Comment of the Day

Comment of the Day: “Oh Yeah, THIS Will Work Out Well: Minnesota Rules That Women Going Bare-Breasted in Public Isn’t Illegal”

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

Here is Sarah B.’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Oh Yeah, THIS Will Work Out Well: Minnesota Rules That Women Going Bare-Breasted in Public Isn’t Illegal.” There isn’t a thing I could say as an introduction that would improve on it….

***

For most of history, the idea of modesty had nothing to do with the idea that the human body or sex was evil.  The idea was that the penis and vagina, as well as the female breasts (the focus of which is the feeding of babies) were indeed focused on reproduction, life giving, holy, and thus reserved from public consumption.  Avoiding public showmanship of the reserved and holy has been a common theme throughout most cultures, religions, and peoples throughout history.  We have a time, place, and occasion for every action in our lives.  Why do we not urinate/defecate in public?  I don’t want to see you do so, and frankly, nor do I want to see your sexual characteristics.

Though this is not a phrase thought well of on this site, we do need to think of children.  There is measurable harm that occurs to children who are exposed to the sexual before puberty.  Modesty, such as not going around bare breasted, is a protection for the children.  We don’t expose sexual characteristics to protect children’s innocence.  Sure, kids know they have these parts, but for the most part, what is not in sight is not emphasized.  We focus on teaching kids about their private parts and how to avoid excess attention focused on them for their safety.  We don’t want more teen pregnancies, child sexual abuse (which includes inappropriate exposure), or normalizing sexual attraction to minors, especially in the form of pederasty, which focuses on the fully developed sexual characteristics, like breasts, that the judges seem to be suggesting we should allow to be in full display. 

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Important Note on the News Media’s War on President Trump”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Yesterday was another Axis media freak-out day over Trump Administration II. The first hundred days were officially over, thus it was a fine time for the Trump Deranged pimping for a socialist future and trying to pretend that they hadn’t propped up a fake President for four looooong years to tell us the nation is doomed because this time we know who is President and he is orange Hitler-Satan. It was really quite a spectacle, almost screaming-at-the-sky-level nuts. I regret not posting Chris Marschner‘s excellent Comment of the Day on tariffs then for contrast. It’s clear that the vast, vast, vast number of your progressive friends and mine literally don’t know what the hell they are talking about regarding tariffs, and the news media most people are likely to read as well as broadcast news regard the topic as the equivalent of a public reading of Proust. So all the whiners in the echo chamber know is that tariffs are bad. Then again, today’s doomsday chorus is almost as vocal as yesterday. Let’s see…there are at least eleven “Trump is a monster and going to destroy us” headlines on the New York Times home page if you count cleverly deceptive ones like In an Uncertain Economy, McDonald’s Sees Spending Decline. (McDonald’s has been charging obscenely high prices for crummy food since Democrats inflicted higher minimum wages on their unskilled workforce and inflation spiked during Biden’s presidency, so the “spending decline” has nothing to do with Trump. I’ve declined to go to a nearby Mickey D’s when I want a quick semi-edible meal since in 2022…)

Here is Chris’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Important Note on the Newsmedia’s War on President Trump”:

***

Americans in general have become spoiled. They do not seem to want to look beyond the immediate present to consider what is best for the nation in the long term.

[Commenter] Marrissa said “Everyone including people who love Trump want a good economy, low prices, and not have our important information leaked by someone who knows better.”

The question is at what cost? Low prices come at a cost to someone. Every dollar we give to China is one more they use to advance their Belt and Road strategy of global dominance. We fought a war here over the issue of slavery because it was at our doorstep but today we turn a blind eye to factory farms of China on which people are virtually imprisoned so we can get low prices on all sorts of products. I suppose it is not that we are against slavery we just don’t want to see it.

Just ten years ago the MXN Peso was worth about a dime and it is now worth less than a Nickel which means goods produced there cost half as much in terms of dollars. How is that possible if the US trade deficit with Mexico has exploded in that time frame? Demand for Mexican goods drive the value of a countries currency. The answer is foreign government manipulation.

What exactly does a good economy look like? Does it mean full employment even if that employment means part time work in multiple jobs or does it mean a balance between temporal value creation in service work and long term value creation in manufacturing. I say it means the latter even if it requires periodic realignments of resources between industrial production.

[Commenter Extradimensional Cephalopod] stated “People don’t like Trump because he seems almost actively hostile to the idea of demonstrating foresight and conscientiousness, even when it would work out better for his actual goals and his public image.”

