes it’s possible to compromise, such as by making things mildly uncomfortable for both sides, or having people take turns being uncomfortable. Sometimes compromise is not an option.
When a permanent and zero-sum decision must be made, it is critical to decide the outcomes of the conflict ethically. The exact method varies depending on the nature of the conflict and the people involved. Some people use games, wagers, or lotteries. Some hold a vote. Other people look at who has the fewest good alternative options (“who needs it more”). Still others judge by who is willing to sacrifice the most to get their way, or who will make the best of the opportunity if they win. What matters is that the decision process maintains people’s trust. People want to trust that even if they lose, it is for a reason they can respect. They want to be confident that others aren’t taking unfair advantage of the system to get outcomes that they don’t deserve. By accepting the decision-making process, people commit to abiding by the outcome. Fair processes are hard to resent.
If there is no agreement on a fair process, then the conflict comes down to power. Who can enforce their own process or outcome? Who is willing to walk away first, if that’s an option? There are ethical and unethical ways to exercise power, which usually come down to proportionality, respecting boundaries, the positions you put people in, and the options you create (or destroy) for them.
These sorts of approaches may already be familiar to you. You may already be using some, while others may not apply in your situation. I don’t mean to promise to make wishes come true. My intent is to help people clarify their goals, obstacles, and options, so that they can work their way towards the best outcomes they can. You’d be surprised how often people don’t fully understand those factors, and it causes a great deal of unnecessary frustration across the world.
I hope something in there was helpful. In any case, I very much appreciate your serious points and willingness to share personal experiences. When people challenge what I say, it’s an opportunity to learn things I could be missing. It’s also much easier to write when responding to a real person.
I want to bring up this comment by Gamereg.
This is actually the foundation of their worldview.
Think of the support of mass migration from the Third World, not just to the U.S., but to Europe as well. these people consider migrants to be designated victims. As such, they not only have some fundamental human right to enter these countries, they are entitled to a living, and they are excused from punishment for misbehavior, even violent crimes against others.
That is why the same people who chant “No one is illegal on stolen land” also support the mass migration of poor people from the Third World into Europe.
To Confront Their Failures, Democrats Must Confront Obama
This article is a great expansion of the points you make, Michael.
A sample: “Their platform is built on elevating the weak and the marginalized, so they need a constant supply. They need a sick America. Not a successful, healthy America. Trump projects exactly the opposite, and it drives them insane. So all they’re left with are their violent fits, their temper tantrums, their protests, and their boycotts.”
Migrants from the third World became the weak, marginalized group in 201`5.
This is an international phenomenom.
That raises the image of a large segment of the American left being essentially perpetrators of Munchausen by proxy. They must find or create victims to support their virtue signaling and lust for attention.
THEY are the abusers.
While they ignore real victims like Laken Riley.
“They need a sick America. Not a successful, healthy America.“
Bravo India November Golf Oscar…OB for the WIN!
PWS
I am proud of my own country (Netherlands) who came in third in the gold medal count at the Olympics. Nobody in the Netherlands mixes sports with politics; major international sports events such as the Olympic Games are one the main occasions where we can all be unapologetically on Team Holland!
I was surprised to see the USA get to second place; given the tenor of the political conversation in this country as witnessed by Jonathan Turley, and also the reluctance of some member on the Olympic team to represent the United States, do the commenters believe that the USA morally deserved a high second place? Many Americans had trouble cheering for this Olympic team for this reason. I am happy for the USA that both ice hockey teams saved the USA’s honor.
I think the USA has a big problem with its own self conception right now.
See the article linked above. “They need a sick America. Not a successful, healthy America.“
I wonder (hope? dream?) we may be reaching peak left in the U.S. Would that the left could collapse like the Soviet Union did. We need to get Jack to write the lyrics to a conservative “Imagine.”
I think the USA has a big problem with its own self conception right now.
