Comment of the Day

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter ‘David’” (2)

/ Jack Marshall / 8 Comments

As I just banned another misbehaving commenter who stopped off here just to show he was smarter than me and to defend Snopes (“…But for Snopes?”), it seems a propitious time to post this Comment of the Day, the second (the first is here) to be inspired by my post about another banned commenter calling me a “Trump supporting fascist.” And he was much smarter than the jerk I just banned.

Here is A M Golden’s Comment of the Day on the post, “Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter ‘David’”:

***

When I was about 11 years old, my grandparents’ church showed a movie called “The Hiding Place” about a Dutch family that hid Jews from the Nazis. I was fascinated by the idea that there could exist a country so very unlike America where people could be punished for helping others. Since I was already very interested in history, I began what is now a 40-plus-year study of the Third Reich and Hitler, in particular.

I do not consider myself an expert; however, I am certainly more knowledgeable than the average layperson. I have read hundreds of books over the years concerning Nazi Germany and not just the military build-up and harassment of Jews. I’ve read a lot about the culture, the education and the day-to-day life of Germans.

And, of course, I’ve read multiple biographies of Hitler himself. Not every biography is created equal, though (Don’t get me started on movies about Hitler. The last one I tried to watch was a TV movie called “Hitler: The Rise of Evil” starring an otherwise fine actor named Robert Carlyle. I turned it off after 10 minutes due to the blatant misrepresentations and outright fabrications of Hitler’s early life. Apparently, the expert consultant had his name taken off of it for the same reason). Some biographies are pretty bad and postulate things that are not likely to be true. A good example of this are the ones that try to push the idea that Hitler was a homosexual.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: the Woke Shackles Tighten…”

/ Jack Marshall / 35 Comments

I wanted to get the previous post about artificial intelligence and the unintended consequences of technology up before this timely Comment of the Day by jdkazoo123 from yesterday regarding social media. Mark Zuckerberg didn’t consider all of the social pathogens he was loosing on civilization when he launched Facebook, or even if he foresaw some of them, he went ahead anyway. After all, there were millions of dollars to be made. The message of this COTD is, in brief, “Now what?”

The alarm as well as the puzzlement are justified. Still, one cannot pretend that the benefits that Zuck and others believed were being conferred on society by social media are insubstantial. I’ve experienced one of them very recently: through Facebook I have been able to let my friends, associates and colleagues know about the tragic sudden death of my wife, and to say that the support they are still providing me has been crucial to my sanity and survival is an understatement. Social media also has greatly reduced the power and influence of journalism, which, since journalists have been abusing those and the public’s trust for decades, is a win for truth, justice, and the American way. Nevertheless, the negative effects of the platforms are substantial, as jd notes. Are these benefits worth the costs? Don’t ask me right now: I’m biased.

Here is jdkazoo123’s Comment of the Day on the post, “From the Res Ipsa Loquitur Files: the Woke Shackles Tighten…”

***

I don’t know if this is a reason to regulate social media, but it is an example of why they are so different and troubling. I think they are a big cause of the polarization that we see here at EA and across the country. I think about my dad and his brother, my uncle. Even though my uncle was 7 years older, they were very close by the time I showed up. I grew up seeing my uncle about 1-2 a year. And as I got older, I noticed my dad and his brother joshed a lot about politics. My uncle was hard core Republican from suburban Pittsburgh, an executive in manufacturing. My dad was a solid Democrat working in military intelligence and the AF reserves. It was fun to see them josh. My uncle would say “Kid, your dad thinks I’m a Republican because I’m rich. What he doesn’t understand is I’m rich because I’m a Republican!”

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day : Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter “David” (1)

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

How ironic! A post spawned by a banned trolling commenter who called your host a “Trump-supporting fascist” generated excellent commentary and two outstanding Comments of the Day. Thus a disruptive and unethical visitor here actually helped to enrich the discussion and enlighten participants. I know I learned some things from Sarah B.’s excellent Comment of the Day on the post, the first of the two earning the honor.

Here it is, on “Ethics Quote of the Month: Banned EA Commenter ‘David’”…

***

While I cannot answer for lawyers, there are plenty of Trump deranged engineers, and we sure get trained in logic, critical-thinking, and evaluation of consequences of our thought processes. This training does not inoculate us from our own biases. Indeed, biases manage to short circuit the training.

Jack is fond of saying biases make us stupid, and certainly today’s society proves it. I cannot tell you how frustrated I get when a trained engineer tells me that electric cars will solve all our problems. No one with the training I went through should say that electric cars are a universal solution. They should be able to calculate life cycle pollution, understand vehicle weight issues with roadways, realize the limitations of battery technology, mineral scarcity, and electrical grid load. However, by the time we get our intensive training in logic, critical thinking, and more, we have also been inundated in “global climate change” mass hysteria. The biases I saw my fellows come out with was amazing, even as I was standing there with the damn numbers.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “I Guess It’s Time For Another ‘Ad Hominem’ Lesson”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

For some reason, the debate in the comments to the recent post about the proper use of “ad hominem” ended up about Rush Limbaugh, who has been dead for a while now. The issue was whether Rush’s referring to then-Georgetown Law Student Sandra Fluke, briefly a media star for her argument that birth control should be free, paid for by taxpayers, as a “slut” was an ad hominem attack or not. Ryan Harkins, in his Comment of the Day, decided to arbitrate the dispute, and did so with his usual logic and objectivity.

