The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[FLEA]

21 minutes ago, Hacker said:

I am wondering what happened to that thing they used to tell us all in initial training that we were no longer a gaggle of individuals, but that we were all "Airmen" now.

It's a thin line right? Unity of purpose is spot on but when you unify individuals into identical you lose one of your greatest strengths. Certainly not an easy problem to untangle. I think this is a good change but we need to be careful to not destroy progress made either. 

[Hacker]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

you lose one of your greatest strengths.

Well, I'm a staunch individualist...but that being said, there has never been any data or proof (outside of a cliche catch phrase that was foisted upon society in the 1990s in pursuit of an ideological narrative) that "diversity is our strength."

I don't have a problem with the concept if it is actually true...but unfortunately we bypassed the "falsification test" part and went right to the "this is fact and we cannot question it" part.

[Homestar]

2 hours ago, Hacker said:

I am wondering what happened to that thing they used to tell us all in initial training that we were no longer a gaggle of individuals, but that we were all "Airmen" now.

"All animals are equal..."

But seriously, America is a great place because so many different types of people from different races and religions and ethnicities can come together with the common goal of making it rich someday.  Recognizing that some have it harder than others in seeking that common American goal is ok.  Nobody should be systematically and officially held back and the military is a great place to watch that integration happen.

I'm also glad they've toned down the "men are rapists" and "whites are privileged" rhetoric.  While I don't have issue with that information per se, I'm not sure it makes us a more legal force.

[FLEA]

6 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Well, I'm a staunch individualist...but that being said, there has never been any data or proof (outside of a cliche catch phrase that was foisted upon society in the 1990s in pursuit of an ideological narrative) that "diversity is our strength."

I don't have a problem with the concept if it is actually true...but unfortunately we bypassed the "falsification test" part and went right to the "this is fact and we cannot question it" part.

Google scholar is your friend: 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cognitive+diversity+and+team+performance&oq=cognitive+diversity

 

[Hacker]

20 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Google scholar is your friend: 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=cognitive+diversity+and+team+performance&oq=cognitive+diversity

 

I'm missing the relevant data about military operations in there.

But, more importantly, "diversity is our strength" has *nothing* to do with your search terms.

That statement is, and always has been, a reference to diversity of immutable human characteristics.

I'm all for diversity of thought being a force multiplier, and there's plenty of evidence in the social sciences for that...but that's not what people mean when the term is used.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Hacker

[FLEA]

9 minutes ago, Hacker said:

I'm missing the relevant data about military operations in there.

Irellevent. And if you think the military has a monopoly on leadership and teamwork tradecraft how would you describe the last 20 years in the AF? 

 

Edit: also literally the second study down was training a team sample to work the air filtration on space vessels. If you can't see how that correlates to working aircraft systems as a crew I can't help you sorry. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by FLEA

[Hacker]

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Irellevent. And if you think the military has a monopoly on leadership and teamwork tradecraft how would you describe the last 20 years in the AF? 

Irrelevant?  Hardly.

What other organizational groups in human society have the specific purpose of waging state-sponsored violence, with a specific and acknowledged risk to one's individual life, in pursuit of political goals?

There are a *lot* of unique leadership and teamwork aspects to the military that aren't found elsewhere.

[FLEA]

1 minute ago, Hacker said:

Irrelevant?  Hardly.

What other organizational groups in human society have the specific purpose of waging state-sponsored violence, with a specific and acknowledged risk to one's individual life, in pursuit of political goals?

There are a *lot* of unique leadership and teamwork aspects to the military that aren't found elsewhere.

Yes, as I said, irrelevant. The problem set has no bearing on the team dynamic. We know how humans think. We know where vulnerabilities to cognitive bias exist. Unless you somehow believe the idea you might have to fire a weapon in anger somehow makes you immune to cognitive bias? Not sure where you plan on going with this man. It doesn't take Simon Sinek to tell you if I give the same target to 10 identical F-16 pilots to hit, they are going to come up with 10 identical run in lines. I don't want 1 option. I want 10 options, of which 7 will be garbage, but now I have 3 decent ones to flex operations around which shit changes. 

[Hacker]

Just now, FLEA said:

Yes, as I said, irrelevant. The problem set has no bearing on the team dynamic. We know how humans think. We know where vulnerabilities to cognitive bias exist. Unless you somehow believe the idea you might have to fire a weapon in anger somehow makes you immune to cognitive bias? Not sure where you plan on going with this man. It doesn't take Simon Sinek to tell you if I give the same target to 10 identical F-16 pilots to hit, they are going to come up with 10 identical run in lines. I don't want 1 option. I want 10 options, of which 7 will be garbage, but now I have 3 decent ones to flex operations around which shit changes. 

