The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Guardian]

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

Think you need to re read your own texts from the past. You’ve used name calling before.

And dipshit is a statement of fact in this case.

[Guardian]

Funny thing is you still can’t acknowledge or prove me wrong on any of the things I’ve said this morning you just use your super vagisil to type out your unintelligent responses.

[slackline]

1 minute ago, Guardian said:

And dipshit is a statement of fact in this case.

I think your grasp of reality is loose at best.  

 

Okay, for the benefit of everyone else, I'll stop screwing with him.  I just don't understand why people keep biting off on his trolling responses.  Don't humor him anymore...  His immediate go to is, "but you're not using facts, please give me yet another example I will ignore in my next response as well."

[Guardian]

And yes, you are right, I am condescending to you.  That means to talk down to...

Condescend all you want. You are correct. The tip of my penis is way below yours. Haha. You’re right. This unintelligent banter back to you is kinda fun. It would be a blast to destroy you in a roll call, drink you under the table, all the while exposing you for the simple minded person you are. Really hope the AF has given you little to no responsibility if it ever hopes to survive.

[Guardian]

Yet you can’t give any facts or reason and your go to is I ignore you.

Nope. I’ve blown up your inability to argue and your inability to use facts or reason. And now you’ve got nothing but personal attacks which started quite a long time before this morning. And aren’t always directed at me. But I just don’t like when someone who thinks they know something really doesn’t and tries to run others down and acts superior. Continue perfecting your OPR. I’ll go back to doing the AF’s work.

[Guardian]

Ah. I get it. I thought slackline had something to do with PR. Now I know it’s a reference to your downstairs mix up.

Already sent your moderator complaint for the day in SLACKline?

[Guardian]

Feel free to go play somewhere else dipshit.

Look... I quoted myself. And it’s still true.

This quoting yourself to make your own argument stronger is awesome. Not sure if it makes sense but it sure does make my EMOTIONS feel better. And it’s very soothing of my triggered-ness. I’m glad you showed me how to do this SLACKline.

[SocialD]

Are we sure Guardian and Slackline aren't married to each other?  

[Prozac]

Dudes, this shit is beneath both of you. KIO. 

[lloyd christmas]

Girls girls.  You are both pretty.  

[Guardian]

Thanks Lloyd.....now about these jeans....

[slackline]

You guys are right. I had a little too much fun with it, but see the error of my ways.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[17D_guy]

4 hours ago, Guardian said:

Republicans don’t get triggered.

LOL.  Responding almost 2-for-1 in posts.  Def not triggered.

[Guardian]

LOL.  Responding almost 2-for-1 in posts.  Def not triggered.

The more you lubricate the easier going it is....

Free tip for you.

[M2]

ADMIN NOTE:  Play nice, guys.  

[filthy_liar]

Flea, Slackline, Prozac, Drewpey and Breckey.  I'm sure I've left out some of you tards.  Have you ever. Ever in your life, had any one of your troops look up to you?  You whine on an internet forum about what all is wrong with America. From the looks of it, on the weekends too. Have you ever done anything in your military career that caused people to look up to you and say hey, I'll follow this one into combat.  What  do you do?  What is your life like?  You sound like you are fighting for the latest organic blast double milkshake of bat turds at trader joes.  Jesus Christ.  What do you tards do?  

Edited November 10, 2020 by filthy_liar
I'm pee peeing in the backseat of the neighbors car. There might've been some spelling errors there

[filthy_liar]

Sorry M2.

[SurelySerious]

That’s a helluva battle to pick. 

Edited November 10, 2020 by SurelySerious

[Prozac]

9 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

With you?  And the rest of the tards?  On an internet forum?  Yes, that's a hell of a battle. It's ok.

 

Don’t you have a survival shelter to dig or something?

[Prozac]

Boy do I feel put in my place. I’m sure your subordinates looked at you in awe. 

[ViperMan]

I'm gonna try to answer a few responses at once, coherently.

18 hours ago, FLEA 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. 

...

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.

Maybe, but I disagree because I think there is a much more likely explanation: men and women express different preferences in their lives and their choice of profession reflects those (innate) differences (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm). This is (by far) the reason for the differential outcomes observed in certain professions.

Take being a teacher, for example. In elementary and middle school, women make up 80% of the teaching force (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching.html). In kindergarten they make up 98% (https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/10/a-male-preschool-teacher-reflects-on-the-stigma-keeping-men-out-of-pre-k-classrooms.html). Surely you will agree that there are no barriers preventing men from getting into either of these professions, no? What causes this immense disparity, then? I contend that it is social and biological factors at work. There are numerous other disparate cases as well: nursing, engineering, oil-rig working, construction worker, dental hygienists, and yes, pilots.

Taking that, there is a much higher likelihood that that a man wants to become a fighter pilot (or other pilot) than a woman. Maybe it's on the order of 10 times as much. Hence, if you took a random sample of the population (men and women), asking each whether or not they would want to be a fighter pilot, you'd probably wind up with something like 9:1 male:female.

