Entitlement Culture

The tow truck driver knows more about entitlement than any lefty academic

The race-based entitlement that academics peddle is questionable at best.  This is what true entitlement looks like.

It is worth pointing out that the illegally-parked vehicle owners are not the customers of the towing company.  No, the towing company's customer is the property owner.  I think that all the back and forth with the vehicle owners is just for good Youtube content.  I mean, why else bother?  But for us, it does offer a great peek at American entitlement culture.

And sadly, you see this in all public facing businesses.  This is just an extreme example.  In any case, I would argue that entitlement has gotten worse in the last few decades.  I wish some academic would study the causes.  But they are so wrapped up in race and grievance that they pay no attention to the actual entitlement all around us.

Just pay attention; entitlement is everywhere.  People are entitled to tips for no real service.  Others are entitled to tip nothing for actual service.  Parents are entitled to take their unsupervised, misbehaving children everywhere.  Passengers are entitled to take the seat of their choice on airplanes.  So-called influencers are entitled to free stuff and service.  And if we back up just a few years to the time of Covid, just think about the entitlement that people had to tell perfect strangers what to do.  Going to the grocery store was walking through an entitlement minefield.

Today we see people using smartphones without headphones or earbuds.  Some blast music in public on their bluetooth speakers.  Patrons refuse to get off their smartphones when dealing with a cashier, waiter, etc.  Or on public transportation.  The social expectation of respect for others is dead.

Truly, the only way to avoid disrespect for others is to avoid public spaces.  We do try.  And here is something interesting:  There is a class dynamic to this entitlement problem.  Counterintuitive though it may be, higher class environments have less entitlement.  In my observation, entitlement culture is a lower class problem.  And it is intentional.  The mid and upper classes know that it is best to take calls outside, or not at all.  Lower class people have a need to inflict their noise and other entitlements on the people around them.  Why is that?

Anyway, it is getting worse.  What is going on?

𓐵

Pride and Prejudice and Promiscuity

Gay men are not like the rest of us

Yes of course, the men attending a gay pride parade are perhaps overachievers in the field of sexual conquest.  But the stereotype of the promiscuous gay man is long established and accurate.  Do not pretend otherwise.

Gay men want to be treated like everyone else; get married like everyone else; these days, have children like everyone else.  But don't kid yourselves, they are not like everyone else.

I'm pretty liberal about gay people and the gay lifestyle; they can do whatever they like, both in and out of the bedroom.  But this level of promiscuity does not lend itself to marriage and children, not to mention public health.

Yes, these debates are over.  But maybe they need a second, more realistic, look.

The public has largely accepted what gay men do.  Even if most of us do not really want to think about it.  But if a heterosexual man has this many sexual partners, most people would consider that licentious and degenerate.  Here, even the term partner is out of place.  These are not partners in any sense of the imagination.  But I do not know a better term to describe the person on the other side of a daily, one-off, anonymous, sexual encounter.  Of any type.

Well there is slut, right?  But call a gay man a slut and his response is likely to be:  Oh honey, you are so right.  You don't know the half of it.  Look at the men in the above video; they are proud of it.

Regarding a heterosexual man with that amount of sexual activity, some will surely envy his sexual prowess.  But they will also call him a womanizer or a player; and no one is going to consider him marriage material.  But is the heterosexual male slut also proud?  Yeah maybe.  But how many of these guys are there versus what is really normalization on the gay side.

I recently watched the Netflix remake of Alan Alda's The Four Seasons.  And today of course, it includes a married gay couple.  Okay fine.  But in the series, the gay couple pick up an anonymous stranger and take him back to their hotel room to have sex.  Like this is normal.

That is not normal.  I mean it may be normal gay behavior and I do not care if that is what you want to get up to.  Have at it.  But it is not normal marriage behavior.  And this is not the first time I have seen this in a television series.  I saw one production a couple of years ago where the requisite gay couple had multiple outside partners.  Hollywood has decided that this is, in fact, normal and the rest of us should get on board with it.