Again, I agree that diversity of thought is vital...but that's not what any of this is about, and that's not what my comment was about that you responded to originally.

You're sidestepping the larger issue, that the AF's focus on diversity of immutable human characteristics (which is the opposite of the teamwork concept of us all adopting the identity of "Airman") has literally zero to do with the cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought, that you're talking about.

Even worse is the belief that must exist to support the idea, that immutable human characteristics are an avatar for an individual's thoughts, beliefs, character, or abilities.

If the USAF wants to have a diversity of immutable characteristics in the crew force, for whatever social goal they seek, that's fine by me. What's objectionable is when that objective is sold as improving the ability to accomplish the mission (e.g. "diversity is our strength")...again, a statement which has never been put to a falsification test, and won't be because it exists to support an ideological perspective that has already decided what is "good."

[FLEA]

17 minutes ago, Hacker said:

Again, I agree that diversity of thought is vital...but that's not what any of this is about, and that's not what my comment was about that you responded to originally.

You're sidestepping the larger issue, that the AF's focus on diversity of immutable human characteristics (which is the opposite of the teamwork concept of us all adopting the identity of "Airman") has literally zero to do with the cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought, that you're talking about.

Even worse is the belief that must exist to support the idea, that immutable human characteristics are an avatar for an individual's thoughts, beliefs, character, or abilities.

If the USAF wants to have a diversity of immutable characteristics in the crew force, for whatever social goal they seek, that's fine by me. What's objectionable is when that objective is sold as improving the ability to accomplish the mission (e.g. "diversity is our strength")...again, a statement which has never been put to a falsification test, and won't be because it exists to support an ideological perspective that has already decided what is "good."

Sort of, I'm not sidestepping, I simply see the two things are related. There are expereinces for example only a woman will have and as a man I never will. Child birth for instance. And while that may seem irrelevant to military operations I do know at least 1 squadron Ander who almost sent to spouse of a deployed airmen out the door to potentially murder their newborn child because before consulting with his female first seargent he didn't recognize the symptoms of post partum depression. 

I also look at stuff like female engagement terms, the history of the OSS in France and the use of female analyst in the IC to recognize things like signs of hidden pregnancy or menopause on political leaders to realise there is a lot to be gained by having women on our team. 

Now the case for racial diversity is harder to make, and im not quite there yet, but I see enough of the threads to realise that there is generally a good case to be made that POC are going to largely have a different expereince growing up then non-POC. 

Edit: let's describe my thoughts like this. Unity of purpose is the peak of the mountain. We all want to climb the same direction, up. But as a planner, I want people who started from all sides of the mountain because from the bottom each approach seems radically different and I want people to communicate the best approach to me. Generally, to do that, I need to maximize my probabilities of getting people who stand at hard to reach bases of that mountain. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by FLEA

[BashiChuni]

lots of what you describe above is fine.

but teaching "unconscious bias" training ain't what you describe.

telling me i'm a racist and if i deny it that's even more proof that i am one...doesn't seem to be fair or helpful to winning wars.

[Hacker]

50 minutes ago, FLEA said:

There are expereinces for example only a woman will have and as a man I never will.

The entire point of The Enlightenment was that logic and reason could be used to transcend individual human experiences and thus individuals could have empathy for that which we did not experience ourselves.

So, it doesn't require a person of another gender, another race, another [insert characteristic here] to be present for any other human to comprehend, understand, and empathize with their perspective and/or lived experiences. You don't actually have to feel childbirth to understand what it is like.  You don't have to be a "POC" to understand the experience of what it must be like, whatever that is supposed to mean.

If you want to argue that people of different *cultures* bring different perspectives to the table, that's perfectly valid...but to say that immutable characteristics are responsible for (or an avatar for) differences in thought and character is precisely the kind of "logic" that was used to undergird actual tribalism (or racism, if you'd rather frame it that way) for hundreds (thousands?) of years.  No two humans are alike, regardless of immutable characteristics, so Enlightenment logic on the issue is a truism for all humans to be able to form social groups. People of the same immutable characteristics can have a widely divergent set of experiences, beliefs, and character, just as people of a wide variety of immutable characteristics can all believe in the same orthodoxy. Diversity of immutable characteristics is not an avatar for diversity of perspectives, simply put.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Hacker

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Hacker said:

The entire point of The Enlightenment was that logic and reason could be used to transcend individual human experiences and thus individuals could have empathy for that which we did not experience ourselves.

