The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[jazzdude]

Wow. Never thought about aircraft design in women vs men. Very interesting. Has it caused some someone not to be able to serve and have they legit never looked back into it?

As for front line or strength required jobs? The line should be the line.

As for pilots being in charge of the AF, I’m not sure anyone but aircrew should be in charge of the air service overall. I’m not aware of a counter argument to that.

Thanks for the discourse

Maybe@stuckindayton could weigh in, but I don't think under height waivers were very common until recently (primarily to enable more women to be eligible to be pilots). So there was no real reattack COA for them. And if you joined to fly, and get told "no" due to something about yourself you can't change (or for whatever reason at all for that matter), chances are you'll min run any commitment incurred and punch. We don't really do exit surveys, so it's just an assumption.

Agree on the other two points.

However, standards/requirements should be revaluated regularly (could be a every few or more years, whatever makes sense for that standard), and the facts and assumptions included in those standards need to be revaluated regularly as well. Not just for diversity stuff specifically, but in general as a best practice to ensure we are best prepared to defend our country.

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Education was used as an analogy to get away from preconceived arguments about race/sex and how that might affect career outcomes, and to use an example that most of us here have direct experience with to have a relatable discussion about a standard that was considered unfair by many in ops.

Want specific areas for race/sex? Here's some for starters.

- Just posted about anthro standards and how it effects women.

- Posted earlier about how requiring photos in hiring applications (for jobs that accelerate a career) can lead to biased selection, based on the army's experiment examining what happens if you remove photos in a selection process and how that affects minorites (it improves outcomes for minorities when there was no photo-arguably more focused on abilities and performance when photos were excluded).

- Mentorship. How many times have people here complained about "like promoting like?" If senior leaders have a personal bias for/against a particular group that shouldn't be considered (like race or sex), it tilts the outcomes for that group. It doesn't have to be anything sinister either, just a small, maybe unconscious, bias towards spending time with one demographic vs another. (They aren't necessarily bad people for having unintentional biases, we're all human and have them. But recognizing it's a thing can help you guard against it for the health/fairness of the overall system) And making O-6+, you typically will need a senior sponsor to watch your career and pull you up.

- Military justice.
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/10/air-force-launches-review-racial-disparities-punishments-opportunities.html
https://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/air-force-fails-to-deal-with-racial-disparities-in-military-justice-report-says-1.631314
Those articles show that minority males tend to investigated more than white members of either sex. It does point out convictions are roughly equal, so the end outcome would appear to be fair (minorities no convicted at a higher rate than average). But on the other hand, when someone is accused, generally their career comes to a halt- they lose training spots, removed from primary duty, potential isolated from the unit/friends. Even if they are cleared if wrongdoing in court martial, that's still several months missing from their performance report, and their commander could still write a weak report (that's not referral) on them if they don't agree with the court martial outcome (absence of a strat, leaving out a push, weak language, etc) or delay/remove other future opportunities such as training or upgrades. More minority men have to deal with that than the overall average.

Many of these issue are hard to see as individuals, which makes it easy to say there are no issues because we don't see them. And I don't fault anyone for saying that they haven't seen anything on their day to day. That's great. But as information is aggregated up for our organization as a whole, there's a trend that shows that it's worth investigating and getting after a root cause fix (posted a link from DoD earlier showing minorities in the AF promote at a lower rate as rank increases as compared to the majority).

These are all issues that DoD is investigating/addressing in its recent diversity campaign.

 

Anthropological standards appears to be fair game, and would be if there was a 50/50 split in who serves in the military, but there isn't. Once we have 50 women fighter pilots for 50 male fighter pilots, then we can talk. That said, I've been in about 5 fighter squadrons over my career and there have been 3 women in them and about 200 men. It ain't some intentional conspiracy as to why ejection seats, etc, were developed for men. All through history, men have been the ones to go to war. Men have been the ones flying fighter aircraft. It was male test subjects volunteering to strap themselves to rocket sleds and test those first ejection seats. Women fulfilling combat roles is brand new. Hence, standards that were implemented reflected the underlying reality that it was men who were going to be the ones flying these airplanes - not that women were being systematically excluded from this opportunity. That said, I agree with you in principle that this is an area that can be adjusted, at present, to make things more "fair" but it doesn't meet the definition of systemic discrimination against a group (women). Discrimination is a conscious determination by an individual that they are going to produce favor for one person to the detriment of another based on the characteristic(s) at hand.