Now, I am perfectly well aware of the fact that some small number of heterosexual married couples also have so-called open relationships.  But here too, let us not pretend this is normal marriage behavior.  I will add what I always think about when someone is unfaithful to their spouse:  If you do not want to be married, just do not be married.  It is not as complicated as people sometimes want it to be.

Like I said, I do not care what anyone does.  But let us not pretend that gay men are like us.  And if this is normal behavior for you, straight or gay, maybe marriage is not your thing.

𓐵

Have You Ever Actually Watched Any Of His Debates?

The left is an intolerant religion and proud of it

I do not know if this is real or not; I hope it is.  But even if it is not, I think it makes a fair point.  Popular culture, media, and the education establishment endlessly foist left-of-center views on people from the right.  And those on the left need not ever entertain any views from the right.  They are actually proud of this.

Since Charlie Kirk's death, the organization he founded has gone off the rails.  I think he was naive about the people he surrounded himself with; including his own wife.  But that should not diminish his own contributions.  The question asked here is paramount.
𓐵

The Ultimate Excuse For Bad Behavior

It's their culture

It always seems to start with noise in public.  No matter what, public noise, the speakers, the smartphones, loud voices, whatever it is, well, it's their culture.

And because it is their culture, you are not supposed to complain.  And if you do have the temerity to complain, you are expected to accept it's their culture as a legitimate excuse; and let that be the end of it.

Well no, just no.

But noise is only the start.  Bad behavior in restaurants, undisciplined children running amok, cultural scams like the skin tax, praying en masse on the streets and sidewalks, the amplified adhan five times a day, the lack of daily bathing, the failure to respect lines (queues), elastic punctuality, the list is endless.

And don't get me started on table manners and eating habits.  Now I do not care what people eat.  Different cultures eat different things.  But I do care a great deal if your culture attempts to control what I eat.  No, that's really bad, and no, I don't care if it is your culture.  Not even a little.

Lately ghetto and racket behavior are ruining, or threaten to ruin, all public spaces.  But don't you dare complain; you see, it's their culture.

And notice this:  It's their culture is rarely applied to good habits.  Why?  Because few of us notice a culture's good habits.  Why would we?  Oh, he bathes every day?  I hadn't noticed.

So each of us can decide for ourselves whether cultural practices should be accepted.  But I do not accept, cannot accept, the cultural excuse for bad behavior.  Bad behavior is bad behavior.  And here is a dirty little secret that only gets revealed over time and only if you pay close attention.  People are fully aware that their cultural practice is bad.

Does anyone really believe that Pakistani rape gangs are unaware that rape is unneighborly?  The idea is absurd.

One final example that I like to use is people from Holland and Germany and Scandinavia, who love to tell others how direct, blunt, and frank, they are, as a culture.  But I have long suspected that what is really going on is that they use frankness as an excuse for rudeness.  And moreover, they are perfectly well aware that this is what they are doing.  Bad behavior is bad behavior; and rudeness is rudeness.

They all know.  Of course they know.  It's my culture is just the most efficacious excuse.

Remember, culture is what we tolerate.

If you want to improve your culture, do not tolerate bad behavior.
𓐵

Two Trump Supporters Grow Cold

When Trump lost the Carlson brothers, he lost the Right

Watch the whole thing, but the last twenty minutes are truly revealing.

Open questions:  Before his assassination, was Trump about to lose Charlie Kirk's support as well?  Why is the FBI only pretending to investigate Kirk's death?  Who wrote the now famous Tyler Robinson text messages?  Why all the subterfuge surrounding the Kirk assassination?  And most importantly, why does Trump allow Benjamin Netanyahu such latitude to prosecute the Iran war as he sees fit, even though Israel is clearly the very junior partner in this endeavor?

𓐵

On Ghetto Culture

Chad O. Jackson on ghetto culture

Now Jackson refers to this as black culture, and that is his prerogative, but I have met too many decent black people to refer to it this way myself.  I find the more appropriate term to be ghetto culture.  An interesting question for Jackson would be what percentage of black Americans subscribe to ghetto culture?

𓐵

Grammar is a Signal

WSJ:  There's an inverse correlation between power and proper grammar

That's pretty much the long and the short of the whole article (archive).  But I would add that there is a correlation between proper grammar and respect.  So when did power come to mean a lack of respect?

