Comment of the Day

Comment Of The Day: Final Ethics Observations On The Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

When I implied that with yesterday’s post about the Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney fiasco I was through commenting on the matter, I didn’t mean to preclude others from doing so. Here, Michael R. opens up a whole new wing of commentary that I managed to keep shuttered.

Today was also another entry on the episode’s timeline with ethical resonance: The CEO of Anheuser-Busch tried to avoid some accountability in an earnings call with investors by insisting that the whole thing was misinterpreted, was “not a campaign,” and should not have had so much attention attached to it. He also promised investors that Bud Light will triple its marketing spend this summer to undo the damage that the company was not really at fault for. “Anheuser-Busch did not intend to create controversy or make a political statement,” he said, unconvincingly. “In reality, the Bud Light can posted by a social media influencer that sparked all the conversation was provided by an outside agency without Anheuser-Busch management awareness or approval. Since that time, the lack of oversight and control over marketing decisions has been addressed and a new VP of Bud Light marketing has been announced.”

How do investors retain trust in a company with such loose and inattentive management that this could happen? Is just announcing, “Not to worry, it’s all fixed now!” sufficient to restore their confidence?

Just asking, not observing.

Here is Michael R’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Final Ethics Observations On The Bud Light-Dylan Mulvaney Ethics Train Wreck”:

***

I don’t see this as a boycott. I see this as people being done with a product. People boycotting something usually have demands. Bud Light’s former customers aren’t demanding anything. They are just done with the brand.

Let’s see the timeline of events:

(1) Company hires feminist, woke, woman as ‘historic’ hire.
(2) Woke female executive finds that none of her friends use or patronize ‘her’ product.
(3) Woke female executive finds that the customers of ‘her’ product are not ‘cool’ or ‘hip’, like her friends, but are ‘frattish’ and ‘out of touch’. Some of them might have even voted for Trump!
(4) Woke female executive decides that the brand is ‘dying’ despite its great success, so she needs to turn the brand around.
(5) She decides to ‘turn the brand around’ by getting rid of the current customers and attract a new, better clientele.
(6) This turnaround is accomplished by destroying the brand for the existing customer.

Oh, I’m sorry, that was the timeline of events for the destruction of Star Wars.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “If Cleopatra Was Black, Maybe I Am Too!”

/ Jack Marshall / 19 Comments

Once again I am confronted with the phenomenon of a Comment of the Day that is better written than the Ethics Alarms post at issue. This happens a lot (Curmie, today’s author, is a repeat offender). I am torn about it, actually: the comments here contribute greatly to the value of the blog, and my original concept was to create a colloquy of articulate readers interested in ethics who also bring different backgrounds and perspectives to the issues. The high quality of commentary obviously validates that mission; it’s only my fragile ego that suffers. Curmie, like several others who participate regularly here, is an experienced blogger himself. He’s also a better proof-reader than I am (though I found one typo this time, making my day).

But I digress. The topic of Curmie’s Comment of the Day is the controversy over Netflix suggesting that Cleopatra was black in a new series, a matter Ethics Alarms raised in the post, “If Cleopatra Was Black, Maybe I Am Too!”

From here on, it’s all Curmie; I’m just going to sit by quietly feeling inadequate…

***

There are several differences, I think, between this story and the brouhaha over the black Anne Boleyn a couple of years ago.

First is a fundamental difference in the way the casting of a major role was presented. The BBC would have us believe that race doesn’t matter in the casting of the title character in the “Anne Boleyn” mini-series so long as it’s “surprising.” (As you noted, Jack, a block of cheese would also have been surprising in the role.) The forthcoming Netflix series is at least honest that being black (or mixed race and appearing black, in this case) was a prerequisite for an actress being considered for the role of Cleopatra, who almost certainly was, shall we say, significantly lighter-complected.

This is apparent in the nonsensical utterances in the promotional video, in which anonymous voices are treated as authorities. If they had a legitimate historian who supported the cause, that person would be identified as such. That omission is more than a little telling.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “The Trouble With ‘Do Something!’ Part II”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Saturday is a ghost town on Ethics Alarms these days; I’ve decided to stop obsessing about it, and blog traffic generally, other than with occasional rueful observations like this one. Despite the lack of quantity, Saturday often produces a disproportionate level of high quality commentary and Comments of the Day, such as JutGory‘s observations on the “Do something!” conundrum. I was particularly charmed by his preface, which represented a microcosm of the eternal “Do something” vs “Do nothing” conflict:

“Been going back and forth all day (appropriately, perhaps) about whether I should comment or not). Eventually, the inclination to comment won out, because I think it will do some good. However, my hesitation is based upon the effort it would take to frame a fully organized and coherent response. So, having abandoned that as a goal, there is no reason not to comment.”