On the topic of photos, I agree with you 100%. There is no reason why a photo (or any racial/sex data) should be included as part of a promotion package. In fact, names should probably also be masked so that there is nothing that can be read into when decisions are being made as to who should be promoted. As far as promotion boards are concerned, it is only performance data that is relevant. And more importantly when we implement this little "social" betterment, there is no cost imposed on anyone else - which is not the case with many other social justice initiatives, but should be a necessary condition for any of them to be implemented.

As far as mentorship goes, I'm not sure how identifying a generic problem that affects all people somehow disproportionately affects a minority. It's a general problem and sure, one we should be aware of, but it's also taken for granted that it is having a measurable effect on the development and selection of "under" represented people, else, it'd be easy to provide actual examples. But such is the problem with "unconscious" biases; we have to rely on professionals who have received knowledge, and they're the perfect scapegoat for those who want to implement social programs, provide no hard evidence, and then implement whatever program they want. It's an example of the false premise fallacy - you have a valid argument, but one that is demonstrably false. It's precisely why arguments like this are so hard for people to see through. And the danger is that once you give people who have special received wisdom power, you now have a religion.

On to military justice, there is one major problem with those articles - they are missing the broader, underlying context. From the stripes article:

Quote

In 2017, the group published a report that found racial inequalities across the military justice system, with the Air Force cited as having some of the most extreme discrepancies. In the Air Force, black airmen on average were 71% more likely to face court-martial or nonjudicial punishment than their white counterparts, according to the group’s investigation at the time.

The unstated assumption in this article is that there should be no inequalities between blacks and whites. That's great, and is an ideal that reflects the desired society which we all hope is someday realized, but it is just not the present reality we live in. I'm sorry. No, the proper framing of the disparity needs to be couched in terms of the broader societal context that we find ourselves a smaller part of. In that reality, blacks commit a grossly disproportionate share of crime (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2 and https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 and https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime). The reasons for this we can get to in another thread, but within the context of the articles you provided, the proper question to ask is this: is it surprising that given blacks commit a higher proportion of crime in the broader society, that they also commit a higher proportion of crime within the Air Force? I don't think it is. So good job stars and stripes, you figured out something we already knew. It would be strange had they not found blacks are investigated 71% more than whites.

I agree that it's hard to see many of these issues as individuals, but it is also very easy to take an interested party's shallow analysis and take their conclusions as gospel without asking harder questions, or doing your own homework. Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Edited November 9, 2020 by ViperMan

[Prozac]

24 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

In that reality, blacks commit a grossly disproportionate share of crime (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2 and https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 and https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime). The reasons for this we can get to in another thread, but within the context of the articles you provided, the proper question to ask is this: is it surprising that given blacks commit a higher proportion of crime in the broader society, that they also commit a higher proportion of crime within the Air Force? I don't think it is.

Please do tell us why you think black Americans are more likely to commit criminal acts than their white counterparts. This is absolutely pertinent to the current conversation. 

[ViperMan]

1 minute ago, Prozac said:

Please do tell us why you think black Americans are more likely to commit criminal acts than their white counterparts. This is absolutely pertinent to the current conversation. 

I didn't say I think blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites - I said the data says they do. Blacks DO commit more crime than whites. My thoughts have NOTHING to do with that, and shouldn't have anything to do with it. It's not about your or my thoughts.

The "why" of all this is not up to the Air Force, which is my more pertinent point. We're an organization of about 300,000 people, which is about 1/1000th of the American populace, we're not going to solve the social ills that are part of the larger context we find ourselves in.

[Prozac]

41 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I didn't say I think blacks are more likely to commit crime than whites - I said the data says they do. Blacks DO commit more crime than whites. My thoughts have NOTHING to do with that, and shouldn't have anything to do with it. It's not about your or my thoughts.

The "why" of all this is not up to the Air Force, which is my more pertinent point. We're an organization of about 300,000 people, which is about 1/1000th of the American populace, we're not going to solve the social ills that are part of the larger context we find ourselves in.