If you were to ask people — some perhaps who write here — to state, to describe, to explain what the USA is … you would quickly achieve evidence of your supposition. The idealistic version does not reflect or express the real version. I tend to believe that there is a huge separation between what it was conceived as and what it has become (because it took on the role of empire). The conflict here is reflected and expressed by individuals in convoluted psychology. Certainly “the Left” and “the Democrats” are pretty screwed up psychologically, but the malady has set itself deeply into the social body. The patient is not well, but he does not know what made him sick.
That’s dead wrong, Alizia. The US was founded on an idealistic vision, and that vision is still alive and well. Nor is it further from that idealistic vision than any time earlier: in fact, it is closer.
I make no claim to being “absolutely right” just only perhaps “partially right”.
I am aware that there are people — like you — who have the knowledge about the original idealism and defend the original motivations, and this I respect very much, but those views are held by people and my view is that essential institutions are corrupt. Government is corrupt. Business — giant constellations of interconnected corporations — operate contrarily to republicanism, and the military is entirely corrupted insofar as it serves corporations of America’s world empire. My view? It is conservatism that must see and describe this, and oppose it. But it doesn’t. That is why I say that when “they” offer their explanation of what America is, what they describe is what it was, not what it has become. My view is coherent. Not irrational.
Your thoughts?
The following blog post from Jonathan Turley also offers a lot of food for thought at the Open Forum. Is this just rage rhetoric from Democrats about which we should not worry, as barking dogs do not bite? Or is more serious, and is the USA moving in the direction of the Weimar Republic and Civil War?
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/02/25/sen-chris-murphy-joins-pledge-to-throw-trump-figures-in-jail-after-taking-power/
Quotes from Turley’s article in italics:
Before the State of the Union, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) joined other leaders in promising Americans that the Democrats will unleash a revenge tour after taking power in November, pledging to start throwing Trump people in jail when they retake Congress. Murphy went on MS NOW to feed the rage addiction that has taken over his party.
We recently discussed how Susan Rice joined the mob in stating that “When it comes to the elites, you know, the corporate interests, the law firms, the universities, the media … it’s not going to end well for them.”
She followed other Democrats, assuring voters that, if they returned Democrats to power, they would crack down on their political opponents.
Republicans and law enforcement are now regularly called “Nazis” and “fascists” by Democratic leaders. Some are promising arrests from the President to individual police officers. Last week, Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner promised to “hunt down” ICE officers like “Nazis.” Democratic strategist James Carville previously threatened that “collaborators” may be treated in the same way as they were after World War II.
Gov. Tim Walz, who has called ICE officers “Gestapo,” said that this may be our “Fort Sumpter moment”, a triggering event for a civil war that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.
Rice and Murphy are despicable swamp dwellers. I’ve no doubt the Dems have made lawfare a permanent weapon in their political armory. Do you think they won’t continue to be deranged from here on out by any Republican congressional majority or Republican president? We’ll never, ever see “normal times” again.
The Rice/Murphy thing definitely needs more attention. They are literally speaking for the Democrat party as it exists right now, and I have no doubt that they are correct that the Left intends to do exactly this when the regain executive power again.
There is a limit that exists somewhere before right wing opponents decide it just easier to get the civil war over with now. I don’t know where that line lies, but this is the kind of thinking that will move us way closer to it, if not obliterate it altogether.
I just finished watching the final season of Homeland, and this reminds me very much of America’s situation vs. Pakistan in that gripping piece of fiction. The two sides were careening towards catastrophic confrontation, and only a madwoman was able to save them from themselves.
Alas, Carrie Mathison is not walking through that door…
They feel law enforcement is to maintain their power, not to punish those who hurt others.
Anyone want to chat about the BAFTA’s this week?
In between reading “Crime and Punishment”, “A Tree Grows in Brooklyn”, “Three Sisters” and “A Room with a View”, I became fascinated by what may be an ethics zugzwang situation.
