see if you can find a pattern here:

* positive press drives engagement
* shameful acts and bad pubicity drives engagement
* bad publicity is automatically seen as good publicity by group A if it is perceived as making group B mad
* shameful acts are perceived as being either forgivable peccadillos, noble efforts, or unsubstantiated fabrications by the press if they are carried out in the name of pleasing group A or frustrating group B; regardless of real-world outcomes

and

* it is far easier to engage in shameful behavior than ethical behavior, since ethical behavior requires adherence to rules, thinking of others and considering the consequences of one's actions

*therefore* it is fair to assume that the vast majority of public figures are acting out of bad faith since there are few, if any, repercussions for their actions. the exceptions to this rule are becoming farther and fewer between.

statements like "at long last, sir, have you no sense of decency?" have no weight in the current context because we all know the answer is "no" and such an answer, expressed out loud, would result in a net loss of zero engagement.

we are knee-deep in stochastic war with an enemy who has surgically removed their ability to feel remorse or self-reflection; like a lab rat whose brain is hardwired to a big red button labeled "HATE" that jolts their pleasure center every time they press it.

how do we engage with people like this? how do we state our case, present our view of a better world for everyone? can we disable the HATE button? should we even bother?

more than anything, i want there to be an answer other than the one that rhymes with "schmilloutines in every public square" but my problem is i am just smart enough to quantify the problem and too dumb to figure out the solution and i really hope that someone, somewhere is furiously scribbling on a whiteboard and is getting REAL close to something testable.