Jump to content

The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wokeness training is cancelled. Signed - POTUS.  https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/M-20-34.pdf   

Did anyone really believe he would get a fair trial or impartial jury?  Dude was good as guilty before the opening statements started.  He'd have been better off fleeing the country.     To

I've taken part in use of force scenario training a few times, and each time I had my eyes opened a little wider to what law enforcement deals with. If your local department ever offers it, please tak

Posted Images

4 hours ago, Breckey said:

https://www.cdc.gov/policy/hst/hi5/cleansyringes/index.html

The homelessness and drug abuse correlation is 100 percent true however CDC studies have shown that needle exchanges decrease overall government expenditure.

Yes, though it's a bandaid on a compound fracture.

 

We need to embrace forced treatment for those unable to maintain a household. This is a weak area for conservatives who have no concept of what a hardcore drug addiction does to your mind. We want people to pick themselves up by the bootstraps, great, we gotta get their mind clean enough to do so. 

 

For liberals this means they have to stop pretending like letting people "live themselves to death" on the streets is some sort of virtue. Homeless people go to jail, not because they are criminal (though many are), but because you have to confine the addict to treatment long enough for it to take effect.

 

For conservatives, just locking people away won't work. It's going to take money to fix this; treatment is expensive. And providing the anti-addiction drugs for free (forever) will also sting. Tough.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Yes, though it's a bandaid on a compound fracture.

We need to embrace forced treatment for those unable to maintain a household. This is a weak area for conservatives who have no concept of what a hardcore drug addiction does to your mind. We want people to pick themselves up by the bootstraps, great, we gotta get their mind clean enough to do so. 

For liberals this means they have to stop pretending like letting people "live themselves to death" on the streets is some sort of virtue. Homeless people go to jail, not because they are criminal (though many are), but because you have to confine the addict to treatment long enough for it to take effect.

For conservatives, just locking people away won't work. It's going to take money to fix this; treatment is expensive. And providing the anti-addiction drugs for free (forever) will also sting. Tough.

All truth.  Ben Shapiro had a good bit of LA history on it his last Rogan podcast appearance.  I've got family in Portland who're outraged at how the city is handling the situation.  "Just give them homes and out patient treatment, problem solved maaaaaaaaaaaaaaan."

I've had to protect my family from some of the crazies when we go to visit.  It's a fucking trip to be in a Burgerville with my young son, having to decide how close is "too close" with a stinky homeless fellow human being dancing in a circle blasted out of their cranuim.  Or having to tell people "No" they can't use our bathroom at church because we're scared they're going to use in there.

Liberal head's in the sand about "wanting freedom" fall on my deaf ears when they clean out these tents and there's shit and needles...everywhere.  These people have zero freedom while they're broken humans.

But it costs money, and it costs time and it costs compassion.  Something I've found in shorter supply from my conservative brothers/sisters, which is interesting with how much the Evangelical movement claims it.  Not throwing stones, don't want to get into the political side, just musing I've had for years on this subject.

I'm in UT now, and just last week they were a big push to get out one of the camps in SLC.  Reading the headlines about it...so many are mentally broken AND addicted to drugs.  There are a lot of shelters here, there's a lot the government does here.  But people don't want to go to a prison like place (they lock the doors at night) and "told what to do" (can't shoot up).  Can't say which came first the mental illness/drugs, but they need forceful help or life in a mental health care facility until they can rejoin us in society. 

I'm happy to pay taxes towards that end, and donate (and will continue to) to the services that provide those ends.  This is a needs a concerted effort by both government (local/state/federal) and communities (individuals/organizations/churches) to solve.

I say all this having had a homeless scare earlier in my life, and later becoming physically dependent on opiates during some prolonged extreme pain.  I was never addicted, but the thought of being dependent on a pill to get through the day was, and is, terrifying.

  • Upvote 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m all for diversity in the ranks but I doubt we are suddenly going to find a ton of missed high-end recruits in the inner city.