So here’s an alternate take on the subject: Blacks, along with other minorities are routinely prosecuted for crimes that whites are not. It’s kind of a chicken/egg argument, like your argument that fighters are designed for men because men have been the ones to step up to the task. It’s not that women weren’t up to the task, it’s that they were prohibited from it for a multitude of reasons, one of them being they don’t fit into cockpits. I honestly do not mean to insinuate that you or anyone else is being sexist or racist. I just think some of us need a little light shed on the fact that these issues are far more complex and nuanced than they often appear on the surface, and will require real study to overcome. 

[ViperMan]

7 minutes ago, Prozac said:

So here’s an alternate take on the subject: Blacks, along with other minorities are routinely prosecuted for crimes that whites are not. It’s kind of a chicken/egg argument, like your argument that fighters are designed for men because men have been the ones to step up to the task. It’s not that women weren’t up to the task, it’s that they were prohibited from it for a multitude of reasons, one of them being they don’t fit into cockpits. I honestly do not mean to insinuate that you or anyone else is being sexist or racist. I just think some of us need a little light shed on the fact that these issues are far more complex and nuanced than they often appear on the surface, and will require real study to overcome. 

Completely agree that they're complex issues that require study, and I know everyone here is actually concerned about solving these problems, it's more just a disagreement about what the core problem is, and what the solution should be.

I think that when there is such vehement disagreement on what the problem is and what the solutions are, doing something contentious is very risky. Any solution we implement will absolutely require broad (bipartisan) buy in. And actual, no shit, buy in. Not "pretty darn good," high-level hand-waiving buy in.

[17D_guy]

18 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Completely agree that they're complex issues that require study, and I know everyone here is actually concerned about solving these problems, it's more just a disagreement about what the core problem is, and what the solution should be.

I think that when there is such vehement disagreement on what the problem is and what the solutions are, doing something contentious is very risky. Any solution we implement will absolutely require broad (bipartisan) buy in. And actual, no shit, buy in. Not "pretty darn good," high-level hand-waiving buy in.

Agreed.  Now, how would you define the problem?  There's been a few other posts on here with a lot of good nuance.  What's your thoughts?  I apologize if I missed it before, shoot me the post and I'll read it again.

[FLEA]

3 hours ago, ViperMan said:

 

I would say one flaw to your above arguments ViperMan is that part of the reason fighter squadrons aren't 50/50 is because the anthrpomorphic standards. I don't mean to imply it's the only reason, but by your accounts, only 3% of fighter squadrons are women. Ok, remove anthropomorphic standards, and now that goes up to 9%, remove something else, and it goes up to 15%. Keep removing enough barriers and over 2 decades maybe you're now at 40% or more which is realistic. We probably don't know all the barriers, we just know anthrpomorphic standards are one. 

The second error is since the T-6 adopted the ACES II, you now require anthropomorphics for any airframe. While female aircrew might be low on fighter squadrons it's much higher I think in other communities. (I want to say 21% across pilot field but I can't find where I read that recently.)  

I do personally know women removed from UPT selection for anthroporphics. One happens to be the most competent officer I've met in my life. She will get out now after 7 years and the AF is going to lose horribly on that. 

 

[Guardian]

So here’s an alternate take on the subject: Blacks, along with other minorities are routinely prosecuted for crimes that whites are not. It’s kind of a chicken/egg argument, like your argument that fighters are designed for men because men have been the ones to step up to the task. It’s not that women weren’t up to the task, it’s that they were prohibited from it for a multitude of reasons, one of them being they don’t fit into cockpits. I honestly do not mean to insinuate that you or anyone else is being sexist or racist. I just think some of us need a little light shed on the fact that these issues are far more complex and nuanced than they often appear on the surface, and will require real study to overcome. 

Where us the evidence that whites proportionally cause as much crime as blacks and don’t get prosecuted for it

[Guardian]

Also there is a historical aspect (traditional roles and physically adept ones) to men protecting women and being the physically bigger and stronger ones that out themselves in harms way on behalf of women. That’s not sexist. That’s been traditional male roles nearly all of human history. So if we didn’t design something that we didn’t intend to have women use, it’s not sexist in that way, in that time, in that context. It’s only recently (relatively speaking) that our military has started being inclusive with women in the front line. I realize that is a double edged sword with sexism. But I genuinely do think the men of that day by and large were of the mindset that didn’t even think about it. Not because they were trying to keep the woman down (sexism) but because this is the role we readily accept. I’m not denying that there is bad sexism out there or has been. But I’m saying that it my opinion that the ergonomics of the cockpit aren’t designed for women or men of boundary stature for good cause not nefarious keep someone down causes.