So, it doesn't require a person of another gender, another race, another [insert characteristic here] to be present for any other human to comprehend, understand, and empathize with their perspective and/or lived experiences. You don't actually have to feel childbirth to understand what it is like.  You don't have to be a "POC" to understand the experience of what it must be like, whatever that is supposed to mean.

If you want to argue that people of different *cultures* bring different perspectives to the table, that's perfectly valid...but to say that immutable characteristics are responsible for (or an avatar for) differences in thought and character is precisely the kind of "logic" that was used to undergird actual tribalism (or racism, if you'd rather frame it that way) for hundreds (thousands?) of years.  No two humans are alike, regardless of immutable characteristics, so Enlightenment logic on the issue is a truism for all humans to be able to form social groups. People of the same immutable characteristics can have a widely divergent set of experiences, beliefs, and character, just as people of a wide variety of immutable characteristics can all believe in the same orthodoxy. Diversity of immutable characteristics is not an avatar for diversity of perspectives, simply put.

I think you are 1/2 right and 1/2 wrong. 

For one, no-one cares about the enlightenment. It was like 300 years ago and people still thought leaches and humor letting were acceptable forms of health care. Sure they made some awesome philosophical advances but its not like they got there and said "hah! We did it, we are at the epitome of human knowledge and understanding and we can stop now." Our recognition for how humans receive and process information has gone very far. In fact, hailing the outcomes of the enlightenment as the epitome of understanding, is in of itself bandwagon bias which is the cognitive bias associated with adhering to principles because those principles are the ones you always knew. So lets recognize that bias now and recognize that people in the enlightenment could have been very wrong and we don't know that yet. 

I also think you confuse sympathy and empathy. Empathy is being able to feel the physical and emotional experiences as another person does. If a friend at work has a brother that died and I don't have a brother, I can't say "I know how you feel." Nothing in my life would ever help me relate to how losing a sibling would feel. A best friend is close but not as close. A parent is different. I can possess sympathy for that person, and understand they are under a great deal of grief, I can never experience true empathy for them. I think there is a great deal of assumption in the idea that you can empathize with anyone. 

You are correct, that you can have two white males who are more different than a white male and a black female. However, from a strategic leadership point of view, I think people are playing the margins game. Is this possible, sure? Is it likely, probably not as much. And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement. The going mindset here is a diverse organization of 40 different thinkers will outperform a uniform institution of 40 identical top performers. If you think about each human being as a ven diagram plot, they are trying to maximize their chances of increasing the total footprint as large as possible and minimizing areas of circular overlap. Do I necessarily agree with this? Not really. But I see the angle, and I understand from a strategic context people in charge of large organizations believe the ends are far more important than your individual feelings about feeling underappreciated because of who you are. 

 

[FlyingWolf]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

 And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement.

You just described racial profiling. To be clear, are you condoning this?

[Magnum]

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

It doesn't take Simon Sinek to tell you if I give the same target to 10 identical F-16 pilots to hit, they are going to come up with 10 identical run in lines. I don't want 1 option. I want 10 options, of which 7 will be garbage, but now I have 3 decent ones to flex operations around which shit changes. 

Fake news.  This example is clearly systemically biased and false. The only way to get 7 garbage attack plans out of a group of fighter pilots would be to have a diverse group consisting of 1 Hog driver, 1 Viper driver, 1 fat Amy "driver" and 7 Mudhen crew.

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, FlyingWolf said:

You just described racial profiling. To be clear, are you condoning this?

I didn't describe racial profiling at all. You quoted a description on cognitive diversity which is a well study and established phenomenon that has nothing to do with race. 

[ViperMan]

9 hours ago, Hacker said:

Again, I agree that diversity of thought is vital...but that's not what any of this is about, and that's not what my comment was about that you responded to originally.

You're sidestepping the larger issue, that the AF's focus on diversity of immutable human characteristics (which is the opposite of the teamwork concept of us all adopting the identity of "Airman") has literally zero to do with the cognitive diversity, or diversity of thought, that you're talking about.

Even worse is the belief that must exist to support the idea, that immutable human characteristics are an avatar for an individual's thoughts, beliefs, character, or abilities.