At the BAFTA’s, a Tourette Syndrome sufferer named John Davidson was present in the audience because he was the subject of an entry called, “I Swear”. The film covered the difficulties he faces as a sufferer of a condition that causes him to blurt out words – sometimes offensive ones – randomly and unpredictably. The audience at the BAFTA’s was informed of this.
Unfortunately, during the ceremony, when black actors Delroy Lindo and Michael B. Jordan were on-stage, Mr. Davidson blurted out “Queen Mother” of racial slurs (borrowing from “A Christmas Story”): the N-dash-dash-dash-dash-dash word.
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/bafta-awards-2026-tourettes-n-word-outburst?srsltid=AfmBOopSsZTrokeNhnuxlobcyVG_tXIz9P2iepJjVBLZCMTX1NuhxcKf
Observations:
I understand why Lindo and Jordan were upset at the nature of the outburst. Is it not somewhat infantizing to need someone from BAFTA to speak to them? They are grown men who are surely capable of realizing that Davidson didn’t shout this out deliberately or to slur them personally. Why do they need anyone to speak to them? To reassure them? To virtue signal?
This is his statement:
“I wanted to thank BAFTA and everyone involved in the awards last night for their support and understanding and inviting me to attend the broadcast. I appreciated the announcement to the auditorium in advance of the recording, warning everyone that my tics are involuntary and are not a reflection of my personal beliefs. I was heartened by the round of applause that followed this announcement and felt welcomed and understood in an environment that would normally be impossible for me. In addition to the announcement by Alan Cumming, the BBC and BAFTA, I can only add that I am, and always have been deeply mortified if anyone considers my involuntary tics to be intentional or to carry any meaning.”
“I was in attendance to celebrate the film of my life, I SWEAR, which more than any film or TV documentary, explains the origins, condition, traits and manifestations of Tourette Syndrome. I have spent my life trying to support and empower the Tourette’s community and to teach empathy, kindness and understanding from others and I will continue to do so. I chose to leave the auditorium early into the ceremony as I was aware of the distress my tics were causing.”
What do you think?
Bearing in mind that I know only slightly more about Tourette’s syndrome than the average person, whom I expect knows almost nothing about it, I would expect that were I to have Tourette’s syndrome, when attending any sort of ceremony or performance, I would either take my meds or wear a gag.
In this case, you believe the onus should have been on Davidson to recognize that he should either bypass the ceremony or take steps to prevent his condition from causing a disruption.
I think that’s probably the best answer. The issue appears to be now that, because he did not, BAFTA is getting criticized for not segregating him. On the one hand, they knew about his condition and didn’t seem to take steps to minimize his ability to disrupt; on the other hand, did they really want the bad optics of hiding or refusing to admit a disabled person, even if it is someone likely to disrupt.
It’s a rare case of the Pazuzu Rationalization being a valid explanation.
Something tells me the celebrity guests didn’t bother to watch the documentary prior to attending. The ethical failings all center on that and the organizers who had invited them to a very foreseeable (and, perhaps unethicaly planned) controversy.
Videos from TicsTripsTruths are also a fascinating watch of someone suffering from this condition, especially one showing a passenger who had the same syndrome.
Searching for that shower one with a passenger supposedly having “narcolepsy” but the symptoms are probably better indicators of cataplexy.
People who are ashamed of the United States and its flag due to the actions of the current administration have ceded all responsibility for the country to the current administration. They have no concept of separate spheres of culture, but a symphony is still a symphony, even if one sees Trump’s name on the concert hall. A hockey team is still just a hockey team, regardless of who’s in the White House. It’s as if they think Trump has spray-painted the whole country with his favorite color, and all they can do is whine about it, rather than turning away to build the society they want to live in. “War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning” (Chris Hedges, 2002). If that’s where your head is, you’ll be looking for one battle after another.
Any headlines about austere religious scholars?
Um…….
PWS