[slackline]

Also there is a historical aspect (traditional roles and physically adept ones) to men protecting women and being the physically bigger and stronger ones that out themselves in harms way on behalf of women. That’s not sexist. That’s been traditional male roles nearly all of human history. So if we didn’t design something that we didn’t intend to have women use, it’s not sexist in that way, in that time, in that context. It’s only recently (relatively speaking) that our military has started being inclusive with women in the front line. I realize that is a double edged sword with sexism. But I genuinely do think the men of that day by and large were of the mindset that didn’t even think about it. Not because they were trying to keep the woman down (sexism) but because this is the role we readily accept. I’m not denying that there is bad sexism out there or has been. But I’m saying that it my opinion that the ergonomics of the cockpit aren’t designed for women or men of boundary stature for good cause not nefarious keep someone down causes.

That is absolutely the point trying to be made here. It wasn’t done because of/by sexist/racist people. The thought process at the time excluded those people. We haven’t corrected for it yet. The cockpit sizing issue is a very difficult one to tackle because it requires significant chuncks of dollars to fix. Other issues (before you ask, they’ve already been highlighted in here multiple times) are not as difficult to tackle.

No one is accusing anyone of being racist/sexist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[herkbier]

10 hours ago, Prozac said:

A good example along the same lines from the book Freakanomics:
https://slate.com/business/2005/04/a-roshanda-by-any-other-name.html

TLDR: “Steve” has a better chance at success than “D’Shaun” for myriad complex reasons. 

Yeah, read the article, it’s not because of the name itself.

“The data show that, on average, a person with a distinctively black name—whether it is a woman named Imani or a man named DeShawn—does have a worse life outcome than a woman named Molly or a man named Jake. But it isn’t the fault of his or her name. If two black boys, Jake Williams and DeShawn Williams, are born in the same neighborhood and into the same familial and economic circumstances, they would likely have similar life outcomes. But the kind of parents who name their son Jake don’t tend to live in the same neighborhoods or share economic circumstances with the kind of parents who name their son DeShawn. And that’s why, on average, a boy named Jake will tend to earn more money and get more education than a boy named DeShawn. DeShawn’s name is an indicator—but not a cause—of his life path.”

Regardless.. please don’t feel I’m dismissing the point of the argument. Like most people, I agree with you.
 

There is a racial problem in America, I just disagree with the Root Cause analysis and the instructional fixes. 

Edited November 9, 2020 by herkbier

[Guardian]

Ok. For this argument let’s say that is true and there are zero other reasons than name. How do you fix a name bias?

[Guardian]

That is absolutely the point trying to be made here. It wasn’t done because of/by sexist/racist people. The thought process at the time excluded those people. We haven’t corrected for it yet. The cockpit sizing issue is a very difficult one to tackle because it requires significant chuncks of dollars to fix. Other issues (before you ask, they’ve already been highlighted in here multiple times) are not as difficult to tackle.

No one is accusing anyone of being racist/sexist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So if it isn’t sexist why are we talking about it?

I thought you guys were trying to answer how putting one race or gender in front of another as a formalized program isn’t racist or sexist.

Re affirmative action. Or the racist equity mentality construct that Kamala is pushing.

[jazzdude]

The unstated assumption in this article is that there should be no inequalities between blacks and whites. That's great, and is an ideal that reflects the desired society which we all hope is someday realized, but it is just not the present reality we live in. I'm sorry. No, the proper framing of the disparity needs to be couched in terms of the broader societal context that we find ourselves a smaller part of. In that reality, blacks commit a grossly disproportionate share of crime (https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2 and https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 and https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime). The reasons for this we can get to in another thread, but within the context of the articles you provided, the proper question to ask is this: is it surprising that given blacks commit a higher proportion of crime in the broader society, that they also commit a higher proportion of crime within the Air Force? I don't think it is. So good job stars and stripes, you figured out something we already knew. It would be strange had they not found blacks are investigated 71% more than whites.
I agree that it's hard to see many of these issues as individuals, but it is also very easy to take an interested party's shallow analysis and take their conclusions as gospel without asking harder questions, or doing your own homework. Let's not lose sight of the forest for the trees.