The above, x1000...

The below, not so much.

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

For one, no-one cares about the enlightenment. It was like 300 years ago and people still thought leaches and humor letting were acceptable forms of health care. Sure they made some awesome philosophical advances but its not like they got there and said "hah! We did it, we are at the epitome of human knowledge and understanding and we can stop now." Our recognition for how humans receive and process information has gone very far. In fact, hailing the outcomes of the enlightenment as the epitome of understanding, is in of itself bandwagon bias which is the cognitive bias associated with adhering to principles because those principles are the ones you always knew. So lets recognize that bias now and recognize that people in the enlightenment could have been very wrong and we don't know that yet. 

I also think you confuse sympathy and empathy. Empathy is being able to feel the physical and emotional experiences as another person does. If a friend at work has a brother that died and I don't have a brother, I can't say "I know how you feel." Nothing in my life would ever help me relate to how losing a sibling would feel. A best friend is close but not as close. A parent is different. I can possess sympathy for that person, and understand they are under a great deal of grief, I can never experience true empathy for them. I think there is a great deal of assumption in the idea that you can empathize with anyone. 

You are correct, that you can have two white males who are more different than a white male and a black female. However, from a strategic leadership point of view, I think people are playing the margins game. Is this possible, sure? Is it likely, probably not as much. And since in reality, noone has the time to vet every applicants complete background or make a comprehensive list of experiences, they are simply going to disregard your individuality and lump you into a group to play a game of betting odds over one that values individual achievement. The going mindset here is a diverse organization of 40 different thinkers will outperform a uniform institution of 40 identical top performers. If you think about each human being as a ven diagram plot, they are trying to maximize their chances of increasing the total footprint as large as possible and minimizing areas of circular overlap. Do I necessarily agree with this? Not really. But I see the angle, and I understand from a strategic context people in charge of large organizations believe the ends are far more important than your individual feelings about feeling underappreciated because of who you are. 

To be clear, the bold part of your argument there is actual racism (not the fake news racism ala current political and social discourse, but actual, genuine racism). You are ascribing differences to people based on their external, immutable characteristics - whether positive or negative, that is racism.

Your bit about the enlightenment is also off target. It's more important now than at any time in the past 70-80 years probably. The idea that individuals had worth and rights was transformative for humanity as a whole, not just the (Western) culture that enacted it. Since large parts of the world are yet to be "enlightened," it is ever relevant. And if you are suggesting there are enlightenment ideas that are "wrong" which ones? The supremacy of fact, reason, and logic? What don't we know yet, IYO?

Finally, thanks for the pedantic lesson on the differences between empathy and sympathy, though I'm sure most of the fighter pilots on this board still give precisely 0 Eucks about either. This discussion has brought forth the central conflict occurring in our culture right now: facts vs feelings. I think you're on the side of feelings.

Edited September 24, 2020 by ViperMan

[FLEA]

12 hours ago, ViperMan said:

The above, x1000...

The below, not so much.

To be clear, the bold part of your argument there is actual racism (not the fake news racism ala current political and social discourse, but actual, genuine racism). You are ascribing differences to people based on their external, immutable characteristics - whether positive or negative, that is racism.

Uh, no, that's not racism, that's data. There is data that says if you grow up black in the US you are more likely to have a relative in prison. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) There is data that says if you grow up white in the US you are more likely to live in a suburb. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) It might be uncomfortable data, but its out there. 

Your bit about the enlightenment is also off target. It's more important now than at any time in the past 70-80 years probably. The idea that individuals had worth and rights was transformative for humanity as a whole, not just the (Western) culture that enacted it. Since large parts of the world are yet to be "enlightened," it is ever relevant. And if you are suggesting there are enlightenment ideas that are "wrong" which ones? The supremacy of fact, reason, and logic? What don't we know yet, IYO?

What has changed since the enlightenment is we know for a fact now that humans are incapable of reason because of cognitive bias. In fact, the very term cognitive bias is defined as humans making irrational actions because of unconscious perceptions. Realize, there are over 100 forms of cognitive bias, and they are well documented. You probably talk about a dozen of them every time you do a CRM class. Recency bias? You're more likely to treat the most recent SIF you read as more important than one from the 90s. Authority Bias - You are more likely to trust someone if they are credentialed in the field they are speaking, even if their data seems illogical. Halo Effect - You are more likely to assume a "good fucking dude" is immune to mistakes in the cockpit. Status quo bias: assuming the enlightenment is the epitome of philosophical thought because that's the way it has been for the last 300 years etc... This is also the major flaw with game theory as well, which presumes a game player always makes rational decisions to effect winning outcomes. People aren't rational, even when they think they are. 