How can EC say this? Is EC privy to the President’s deliberations? Trump had four years to develop a strategy and the say that he is hostile to demonstrating foresight and conscientiousness comes only from what he is able to glean from news reports. The exact same argument can be turned around on Trump’s critics because they are only looking toward the next election and not the impact on future generations.

EC questions the use of tariffs but there are few other tools in a presidential arsenal to limit the amount of American wealth being transferred to the CCP. How effective would moral suasion work on the American people with a fireside chat by Trump explaining the need to buy American products to protect our industries? It wouldn’t. Every country believes its consumers are an economic asset. Every dollar they spend on domestic goods and services directly benefits the domestic economy. Imports are treated as wealth leakages. We try to offset our wealth leakages with our exports that brings new wealth to our economy.

Much ink has been spilled condemning the tariffs but very little on some of the positive effects.

U.S.-based investments in President Trump’s second term:

Source: TRUMP EFFECT: A Running List of New U.S. Investment in President Trump’s Second Term – The White House

  • Project Stargate, led by Japan-based Softbank and U.S.-based OpenAI and Oracle, announced a $500 billion private investment in U.S.-based artificial intelligence infrastructure.
  • Apple announced a $500 billion investment in U.S. manufacturing and training.
  • NVIDIA, a global chipmaking giant, announced it will invest $500 billion in U.S.-based AI infrastructure over the next four years amid its pledge to manufacture AI supercomputers entirely in the U.S. for the first time.
  • IBM announced a $150 billion investment over the next five years in its U.S.-based growth and manufacturing operations.
  • Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) announced a $100 billion investment in U.S.-based chips manufacturing.
  • Johnson & Johnson announced a $55 billion investment over the next four years in manufacturing, research and development, and technology.
  • Roche, a Swiss drug and diagnostics company, announced a $50 billion investment in U.S.-based manufacturing and research and development, which is expected to create more than 1,000 full-time jobs and more than 12,000 jobs including construction.
  • Eli Lilly and Company announced a $27 billion investment to more than double its domestic manufacturing capacity.
  • United Arab Emirates-based ADQ and U.S.-based Energy Capital Partners announced a $25 billion investment in U.S. data centers and energy infrastructure.
  • Novartis, a Swiss drugmaker, announced a $23 billion investment to build or expand ten manufacturing facilities across the U.S., which will create 4,000 new jobs.
  • Hyundaiannounced a $21 billion U.S.-based investment — including $5.8 billion for a new steel plant in Louisiana, which will create nearly 1,500 jobs.
    • Hyundai also secured an equity investment and agreement from Posco Holdings, South Korea’s top steel maker.
  • United Arab Emirates-based DAMAC Properties announced a $20 billion investment in new U.S.-based data centers.
  • France-based CMA CGM, a global shipping giant, announced a $20 billion investment in U.S. shipping and logistics, creating 10,000 new jobs.
  • Merck announced it will invest $8 billion in the U.S. over the next several years after opening a new $1 billion North Carolina manufacturing facility.
  • Clarios announced a $6 billion plan to expand its domestic manufacturing operations.
  • Stellantis announced a $5 billion investment in its U.S. manufacturing network, including re-opening its Belvidere, Illinois, manufacturing plant.
  • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a leader in biotechnology, announced a $3 billion agreement with Fujifilm Diosynth Biotechnologies to produce drugs at its North Carolina manufacturing facility.
  • NorthMark Strategies, a multi-strategy investment firm, announced a $2.8 billion investment to build a supercomputing facility in South Carolina.
  • Chobani, a Greek yogurt giant, announced a $1.2 billion investment to build its third U.S. dairy processing plant in New York, which is expected to create more than 1,000 new full-time jobs — adding to the company’s earlier announcement that it will invest $500 million to expand its Idaho manufacturing plant.
  • GE Aerospace announced a $1 billion investment in manufacturing across 16 states — creating 5,000 new jobs.
  • Amgen announced a $900 million investment in its Ohio-based manufacturing operation.
  • Schneider Electric announced it will invest $700 million over the next four years in U.S. energy infrastructure.
  • GE Vernova announced it will invest nearly $600 million in U.S. manufacturing over the next two years, which will create more than 1,500 new jobs.
  • Abbott Laboratories announced a $500 million investment in its Illinois and Texas facilities.
  • AIP Management, a European infrastructure investor, announced a $500 million investment to solar developer Silicon Ranch.
  • London-based Diageo announced a $415 million investment in a new Alabama manufacturing facility.
  • Dublin-based Eaton Corporation announced a $340 million investment in a new South Carolina-based manufacturing facility for its three-phase transformers.
  • Germany-based Siemens announced a $285 million investment in U.S. manufacturing and AI data centers, which will create more than 900 new skilled manufacturing jobs.
  • Clasen Quality Chocolate announced a $230 million investment to build a new production facility in Virginia, which will create 250 new jobs.
  • Fiserv, Inc., a financial technology provider, announced a $175 million investment to open a new strategic fintech hub in Kansas, which is expected to create 2,000 new high-paying jobs.
  • Paris Baguette announced a $160 million investment to construct a manufacturing plant in Texas.
  • TS Conductor announced a $134 million investment to build an advanced conductor manufacturing facility in South Carolina, which will create nearly 500 new jobs.
  • Switzerland-based ABB announced a $120 million investment to expand production of its low-voltage electrification products in Tennessee and Mississippi.
  • Saica Group, a Spain-based corrugated packaging maker, announced plans to build a $110 million new manufacturing facility in Anderson, Indiana.
  • Charms, LLC, a subsidiary of candymaker Tootsie Roll Industries, announced a $97.7 million investment to expand its production plant and distribution center in Tennessee.
  • Toyota Motor Corporation announced an $88 million investment to boost hybrid vehicle production at its West Virginia factory, securing employment for the 2,000 workers at the factory.
  • AeroVironment, a defense contractor, announced a $42.3 million investment to build a new manufacturing facility in Utah.
  • Paris-based Saint-Gobain announced a new $40 million NorPro manufacturing facility in Wheatfield, New York.
  • India-based Sygene International announced a $36.5 million acquisition of a Baltimore biologics manufacturing facility.
  • Asahi Group Holdings, one of the largest Japanese beverage makers, announced a $35 million investment to boost production at its Wisconsin plant.
  • Cyclic Materials, a Canadian advanced recycling company for rare earth elements, announced a $20 million investment in its first U.S.-based commercial facility, located in Mesa, Arizona.
  • Guardian Bikes announced a $19 million investment to build the first U.S.-based large-scale bicycle frame manufacturing operation in Indiana.
  • Amsterdam-based AMG Critical Minerals announced a $15 million investment to build a chrome manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania.
  • NOVONIX Limited, an Australia-based battery technology company, announced a $4.6 million investment to build a synthetic graphite manufacturing facility in Tennessee.
  • LGM Pharma announced a $6 million investment to expand its manufacturing facility in Rosenberg, Texas.
  • ViDARR Inc., a defense optical equipment manufacturer, announced a $2.69 million investment to open a new facility in Virginia.