I do have a couple of points I want to make in this introduction to Ryan’s COTD. He admits that he never listened to Rush, and that’s a problem. As I kept emphasizing in the discussion in the comments, Rush Limbaugh was primarily an entertainer, though he was one with a political agenda and clear ideological orientation. (He was also was master of the slippery “clown nose on/clown nose off” device, like Jon Stewart.) I don’t think he can be fairly analyzed without that context. Ryan says that the use of slut has no place in “honest argumentation,” but Rush Limbaugh’s routines were no more intended as honest argumentation than a Lewis Black set or a Louie CK rant.

Nor can his work be fairly assessed second or third hand. There are several posts about Rush on Ethics Alarms; my wrap-up on his career and legacy is here.

I also neglected to mention in my lengthy exchange with jdkazoo123 that I did designate Rush’s “slut” comment about Fluke as “the worst of Rush.” That still doesn’t make it “ad hominem.” Limbaugh also apologized for that insult, something he didn’t often do, but it was pretty clearly a forced apology, though he said it was sincere. His show was losing sponsors over the controversy. Fluke refused to accept the apology.

Here is Ryan’s Comment of the Day on the post, actually the comments on the post, “I Guess It’s Time For Another “Ad Hominem” Lesson.”

***

Watching this exchange, I’ve had to consider a couple of things. First, I never listened to Rush, so I don’t know how his monologue progressed. But I would have to agree that throwing out the term “slut” would poison the well. Compare the following statements:

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethics Dunce: University of California at Santa Cruz”

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

Which crucial American institution, our journalism or our education system, has deteriorated more?

This has become an ongoing inquiry at Ethics Alarms. My official participation in either has been sporadic and marginal—no, I don’t consider writing Ethics Alarms journalism—so I cherish commentary by genuine participants. Fortunately we have a lot of teachers, former and current, who weigh in here regularly. For a long time, one regular reader used EA as an assigned class resource. (If there are any journalists out there who visit this site, they haven’t revealed themselves).

As this Comment of the Day by jdkazoo123 demonstrates, insiders in a profession can identify problems with ethical implications that the rest of us on the outside looking in may never consider. Here it is, a reaction to the post, “Ethics Dunce: University of California at Santa Cruz.” ( I also recommend Ethics Alarms special correspondent Curmie’s response to the COTD at that link.)

…

I agree it’s crazy, but there’s a deeper wrong embedded in the stupid wrong–the salary of adjuncts.

Adjuncts are now essential to the functioning of almost all large higher educational institutions, and most small and medium ones as well. The market is saturated with people with PhDs, and they won’t give up the dream of teaching college easily or quickly. This creates a surplus labor force that ostensibly leftwing admins exploit like robber barons. At the same time, a largely leftwing professoriate goes along with it, wringing their hands, gee what could we do?

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Ethically Provocative Quote of the Month: Duval County School Board Member Charlotte Joyce”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

It has been too long since a Comment of the Day featured Michael West’s commentary; maybe I take his almost always sharp and though-provoking observations for granted. He goes back to 2012, and has graced this blog with 16, 612 comments, many in the course of intense debate.

Here is his Comment of the Day on public education, sparked by the post, “Ethically Provocative Quote of the Month: Duval County School Board Member Charlotte Joyce”…

***

I genuinely feel for the public educators that are *just* trying to do their jobs and seeing parents fleeing to non-public options and are as frustrated as the parents are about the collapse of public education. A large component of my family are either educators or in direct support of educators and they all are frustrated. However, public education under command of the unions are just one more Democrat money laundering, politician-lobbying and vote-buying scheme as educational bureaucracies bloat like a beached whale.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “A Careful Conversation With An Old Friend”

/ Jack Marshall / 9 Comments

See? An Ethics Alarms Comment of the Day does not have to be the length of an honors thesis to qualify for the honor.

This one, courtesy of A.M. Golden, resonated with me the second I read it. The post commented upon was about my discussion last night with a very dear friend—one of those relationships in which it doesn’t matter how long you are apart, it picks up, unchanged, from exactly where it was whether it’s after five minutes or 20 years—who was noticeably wary about expressing a clear opinion on the Hamas-Israel War Ethics Train Wreck in our conversation. Here’s the Comment of the Day, on the post, “A Careful Conversation With An Old Friend,” and I’ll elaborate after you read it….

***

We’ve had more than one careful conversation with a family member here and there myself.

Isn’t it a shame that your Jewish friend felt he had to test the waters before expressing his opinion, though?

We’re losing something precious in this country.