Finally, thanks for the pedantic lesson on the differences between empathy and sympathy, though I'm sure most of the fighter pilots on this board still give precisely 0 Eucks about either. This discussion has brought forth the central conflict occurring in our culture right now: facts vs feelings. I think you're on the side of feelings.

99% of people on this forum give plenty of Eucks? about this. There are whole threads dedicated to leadership not taking care of people. How do you think people are taken care of if not through empathy/sympathy. You want to lambast the AF for poor leadership, but literally every book on leadership out there says you need empathy/sympathy for your charges. Are you really telling me, as a commander, you wouldn't have sympathy/empathy for any of your people if they lost a spouse/child/loved one? I don't think you mean that but how else do you describe that if not sympathy/empathy?  

 

 

 

 

 

[FLEA]

14 hours ago, Magnum said:

Fake news.  This example is clearly systemically biased and false. The only way to get 7 garbage attack plans out of a group of fighter pilots would be to have a diverse group consisting of 1 Hog driver, 1 Viper driver, 1 fat Amy "driver" and 7 Mudhen crew.

This is fucking funny, but did they nail the altitude deconfliction plan?

[FLEA]

17 hours ago, FlyingWolf said:

You just described racial profiling. To be clear, are you condoning this?

No I don't condone this. I'm trying to rationalize what other people are thinking. That's why I said its lazy. 

[ViperMan]

Thanks for the thoughtful response.

Uh, no, that's not racism, that's data. There is data that says if you grow up black in the US you are more likely to have a relative in prison. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) There is data that says if you grow up white in the US you are more likely to live in a suburb. (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/05/06/share-of-black-white-hispanic-americans-in-prison-2018-vs-2006/) It might be uncomfortable data, but its out there.

Honestly, I don't follow you. I understand there are differences among races as far as the data goes. That is well documented, and I agree. My point to you was to say that your view which ascribed a characteristic to an individual based on membership in a group (or to the group as a whole) is the fundamental, operational characteristic of racism - not that there aren't observable differences between the races.

Differences between the races will likely always exist - it doesn't mean there are actual biological reasons for those differences. Coming at this problem from the standpoint of biology is awful, and it will never result in lasting solutions for our society.

While we're talking about data, there is also data that says police officers are much more likely to be involved in a violent encounter with blacks than they are whites. From the Wapo (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/01/09/are-black-or-white-offenders-more-likely-to-kill-police/). Why are offices far more likely to be killed by a minority than they are a white person?

"There were 511 officers killed in felonious incidents and 540 offenders from 2004 to 2013, according to FBI reports. Among the total offenders, 52 percent were white, and 43 percent were black."

"From 1980 to 2013, there were 2,269 officers killed in felonious incidents, and 2,896 offenders. The racial breakdown of offenders over the 33-year period was on par with the 10-year period: 52 percent were white, and 41 percent were black."

In my worldview, this boils down to a cultural issues. There are legitimate historical reasons for it (racism), but that is from historical social forces, not actual racial disparities between different ethnic groups. That is my point. The differences that we observe which we are happy to pin on race are really due to deeper, underlying factors such as culture, etc. That, however, is a much more difficult conversation to have, and our society isn't exactly behaving in a mature, adult manner of late.

Looking to those facts above, officers are vastly more likely to be involved in a deadly encounter with blacks than they are with whites - does that mean black people are inherently more violent? No - that is racist. What it indicates is that there are systemic issues within the black community that result in a grossly disproportionate number of violent encounters with police. It is convenient to pin it on race, but that's not going to solve any problem, because the problem isn't because they are black.

What has changed since the enlightenment is we know for a fact now that humans are incapable of reason because of cognitive bias. In fact, the very term cognitive bias is defined as humans making irrational actions because of unconscious perceptions. Realize, there are over 100 forms of cognitive bias, and they are well documented. You probably talk about a dozen of them every time you do a CRM class. Recency bias? You're more likely to treat the most recent SIF you read as more important than one from the 90s. Authority Bias - You are more likely to trust someone if they are credentialed in the field they are speaking, even if their data seems illogical. Halo Effect - You are more likely to assume a "good ing dude" is immune to mistakes in the cockpit. Status quo bias: assuming the enlightenment is the epitome of philosophical thought because that's the way it has been for the last 300 years etc... This is also the major flaw with game theory as well, which presumes a game player always makes rational decisions to effect winning outcomes. People aren't rational, even when they think they are. 