That doesn’t even include the U.S. investments pledged by foreign countries:

  • United Arab Emirates announced a $1.4 trillion investment in the U.S. over the next decade.
  • Saudi Arabia announced it intends to invest $600 billion in the U.S. over the next four years.
  • Japan announced a $1 trillion investment in the U.S.
  • Taiwan announced a pledge to boost its U.S.-based investment.

I don’t recall the media making much about this at all.

I challenge those who believe that Trump is leading us down a road to ruin with tariffs to put forth an alternative. If we would have recommended that all goods imported into the United States meet our stricter environmental and workplace safety standards in lieu of tariffs it would mean that virtually no Chinese goods could enter our consumption stream. Electric vehicles would become impossible to produce because the costs of extracting the raw materials would be prohibitively expensive without the child labor employed. Global workers would have to be paid in accordance to our minimum wage laws. We can’t have that either because we all want more stuff at the lowest possible price. Our grandkids be damned. Let them pay the bill.

Comment of the Day: “Oh-Oh! President Trump Violated Another Norm!”

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

I confess (and it has been many months since my last confession): I was hoping to trigger this Comment of the Day or its equivalent with my criticism of the late Pope and the degree of influence and respect the position is still accorded by the news media and world leaders. Had I thought about it, esteemed commenter proe32754 would have probably been my top candidate for providing it too.

