Picking a particularly dumb hill to die on, one commenter already on thin metaphorical ice and two already banned (but not yet blocked) past commenters decided to insult me personally based on this post, in which I pointed out what should have been obvious to anyone not made stupid by bias and paying attention, that Trump’s social media post supposedly offering the vacant job of White House Press Secretary to Ultimate Fighting Championship CEO Dana White was an extravagant trolling exercise as well as a message that he was not going to be cowed by the results of the mid-terms last week.

At the same time, a more respectable commenter picked the day to argue, without evidence or logic, that I need to be less assertive in such posts, because nobody likes me, or something, and that I am not good at persuasion.

I realized that these comments indicated a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the purpose of Ethics Alarms, one that has raised its hoary head before. I don’t spend about four uncompensated hours a day researching and writing this blog and responding to comments (271,000+ responses so far, the most of any blog still standing) to convince anyone of anything. I remain true toand devoted to the mission, which states,

“This is a blog that aspires to help keep everyone’s ethics alarms in good working order….including mine.

“How? By pointing out ethical problems and dilemmas from all segments of society, professions and experiences of life. By applying principles of ethical analysis, and reaching conclusions about what is right, what is wrong, and what remains uncertain. By developing tools, terms and approaches to solving ethics conflicts and dilemmas, and by discussing, arguing, disagreeing, opening doors of perception and closed minds, and by helping us be more alert to ethical issues in our own lives.

“I will usually make strong statements and espouse definite positions in the posts here. The objective isn’t to be “right,” though if I post an opinion, I believe it. The objective is to provoke thought about the issue that isn’t controlled by biases, pre-conditioned reflexes, ideology or rationalizations. This is the same successful formula I employ in the ethics seminars I facilitate across the country for corporations, associations, non-profits, student groups and law firms. I don’t need you to agree with me; there are often many legitimate ways to judge an ethical problem.

I then list the Comment Policies. The commenter I banned yesterday (and designated a jerk, because that’s what he was, at least when he visited EA), kept “sealioning,” repeatedly asking why I felt my analysis the Trump was joking was correct and all the Trump Deranged fools on social media (and every news source) that took his gag seriously were wrong. The answer is 1) I’m not biased, they are; 2) I understand leadership styles because I’ve studied them, and Trump’s style in particular, because he’s a fascinating anomaly and 3) because my track record is excellent (and, in most cases, I’m smarter than they are in part because I’m not biased).

I’ve been trying to find a single news report on the Dana White gag that mentions what White’s current salary is. It’s 200 million dollars a year. The White House Press Secretary makes an annual salary of $195,200. Can you name anyone who has ever given up a job for one that pays 1% of his or her current salary and not only has less influence and power, but also is a job the individual is unqualified to hold?

The suckers who fell for Trump’s troll and started claiming that it proved he was senile or nuts didn’t even bother to check White’s salary. They just have contempt for the President of the United States, hate his guts, and want him to do things they can attack him over. My analysis didn’t require any particular insight, just competence, prudence, reason over emotion, and avoiding bias. I was right and everyone else was wrong because my analysis wasn’t “controlled by biases, pre-conditioned reflexes, ideology or rationalizations.” That’s the lesson of the episode: ignore it at your peril.