Now the interesting part is that about 25% of women (in the general population) are shorter than 5'2". In the military (this is completely anecdotal) they are taller on average. The same is true of my male colleagues. I'm of 100% average male height - yet I'm on the shorter end of the spectrum among F-16 pilots - so we skew taller as a group. Don't ask me for actual data - I don't have it. Look around though and I'm sure you will fairly conclude the same thing. It is likely that people in the military skew taller than average because you generally have to be of better health and athletic ability. So you made a point about women being excluded, but don't forget, there are large numbers of men who are precluded from flying since they are shorter than 5'2", as well. Lessening the height requirement opens the door to all of them, too. Thus, if 10% of those 25%, of say 100 women are now interested in the career, that's a grand total of 2.5 (call it 3) women. And if there are 9x as many guys in that last 1% of short males (those less than 5'2") interested there are going to be 1% X 900 = 9 extra guys eligible as well.

So even if you eliminate height requirements completely you are still going to wind up with more men in that last outlier group than you do women. And if you're being fair to both groups, you'll likely wind up with about 4 more males and 1 female pilot if you choose 50%. So this doesn't "solve" the "problem."

Finally, please note that absolutely none of this is to say that I think women should be excluded from flying if they want to. I honestly welcome it; I just don't think we should break our backs trying to fix nature.

16 hours ago, Guardian said:

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

Thank you. This is predictably rolled out as evidence of systemic discrimination against minority groups. The problem is there are groups of whites who are prosecuted at disproportionately higher rates than blacks for different (but equivalent) crimes. See crack vs meth (https://medium.com/@JSlate__/the-myth-of-racist-crack-laws-63d7a7554cae😞

"Moreover, the press almost never mentions the federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties, which are identical to those for crack. In 2006, the 5,391 sentenced federal meth defendants were 54% white, 39% Hispanic and 2% black. No one calls the federal meth laws anti-Hispanic or anti-white.The press has also served up a massive dose of crack revisionism aimed at proving the racist origins of the war on crack."

16 hours 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.

I agree with you in the sense that it wasn't done as part of a conscientious act to disallow women into certain career fields, but I don't agree that there was any "thought process" that excluded them either. Rather it is the results of the sum total of choices groups of men and women make - which are different.

15 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Absolutely disagree with you on this point.

...

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:

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.

Minorities were more "likely" to be accused because they come from groups that have a higher (background) levels of crime - so that is not a surprise. Since they are not convicted at a higher rate than whites, this means that justice system is fair.

To your second point, that is not a problem, though it is framed as such. Innocent men are more likely to be accused than women. Problem? The problem was identified by Slackline (and maybe others, including you), and that is that there are after-effects on one's career even after charges are dropped or the accused comes out clean. That is a problem that can be solved.

Here is the study in question: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699380.pdf. It says this:

"GAO’s analysis of available data found that Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female members to be the subjects of investigations recorded in databases used by the military criminal investigative organizations, and to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all of the military services when controlling for attributes such as rank and education. GAO also found that race and gender were not statistically significant factors in the likelihood of conviction in general and special courts-martial for most services, and minority servicemembers were either less likely to receive a more severe punishment than White servicemembers or there was no difference among racial groups; thus, disparities may be limited to particular stages of the process."

What this means is that within the microcosm of the military, different racial groups reflect the same level of background noise (crime) that is present in society. This is completely unsurprising. What would be indicative of systemic bias is if one group, say blacks, was convicted at a much lower rate than whites. This would indicate some sort of command-level animus towards blacks serving in the ranks, with commanders at all levels proffering charges against black members - using the UCMJ as a bludgeon - only to have the military justice system be the final backstop that provides some sort of relief/justice - since they're not convicted at higher rates. But that's not what's happening. In actuality, Blacks, Hispanics, and males commit crimes inside the Air Force at similar rates as those outside the Air Force, and this data shows it.

Edited November 10, 2020 by ViperMan
spacing

[Lord Ratner]

45 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

I'm gonna try to answer a few responses at once, coherently.

Maybe, but I disagree because I think there is a much more likely explanation: men and women express different preferences in their lives and their choice of profession reflects those (innate) differences (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm). This is (by far) the reason for the differential outcomes observed in certain professions.

Take being a teacher, for example. In elementary and middle school, women make up 80% of the teaching force (https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/sunday-review/why-dont-more-men-go-into-teaching.html). In kindergarten they make up 98% (https://slate.com/human-interest/2017/10/a-male-preschool-teacher-reflects-on-the-stigma-keeping-men-out-of-pre-k-classrooms.html). Surely you will agree that there are no barriers preventing men from getting into either of these professions, no? What causes this immense disparity, then? I contend that it is social and biological factors at work. There are numerous other disparate cases as well: nursing, engineering, oil-rig working, construction worker, dental hygienists, and yes, pilots.

