APA Blog

This article gets it mostly right. It was the Douglas culture that damaged Boeing's corporate ethics. Boeing has had a continuous streak of ethical breaches ever since the Douglas "merger" occurred. https://sites.tufts.edu/corruptarmsdeals/the-boeing-tanker-case/ https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/business/boeing-chief-is-ousted-aft… https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jun/21/nasa-doug-loverro-exec… https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2603EZ/ https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/boeing-charged-737-max-fraud-conspiracy… https://blog.apaonline.org/2019/04/08/the-ethical-failures-behind-the-…

> Which also wouldn't always support that conclusion This is a well known issue: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/ https://blog.apaonline.org/2021/03/29/is-effective-altruism-inherently… > As such, Effective Altruism is inherently Utilitarian in character, even if the views are themselves distinct. Criticisms of Effective Altruism on the basis of critiques to Utilitarianism are not only expected, but fair.

"And I'm not surprised that they're just like all other large companies that choose money/PR over accuracy." Whenever you hear "Public Relations" just replace it with "Propaganda" since that is what is always was. https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/07/06/recently-published-book-spotligh… "How Propaganda Became Public Relations: Foucault and the Corporate Government of the Public is a philosophical investigation into the transformative effect propaganda has on us as individuals, on us as publics, and on society more broadly. I argue that propaganda does far worse than just lie to us: modern propaganda aims to transform us into the kind of subjects who carry out a particular line of conduct freely and as a key part of our identity. " Every company engages in propaganda. The fact that you believe Okta from the start was because of their propaganda.

No. The evidence is that ethicists are as moral as everyone else. https://blog.apaonline.org/2019/12/10/why-arent-ethicists-more-ethical…

Yes, the belief that we must base all of our knowledge on science is itself a "religious" belief: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism * https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/01/25/the-problem-with-scientism/

>"but it is incredibly poor journalism and I'm laughing that this made it past NYT editorial board." Its an "Opinion" piece and clearly marked as such on the page, and it does not express nor is it intended to express the opinion of the publication's editorial board but rather solely of the author. I think almost every newspaper of record has an editorial/opinion section, its been a staple for almost a hundred years. APA guidelines for writing Ed-Op pieces. http://blog.apaonline.org/2016/05/23/ten-rules-of-thumb-for-op-ed-writ…

> I mean even the name choice "Tropic Haze" kind of hints at sailing the high seas 1. We know this woman is a witch because she looks like one. 2. We know this woman is a witch because she dresses like one. 3. We know this woman is a witch because she has a wart. 4. We know this woman is a witch because she turned someone into a newt. 5. One burns witches. 6. One burns wood. 7. Witches burn because they are made out of wood. 8. Bridges are made of wood. 9. However, bridges are multiply realizable. They can be built from stone. [Implied] Building a bridge out of the woman will not determine that she is made of wood. 10. Wood floats in water. 11. A duck floats in water [bread, apples, very small rocks, cider, gravy, cherries, mud, churches, lead]. 12. If the woman weighs the same as a duck, then she is made of wood. 13. The woman weighs the same as a duck. 14. Therefore, the woman is a witch. more leaps of logic. [editing to add: with apologies to https://blog.apaonline.org/2019/06/27/monty-python-witch-trial-validit…

Not at all. Pivotal figures in civil rights, such as Du Bois [1] were anti-capitalist and much of contemporary social and legal theory emerged in the 1980s from post-modernism, a direct offshoot of Marxism. The general idea being that if you switch out “class struggle” for “racial struggle” then you get to borrow the rest of Marx’s theory about an oppressed proletariat and the need for revolution to overthrow an oppressive elite. Americans like to use “marxist” as a slur and to use it out of context to attack political enemies but there is no shortage of actual Marxist who label themselves as such, e.g this professor, found randomly by my Googling for 30sec: https://blog.apaonline.org/2020/06/17/black-lives-matter-as-identity-p… Most people have no idea that they’re regurgitating Marxist ideology when they repeat the phrases and arguments they hear, and of course would never identify as such - but there’s no sense in which making this observation is misinformation. Personally I lament the fact that people across the political spectrum are digging ideological holes for themselves instead of focusing on how we can all help each other. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._E._B._Du_Bois

Read these excellent critiques, that'll be easier than just a selection of quotes, or having me rewrite everything in this post. https://blog.apaonline.org/2018/02/20/why-are-so-many-young-men-drawn-… https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/07/how-dangerous-is-jorda… https://www.thecut.com/2018/09/jordan-peterson-threatened-to-sue-femin… https://www.reddit.com/r/ChapoTrapHouse/comments/8kw3ig/jordan_peterso… https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-profound-sadness-in-jordan… https://medium.com/s/story/a-field-guide-to-jordan-petersons-political… https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2018/05/199599/jordan-peterson-men-ma… Jordan Peterson is not a person to admire nor adore.