Here is JutGory’s Comment of the Day on the post, “The Trouble With “Do Something!” Part II: Applying The Scale.”

***

First off, a few first principles when it comes to action and inaction:

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” –Edmund Burke (attribution may be disputed)

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of good is for evil men to do nothing.” -JutGory

“All human action is aimed toward some good.” –Aristotle (heavily paraphrased opening lines from the “Nicomachean Ethics”)

“All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” –Pascal

The inclination to “do something” is natural because we all view our actions as good and we don’t want to stand by while evil people are causing trouble.

The problem with this mindset is that good people and evil people are often equally stupid.

The people who killed Emmett Till thought they were carrying out some good and they did not want to be one of those good people who did nothing.

Nazis too.

Freedom Riders.

Tea Party Members.

Along with the laundry list of protesters, strikers, and saboteurs.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part II)”

/ Jack Marshall / 15 Comments

I briefly considered slapping my name on this terrific comment by Extradimensional Cephalopod and posting it, but as Richard Nixon memorably said, “That would be wrong.” Here is his Comment of the Day on the post, “The Complete List Of Rationalizations To Excuse Justice Thomas’ Gross Betrayal Of Judicial Ethics, And Other Updates (Part II)”:

***

Stipulated: In theory, the ethical course of action is for Justice Thomas to resign, because the institution of the Supreme Court functions based on the assumption that the justices are not corrupt, i.e. they do not accept incentives to influence their decisions. Anything that introduces serious doubt about that assumption damages trust in the court’s integrity, and is unethical.

Ethics does not exist as a set of arbitrary rules. The purpose of ethics is that it puts a society in a better position in the future. For Justice Thomas to resign would demonstrate a measure of good faith on his part (albeit diminished by having gone on the trips in the first place). It makes a statement that conservative justices value trust in the Supreme Court as an institution more than they value a political advantage. It indicates they will respect progressive justices for stepping down in a similar situation, that they would not press a political advantage which might incentivize progressive justices not to do so.

The reason that some people feel it is more desirable for Justice Thomas to remain on the court is because it seems like a critical short-term measure, a stopgap. If the point of ethics is to build the trust that allows society to function at its best, it seems to them that starting with this situation would build very little trust at the cost of sacrificing political power* to people who are perceived as destructive and unreasonable. If you apply ethics as you would in an ethical society, and it has a heavy short-term cost because of unethical actors, you had better be sure your sacrifice is helping set up some long-term change towards a more ethical society, or it’s a pointless gesture.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Got It: Apparently All Criticism Of Progressive Figures Or Positions Is Based Entirely On Hate…”

/ Jack Marshall / 49 Comments

JutGory, on the post, “Got It: Apparently All Criticism Of Progressive Figures Or Positions Is Based Entirely On Hate And Bigotry. Good To Know!

***

The Left seems obsessed with hate. They seem to see it everywhere.

I am not sure from where this form of argumentation comes.

Are they quick to accuse so that they cannot then be accused?

Is it an argument deployed because it is one that cannot be defended against?

Do they actually think that is what people are motivated by?

Is it a convenient straw-man argument?

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Latest Admittees To The “Do Something!” Hall Of Fame”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I am pretty sure that I have neglected to post a fair share of Paul W. Schlecht’s deserving and entertaining commentaries as Comments of the Day; he deserves better. He has a unique style, often sliding into satirical rants. In the case of the UN’s climate change propaganda arm, however, his tone is not only appropriate, it’s welcome and necessary.

Here is Paul’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Latest Admittees to the ‘Do Something!’ Hall Of Fame.” Incidentally, I hope Paul forgives me for substituting “fuck” for “F***K, but I hate all of the “polite” ways of writing and saying that word, since they all mean the same thing.