I will only point out by way of rebuttal is that Pope Francis’s Ethics Alarms dossier is a long as other prominent individuals who I have, fairly and correctly, designated Ethics Villains. Let’s see: he had four official Ethics Dunce awards and a couple more that I chose to frame differently. He has many Unethical Quotes on his record. He repeatedly presumed to meddle in the policies and politics of the United States (but his Holy predecessor during World War II refused to ever condemn Hitler’s Third Reich by name.) I have so many favorite outrages to choose from, but I think my favorite was when he dared to address Congress to pimp for the Democrats’ dream of open borders, despite severely limiting who is allowed to live in his own domain, The Vatican. Normally, anyone with a record like Pope Francis would be the star of a funeral no world leaders would dare to attend, lest they enter Cognitive Dissonance Hell with public opinion.

Yes, I suppose my remarks about the late Pope were “snide,” but I stand by them (and I do believe they were “called for.”) They were even mild compared to what I have written before; for example, here was my introduction to a post after the Pope’s visit in 2015:

I have been touched by the passionate defenses of the Pope during his visit here, by sincere believers who desperately wanted not to see what was going on. If only Pope Francis respected his supporters enough to live up to the ideals they projected on him, which included insisting, against all evidence, that he was merely talking in broad, moral generalities to Congress rather than lobbying for progressive policies, like making illegal immigration legal.

He was, we were told, only showing us where “true North” was according to the Church. I guess he just forgot to bring up abortion, which the Church regards as murder (and Joe Biden too, when he’s not playing politics) as he was lecturing our legislators about “human rights.”

The second he returned home, the Pope threw gay couples under the Popemobile, stating that Kim Davis’s position as a government official refusing to obey the law was a “right.” Again, his defenders insisted that this was just an abstraction. Now we hear from Davis’s lawyers that she had a secret meeting with Pope Francis. Davis says that he hugged her, gave her a rosary, and told her to “stay strong.”

“That was a great encouragement. Just knowing that the pope is on track with what we’re doing, it kind of validates everything to have someone of that stature,” Davis said.

Naturally, those who can’t handle the truth will say she is lying. There is no evidence that Kim Davis is untruthful, and her lawyer would be facing discipline if they falsely reported what did not occur. This really happened.

Got that, Popophiles? While a guest in this country, while progressives were tripping all over their usually Christian-mocking selves to proclaim him as a moral exemplar for setting U.S. policy, while he was being honored by the President and treated with more deference by the news media than any foreign leader, Pope Francis was surreptitiously encouraging an anti-gay zealot to defy the U.S. Supreme Court and the rule of law, while withholding the human right to be married from gay Americans.

I have already pointed out that the Pope is a hypocrite and a coward. With this conduct, he showed that he is a sneak as well, and blatantly disrespectful of the laws of the nation in which he was an honored guest. This was a breach of manners, protocol and a betrayal of trust on a massive scale.

I understand that religious faith by its very nature is an exercise in “My mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts,” and also that organized religion has a traditional and important role to play in maintaining civilization in a world where the vast majority of human beings won’t be civilized on their own. Thus I am not only sympathetic but in some respects encouraged by the passion and the passion and the loyalty of Catholic Church defenders like proe32754, who is obviously more articulate and capable than most.

Here is the Comment of the Day on: “Oh-Oh! President Trump Violated Another Norm!”…

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “’What’s Going On Here?’ Is This Incident Just A Single Teenage Idiot In Love Or Does It Have Larger Cultural Significance?”

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

I wanted to start Easter (and Greek Easter: for once the calendars agree) morning off on a moral note, and Glenn Logan‘s ringing Comment of the Day on the revolting Axis admiration of murderer Luigi Mangione provides exactly that. Glenn was a prolific blogger himself, has been a regular commenter here from the beginning (2009) and I have recognized him here too seldom, probably because he is economical with his pronouncements.

Yesterday was pretty quiet around these parts with few comments, but, as Spencer Tracy says of the “meat” on Katherine Hepburn’s person in “Pat and Mike,” what there was “is cherce.”

Here is Glenn Logan’s COTD on the post, “What’s Going On Here?” Is This Incident Just A Single Teenage Idiot In Love Or Does It Have Larger Cultural Significance?

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “How Should We Deal With Friends Who Believe Ridiculous Conspiracy Theories?”

/ Jack Marshall / 4 Comments

Another epic and irritatingly rational Comment of the Day from Extradimensional Cephalopod, this one on the thorny topic of discussing unlikely conspiracy theories with true believers. Almost all of E.C.’s contributions to Ethics Alarms topics are helpful and impressive; this is one of his—its?—best.