I am a terrible self-editor, but I do make every effort to not make, and certainly not send, grammatical or spelling errors.  But according to The Wall Street Journal, in 2026, this makes me some kind of toady.

Have we become so blasé about written communications that we fail to comprehend that there is an etiquettical dimension to the process?  Or do we just no longer care?

I mean even if I am communicating with a subordinate, I will make every effort to write properly.  I might even make more of an effort, because I would not want them to think I am illiterate, right?  That would be shameful.  Or at least embarrassing.

Well...no.

The authors of this piece seem to be saying that we demonstrate our power by using bad grammar.  Or at the very least, power gives us permission to dispense with proper grammar and editing.  Personally, I think they have been reading way too much Foucault.

But this much is clearly true.  People today like to assume that whomever they are communicating with will not assume that they are illiterate.  The correspondent will simply assume that they are busy or blame the technology or whatever.  Or, they assume that the correspondent will simply believe that they just cannot be bothered.  So there is no embarrassment much less shame.

Is that the message that we want to send?  And if it is, what does that say about us?  Here's a question:  What would your grandmother have thought about your grandfather if his love letters were full of grammatical errors and spelling mistakes?  Maybe you would not be here.

No, consistently bad grammar and spelling is a signal.  He just cannot be bothered.  That's the signal.

Here's my question:  What else is he not bothered about?

If you believe that bad grammar signals something else; maybe it does.  It could represent any number of signals.  But all of them are bad.

And if etiquettical is not a word, I will be ashamed.

𓐵

Again, The Experts Have Spoken

Like the Covid response and transgender mania, Tourette's Syndrome defies common sense

Tourettes activist John Davidson shouts n*gger and b*tch at Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo at the Bafta Awards in London. pic.twitter.com/mrS95IrW41

— Anthony Brian Logan (ABL) 🇺🇸 (@ANTHONYBLOGAN) February 23, 2026

I get the tics part of the syndrome.  We have all met people with tics of one kind or another.  And I can maybe understand, or at least tolerate, the verbal outbursts.  But it is the incendiary nature of these outbursts where I have to draw the line.  When two black men are on stage, a Tourette's sufferer shouts the n-word?  Why not pink elephant?  Or as one black commenter observed, "Why not shout Hallelujah?"  Indeed.

No, this is a bridge too far for me.

And yet every major medical organization supports the idea that this is involuntary.  And they have lined up in uniform to denounce those of us who question the narrative.  Just like they did with the Covid response.  Just like they did with gender confirming healthcare.  And for that matter, just like they did with lobotomies and then tonsillectomies.

We are told that this is a counter-intuitive medical condition and we should just accept the wisdom of the medical experts.

No sorry, I don't buy it.  Expert groupthink is a very real thing with a long and checkered history.

I have not always thought this way.  But today, in any conflict between so-called experts and common sense, I will choose my own common sense.  Every single time.

So what's the issue?

We are told that Tourette's Syndrome sufferers cannot suppress the use of obscene language at inappropriate times.  A condition called coprolalia.  Yet these same sufferers are able to suppress other inappropriate behaviors, say violence, crime, or reckless driving.  So it is only the obscene language that they cannot suppress.  But it seems to me that if these people have a problem with control of one inappropriate behavior, that this would manifest among other behaviors as well.

My theory, and that is all it is, is that they misbehave in this one area because they have been trained, first by their parents, and later by the medical establishment, that there are no consequences.  And they do not misbehave in other areas because they realize that there may very well be consequences of those actions.

Plus I find the use of the word suppress to be interesting.  Personally, I never have to suppress the use of the n-word.  The very idea of using it never occurs to me.  Just like acts of violence, reckless driving, other crime, or misbehavior.  I need not suppress these urges; I do not have them.  So what does it say about someone who needs to suppress bad behavior?  Really, I'm asking.

No, I view Tourette's as a factitious indulgence.  But I confess, I'm just a simple-minded coprolalia bigot.  No doubt the mental health community would dismiss my willful ignorance.  So be it.