I’ve said before, I could find better recruits by stopping the BS academic and chess club qualifiers that get kids into UPT.

I’ll take medium-intelligence type A recruits any day over the super-high-intelligence weenies I see filling the cockpits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, di1630 said:


I’m all for diversity in the ranks but I doubt we are suddenly going to find a ton of missed high-end recruits in the inner city.

I’ve said before, I could find better recruits by stopping the BS academic and chess club qualifiers that get kids into UPT.

I’ll take medium-intelligence type A recruits any day over the super-high-intelligence weenies I see filling the cockpits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

There are a lot of levels to this, but it’s overall culture problem in the Air Force and in society in general. 
 

As the article said, military service isn’t as appealing as it once was, and a lot of American youth aren’t even eligible for service. A lot of the motivated type A, willing to learn inner city youth dedicate a lot of their time to sports, as culturally that is viewed as one of the only ways out. These kids are smart, motivated, athletic, we need to find a way to reach these populations. (Not just the athletes, but I think they provide a larger pool). 
 

You hit the nail on the head with the chess club bs. We need to change our recruiting and our officer training programs. Trying to convince any youth to spend 4 years at the academy or in ROTC marching in circles wearing blues and folding shirts into perfect squares to (maybe) get a opportunity to fly is a tough sell(and that’s assuming we give them scholarships). Ya, there is OTS, but in the context of low income youth they probably aren’t going to have a 4 year degree. I don’t have all answers, but trying to only get 4.0 GPA “smart” cadets isn’t the best strategy to me.

I get we aren’t the Army, but their ROTC program seemed to be a lot better structured than ours. While they were out in the field doing land nav, building shelters, learning weapons/tactics, we were in Blues marching in the gym and doing retarded GLPs bouncing balloons around and formatting Memos. I don’t give a shit how your memo is formatted, I’m probably not going to read it anyway. 99% of our force isn’t going to be on the ground running and gunning, but I think there is a lot more to take away from that training than marching and memos. 

When I’m flying around bum fuck no where, and everyone on the ground wants to kill me, I want a diverse crew/team (not talking skin color, I don’t give shit how much pigment is in your skin or what set of genitals you have). Having the 4.0GPA person brings something to the table, but so does the country boy who can live off the land and fix anything, the inner city kid that fought tooth and nail and has “street smarts”, the athlete, the immigrant, etc. Filling the rated ranks with people that checked the “chess club” box is a major contributing factor to the cultural/bureaucratic nightmare of a organization we have become.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2020 at 3:52 PM, di1630 said:


I’m all for diversity in the ranks but I doubt we are suddenly going to find a ton of missed high-end recruits in the inner city.

I’ve said before, I could find better recruits by stopping the BS academic and chess club qualifiers that get kids into UPT.

I’ll take medium-intelligence type A recruits any day over the super-high-intelligence weenies I see filling the cockpits.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

“Give me a committed B student with a boiling will to win over an A-plus scholar with a careerist agenda, and we’ll be on our way.”

Dan Pedersen in his book “Topgun” about his founding of the Navy Fighter Weapons School.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

He/him. Why does it matter that there are too many whites? Does he have a point that correlates to mission effectiveness? Or does he think we should be equal in all measurable differences? And how does he plan to implement and track this ridiculous statement?

Or is he just unknowingly a giant racist?

Equality of outcome is systematically racist and sexist and needs to stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

29 minutes ago, Guardian said:

He/him. Why does it matter that there are too many whites? Does he have a point that correlates to mission effectiveness? Or does he think we should be equal in all measurable differences? And how does he plan to implement and track this ridiculous statement?

Or is he just unknowingly a giant racist?

Equality of outcome is systematically racist and sexist and needs to stop.