I am always perplexed by arguments that proceed like this. We are "incapable of reason" except for the reason that lets me to conclude that humans are incapable of reason. Whaaa? Any argument that starts off with "we're incapable of reason, so therefore X, Y, and Z" has some inherent problems. I don't want to hammer this too hard, because there are different ways you could have phrased it, but to me, it does highlight one of the major themes that is going on in our culture - which is to say "there is no objective truth," which has one purpose: to empower certain groups or individuals over others.

I'm aware of and know there is such a thing as bias. It's the new hotness. And this thing called unconscious bias, I'm aware of that too. I actually took an "inherent" bias test related to fat/thin (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/selectatest.html). Of course it indicated that I'm biased towards thin. The problem is that I am completely aware of my "inherent" bias towards thin people and against fat people. Fat people take up way to much of my airline seat, too much of my air, and too much of my pricey healthcare. Americans are too fat, and I am biased against fat Americans, but I already knew this.

This is more appropriately called preference. Humans have preferences. In fact, I think a strong anthropological argument could be made that says these "biases" are the only reason there are still races. I feel like we have had enough generations all living together at this point that if there weren't preferences, we would all be the same shade at this point.

I say all this, but I also don't want to disavow the importance of understanding one's own biases, because it is valuable. Humans are capable of reason, and knowing what your biases are, allows you to modify your behavior appropriately in order to counter those biases. In fact, if people weren't capable of reason, what use would it be to understand one's biases? I can't think of a reason (since I'm not capable of it). The bottom line is that I am deeply suspicious of any post-modern logic that discounts the very notion of "Truth", all the while purporting to have some sort of received wisdom/knowledge which is basically unsubstantiated.

99% of people on this forum give plenty of Eucks? about this. There are whole threads dedicated to leadership not taking care of people. How do you think people are taken care of if not through empathy/sympathy. You want to lambast the AF for poor leadership, but literally every book on leadership out there says you need empathy/sympathy for your charges. Are you really telling me, as a commander, you wouldn't have sympathy/empathy for any of your people if they lost a spouse/child/loved one? I don't think you mean that but how else do you describe that if not sympathy/empathy? 

I put "Eucks" to avoid the post being blocked (I think they used to be, maybe not anymore). In any case, empathy and sympathy are important for leaders. My point, which I did a poor job of making, is that we now live in a culture that seeks to put empathy and sympathy in front of fact, reason, and logic. Empathy and sympathy are all good, I got no issue. My issue is when we just go soft on people and issues because we don't want to address actual problems cranium-on.

Edited September 25, 2020 by ViperMan

[Inertia17]

15 hours ago, FLEA said:

This is ing funny, but did they nail the altitude deconfliction plan?

Absolutely not...but they had SA...

[Clark Griswold]

Because these people living their lives quietly really are the problem... /s

https://www.theblaze.com/news/blm-riots-wauwatosa-wisconsin-alvin-cole

 

[kaputt]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Because these people living their lives quietly really are the problem... /s

https://www.theblaze.com/news/blm-riots-wauwatosa-wisconsin-alvin-cole

 

We all know it’s never had anything to do with Black Lives Matter since the beginning. 
 

The portion about the guy trying to reason with the mob by saying how many democrats live on the street is telling... 

[Clark Griswold]

6 hours ago, kaputt said:

We all know it’s never had anything to do with Black Lives Matter since the beginning. 
The portion about the guy trying to reason with the mob by saying how many democrats live on the street is telling... 

Yeah, ultimately this is a class war being disguised as a reaction to racism.  The use of race as a canard to to distract these useful idiots as the corporates/globalists/etc... obliterate the working and middle classes with open borders and abusive work visa schemes while simultaneously allowing unlimited amounts of cheap goods into our country made by slave labor in China is one of our main ailments.  

If we had throughout our government people who realized internet monopolies, bad trade deals and massive conglomerates using media arms, lobbying firms and disinformation factories were actually the ones killing our country and crafted economic policies to combat those negative trends, those disaffected idiots would have two nickels to rub together, a decent job and a material reason to keep their shit straight, but they don't and we don't have many leaders who actually like the country they purport to represent and here we are.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Clark Griswold