Discrimination is a conscious determination by an individual that they are going to produce favor for one person to the detriment of another based on the characteristic(s) at hand.

Absolutely disagree with you on this point.

Discrimination can also be the result of unconscious decisions or decisions with an unintentionally effect that disproportionately affect a particular group.

The fact that there unconscious or unintended decisions happen does not necessarily mean someone is a "bad" person; it's part of being human. Relationships and society is messy, and no one is perfect, and so many things go in to hire we make decisions, whether we are aware of it out not.

But when an issue is identified/recognized, and a conscious decision to not address the issue is made, then yes, it means those with the information and power to make a change are in the wrong.

And remember, doing nothing is also a choice. And in the face of unclear or imcomplete information, maybe we should exhibit a bias for action-no different than how we'd attack a tactical combat problem when faced with unclear or imcomplete info about the battlespace.

In that reality, blacks commit a grossly disproportionate share of crime
...
is it surprising that given blacks commit a higher proportion of crime in the broader society, that they also commit a higher proportion of crime within the Air Force? I don't think it is.

On the note of not recognizing personal biases and assumptions over data on the issue... But I'll give you the benefit of doubt. Here's a quote from the stars and stripes article that highlights an important second part to this discussion:

In 2019, the Government Accountability Office launched its own probe, which found that in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force, black, Hispanic and male service members were more likely to be investigated than white and female service members.
...
However, the GAO found no statistically significant difference by sex or ethnicity in terms of convictions.

Minorities were more likely to be accused than white members, but we're convicted at the same rate as white members.

In other words, innocent minorites were more likely to be accused of wrongdoing than their white counterparts. And even when they are cleared of wrongdoing, going through court martial has negative effects on your career. That's the problem. So what do we do about it? And again, doing nothing is a conscious choice, as is ignoring the problem.

[Guardian]

Accused does not equal investigated

[slackline]

1 hour ago, slackline said:

That is absolutely the point trying to be made here. It wasn’t done because of/by sexist/racist people. The thought process at the time excluded those people. We haven’t corrected for it yet. The cockpit sizing issue is a very difficult one to tackle because it requires significant chuncks of dollars to fix. Other issues (before you ask, they’ve already been highlighted in here multiple times) are not as difficult to tackle.

No one is accusing ANYONE of being racist/sexist.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Hate to quote myself, but since you continue to refuse to see the point, I'll post (with bold, italics to make it easier for you this time) this for others because I know you'll still ignore it.  The thought process way back in the day created the system used now.  That system is what makes it difficult for women/minorities.  Again, Guardian doesn't seem to read too well, so I'll reiterate it one more time, suggestions on how to fix the process have all been said in here.  I can't help you if you refuse to read it...

[Breckey]

28 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Ok. For this argument let’s say that is true and there are zero other reasons than name. How do you fix a name bias?

Assign a number to the package that is masked above the board level. The board only ranks candidate number X rather than Sparky Jones. Once the board has made their decision the numbers are de-anonymized for approval at the appropriate level.

[slackline]

21 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

In other words, innocent minorites were more likely to be accused of wrongdoing than their white counterparts. And even when they are cleared of wrongdoing, going through court martial has negative effects on your career. That's the problem. So what do we do about it? And again, doing nothing is a conscious choice, as is ignoring the problem.

 

 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Accused does not equal investigated

Just helping you out here again buddy, since reading does, in fact appear really tough for you.  Accusations alone can damage/destroy careers.  If you haven't seen it, you aren't looking...

[Guardian]

Hey buddy. You don’t have to be a giant condescending A$$hole. All I said was that they don’t equal each other. Because the writer of the comment said the article said accused. Then later said investigated. When talking about serious things it’s important to use words in the way they are intended and defined. Words mean stuff.

And yes. You are a condescending prick. I have no problems saying that because you seem incapable of taking out emotion and you readily fling insults without trying to rationally think through things. Use of emotion based reactions tends most to a feminine quality. Yes you are a little bitch. (Female dog) who is afraid of your own shadow and is a self proclaimed victim of your own lack of rational thought and discussion abilities just because you can’t use logic or reasoning and before getting your panties in a bunch. Pretty sure if you are above the rank of Lt it’s just because of attrition of good leaders due to airlines over the last 5 years and the Air Force has put you in a position where you can’t do much damage. Hopefully for our Air Force anyways.