It matters because when you have an institution that does not reflect the society it represents, you have problems. You could argue that the military is different. You’d be right to say, for example, that the majority of the population is obese and that doesn’t work for the military. Those kinds of arguments hold no water when it comes to race though. Like it or not, the US military has made racial equality a priority since the Eisenhower administration. One of the reasons the American public has a high amount of trust in their military is because it, at least in theory, represents a cross section of themselves. The faith of the American population is a key factor in long term combat effectiveness. If you look at the big/long term picture, we are playing chess not checkers. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One point to add to my prior post:

I’m not saying we can’t have a discussion on the best way to accomplish racial equality. I happen to believe that affirmative action programs are a key part of a broader overall strategy that includes investment in education and community outreach. There are certainly many valid strategies or combinations of strategies out there, but just accepting that our pilot force is racially misrepresented is the wrong answer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

To be clear, the Air and Space Forces are not setting quotas based on race or gender. We will, however, focus intensely and concentrate our efforts in traditionally underserved communities. It wouldn’t be legal or productive to hold recruiters accountable for bringing in a certain number of recruits from various demographic groups. But if we see that we’re not hitting recruiting targets that mirror the qualified population in those categories, we will adjust to concentrate on areas where we can get a more representative balance in our applicant pool. To use a fishing analogy, recruiters must not only cast a wide net but ensure we are spending time in the right fishing holes.

And by measuring those targets, we’ll employ the old management axiom that what gets measured gets done. And we’ll get it done.

 

I love this article.  "To be clear, we're not going to have quotas.  Instead, we're going to...........................have quotas."

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blue said:

I love this article.  "To be clear, we're not going to have quotas.  Instead, we're going to...........................have quotas."

To be fair, there's a big difference between saying that 30% of pilot slots are reserved for minorities and implementing recruitment policies that try to close the gap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've mentioned this before and I'll say it again.  The phrase, "Special consideration should be given to women and minorities and minorities for possible past discrimination" was given to promotion boards in the mid 90s.  In 1994, the promotion rate target to Major was 73% of all eligible officers.  The promotion rate for minority women was 94%. This did no favors to the reputation of those promoted or the Air Force itself with the AF losing lawsuits as a result.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Prozac said:

One point to add to my prior post:

I’m not saying we can’t have a discussion on the best way to accomplish racial equality. I happen to believe that affirmative action programs are a key part of a broader overall strategy that includes investment in education and community outreach. There are certainly many valid strategies or combinations of strategies out there, but just accepting that our pilot force is racially misrepresented is the wrong answer. 

Say you have a room of 100 pilot candidates that exactly represents the demographics of the USA. They all have different resumes and the resumes don't specify race or gender.

What would your selection process be if you needed to choose 20 of them to fly aircraft in combat?

 

Edited by torqued
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prozac. Are you being serious? The colors and genitalia in the military must as closely match the civilian world? Obviously not a direct quote but that is what you said boiled down. Dude....why? That’s a very racist thing man. Seriously. You are discriminating against some by the color of their skin or their sex organ. That’s what we are trying to eliminate.

I hope you’re just kidding around.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Guardian said:

Prozac. Are you being serious? The colors and genitalia in the military must as closely match the civilian world? Obviously not a direct quote but that is what you said boiled down. Dude....why? That’s a very racist thing man. Seriously. You are discriminating against some by the color of their skin or their sex organ. That’s what we are trying to eliminate.

I hope you’re just kidding around.

I like to ask in these conversations if it's also important that the racial makeup of players in the NBA should also be representative of society, why or why not?  

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll preface my post with this: having traveled around the world and enjoying most of my travels and cultures I've visited, there's no where else I'd rather call home besides the USA. But just because we're the best doesn't mean we don't have flaws, or shouldn't strive to become better. And we need to do that as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats throwing spears at each other, otherwise, our enemies will use that divide to weaken us or tear us apart. The great power struggle doesn't just exist militarily, but also politically and economically between nations.

I like to ask in these conversations if it's also important that the racial makeup of players in the NBA should also be representative of society, why or why not?  