***

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific and intergovernmental body under the auspices of the United Nations, set up at the request of member governments, dedicated to the task of providing the world with an objective, scientific view of climate change and its political and economic impacts.”

An absolute epitome of grift/graft, the UNIPCC conducts no research of its own, which should come as no surprise. Follow the money; it’s not in the research, it’s in the solutions recommended by the Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM) addendum to its Assessment Reports (AR’s).

While this may come as something of a surprise, the “solutions” quite often benefit financially those who propose them. Anyone wondering why the UNIPCC has fought reform and scrutiny, wonder no more.

The UNIPCC answers to no one, has no obligation to give an audience to anyone who doesn’t confirm the “Consensus” and has NO Conflict-Of-Interest (COI) provision.

A while back, an INTERACADEMY COUNCIL investigation recommended sweeping changes to the UNIPCC.

“*(T)he council said (thatthe UNIPCC) needs a full-time executive director, more openness and regular changes in leadership. It called for stronger enforcement of its reviews of research and adoption of a COI policy, which the IPCC does not have, even though its parent agencies do.” The COI issue was raised because of former Chair Rajendra Pachauri’s work as adviser and board member of green energy companies, etc., etc., etc.

The UNIPCC’s response? “FUCK OFF!!…a somewhat more direct iteration of “BITE ME!”

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Observations On The House Passage Of H.R.5 (The Parents Bill of Rights)”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Jim Hodgson produced two COTD-worthy responses to the post about H.R.5 which…

…dares to require schools to let parents know what they are teaching, urging students to read, and otherwise indoctrinating their students. I chose this one.

The issue of federalism didn’t enter into my ethics analysis, but it is a valid point: why is the Federal government dictating education policy to the states? Well, it’s an ends and means problem: while a majority of the states are considering laws similar to H.R. 5, those dedicated to using mandatory government education to raise a generation of anti-American little Marxists who change their genders like socks present what may well be an existential threat to the United States envisioned by the Constitution. “The Constitution,” Justice Jackson memorably said in Terminiello v. Chicago (1949) , “is not a suicide pact.”

Is Jim’s Comment of the Day an ethical comment or a political one? We inevitably end up on political turf frequently here, but politics is often inextricable from ethics, as ethically corrupt as it so often is.

Here is Jim Hodgson’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Observations On The House Passage Of H.R.5 (The Parents Bill of Rights)”:

***

For an old states-rightist like me, the true sadness is that the local and state governments haven’t acted on this matter (and many others) long before now. You know, enumerated powers, like the Constitution says. But, here in post-Constitutional America, that fussy old document is but a minor impediment to the communists in the land.

I have been active in a number of local, regional and state political campaigns since the 1980s, and have come to know many of the candidates (both incumbents and challengers) personally. I can state with utter certainty that only a minority of them, despite their likely protestations to the contrary, remain dedicated to the causes (and voters) that got them elected in the first place, or to following through with making the changes they declared vital and pledged to make once they got into office. Holding political office is such a process of being co-opted and corrupted for most people. The so-called conservatives have “gone along to get along” until there seems to be little left to conserve. The principled liberals have allowed their Democratic efforts to be hijacked by the radical “social justice” mob. Special interests and money control both parties, top to bottom.

I contact elected officials regularly about a variety of issues, both personally and on behalf of organizations to which I belong. I always make my communications polite, short and to the point, usually containing a bullet list of items, and often a reminder of the official’s prior stated position on the matter at hand. Except from those who know me from a campaign, I seldom get more than a perfunctory “Thank you for contacting us.” message. I get particularly aggravated by members of my state legislature when they ask for input on an upcoming committee or floor vote but seem to have their minds made up despite the amount of public input they get to the contrary of their eventual vote. These legislators depend heavily upon the short memories, attention spans and naivety of the voters to maintain their continuation in office.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Stanford’s Disgraceful DEI Dean Throws Down The Guntlet…NOW Will Stanford Fire Her?”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

EA has featured a lot of posts about the Stanford Law shout-down of a conservative federal judge and the school’s “DEI” dean’s complicity in making certain that he did not get a fair opportunity to deliver his remarks. It is, I believe, quite possibly a tipping point regarding many important cultural issues, including Leftist censorship, the decline of higher education ethics and academic freedom, the corruption of the legal profession, and most of all, the toxic influence of the “diversity/equity/inclusion” cult to undermine core societal values in the U.S. The mainstream news media is doing its best to keep the story and its implications far from the consciousness of the average member of the public.