***

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Comment of the Day: ‘Fat-Shaming Ethics'”

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

It’s like Russian dolls! Joel Mundt’s Comment of the Day on the uses of shaming spawned this profound Comment of the Day by Ryan Harkins on the evolution of shame, all triggered by the post, “Fat-Shaming Ethics”:

***

I don’t believe we’ve removed shaming people from our cultural habits. Rather, what has shifted are the things by which we find shame. Out are failing grades, disruptive behavior, criminal record, sex out of wedlock, picking up a welfare check, impoliteness, slovenly appearances, and the like. In are being white, being conservative, using the wrong words, insisting on the reality of biological sex, being male, being trans-exclusive, insisting on merit, and the like. 

Shame is the basic negative feedback that tells us we should not do something. While it can definitely be applied in harmful ways, I don’t think there is a way out of applying shame. Society cannot function if everything is permissible and even applauded. Our efforts, as [commenter] Old Bill has pointed out, to prevent anyone from feeling shame has made a culture that cannot tolerate even the slightest psychological discomfort, and which feels entitled to everything. 

Discomfort prompts us to move. That is why negative reinforcement works. Taking a positive-reinforcement-only approach tries to lure people into moving because of being tempted by a nice reward. But the problem with that is that many people will find remaining in place more tolerable than putting forth the effort for the reward. Many people find the short term pleasure of doing what they want now more tempting than the long term pleasure of self-discipline, attainment, and success. In order to get moving, there has to be something that overpowers the temptation to stay put, and sometimes that something has to be sufficiently painful.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Fat-Shaming Ethics”

/ Jack Marshall / 14 Comments

I have such a strong visceral reaction to this provocative Comment of the Day, a personal account by Joel Mundt, that I’m going to eschew my usual introduction and let you make your own judgments without any influence by me. Here it is, in reaction to “Fat-Shaming Ethics” and the lively comments it has generated so far…

***

I’m going slightly off-topic, and I apologize in advance…

I’m of the opinion that shaming is, to a degree, a good thing. In my opinion, it’s a form of non-physical discipline that emphasizes embarrassment and plays on an individual’s need to be liked and to be more like the collective. It’s a way to manipulate desired behavior using something of a “group intervention.”

A perfect example of this is…well…me. As an elementary student, I had a reputation of being really smart, but also talking out-of-turn an awful lot in class, which was disruptive. My 5th-grade teacher, Mrs. Crooks, sought me out and purposely got my name on her class list. Nobody wanted her as their 5th-grade teacher…she had a terrifying reputation among younger students. I didn’t know it until years later, but she had talked to my parents ahead of time, explaining that I would be her student, and she would break me of my disruptive ways.

And she did her best! I was punished in the most imaginative ways for speaking out of turn, like being ordered to walk around classroom without making a sound for 10 minutes while she taught the other students, or playing the part of the “silent i” in front of the class when learning to spell words like “receive”. She was modestly effective…until the day of “the sign”. I was talking out of turn yet again and Mrs. Crooks told me – in front of the class – that my punishment was to write the words “I’m a big mouth” on a piece of paper, then glue it to a piece of cardboard she gave me with a string in it, then wear it around my neck…outside during our lunch recess with the entire school.

Continue reading →

Comment of the Day: “Presumed Racism Raises Its Obnoxious Head at ‘Social Qs'”

/ Jack Marshall / 5 Comments

Here is another one of Extradimensional Cephalopod‘s measured, rational, provocative and useful formula pieces. There’s a lot here: Hanlon’s Razor, marital advice, the flaws of presumed racism, weenyism…all in all, a top of the line Comment of the Day.

Here it is, in response to “Presumed Racism Raises Its Obnoxious Head at ‘Social Qs”‘…

***

Alright, let’s break this down. Dealing with people acting unreasonable is what led me to learn deconstruction mindset. We can’t always take the easy way out by pretending people don’t exist. Sometimes we have to get constructive.

My values:

  1. Racists should have their views challenged. If I ran into an actual racist doing actual racist things, I’d ask incisive questions to deconstruct their whole paradigm.
  2. It’s more effective to assume a misunderstanding than malice. If it’s a misunderstanding, then it gets resolved normally with minimal fuss. If it’s malice, then the malicious people find themselves having to either spell out that they’re jerks or pretend to be incompetent, both of which have would tend to erode their arrogance. By assuming a misunderstanding we also get the opportunity to demonstrate that we are thoughtful and respectful people.
  3. I would like more people to make a habit of doing all of the above.

Others’ values:

  1. The inquirer’s wife doesn’t trust that other people might just have made mistakes instead of having ill will towards her. Perhaps due to past experiences, she has some reason to assume that they are more likely to be deliberately mistreating her.
  2. She doesn’t want to make the effort to find out for certain if her assumptions about others are correct. She apparently has a habit of avoiding interacting with people she suspects may be racist, because of the painful possibility of having to deal with an actual racist.

Framing the situation constructively:

Continue reading →