This behavior is unacceptable for any occasion.  But I have to add that I have enjoyed both Jordan's and Lindo's work; they are both excellent at their craft.  And they did not deserve this disrespect at an awards ceremony.  Of course, to their credit, they may well be more forgiving than I am.

I had an interesting conversation with Grok on this topic.  It is rather long, but if you are interested in this topic and why it makes people uncomfortable, I think it is worth your attention.  The final three questions are most revealing.  Skip the rest if you like and read those.

𓐵

The Elevator Test

Peter Boghossian on social cohesion

After living in the third world for the last four years, I can assure you this test is valid.  If members of a society never learn to treat each other well, we cannot expect them to come into our societies (of the West) and treat us well.  And this is an obvious test; there are less flagrant attitudes and behaviors.  If high-caste Indians look down on all other Indians, they will undoubtedly look down on you as well.  After all, you are not even Indian, much less Brahmin.

𓐵

That's Funny Youtube

Youtube tweaks its algorithm to laugh at users

All of the below videos have appeared in my feed, in the last couple of days.  This cannot be a coincidence.  Youtube must be doing this on purpose to have fun with people who do not buy into the narrative they are pushing.  I can just imagine some blue-haired, tatted-up, 20-something, with a nose ring, sitting in a Google cubicle somewhere, thinking this is hilarious.

Memo to the adults at Youtube:  This is not helping your cause.

Note:  There were at least a dozen more before I started grabbing screen shots.

𓐵

Ghetto Fatigue

Black people talk common sense about ghetto culture

Zarria Simmons

Amala Ekpunobi

Anton Daniels

Brandon Tatum

Jason Whitlock

Kevin & Keith Hodge

Amir Odom

Rogan Smith

Carmen Jaycee

𓐵

High Caste Lecture

I like to play this game. Every time an Indian origin kid in the West signals their progressive virtue in woke-speak -- from 'yoga is cultural appropriation' to anti-colonialism takes -- I google their last name for caste origins. 10 times out of 10 it is South Indian Brahmin.… https://t.co/DDntpmGaLi

— Zubin (@ZMadon) May 31, 2025

Of course, you Untouchables Deplorables who voted for Trump should listen to your betters.

via Instapundit

𓐵

Minimum Table Manners

When I was growing up, my parents and grandparents were tyrannical about table manners.  It was far too much, and importantly, completely unnecessary.

But is there a minimum level that will suffice?  Let's make a list.  Obviously this is not a list for very informal dining in one's own kitchen.  But if you have guests, are attending a dinner party, or any group, or are dining out, these rules apply.

I have written about this before, but let me just again state that this list applies regardless of culture.