This is Extradimensional Cephalopod’s Comment of the Day on the post, “How Should We Deal With Friends Who Believe Ridiculous Conspiracy Theories?”:

Your friend has arrived at a conclusion that is based on, generously speaking, an implausible interpretation of the evidence surrounding the Titanic’s disaster. If he were looking at the evidence with no biases, he presumably would not have come to this conclusion. Therefore, I suspect that he has either an emotional attachment to the conclusion, or an emotional attachment to the process he used to reach it.

An person’s attachment to a conclusion might be as personal as a belief about what that conclusion says about them or someone they respect, or it might be as impersonal as preferring a more pleasant view of the world, such as one where disasters don’t just happen by accident.

An attachment to the reasoning process may be based on a fear of not having a good alternative reasoning process to turn to, a fear of what conclusions those alternative processes might lead to, or (similarly) an attachment to another conclusion that they arrived at through their current process. For example: “I have to believe this person wearing a cape is a bad person, because if people who aren’t bad can wear capes, that means that maybe I did a bad thing by attacking those other people for wearing capes.”

I’d like to talk with your friend and see how his worldview compares to what I suspect it is. My preliminary hypothesis is that your friend’s subconscious reasoning process is loosely based on the following premises, which I am not rendering judgment on at this time:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Tariffs Have Been Needed For Decades”

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

I meant to post this retort to Steve Witherspoon’s guest column yesterday (as it was “Tariffs Monday” at Ethics Alarms, but was waylaid by life. Canadian EA correspondent Humble Talent began a long and lively debate thread with his Comment of the Day, and I encourage you to read it all, here. Meanwhile, here’s Humble…

Oh! I almost forgot: I read another anti-tariff piece today titled “I Shot the Tariff.” I should have thought of that. Phooey.

…

I’m always disappointed when there’s something that I’m actually familiar with in the media, because a lot of the media smudging that happens around the areas that they’re familiar with stand out like a sore thumb.

Tariffs have been one of those things. And this attack on Free Trade is another.

You want to know what’s bullshit? The idea that any nation can pull of autarky (“a system where a country or region aims for self-sufficiency, minimizing or eliminating international trade and relying primarily on its own resources and production.”) No one can pull off autarky and maintain efficiency, product diversity, and quality of life. You will eventually need to trade for something.

You want an example for America? Potash. There are exactly three active potash mines in America, because the resource effectively does not exist in America. You import 96% of potash used for crop fertilizer. Without potash imports, you would be unable to add phosphorus to your crop input chemistry, and your yields would suffer. Which would then impact your already insufficient food production system. Your people would literally starve. Which means there will be trade.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: Friday Open Forum [Tariffs Thread]

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

That’s the New York Times graph this morning showing stock markets since President Trump’s inauguration. The lowest line (in orange) is Japan; the next lowest line is the U.S. The reason for all of those declines are believed to be Trump’s tariff policies.

A commenter last week asked why Ethics Alarms hadn’t discussed Trump’s tariffs. My response was, 1) I didn’t see them as an ethical issue and 2) I wasn’t informed sufficiently on the topic to opine on it. Veteran EA commentator Chris Marschner said, “Hold my beer!” The post below is the result: you van review the whole thread, which includes more from Chris, here.

***

I don’t know if this is an ethics angle per se but the tariff objections illustrate without question America’s unwillingness to suffer any short term discomfort in order to obtain long term security. I keep hearing that Trump is a narcissist such that he has this inappropriate sense of sense but one of the clinical signs of narcissistic behavior is a sense of entitlement. The minute anything Trump does causes some immediate discomfort or loss many in the public feel they are entitled to what they had before.

A large percentage of the stock market gains are illusory because much of that growth was driven by inflated profits and subsequently inflated stock prices. Consumer and producer prices rise before costs are actually incurred because labor costs are negotiated on longer term contracts as are so many of our commodities. The Biden administration fueled those inflated profits – and he said as much in a speech in the port of Baltimore – when he poured 2 trillion dollars into the economy with too few goods to buy. Employment gains in the last 4 years were in large measure government jobs that produce intangibles whose values are only measured in terms of their employment.

