banned commenters

House Cleaning: Mystery Solved (Maybe)…The Identity Of EA’s Current Banned Anti-Semite Commenter Has Been Revealed!

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

Welcome to my world.

While you may think I spend my Ethics Alarms hours researching every imaginable source for interesting stories with ethics lessons to teach and then writing posts, and then responding to as many comments on the post as possible (70,000 such responses so far), which I believe makes me unique among bloggers with the number of commenters that I have. I also have to deal with the annoying task of blog moderation. That onerous and icky job is made more so when I am forced to ban a commenter for violating the clearly stated comment policies; it get particularly annoying when a banned commenter keeps finding ways to sneak in comments anyway post-banning, which almost all of them do, validating my judgment that they don’t have the ethical compass necessary to contribute here.

The most recent comment-bomber has been virulent anti-Semite Cassandra’s AI Agent, who hasn’t come close to the record number of unauthorized comments as the pompous A Friend, but it’s early yet. In the most recent spammed comment, which CAA posted at least three times, he/she/or it claims to be virulent anti-Semite Alizia Tyler, who was banned for using every topic to engage in her Jew-hating hobby. Many commenters had hypothesized that earlier, and I demurred, for several reasons. CAA has a different email address than Alizia, and unlike Alizia, doesn’t write like a bot, or as profusely. CAA is also an asshole, which Aliza was not. I’ve had off-site exchanges with Alizia in which I found her to be committed to being a productive commenter, even asking me whether I felt she should stop commenting in the best interests of Ethics Alarms.

If Alizia is in fact CAA, she’s clearly snapped. And because CAA is an unethical asshole, I can’t take anything he/she/or it says as necessarily true.

Pages: 1 2

A Few Notes About Banned Commenters…

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

1. Good, I’m glad they are gone.

2. The latest bannee, “Jude” managed to get me to respond to a couple of unauthorized comments post-banning. (This is because he wasn’t around long enough for me to remember his name.) In the unauthorized comments, since sent to spam hell, he illustrated the basis for his banishment by stating, with absolute certainly, that the experience I described here was triggered by a scam, and that I made a dumb mistake by calling both the collection agency (a law firm) and the company that had mistakenly charged me. I had been phished, Jude the Obscure Asshole insisted. No, I replied, I had not been phished, and I have sufficient experience with such things to have checked. Jude just arrogantly insisted that he was right and I was wrong, without any of the information I had that he did not.

I just received an email from AfterPay USA. It reads,

“Hi Jack, Thank you for your patience regarding your ID Theft Claim – Disputed Liability with respect to Afterpay account 10082791185.
Afterpay has concluded our investigation and your ID Theft claim has been accepted. You will not be held liable for Afterpay account 10082791185 or any debt incurred from this account.

What does this mean?

  • Afterpay Account 10082791185 has now been closed. 

Thank you,

Vivien
Global Fraud Senior Specialist

I was right. Jude was wrong. So Jude can bite me.

Pages: 1 2

A Happy Valentine’s Day To All, And To “A Friend,” A Gift!

/ Jack Marshall / 21 Comments

Behold (below) yet another “smoking gun” delineating the bias and lack of objectivity and integrity of the New York Times. The paper is the very model of a modern “dishonest waiter”, for all of its double standards, contradictions and hypocrisy goes one way: to advance progressive agendas and Axis propaganda. See?

Yet for years now, self-banned commenter “A Friend” has comment section-bombed Ethics Alarms with defenses of the New York Times when it is criticized here, usually with posts beginning with “Come on, Jack!” These get sent to EA Spam Hell when they show up as soon as I see them of course, each one putting “A Friend” even deeper on the black list than he already is.

Today, however, to show my love for all of this blog’s readers, even the trolls, deranged and assholes, I will offer a symbolic temporary suspension of “A Friend’s” ban, if he offers a sincere, rational, defense of the Times’ “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias!” performance in this case.

Can he (or anyone) rebut my conclusion that the Times, forever allying itself with climate change confirmation bias victims, has proven that it will contrive an argument that literally any occurrence, statistics or phenomena is proof of the dire effects of climate change according to “scientists,” which often means to the Axis media of which it is a charter member, “some old guy with a duck on his head holding the Bozo Chair in Chemistry at Itawamba Community College that we found after searching for a week.”?

