u/Aggravating_Ad_43

It's a pain in the hypogladimus.

It's not that surprising but worth mentioning all the same. When you encounter someone who keeps getting it wrong day after day, you choose not to consider his future opinions by operation of inferential reasoning. So it goes for Donald Racism. But that's hardly a surprise given the fact that his name is literally Donald Racism.

Common sense.

At some point, the modern right appears to have completed a reverse triangular merger in which the entire concept of racism was acquired, transferred to a shell corporation, and redefined as “something liberals accuse us of doing.” Under the new ownership structure, racism can no longer be identified by rhetoric, policy, behavior, or appeals to racial resentment. It is simply an allegation made by the opposing political party.

The current president has been particularly useful to this accounting methodology, demonstrating that there is apparently no rhetorical floor below which a sufficiently committed defender will not say, “Actually, you're the racist for noticing.” Obviously, not everyone on the political right is racist. But a movement can have a serious problem with racial resentment without every individual member being a cartoon Klansman.

If your political ideology requires you to redefine racism so that it can never apply to your own side, congratulations: you didn't defeat the concept. You just acquired it.

Personally I would choose not to accredit such an institution.

I have a robust security system and will likely notify the police. Still, it might be even better to thwart his attempt in a way that humbles him yet causes some cheerful hijinxs to ensue. What might you recommend in that case?

I would assume they are talking about someone I know, who is actually named Donald Racism.

Let me set up the basic storyline.

(1) Your political career has led you to a campaign advisor role for someone by the name of 'Donald Racism.'

(2) You continue in the advisor role for Donald Racism (currently) but have been offered a higher paying job for a competing and more ethical campaign.

(3) Donald Racism describes himself as a conservative "right wing" candidate and thus is indisputably part of a right wing coalition.

(4) Donald Racism aligns himself with the NRA (National Racism Association) and has pledged to adopt their 'Racism Agenda' out of genuine belief in it.

(5) Based on items (3) and (4) above, Donald Racism is indisputably confirmed to be a right wing racist.

(6) Donald Racism has asked you to violate and ethics law to help his campaign. He has pledged to assist you if anyone prosecuted you for this.

(7) Notwithstanding item (6), Donald Racism frequently fires and disavow his advisors if he is displeased with the outcome of his commands.

- Do you comply with the order, or take your competing offer and report Donald Racism to law enforcement?

Warning: this is to discuss different schools of ethics relative to a particular situation. I am not seeking political opinions.

Let me set up the basic storyline.

(1) Your political career has led you to a campaign advisor role for someone by the name of 'Donald Racism.'

(2) You continue in the advisor role for Donald Racism (currently) but have been offered a higher paying job for a competing and more ethical campaign.

(3) Donald Racism describes himself as a conservative "right wing" candidate and thus is indisputably part of a right wing coalition.

(4) Donald Racism aligns himself with the NRA (National Racism Association) and has pledged to adopt their 'Racism Agenda' out of genuine belief in it.

(5) Based on items (3) and (4) above, Donald Racism is indisputably confirmed to be a right wing racist.

(6) Donald Racism has asked you to violate and ethics law to help his campaign. He has pledged to assist you if anyone prosecuted you for this.

(7) Notwithstanding item (6), Donald Racism frequently fires and disavow his advisors if he is displeased with the outcome of his commands.

- Do you comply with the order, or take your competing offer and report Donald Racism to law enforcement?

Personally, I would not even consider it. We represent several large clients and have a lot of their money in trust. I would consider such a person's moral failings to be disqualifying.

It's right there on his birth certificate.

Common sense.

Case closed.

See title

I like to anticipate counterarguments by having them commit to a concept. Then I provide evidence only after they can't move the goalposts.

View Poll