• General principle:  Respect and observe the sanctity of the table.  Maintain decorum, which includes the below rules, and perhaps others as required.  Manners are not for yourself, but for the others at the table.  People who cannot abide by these rules deserve to eat alone.
• Eat/chew with your mouth closed.
• Always use utensils (knives, forks, spoons).
• As a host, you may well provide chopsticks for the comfort of your guests, but never use them yourself.
• Do not put anything into your mouth that has not first been cut into a size that will fit in your mouth.  Actually, quite a bit smaller.  Good manners start with small bites.
• Do not speak with anything in your mouth.
• Smartphones should always be silent, and in fact largely kept away from the table.  Calls should not be made or taken while at the table.  If absolutely necessary, quietly excuse yourself, and take calls away from the table and/or outside of the restaurant.  If other guests abuse this rule, and they will, do not yourself add to the disruption.
• One should always remember that eating together is not about eating.  You can do that alone in the kitchen.  Rather it is about socializing with the others at the table.
• Do not begin eating until everyone at the table has been served.  The only possible exception to this rule is if a restaurant is incompetent and delays one or more entrees.  In which case, the unserved diners should insist that the served diners:  Please, do not let your food get cold.
• It is perfectly acceptable to be the first or last to finish, but try to be roughly in sync with everyone else at the table.  Adjust accordingly as the meal progresses.  If it is a multi-course affair, this rule applies to each course.
• Do not reach.  If you can reach something on the table without standing and without reaching over someone and/or their plate, really without reaching through the airspace of their entire place setting, then fine, help yourself.  Otherwise, politely ask someone to pass the item or dish to you.  Always pass salt and pepper together.
• Supply and use napkins.  If you are the host, supply more napkins than needed.
• Babies do not belong at the table.  Children can be brought to the table only once they have mastered these basics.  Never arrive with uninvited children.
• Only eat and drink or not eat and drink what is provided.  Never make special requests.  As a host, in order to insure maximum comfort for your guests, you may well ask about dietary restrictions or preferences.  But if this is not initiated by the host, let that be the end of it.  If you cannot abide by this rule, you should decline all dining invitations, and only yourself host.  Other people are not responsible for your idiosyncrasies.
• However, if you are hosting a vegan dinner party or some other such misadventure, make sure that your guests know in advance this is what you are doing.  Being the host also does not make other people responsible for your idiosyncrasies.
• In a restaurant, it should be extremely rare (maybe once in a lifetime) to send anything back to the kitchen.  The reason for this rule is that some people use this tactic, and often that is exactly what it is, to assert their dominance.  It is a low class move.  If the food is not up to your expectations, the way to deal with this is to not return.
• Similarly:  Rarely, if ever, complain about anything.  Simply keep a stiff upper lip and do not return.  No, not even a quiet word to the manager on the way out; no, not even after you have paid the bill.  No matter how discreet you are about it, the restaurant is going to believe you are looking for something for free.  This is not really about restaurant assumptions; it is about how in fact other people behave.

Are there more?  Of course; people write books on this stuff.  The more esoteric rules are full of nuance and context and require more study and practice than a simple list can provide.  But here I have tried to distill the basics.  Because as I look around me, even the basics seem to be lost.

𓐵

Astronaut Question

Here's a question:  If we are going to send women into space, can we not find women smart enough to use a hair tie?



And no, this question is not meant to be rhetorical, ironic, mean, or even sarcastic or funny.  It is just a simple, straightforward query.

For anyone who would argue that, intentionally or not, this is mean, I would say that it only seems mean because it is true.  She looks like Medusa, and either she is too dumb to realize it, or I suppose it could be a conscious decision.  Either way, question stands.

Here is one other question:  Is Butch, next to her, too unkind to tell her?  Hey Suni, maybe you should tie your hair back before we go on camera.  Maybe he is just living up to his name; laughing at her.

𓐵

Narcissistic Wannabe Thugs

The other day I was in the supermarket and I noticed an American fellow covered in tattoos.  Of course, it's a pretty common sight these days.  But I noticed something about this fellow and it made me think back to what I have noticed about other heavily tattooed men.

This guy sort of strutted around.  You know, chest puffed out, lots of swagger and bravado, etc.  It was as if he was walking through the prison yard and he wanted to make sure he was sending the right message to his...fellow travelers.

There seem to be two types of men who get heavily tattooed.  The beta males who want to appear more masculine.  They most often fail – Hey, they are what they are.  And the alpha males who are over-invested in their masculinity and they need others to know it.  The guys come closer to their goal; it's sort of an in your face aggressiveness.  The don't mess with me prison yard meme.  And I guess that's fine, if you are actually in a prison yard.  But it looks a bit out of place in the supermarket.

And yes, I think these guys have turned themselves into memes.  I mean, I know some legitimate bad asses.  Believe me, they don't need a bunch of tattoos to convey the message.  And I've certainly never seen them strut around.  Not once.  In fact, all legit bad asses that I've met are pretty low key.

I can only assume this peacocking is what peacocking is always about:  Women.  I've seen recent polls that confirm young women think men with tattoos are more masculine and dominant.  And I know that there is a certain type of woman who likes the Andrew Tate, aggressive male persona.  Nowadays these women are easy to spot because they often have their own share of tattoos.  Though mind you, not in every case.

I've made the point before that the degeneration of men that we see today largely stems from the abandonment of standards by women.  That is, if women did not like this behavior, then men would not behave this way.  Men would not dress like thugs and act like thugs if women did not want thugs.  Or at least thug wannabes.

