The Great Stupid’s warped values have made the term “divisive” particularly problematical regarding societal ethics. If, for example, a sign condemning sex with children is deemed to be divisive to some sick SOBs, my reaction is, “Good. Live with it. You’re wrong and normal people are right. We don’t care if you feel denigrated. You should be denigrated. And shunned.”
Then we have the divisive appeal for funds I highlighted earlier today. I firmly believe that an appeal for charitable assistance for one “tribe” or group to the exclusion of others who have exactly the same claim to charity, empathy, humanitarian aid and generosity is divisive, destructive, and wrong.
Two examples of controversies involving art and messaging also came across my ethics metaphorical radar screen today….
I. The mural honoring murdered refugee Iryna Zarutska in Providence, Rhode Island. The last moments of the innocent young woman slaughtered for no reason in particular by a deranged criminal repeatedly released to prey on an unsuspecting public is on the left, the now condemned mural in her honor is on the right. Mayor Brett Smiley (D, of course) ordered the unfinished mural, largely funded by Elon Musk, taken down. “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence,” he said in a statement. “I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.” Smiley’s Democrat primary challenger, Rhode Island state Rep. David Morales, said, “We’re seeing a right-wing movement that is exploiting the death of the refugee for the purposes of trying to spread division. Ultimately, we want to make sure that every community member that calls Providence home feels safe … and we can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values.”
That’s interesting. What values do the honoring of a young woman who died because of elected officials, judges and law enforcement officials determination not to punish criminals and wrong doers “not reflect”? The fact that Iryna Zarutska was a Ukranian refugee is irrelevant, isn’t it? A young woman named Ann Jones, or a young man named Bill Shaw, or an old fart named, oh, say, Jack Marshall, being murdered while using public transportation would be equally worthy of public anger, wouldn’t it? Is dividing people who care about law abiding citizens being murdered because of irresponsible policies from those who shrug such horrors off as “collateral damage” a bad thing? What kind of people is Mayor Smiley and David Morales standing up for? Killers? Maniacs? Is the mural divisive because this particular maniac was black and his victim was white? I think the message of the mural is “Shame on you!” to all of the progressives, “restorative justice,” “defund the police” activists whose hands are stained with the blood of victims like Iryna Zarutska. Why should that message be suppressed or discouraged?
In its groveling statement sucking up to the woke and offended by justice, the owners of the building where the mural appeared mewled “We heard you [Providence]. We are deeply and sincerely sorry for everything that has taken place over the past week. After reflecting and learning, we have made the decision to discontinue this project and will move forward with removal as soon as possible. We remain committed to fostering unity, safety, and care for all members of our community, and we will continue to listen, learn, and act with those values at the forefront.”
Sure, you foster safety by supporting the removal of a strong statement against pandering to criminals. Got it. You’re disgusting.
[Pointer: JutGory]
Ethics Alarms 
I was wondering why this privately financed mural was divisive. The tweet below answers this question: Iryna Zarutska is white and the murderer is black. Honoring Iryna with a does not forward the “correct” narrative, namely that the United States is a uniquely racist country where black people are being killed by racist cops at a regular basis. If the mural was in honor of George Floyd, it would have been celebrated in Providence.
“What about black women who die every day?”
They didn’t think that one through. Once you address that issue and ask who’s killing them, the answer is overwhelmingly going to be “black men”.
How many George Floyd statues exist and does the mayor of Providence not see them as divisive?
I suppose we are now obligated to revere drug addled criminals who resist arrest and persons worthy of such memorials. Welcome to the idiocracy
How many George Floyd statues exist and does the mayor of Providence not see them as divisive?
We need more statuary, but honest representations. I propose a statue with Floyd with his gun to the belly of that pregnant woman he threatened to kill if she did not give up the money. She of course cowering in horror and fear and George with a sadistic, enraged look in his eyes.
Telling the truth. There is GLORY in it.
Honoring Iryna with a does not forward the “correct” narrative, namely that the United States is a uniquely racist country where black people are being killed by racist cops at a regular basis.
Since I tend toward the controversial I recently suggested that the entire idea of “reparations” was actually very good. However, they have it set up backwards. The idea is that “we” (i.e. European-descended people in America) owe “them” for “what we did to them”. This is all wrong! I will explain. It is actually the other way around. They owe us for the somewhat brusque invitation to join civilization; comprehend the use of the wheel; eat with a knife and a fork; begin to use a written language, and much else.
Now, getting a one-time “lump sum” payment is unlikely, however I think a government-run collection agency and monthly payments for the entire Black race is an idea whose time has come!
Jokes aside, it is curious when you look at things through alternative lenses. Here is another detail: It is an historic fact that slavery in much of the non-US Americas was incredibly brutal. Like in Cuba and Brasil. Chesper tobwork a slave to death and bring in a new one than to “care for the equipment”. But the fact is that in the South United States there certainly existed an “apartheid” system, quite elaborate, but even the most dedicated exponent of the master-slave relationship between the two races showed actual concern for the spiritual well-being of the slave. Even some churches celebrated services together though of course separated. But in all the writings (pro-slavery, pro-exclusion) the well-being of the slave was always referred to. Though certainly the Black race was not “integrated”.