One is a private organization, and one is a public institution. That's the difference. And no, I don't think matching percentages in different populations should be the end goal for either organization.

The NBA went through its transition long ago dealing with race, to the point where the race of the player doesn't matter now, just their performance, because that's what sells tickets (an exciting game), and makes money. But they got past the hurdle of integration and quotas/caps long ago

The military strives to be a meritocracy, but there are still biases that exist that favor some groups and hinder others. For example, the army ran an e where they removed the official photo from the promotion package, and got a surprising result.

"From taking a careful look at the data we collected from that experiment, our study finds that when you remove the DA photo ... voters took less time to cast the votes on each individual file, and then the outcomes for minorities and women improved," Wojtaszek said.

The study showed that using official photos led to decisions from board members that appeared to reveal unconscious bias, Army officials say.


https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/25/inside-armys-decision-eliminate-photos-officer-promotion-boards.html/amp

I think it's right we get after any unfairness in the system based on things that shouldn't matter (race/ethnicity/gender) to allow the best to rise through the ranks and so everyone is treated fairly, especially if we want to be a meritocracy.

It's also easy to point at the recruiting pool and say there aren't enough qualified from X group, but issues could go earlier than that. Educational/academic opportunities, athletics, clubs, etc in K-12 schooling, that lead up to being eligible in the recruiting pool, especially on the officer side. That's not DoD's problem, but a societal issue that merits looking at from other parts of government (or our society, which should be reflected in government). In a sense, the military (especially the officer corps) may already be reflective of the country based on opportunities available, whether that's just educational/volunteer opportunities that combine into an attractive package (sts), or just familiarity with the military growing up and it being a realistic/attainable goal. It'll likely take a generation or two to fix, but that requires groundwork to be laid now to create a better future for our kids, and we likely won't see any benefit in our careers.

It's less about making percentages match up (though there are people that believe that), but ensuring that if people want to compete, they aren't having to overcome additional barriers based on the race/gender, because they shouldn't have to.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 11:36 AM, torqued said:

Say you have a room of 100 pilot candidates that exactly represents the demographics of the USA. They all have different resumes and the resumes don't specify race or gender.

What would your selection process be if you needed to choose 20 of them to fly aircraft in combat?

 

This is a valid question and a tough one. At best “affirmative action” is a deeply flawed short term bandaid applied to an issue that requires a far broader and more nuanced response in the long run (see Jazzdude’s post above). I think it’s sort of a necessary evil in the current environment. Others will disagree and have some valid reasons for doing so. To answer your question directly I’ll be (admittedly) somewhat hypocritical in my response: If I am picking the people that I will have to fly in difficult conditions with, you’re goddamn right I’m going to pick the most capable regardless of race, sex, etc. If, however, I am a policy maker responsible for the long term health of a military service, I’m likely going to apply some artificial selection criteria to help ensure some level of diversity for all of the reasons mentioned in my previous post. Like I said, it’s a flawed and temporary solution. But sometimes a flawed solution is better than no solution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Prozac said:

To answer your question directly I’ll be (admittedly) somewhat hypocritical in my response: If I am picking the people that I will have to fly in difficult conditions with, you’re goddamn right I’m going to pick the most capable regardless of race, sex, etc. If, however, I am a policy maker responsible for the long term health of a military service, I’m likely going to apply some artificial selection criteria to help ensure some level of diversity for all of the reasons mentioned in my previous post. Like I said, it’s a flawed and temporary solution. But sometimes a flawed solution is better than no solution. 

And that.. is bullshit. The men and women who volunteer to risk their lives and commit acts of violence on our behalf deserve the best available, most capable Americans on their side without any biological qualifiers. 
 

If policy makers or the American public thinks our current force make up isn’t diverse enough, then they need to find ways to develop the under represented and under preforming communities so 18-22 years from now those kids grow up to be the best available and most capable Americans willing to serve. 
 

The wrong answer is any sort of lowering of standards or preferential treatment for under represented groups. 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...