What amazing ethics stories will you uncover today?

I’m going to let Prof. Turley handle the follow-up to this post, which he did yesterday quite nicely. In “You’re Not Alone”: Reporters Comfort Those Triggered and Traumatized by Scenes of Patriotism” the red-pilled George Washington University Law School professor expressed his dismay and disgust at “how some in the media found the entire demonstration of patriotism to be intolerable and triggering.” He was speaking of the Axis media’s Trump Derangement that the Mad Left transferred to the U.S. hockey team. Turley wrote in part,

“The HuffPost even published an article with therapeutic advice for liberals triggered by seeing so many American flags. The liberal publication ran an article titled “There’s a Name for the Discomfort You’re Feeling Watching the Olympics Right Now.” It then published it a second time before the gold-medal hockey game with Canada — presumably to prepare its readers for the nightmare of the United States actually winning. The subheading read, “If waving the American flag or chanting ‘USA!’ turns you off right now, you’re not alone.”

“Senior writer Monica Torres began the article with this line: “While President Donald Trump’s deportation agenda separates families, and federal agents detain 5-year-olds and kill unarmed civilians, American athletes are winning medals on behalf of the nation at the Olympics right now.”

“Torres goes on to interview three therapists for this “story” about how the celebration of the United States team has forced many liberals into therapy over their trauma and “the cognitive dissonance of rooting for U.S. sports.”

“Los Angeles-based licensed clinical social worker Aimee Monterrosa explained that the “atrocities” of the United States can trigger feelings of guilt, despair, shame, anger” in seeing the country celebrate these sports victories.

“Expert Lauren Appio echoed how “waving the American flag or chanting, ‘USA!’ [can make] us feel grossed out or ashamed.”

I was going to write a follow-up to this post centering on the amazing comments by The Athletic, the New York Times owned sports website, which criticized the U.S. hockey team for taking a congratulatory call from their President and coming to the SOTU address. “This isn’t a neutral climate,” he wrote. “This isn’t a neutral president. And in a nation this polarized, the proximity carries weight whether the players are being intentional or merely naive.” Both The Athletic and Vox claimed the star of the Olympics was…wait for it…Elaine Gu, the American who accepted millions to skate for China, an international criminal and enemy of the U.S.

Trump is, of course, being criticized for saying in Tuesday’s performance, “These people are crazy.” I believe that statement was one of his best, and should have the same delayed effect as Ronald Reagan’s pronouncement that the Soviet Union was an “evil empire.”

Because, you know, they really are crazy.

Over to you, Clarence…

Rob Jenkins, a tenured associate professor of English at Georgia State University, recently wrote at Campus Reform about his interaction with a “gender studies” professor who took umbrage at his January op-ed criticizing Georgia’s university system for its “public syllabi head-fake.”

His point was that many professors hide their course’s political and social agendas behind sketchy course syllabi released publicly that don’t accurately represent what is being taught. In response, the state’s Board of Regents declared that instead of merely filling in a template with selected information, now faculty at public universities must publish the entire syllabi that they distribute to students.

Prof. Jenkins was pleased, but received an email from a colleague who described herself as a “gender studies professor.” She grilled him on why he put “transgender” in scare quotes, and what he thought were appropriate topics “in classes that discuss gender, sexuality, identity, and racial politics.” Jenkins answered that he puts “transgender’ in quotation marks because he believes people can’t change their sex and that the whole fad is manufactured. He also said that he doesn’t believe any topic is appropriate for classes that discuss gender, sexuality, identity, and racial politics because he thinks “gender studies” are a phony discipline that should not be taught at all.

The female professor didn’t like that, She accused Jenkins of promoting “right-wing” ideology and implied that he would be biased against LGBTQ students in his classroom. Jenkins wrote that her assumption is demonstrably false; I would add that it tells me that the “gender studies” prof is biased against students in her classroom who don’t toe the progressive line.People who can’t tolerate dissenting opinions and whom bias has made stupid usually assume everyone else is the same way.

Then, Jenkins writes, he discovered his woke critic wasn’t a “gender studies professor,” but a “history professor teaching mostly sophomore-level survey courses.” She just turned her history courses into propaganda on “gender, sexuality, identity, and race politics.”

“That’s exactly the sort of thing the state’s public syllabi policy is intended to expose: professors using their classroom to advance a political agenda that has, at best, a tenuous connection to the subject matter,” Jenkins writes. But how many state colleges around the country allow and facilitate woke ideological propaganda? How many glassy-eyed, brainwashed, doctrinaire progressives lurk on faculties, seeing the indoctrination of our rising generations as their sacred duty?

My guess: far too many. A daunting number. For society, the culture and our nation, a crushing number.

And to that I say, “Bite me.”

Shadé Zahrai, a CNBC contributor, weighs in with her advice regarding “one of the most effective ways to stop a manipulator.“ She says that the magic phrase is: “That’s interesting. Tell me more.”

This is passive-aggressive weenieism, as well as dishonest. I don’t tell people that I find something interesting unless it is, in fact interesting. Doing so is a lie. If I’m using “interesting” sarcastically but want “the manipulator” to think I’m sincere, that’s deceit, another form of dishonesty. Much of the time the “expert’s” use of “That’s interesting” is just another version of “Why bless your heart!”

So the expert says that the way to foil “manipulators” is to be manipulative. How expert of her! She recommends versions of her all-purpose defense if someone is trying to subtly coerce you, if someone is trying to guilt-trip you, and if someone is trying to gaslight you. Her discovery is nothing but warmed over 70’s era versions of the obnoxious (and and manipulative) deflections “I hear you” and “I acknowledge the validity of your feelings.” It’s conflict avoidance when conflict is needed.

If someone attacks me with an unfounded or unfair accusation, I might say, “Ok, produce your evidence, if you have any.” I might say, “That doesn’t deserve a response.” I might say, “What’s the matter with you?” But “That’s interesting” isn’t in the cards.

I don’t find it interesting when someone denies what I know to be true. I’ll say, “Nope, you’re wrong; your memory has betrayed you, or you’re lying. Which is it?” If someone says, “After everything I’ve done for you, this is how you repay me?” I will say, “I’m not repaying you. I’m doing what I believe has to be done, and our past interaction has nothing to do with it. I’m sorry my decision upsets you.” If someone says, “If you really cared, you’d agree with me, ” I’ll respond with, “Don’t try that emotional blackmail on me. It’s insulting, and I resent it.”

All around us now we are under psychological attack by people who want us be passive, fearful wimps, terrified on taking on liars, bullies and jerks directly. Don’t let them get away with it.