Now there is at least one other element of the strutting tattooed man worth considering.  Acquiring so many tattoos is a fundamentally narcissistic pursuit.  One might argue that one or two tattoos are a personal artistic indulgence or remembrance.  But to get a sleeve or more, that has the look at me quality of the true narcissist.  Tattoos have become a manifestation of narcissism:  Look at me, look at me!

The self-esteem movement, followed by social media proliferation have turned a whole generation into raging narcissists.

Tattoos were sure to follow.

𓐵

How to Deal with Difficult People

Rule:  People who are difficult to talk with are almost always not worth the effort.

I was raised to believe that we should be nice to everyone.  I was later educated to believe that we can learn something from everyone.  I guess if you put these together what you get is that everyone has something useful and interesting inside them, and even if it is difficult, we should tease it out.  We should give everyone the opportunity to demonstrate their inner worthiness.  Think about the crusty academic who never really mastered social skills, but is brilliant in his field.

Do those people exist?  Absolutely.  I have met plenty of people like this, and yes, learned something from them.

But at some point I realized that never really mastered social skills was not some benign little flaw.  The sort of shortcoming that should be overlooked because of their brilliance.  If they have not mastered basic social skills it is because they do not care about basic social skills.  And that almost always means they do not care about...you.

And of course, that is absolutely fine if they are Albert Einstein.  But what if they're not?  What if they are some mediocre academic?  Or your roommate?  Your neighbor?  I mean, how many people are Albert Einstein?  If you live next to Steve Jobs, and he's a jerk, it's understandable, even forgivable.  But if you live next to Fred Smith?  That is something altogether different.  And let's be honest, most of us are Fred Smith.

So if someone is difficult to talk with, you have a cost-benefit analysis to run in your head.  Ask yourself, what are the odds that this person is worth the effort to overcome his or her rudeness to discover their inner light?  If you are the generous type, you might also ask yourself, what are the odds that this brilliant (or charming) person is just having a bad day?  Because of course we all do on occasion.

So will you sometimes answer the question incorrectly?  No doubt.  Sometimes you will ignore a rude brilliant person.  And hopefully less often, you will engage with a rude mediocre person.

We only have so much time.  Personally, I'd rather risk making the first error.

𓐵

Trashy America

Will Smith, Chris Rock, and the Rules of the Street

I remember Will Smith from the Fresh Prince days.  I did not really watch the show, but I would see it occasionally, and Smith was indeed very funny.  But he really came to my attention with the 1993 film Six Degrees of Separation.  His performance was dazzling.  But over the last thirty years, I stopped going to the movies.  And I rarely see any of the blockbusters or blockbuster-wannabe's that command the likes of the movie star that Will Smith has become.  The one exception was the 2007 film I Am Legend.  It was no Six Degrees, but it was another excellent performance and, at the time, an interesting script.  Today I would argue that I Am Legend is a must see film, especially for all the little Covid totalitarians.

In any case, to the extent that I think about movies and Hollywood, which is very little, I have always maintained a high opinion of Smith as an actor.  Of course, as with all actors, I have no idea of what kind of man he is.  I am vaguely aware that he and his wife have some sort of unconventional marriage.  But I don't follow any of that closely enough to know the details.

I don't think I have ever watched the Academy Awards.  Perhaps once as an adolescent.  And Sunday night was no exception.  The truth is, I did not even know it was happening.  And even now, I would not typically know that it had happened.  Except that, within hours, it appeared on my favorite website, Instapundit.  Even there I would have ignored it but for the fact that this is not the sort of material that normally appears on the site.  So something highly unusual must have happened.  Earthquake was my first thought.

No need to rehash the details here.

Now, if you have an occasion to spend time with our criminal elements in their natural habitat, I would like to give you one little piece of advice on how to comport yourself.  Be respectful.  Not obsequious, just respectful.  If circumstances call for firmness, fine, be respectfully firm.  To everyone.  Especially to those who don't deserve it.  Why?  Because respect is a big deal in these quarters and any perceived disrespect may lead to violence.  If you are a big guy with a gun, maybe it does not matter.  But if you are a small guy with no gun, use some common sense.  Oh and one more thing, leave your wife at home.