The offer will stand for 48 hours.

I’m expecting great things.

Open Forum!

/ Jack Marshall / 52 Comments

open_sesame

This is as good a place as any to announce a new commenting rule on Ethics Alarms that I should have thought of earlier.

On a post from June, a new commenter entered the fray making the increasingly popular Rationalization #64 claim that the kiddie versions of Critical Race Theory that are being used as propaganda in schools (the “1619 Project” course materials qualify) aren’t really CRT, which is “only taught in law schools.” (I’m not sure it is taught in law schools at all, since it has nothing to do with law.) When I replied that I didn’t appreciate that kind of disinformation on Ethics Alarms, he devolved into outright insults and the clichéd “Good day, sir!” exit that I’m still sick of, though it hasn’t surfaced in a while. I banned him of course (I was being generous to allow his first comment on, in retrospect: I’m looking for articulate progressives, but this jerk was a poor candidate), and I warned him about defying the ban, as he had the whiff about him of someone who would. Sure enough, he tried to return with successively more insulting retorts, which were promptly deleted.

This inspired me to launch the new rule: If a commenter is banned, and comes back and comments anyway, all of that commenter’s previous comments and posts will be sent to Spam Hell.

This isn’t an ex post facto edict, so the mercifully few past commenters who did this won’t be penalized (and I would not want to lose the contributions from the best of them). It also won’t apply to the self-banned going forward.

So that’s that.

Now, please contribute your usual provocative and ethical observations in this week’s Open Forum.

Noon Ethics Warm-Up, 9/10/2019: Fat-Shaming, Race-Baiting, And Terrorist-Tarring [UPDATED]

/ Jack Marshall / 34 Comments

ARRGH!! Half-way through the day, and not out of my pajamas yet!

1. Here’s the kind of comment that won’t get an aspiring  new commenter approved…From Erik Guettler: “It’s sad that you think you actually know anything about ethical behavior by criticizing Bill Maher, while Donald Trump’s the most unethical, openly racist and corrupt president Americans have ever had.”

The comment fails on many levels. To begin with, it’s stupid (there is a stupidity justification among the Ethics Alarms banning tenets.) Criticizing Maher for his frequent absence of functioning ethics alarms cannot make me think I know anything about ethical behavior. The opposite is true: it is because I am an ethicist that I criticize Maher, though it hardly requires an expert to recognize his unethical conduct.A relatively well-raised 17-year-old could do it.

Second, the comment breaches basic ethical analysis principles, not to mention common sense: President Trump’s conduct is irrelevant to how unethical Maher is, as is my criticism, or not, of the President. Third, his list of Trump failings is—oooh! Let me finally use this!—NPC junk. Neither he nor anyone can find me any “openly racist” conduct or statements on the President’s part, for this is one of the Big Lies (#4, to be exact.) I have gone through this dance with many Trump Deranged Facebook friends. Challenged to back up the “openly racist” lie, they babble about how he challenged Obama’s birth certificate, and go downhill from there. The statement that he is the “most unethical” President, personally or professionally,  is proof of historical ignorance and bias. Unethical he is, but whether Trump’s lack of ethics is more or less substantive than that of Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Jack Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton is a matter of legitimate disagreement. The “corrupt” accusation is also non-substantive, unproven, and based on supposition and bias rather than evidence.

But never mind all that: the claim that Ethics Alarms has somehow ignored Donald Trump’s ethics deficits is so easily disproved that the insulting comment is an example of reckless disregard for the truth.

Bite me, Erik.

And don’t come back.

2. While we’re on the topic of Mr. Maher’s ethics…Here is the professional asshole in his most recent HBO episode:
Continue reading →

On Basic Blog Participation Ethics [Updated]

/ Jack Marshall / 79 Comments

I just had to spam 14 comments, come of them quite extensive, a couple gratuitously insulting, by a former privileged participant here who has been banned from commenting following the procedures described quite clearly under the Comments policies above. That all of these illegal comments arrived exactly during the time when I was unable to visit or moderate Ethics Alarms because of a speaking engagement was either a remarkable coincidence or bad luck. The Mexican army attacked while the Alamo [no, not “Amazon,” as I wrote the first time.] defenders were asleep, too. It’s a crummy thing to do, and, of course, unethical. Continue reading →