People need to realize that the algorithms used by traders are driving much of the sell off because tariffs are deemed to be anti-growth. What the buy/sell programs are not factoring in is the 6 trillion dollars worth of investment commitment which will revitalize our semi-conductor industry and other strategic industries. We have to buy spare avionics parts for our military and the base materials for our medicines from our political adversary who has a 100 year plan to dominate the globe.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Unethical Quote of the Week: Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)”

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

Humble Talent Comment of the Day Day continues with a stand-out post in a stand-out thread, which you can and should read here if you missed it. Here is HT’s second featured Comment of the Day on the post, “Unethical Quote of the Week: Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY)”:

***

“The left tends to have more anxiety disorders”

Complete non-sequitur, but I’ve always been fascinated by this. It’s true: People who self-identify as being left of center on the political spectrum also tend to disproportionately report all varieties of mental illness. And when I say disproportionately, I mean disproportionately… The numbers change based on the type of mental illness and the methodology, but they all point the same way: The more extreme to the left you are, the worse your mental health is, and the further to the right you go, those issues are less reported. My impression is that mental illness rates of extreme progressives tracks at about 150% of average.

Thing is, everyone seems to have an opinion on why that is.

The low hanging fruit would be if there was a reporting problem; If people right of center were more loathe to report mental illness because of social stigma, that might account for some this. The problem with that argument is that the single largest classification of mental illness is depression, and if you look at happiness studies, they tend to find the same correlations. As an example: Both the mental health disparity and happiness disparity is strongest among young women in low income brackets. All that leads me to believe that while there might be some amount of reporting bias, the reality is probably that conservatives are generally happier people, that probably has positive mental health outcomes, and following that, I think the disparity is real.

Once you arrive there, the question becomes: 1) Does holding progressive values degrade your mental wellness? Or 2) are mentally unwell people more drawn towards progressivism?

I think the answer is probably “both”.

  1. I think that progressives tend to care about big issues that they can’t control. Climate Change, The War in Ukraine, Palestine… They view these as existential problems, which means that their temperature, their stress on these issues is always high, and to make it worse, these issues are also entirely outside of their control. Caring deeply about things that aren’t going the way you’d prefer them to while simultaneously being incapable of effecting change can’t be good for your mental health.
  2. Progressives seem to value victimhood… They’d balk at that, but the reality is that you have people in the progressive movement who fake their victimhood because it has social currency. People caught faking victimhood are treated similarly to how the right treats people who have stolen valor. As a general rule, they’re more welcoming, more affirming, and more enabling, to people with disabilities, and so I don’t think it should surprise that when someone is faced with some kind of mental health issue, the might tend to gravitate towards the group with arms wide open.

So uh…. Be conservative. It’s good for your health.

Comment of the Day: “Enough Trivia and Silly Stuff: This Is Incompetence That Can’t Be Ignored”

/ Jack Marshall / 49 Comments

This story has been officially designated an Ethics Train Wreck, and I may have to post further on it yet. Once again, we are at the infuriating point where it is impossible to get an un-spun, un-distorted, straightforward explanation of what the issues are, with most conservative news sources downplaying the episode and most Axis sources gleefully “pouncing.” Meanwhile, the Trump Administration has hardly been candid, with the White House Paid Liar being particularly egregious in that respect.

The Humble Talent Comment of the Day that follows is the first of two I will post today. HT has been on fire: these is his observations regarding the post, “Enough Trivia and Silly Stuff: This Is Incompetence That Can’t Be Ignored”:

***

While I generally agree with the flow of the commentariat here, I think there is a massive difference between what Hillary Clinton did, and what Pete Hegseth did, and that progressives are ethically estopped from being smug about this. I’ve shifted even more on this since the hearing yesterday.

First off, I think it’s helpful to articulate what people actually did:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: A Spammed Commenter…

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

…who shall remain nameless.

This:

“Experience the future of companionship with an AI girlfriend chatbot. Designed to listen engage and respond with intelligence and warmth this virtual partner offers meaningful conversations, emotional support, and personalized interactions. Whether you seek a friend a confidante or just casual chats this ai girlfriend chatbot companion is always there for you anytime anywhere. Enjoy a unique ever-evolving connection powered by artificial intelligence.”

I think a blow-up doll is more ethical. The product is as perilous as crack or heroin, and destined to cripple and manipulate vulnerable, lonely people, like, say, me. It is the logical and inevitable next step from 800 sex chat phone lines. They can’t be made illegal; someone will undoubtedly argue that AI girlfriend chatbots can be therapeutic and even, on balance, capable of accomplishing more good than bad.

Sure. As for me, I’m reminded of this post from 2017: The Unibomber Had A Point.

Res ipsa loquitur.