And relations between the overlord class and the subject class were far more cordial, civil in fact, than nearly anywhere else in the Americas. So, from this perspective, the vilification of the Southerner and the entire culture can be revised. It is when the Southern Black went north that he and she encountered a totalizing, dehumanizing racism. There was no social accord, no “shared cultural experience”, and yet the Northern mythology established the notion of the absolutely evil Southern racist. A great deal of this is projection of course.
Now, the Civil War must be examined since, in truth, it is still being waged; or the vestiges of it still exist, like defining shadows. Lincoln opposed the slavery of any man, that is true, but the man Lincoln was a total and absolute racist. And in the later years he worked very hard to try to organize the export of the Black race out of America! (One place conceived was the Western end of Panama: Chiriqui). The amazing thing? There in the Nations Capital is a literal shrine to the absolutely racist Northern man!
Once you begin to unravel the HYPOCRISiES of (significantly) the Northern power- and cultural-sector — i.e. America’s “civil religion” — and then begin to see straight, it changes literally everything.
The Northern War of Aggression against the Southern civilization being one of Northern America’s first efforts at “Nation Building” through conquest and domination. That ultra-arrogant Americanism which many Americans do not know how to examine.
As we go forward don’t feel embarrassed in reaching out to me. I can help with the deconstruction effort and a soft-landing in general decency! 🤩
I have to wonder, if the mural is “divisive”, what segments is it dividing society into? Do we have a pro-murdering-young-refugee-women faction? And if we did, shouldn’t we be more alarmed at that than at a mural?
I have to wonder, if the mural is “divisive”, what segments is it dividing society into?
:::raises hand:::
Prof. Dave (slightly exasperated): “Yes?”
Alizia: “Into those capable of and willing to tell the truth, and those who seek to remain living in lies: personal, social, cultural, spiritual.”
Ordering a mural down because it is “divisive” is an example of viewpoint discrimination by the mayor. This is viewpoint discrimination, and can be challenged on First Amendment grounds. I hope that the owners of the bar, or the artist making the mural, challenge this order in the courts.
On the whole divisive conversation, I would like to stress that it isn’t the liberal position to avoid division. Liberals divide everyone up into various groups, each group existing at some rung of the oppressor/oppressed hierarchy, with intersectionality sometimes boosting someone into a higher group, sometimes taking someone down a few groups because of some sort of perceived privilege. Division and conflict is currently at the heart of the left-wing end of the political spectrum.
Conversely, overcoming division and seeking unity is by far more a Christian principle, and while seeking unity seems to be falling out of favor in conservative circles (as conservatives start to embrace liberal tactics to fight fire with fire), it is still a value that many on the right hold. Thus it is a value that can be used to bludgeon conservatives. Remember that the Alinsky rules for radicals instructs radicals to hold adversaries to their own standards. “You want unity, don’t you? You wouldn’t do anything that could be divisive, would you?” Thus if a conservative action or initiative can be construed as divisive, liberals will construe it as divisive in order to place conservatives on the defensive. To try to reverse the accusation back at the liberals is futile, because they don’t hold unity as a value. Try to show the hypocrisy, and they will either change subject or walk away. If the accusation of being divisive did not work, it is on to some other tactic that will put the conservative on the defensive.
The only solution is for conservatives to hold firm, not backing down in the face of these accusations. Eventually accusations of divisiveness will fall on deaf ears, just as accusations of racism have pretty been blunted from overuse.
The word of the day is “Invidious.”
First of all, the notion of putting up a mural of Iryna Zarutska is “first class trolling.” Not in a good way, because it really *is* divisive, for reasons I can’t put my finger on offhand. The “trolling” aspect of it creates a situation in which the opponents of the mural are likely to de-legitimize and embarrass themselves as they object to the mural in knee jerk fashion and then have trouble explaining why it’s inappropriate.
The trolling aspect succeeds because during the “Summer of the Great Stupid” (2020) it somehow became possible to put up murals of the late George Floyd. People who think George Floyd was a questionable candidate for lionization haven’t forgotten. Really–they haven’t forgotten. That sets the background for the Iryna Zarutska mural idea.
Second of all, I don’t especially like trolling. Someone here in Monroe County NY, more than 5 years ago, printed up “quarter sheets” with the statement “It’s ok to be white” and went distributing them in various public places. Mostly in the tony suburbs of Brighton and Pittsfored, rather than in the “Hood.” This aroused consternation and unease–especially because (if I recall corectly) it was mostly done anonymously. The police eventually identified the two or three individuals responsible and questioned them. As I understand it they were not charged–because they had committed no offense.
I am reminded of a line from right wing radio host Ken Hamblin. He had a book of musings, _Pick a better country_. He wrote that identity politics is dangerous. “Do not dabble in that devil’s workshop,” he said. It probably didn’t stop him. But to repeat myself, I don’t like the trolling.
It’s invidious. That’s the word. Invidious.
Thinking out loud about this…
I think the problem is that society has somehow awarded certain homicide victims “Special Victim Status.” The phrase “Special Victim Status” is the title of a book by Gregory Mantell, 2024. _Special victim status: The era of woke journalism_. (I glanced at the book but didn’t really read it, long story).
Rather than prattle on, here’s a link to a nice (short) article at Quillette. It may be paywalled. If so, sorry. It discusses statistics, and the author is an expert on crime statistics and how they relate to media coverage.
https://quillette.com/2025/09/13/the-murder-of-iryna-zarutska-media-bias-urban-crime-disorder/
Thanks for reading!
charles w abbott
rochester NY