Is it right?  Maybe not.  But hey, this is the street.  And they have their own rules.  When in Rome....

Besides, when you get back home, to your safe neighborhood, in your safe, law-abiding community, you can get back to your normal self.  You can hit that new restaurant that just opened, maybe take in a movie, visit the wine bar on Main Street.  Or hey, maybe a comedy club.  And you don't have to worry about the rules of the street.

Right?

Well no.  In America in 2022, the rules of the street are now just the rules.

I did not care enough to write about this incident until I noticed who was getting all the support.  And it was not Chris Rock.  So it's not only that Will Smith is a thug who lives by the rules of the street, it is that most Americans are on his side.

And don't think I'm letting women off the hook here.  There is no doubt that Smith was egged on by his wife.  She felt aggrieved by a comedian, so she sent her man to defend her honor.  Violently.  She loved it; of course she did.  I have witnessed this dynamic myself, and it is becoming more common.  Can there be any doubt that America is in cultural regression?

I heard Jesse Watters on Fox News ask:  What if instead of Will Smith, it had been, say for instance, Mel Gibson?  Would Americans be equally supportive of a white man attacking a black man over a harmless joke?  Where is the real privilege?

And yes, it was harmless.  Perhaps ill-chosen, but certainly not malicious.  The fact that Will and Jada Pinkett Smith did not recognize this immediately, and their graceless response, speaks volumes about their character.  And the character of all of their supporters.

Graceless?  Let's call it what it is:  Trashy.  I can think of no other word for it.

No one doubts how beautiful she is.  Certainly not Chris Rock.  One possible graceful response?  Jada should have stood up and taken a bow.  Given the fact that most people in that room seemed to know that she has alopecia, she would have received a standing ovation.  Look, it's simple baldness, not cancer; but never-mind that.  Instead she showed us her all too common ugly side.  Her genuine side.

Sadly, this whole episode is a vivid reflection of America in 2022.

I have said it before and I will say it again:  These are not my people.

𓐵

The White Pebble

Who do you want to be?

*** Click if not crisp ***

From the brilliant Hugh MacLeod.