And I say all of that without emotion. Read it that way. The only emotion I have is laughing at your lack of a lot of basic things that people on this board use to carry on a discussion

You ain’t my buddy.

[Guardian]

Hate to quote myself, but since you continue to refuse to see the point, I'll post (with bold, italics to make it easier for you this time) this for others because I know you'll still ignore it.  The thought process way back in the day created the system used now.  That system is what makes it difficult for women/minorities.  Again, Guardian doesn't seem to read too well, so I'll reiterate it one more time, suggestions on how to fix the process have all been said in here.  I can't help you if you refuse to read it...

The discussion was about what is racist or sexist. In a negative fashion that we can discuss and fix or maybe even agree that is a problem.

Quote yourself all you want. Doesn’t change things. I bet you do that a lot in person. Talk down to people, interrupt conversations, don’t care about other peoples thoughts or opinions and force yourself upon people. I bet you don’t even really know what’s going on around you

I am not asking for your kind of help bro. Feel free to go play somewhere else dipshit.

[slackline]

2 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Hey buddy. You don’t have to be a giant condescending A$$hole. All I said was that they don’t equal each other. Because the writer of the comment said the article said accused. Then later said investigated. When talking about serious things it’s important to use words in the way they are intended and defined. Words mean stuff.

And yes. You are a condescending prick. I have no problems saying that because you seem incapable of taking out emotion and you readily fling insults without trying to rationally think through things. Use of emotion based reactions tends most to a feminine quality. Yes you are a little bitch. (Female dog) who is afraid of your own shadow and is a self proclaimed victim of your own lack of rational thought and discussion abilities just because you can’t use logic or reasoning and before getting your panties in a bunch. Pretty sure if you are above the rank of Lt it’s just because of attrition of good leaders due to airlines over the last 5 years and the Air Force has put you in a position where you can’t do much damage. Hopefully for our Air Force anyways.

And I say all of that without emotion. Read it that way. The only emotion I have is laughing at your lack of a lot of basic things that people on this board use to carry on a discussion

This is just getting fun.  Did I trigger you?  You're making it too easy.  I started out trying to work with you, but your continued, intentional ignorance in the face of fact, reason and logic just makes it hard to take you seriously anymore.  Notice what I bolded in your reply.  You sure you wanna stand by that statement?  You're embodying sexist ideas by saying emotion tends to a feminine quality.  Ideas like that, men shouldn't exhibit emotion, are definitely sexist.

In a real discussion/argument emotion has no place.  You continue to ignore what people say, so now I'm just screwing with you.  It is so predictable, the tropes you will immediately apply to a given response.  If you think these are emotional responses, sorry buddy.  And yes, you are right, I am condescending to you.  That means to talk down to...

[slackline]

5 minutes ago, Guardian said:

The discussion was about what is racist or sexist. In a negative fashion that we can discuss and fix or maybe even agree that is a problem.

Quote yourself all you want. Doesn’t change things. I bet you do that a lot in person. Talk down to people, interrupt conversations, don’t care about other peoples thoughts or opinions and force yourself upon people. I bet you don’t even really know what’s going on around you

I am not asking for your kind of help bro. Feel free to go play somewhere else dipshit.

and of the two of us, one of us has resorted to name calling.  Have I gotten under your skin.  Toughen up buddy.  

[Guardian]

Nope. Zero emotion. Just using facts and reason to communicate to someone incapable of it.

There are differences between the genders. Or are you not aware of that? You know boys have a penis and girls have a ######. Facts aren’t sexist. You’re just an idiot. It’s not your fault though right? You’re blaming society or your parents for your lack of abilityu to think.

Somehow you think what you are doing is screwing with me. Just goes to show you don’t understand things.

Republicans don’t get triggered. They just get even. But in this case there isn’t any need since you don’t have the comprehension ability.

[slackline]

Just now, Guardian said:

Nope. Zero emotion. Just using facts and reason to communicate to someone incapable of it.

There are differences between the genders. Or are you not aware of that? You know boys have a penis and girls have a ######. Facts aren’t sexist. You’re just an idiot. It’s not your fault though right? You’re blaming society or your parents for your lack of abilityu to think.

Somehow you think what you are doing is screwing with me. Just goes to show you don’t understand things.