Glenn Logan has offered a helpful Comment of the Day which analyzes Stanford Law School Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach’s defiant and telling op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. Glenn is one of many experienced bloggers in the Ethics Alarms commentariat, and at times like these it shows.

Here is Glenn’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Stanford’s Disgraceful DEI Dean Throws Down The Guntlet…NOW Will Stanford Fire Her?”

***

Steinbach wrote: “Regardless of where you stand politically, none of this heated exchange was helpful for civil discourse or productive dialogue.“

True, but only because one side decided the right way to deal with debating controversial issues was to make sure that the other side of the debate could not be heard without wading through repeated ad hominem attacks and invective.

At no point does Steinbach recognize that the students were driving the lack of civility. It is also true that the judge’s remarks at certain points crossed the line, but he was under constant attack to the point that he was unable to deliver a coherent presentation. Steinbach either does not recognize these facts, or is okay with them. Based on her prepared remarks, the latter seems to be the betting favorite.

So how can this possibly square with her implied desire for civil discourse? Easy — discourse can only be civil when it’s hers, or she agrees with it, or it is had on her terms.

Continue reading →

Comment Of The Day: “Fire Them All: No, Training Cannot Fix Teachers Like This One”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Sarah B., proving that Ethics Alarms Comments of the Day do not have to be novelettes in order to make the grade, offers her reaction to the post about the Texas charter school’s grudging admission that forcing 7th graders to pose like sex workers seeking a “date” may not have been appropriate classroom fare:

***

I saw this and it saddens/frightens/infuriates me so much that I can hardly express it.

I believe that this exhibit, one of so many examples, proves that I need to change my answer to a question I get asked a lot.

“Why do you homeschool?”

Usually I cite my wanting to raise my children in my value system, the need of my second child to have incredible flexibility for medical appointments, a desire to control various aspects of the curriculum such as including cursive and home ec, inculcating them in my faith, nationwide illiteracy rates of 45% in fourth grade and 25% in 12th grade (local isn’t much higher), and my experience as a math tutor showing me that children are not taught math appropriately anymore.

The answer I should give is, “Why don’t you?”

Comment Of The Day: “Ethics Quiz: The Weather Lady’s Collapse”

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

Curmie’s typically erudite and perceptive Comment of the Day below made me happy and sad at the same time. Happy, because it is the kind of superb commentary Ethics Alarms readers excel at producing, making the site unique in the blogosphere whether a significant numbers of people take advantage of the resource. Sad, because I should have authored its equivalent in the first place, and might have come closer if I were not forced daily into squeezing posts into randomly distributed periods during the day that I don’t have to devote to earning enough money to keep the Marshalls from a future living in a cardboard box in the woods.

Curmie’s analysis also alerted me to something I had missed in the video, the mysterious statement “Not again!” from one of the anchors. This reminded me of the just-created whale in “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” hurtling to Earth through space (along with a pot of petunias) that similarly thinks, also inexplicably, “Oh no, not again!”

Here is Curmie’s Comment of the Day, a deft examination of humor, ethics and human nature, regarding the post, “Ethics Quiz: The Weather Lady’s Collapse”:

***

I find this one fascinating for a variety of reasons. One of those is that I no doubt had a different reaction to seeing the event under the headline “BREAKING: CBS LA Weather Forecaster collapses live on air.” So I can’t say how I would have responded had I simply been watching that news show.

Part of my response is also based on the initial movement, the slow bend forward toward the desk. That seemed almost choreographed, as if she was going to pound her head on the desk as some sort of statement on the imminent forecast, described by the co-anchor as “the calm before the storm.” It’s the slide out of the chair that changes the dynamic. That’s definitely unstaged.

More importantly, I’d read your statement that she’s recovering at home before I viewed the video. This takes us very close to the notion of aesthetic distance, that unspoken understanding that what we are watching isn’t actually happening. Hence, we don’t run for cover when the bad guy in a play or a movie appears with a gun and looks threatening, and we’re not confused when the actor who played Hamlet is miraculously alive to take a curtain call even though the character is dead. Or, in this case, that she suffered an episode, but is on her way to recovery.

Continue reading →