I'm not religious at all.  In fact, I'm an atheist and an anti-theist.  But what does it matter?  MacLeod's question is:  Who are you, really?  I might change it to:  Who do you want to be?

~~~

I have been giving a lot of thought to integrity.  Not just professional integrity, but more generally, living a high integrity life.  And being honest with ourselves and others.

There's been a lot of discussion of emotional intelligence since Daniel Goleman's 1995 book, Emotional Intelligence, appeared.  But there is less discussion on emotional integrity.  If you run this Google search, you'll find lots of mushy, feel-good, self-help type articles.  I can't say that I found any of them very helpful.

I did find this definition:

Emotional integrity is the courage to acknowledge one’s true feelings, wants and desires without judging them with the societal lens.  In essence, it is about being 100% honest with oneself.  If one is just emotionally intelligent without being emotionally honest, the benefit will at best be temporary and skin deep.

I find the idea of emotional integrity appealing.  But I'm not really happy with this definition.  My concern is that this can be selfish, right?  If we are honest, yes of course, feelings, wants, and desires can be selfish.  But actions need not be.  It seems to me that acknowledging selfishness should be part of the process.

We all have selfish desires now and again.  Of course we do.  But while we can and should acknowledge these, I don't think mere acknowledgement is the only thing that matters.  It is not enough.  What matters more is how we comport ourselves in the face of our own desires.  While some of us can transcend selfishness, most of us are less saintly, and have to act appropriately in spite of it.  That takes real integrity.

It is worth remembering that it is not only our own well-being or fulfillment or even happiness that matters.  Yes, we want and deserve these qualities.  But at what cost?  Integrity demands that we consider others and the consequences of our actions.

But I do like his courage to acknowledge line.

So let me take a stab at my own definition:

Emotional Integrity:  The courage to acknowledge one’s true feelings, wants, and desires, to ourselves and to others, and not being afraid to act unselfishly on those emotions.  Even if misunderstood or not shared or not reciprocated by others.

That is a pretty high standard.

𓐵

On Atheistic Morality

Can one be moral without religion?

A few years ago I heard Glenn Beck talking about the origin of his morality.  His conclusion:  It comes from his faith and his religion.  I think this is probably true for him.  And true for most people.  But then Beck went on to further conclude that all morality comes from religion, and that without religion, a man cannot live a moral existence.

Now I am an atheist and an anti-theist, but I think that I am quite moral.  Who doesn't, right?  So of course Beck's comments struck a cord.  I asked myself:  So where does your morality come from?

The late Christopher Hitchens liked to make the point that he certainly hopes that his morals do not originate in religion – Because religion so often includes cruel mandates and examples.  I have also heard Richard Dawkins make this same point.  But I think this is unfair.  When a Christian says, I get my morals from the Bible, I think it is fair to conclude that he is talking about the New Testament and not the Old.  Certainly not all of the Old anyway.

So I confess, my first instinct was to sort of agree with Beck.  I was raised in the church and it was easy to assume that I had adopted Christian morality.  But with a great deal of thought, I came to realize that this was not true.  So...where does my personal morality originate?

For me, it boils down to two and only two common principles:

One:  Treat others the way you wish to be treated.

Two:  Live and let live.

Now the first, the Golden Rule, appears in almost all religions.  It is certainly found in the bible.  But I would note that there is absolutely nothing divine about this commandment.  Or if you prefer, injunction.  In fact, I would argue that it is entirely practical.  We may treat others well out of the goodness of our heart.  Or not.  But we hope that they will return the favor.  Some don't, but most do.

The second principle is quite interesting.  Most people agree with it in theory.  Just ask them (as I have).  But very few seem to be able to follow it.  People want other people to believe in their god, to join their church or political party or environmental crusade, and to basically think and act like themselves.  This seems to be human nature.  And when others fail to do so, this can and does lead to various levels of separation and dispute.

I have read enough on the subject of atheistic morality to know that quite often the authors want it to be complicated.  Perhaps it should be.  Perhaps I am missing something or oversimplifying it.  Perhaps I do not understand all of the nuance and complexities.  Yes perhaps.

But I think it is completely unnecessary to make this complicated.  These two rules pretty much cover it.  So much so, that I have never thought of a third principle that I needed to add.

So there you go:  My version of morality without God.  Your own mileage may vary.

𓐵

On Comportment

I started this blog as a sort of journal.  A journal of ideas I find interesting and ideas that I am perhaps struggling with.  Writing helps me understand the issues and how I think, or should think, about them.  Posting online, others can read along...or not.

One focus of my writing over the last year has been on the way people treat each other.  The way we act towards and interact with others.  Not only our behavior, but our entire conduct, attitude, demeanor, and actions.  Do we treat others properly and with respect?  Are we honest?  Kind?  Sincere?  Do we follow the Golden Rule?  Do we follow the Waiter Rule?

In short:  Is our behavior towards others ethical?

And also, how should we deal with unethical behavior?  Of course we should forgive mistakes.  But surely remorse is a prerequisite for forgiveness.  So how should we deal with ongoing, and perhaps even willfully unacknowledged bad behavior?

For my own clarity, I want to group these posts together.  I thought about simply labeling them:  Decency, or maybe decorum or propriety.  Or including them with:  Grace.  But I seem to write more often about the dereliction of these qualities.  Going forward, hopefully that will change.

So searching for a more neutral term, I will label these posts:  Comportment.

Oxford English Dictionary:

comportment, noun

Personal bearing, carriage, demeanor, deportment; behavior, outward conduct, course of action.

And to be fully clear, I mean comportment towards others, both ethical and unethical, moral and immoral, decent and lacking decency.  Demonstrations of goodwill and malevolence and indifference; the well-considered and the ill-considered, the thoughtful and the thoughtless, the graceful and the graceless, etc.

But I think what makes comportment most interesting to me is this:  How we comport ourselves is a choice.  We all choose how to behave.  Never forget that.
𓐵