Taking that, there is a much higher likelihood that that a man wants to become a fighter pilot (or other pilot) than a woman. Maybe it's on the order of 10 times as much. Hence, if you took a random sample of the population (men and women), asking each whether or not they would want to be a fighter pilot, you'd probably wind up with something like 9:1 male:female.

Now the interesting part is that about 25% of women (in the general population) are shorter than 5'2". In the military (this is completely anecdotal) they are taller on average. The same is true of my male colleagues. I'm of 100% average male height - yet I'm on the shorter end of the spectrum among F-16 pilots - so we skew taller as a group. Don't ask me for actual data - I don't have it. Look around though and I'm sure you will fairly conclude the same thing. It is likely that people in the military skew taller than average because you generally have to be of better health and athletic ability. So you made a point about women being excluded, but don't forget, there are large numbers of men who are precluded from flying since they are shorter than 5'2", as well. Lessening the height requirement opens the door to all of them, too. Thus, if 10% of those 25%, of say 100 women are now interested in the career, that's a grand total of 2.5 (call it 3) women. And if there are 9x as many guys in that last 1% of short males (those less than 5'2") interested there are going to be 1% X 900 = 9 extra guys eligible as well.

So even if you eliminate height requirements completely you are still going to wind up with more men in that last outlier group than you do women. And if you're being fair to both groups, you'll likely wind up with about 4 more males and 1 female pilot if you choose 50%. So this doesn't "solve" the "problem."

Finally, please note that absolutely none of this is to say that I think women should be excluded from flying if they want to. I honestly welcome it; I just don't think we should break our backs trying to fix nature.

Thank you. This is predictably rolled out as evidence of systemic discrimination against minority groups. The problem is there are groups of whites who are prosecuted at disproportionately higher rates than blacks for different (but equivalent) crimes. See crack vs meth (https://medium.com/@JSlate__/the-myth-of-racist-crack-laws-63d7a7554cae😞

"Moreover, the press almost never mentions the federal methamphetamine-trafficking penalties, which are identical to those for crack. In 2006, the 5,391 sentenced federal meth defendants were 54% white, 39% Hispanic and 2% black. No one calls the federal meth laws anti-Hispanic or anti-white.The press has also served up a massive dose of crack revisionism aimed at proving the racist origins of the war on crack."

I agree with you in the sense that it wasn't done as part of a conscientious act to disallow women into certain career fields, but I don't agree that there was any "thought process" that excluded them either. Rather it is the results of the sum total of choices groups of men and women make - which are different.

Minorities were more "likely" to be accused because they come from groups that have a higher (background) levels of crime - so that is not a surprise. Since they are not convicted at a higher rate than whites, this means that justice system is fair.

To your second point, that is not a problem, though it is framed as such. Innocent men are more likely to be accused than women. Problem? The problem was identified by Slackline (and maybe others, including you), and that is that there are after-effects on one's career even after charges are dropped or the accused comes out clean. That is a problem that can be solved.

Here is the study in question: https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/699380.pdf. It says this:

"GAO’s analysis of available data found that Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female members to be the subjects of investigations recorded in databases used by the military criminal investigative organizations, and to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all of the military services when controlling for attributes such as rank and education. GAO also found that race and gender were not statistically significant factors in the likelihood of conviction in general and special courts-martial for most services, and minority servicemembers were either less likely to receive a more severe punishment than White servicemembers or there was no difference among racial groups; thus, disparities may be limited to particular stages of the process."

What this means is that within the microcosm of the military, different racial groups reflect the same level of background noise (crime) that is present in society. This is completely unsurprising. What would be indicative of systemic bias is if one group, say blacks, was convicted at a much lower rate than whites. This would indicate some sort of command-level animus towards blacks serving in the ranks, with commanders at all levels proffering charges against black members - using the UCMJ as a bludgeon - only to have the military justice system be the final backstop that provides some sort of relief/justice - since they're not convicted at higher rates. But that's not what's happening. In actuality, Blacks, Hispanics, and males commit crimes inside the Air Force at similar rates as those outside the Air Force, and this data shows it.

Great post

[17D_guy]

9 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

They do.  I wish they didn't. But they do.  I stand for something that you are against.  Yes, they all do.  Ask Pbar if he knows who dutch is. He does.  They all do.  And yes, Prozac, I could stomp your sorry worthless ass into the ground.  I know it's a chatroom brother, but in my world, being able to...nevermind.  Its a chatroom.

Dude...take a break.

[17D_guy]

19 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

Okie dokie

Cool.

18 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

17D guy are you in charge?

 

Not at all.

17 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

Who's in charge here?  Quick, I need a break, I'm about to go to bed.  Who's in charge?

M2, who asked us to play nicer a few posts ago.

11 minutes ago, filthy_liar said:

17D told me to shut the up tonight.  It was a good handoff.  G'nite.  

I didn't.  That was a concerned "take a break."  Good night.

[filthy_liar]

He said more choice words than that.  I'm not making that up.