Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Bachman-Turner Overdrive II (1973).

A good place to begin evaluating the social justice Left’s redefinition of racism is to point out that power is far too variegated and complex to align so neatly with a simple racial hierarchy. By any measure, a Korean-American journalist with a J.D. from Harvard, who joins the editorial board of one of the world’s most influential media outlets, is a powerful person. The same cannot be said of the online adversaries who trolled her, or the white working-class Trump voters she berated as “literal Nazis.” Jeong, like the social justice leftists who deride the idea that her anti-white tweets were racist, wants things both ways, to exercise power while retaining the moral authority and expressive latitude that come from claiming oppression. An unemployed factory worker in the Rust Belt, by contrast, is obliged by his vast white privilege to self-censor constantly, lest some unguarded remark betray his bigotry and fortify the power structure that victimizes non-whites. If he proves too obtuse to recognize this duty, or too hateful to discharge it, that’s only further proof of racism—his and America’s.

(William Voegeli, "Racism, Revised," Claremont Review of Books 18 [fall 2018]: 24-30, at 28)

Note from KBJ: The "social justice Left" is engaged in what philosophers call "persuasive definition," of which there are four versions:

1. Expand the denotation of a word (such as "racism") that has a negative connotation, with the aim of "persuading" people to form a negative attitude toward things that now fall inside the expanded denotation. Example: Defining "racism" so that white people who refuse to admit being racist are, eo ipso, racist.
2. Contract the denotation of a word (such as "racism") that has a negative connotation, with the aim of "persuading" people not to form a negative attitude toward things that now fall outside the contracted denotation. Example: Defining "racism" so that black, Asian, or other non-white people cannot be, and hence are not, racist.
3. Expand the denotation of a word (such as "liberty") that has a positive connotation, with the aim of "persuading" people to form a positive attitude toward things that now fall inside the expanded denotation. Example: Defining "liberty" as doing or having what is (thought to be) essential to a good life.
4. Contract the denotation of a word (such as "liberty") that has a positive connotation, with the aim of "persuading" people not to form a positive attitude toward the things that now fall outside the contracted denotation. Example: Defining "liberty" so that it excludes freedom of speech.

Leftists are masters of this technique, which is manipulative rather than respectful (and therefore questionable on moral grounds). The end is to change attitudes, and ultimately behavior. The means involve word play. People who are unaware of what is going on can easily fall prey to the technique.

One had to notice Donald Trump’s discomfort at the funeral service for George H.W. Bush. Trump struggled to sit through something that wasn’t all about him. In fact, it was all about what he is not. Speakers eulogized Bush for appealing to our best instincts, not our worst impulses. For sharing credit in victory and shouldering the blame in losses. For his loyalty to the institutions of government. For being respected by world leaders. For his courage and bravery as a war hero. For his honor, integrity, dignity and decency. And for a life code that began with “tell the truth.”

The entire ceremony was a repudiation of Trump and his inadequacy as both a leader and as a man.

Gary Cavalli, Danville

Leakin’ James Comey must have set a record for who lied the most to Congress in one day. His Friday testimony was so untruthful! This whole deal is a Rigged Fraud headed up by dishonest people who would do anything so that I could not become President. They are now exposed!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Here.

Here.

Here is George Neumayr's latest column.

Bachman-Turner Overdrive (1973).

Bioethicists can play a legitimate role in practical bioethical debate. This role derives from the advantages of the division of intellectual labour. Bioethicists may not have privileged access to any distinctive set of ethical facts. Yet they may have genuine expert knowledge of theoretical assumptions and priorities embedded in moral judgements, expert mastery of theoretical distinctions between ethical positions, and detailed knowledge of the difficulties with which all ethical positions are faced. Either form of expertise can make a benign difference in the real world.

Nothing I have said precludes bioethicists from making a contribution to biethical [sic] debate beyond giving a philosophical perspective on the issues. Just as biologists, doctors, lawyers and politicians are not barred by their field of expertise from expressing their opinion about what is morally right and working to implement them within actual institutional contexts, bioethicists are not barred by their field of expertise from expressing their opinion about what is morally right and working to implement them in actual institutional contexts. The potential contribution of any given expert in ethical decision-making is not exhausted by that expert’s domain of expertise.

(Hallvard Lillehammer, "Who Needs Bioethicists?" Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 35 [March 2004]: 131-44, at 143 [footnote omitted])

Note from KBJ: Lillehammer says that "bioethicists are not barred by their field of expertise from expressing their opinion about what is morally right and working to implement them in actual institutional contexts." It sounds as though he is advocating a fallacious appeal to authority. He has said that bioethicists have no "privileged access to any distinctive set of ethical facts." Why, then, should their opinions be given more weight than the opinions of randomly selected people off the street? Does the fact that they are already "inside" the institution somehow give their opinions more weight? Surely that's irrelevant. I was thinking of using this essay in my upcoming Biomedical Ethics course, but this gaffe by the author did him in.