STRATCOM Has a Sense of Humor, but No Balls

[HuggyU2]

On 1/1/2019 at 8:30 AM, waveshaper said:

I remember when USAF Chief of Staff General Dugan was fired in 1990 for what I considered an appropriate level of "smack talk". 

Whether he deserved it or not based on his comment, I was very glad to see him get fired.  

[FLEA]

21 hours ago, MooseAg03 said:

I was just a kid back during Gulf I, but I remember during OIF in 2003 that Saddam was the head of the Iraqi military and thus a legitimate target. I mean, the guy paraded around in military uniform quite a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So the current line of thinking is that ethics scholars are going this direction and actually questioning civilian immunity entirely. Basically, modern theorist question how separate military and civilian institutions really are. Would POTUS as commander in chief be a valid target?

Most of us agree its ok to schwack a Taliban bomb maker with an MQ-9 on his way home from work. How many people agree that it would be ok to schwack a civilian Raytheon employee on his way home from the hellfire assembly? 

So like I said in the last 20 years a lot of this has shifted but by and large it was hugely taboo in the 80s-90s. 

Edited January 4, 2019 by FLEA

[Lord Ratner]

Jordan Peterson is the Noam Chomsky of what passes for conservatism these days. He may have once been a reputable academic psychologist, but at this point he's just another outrage salesman telling people what they want to be pissed off about.

This should be fun. Elaborate please.

[GKinnear]

Whether he deserved it or not based on his comment, I was very glad to see him get fired.  

For most if us still in uniform and idealize the pre-"peace dividend" USAF...why?

Sent from my Pixel XL using Baseops Network mobile app

[M2]

For one, Dugan didn't just say we planned to target Saddam Hussein, but also his family and even his mistress. 

Dugan was only CSAF for 79 days so he really didn't have time to do much damage (other than to himself!), but he had been warned by Dick Chaney to keep his pie hole shut has in the past he had blabbed more than he should have.  Cheney said that Dugan showed "poor judgment at a sensitive time" adding, "We never talk about the targeting of specific individuals who are officials of other governments. Taking such action might be a violation of the standing presidential executive order 'banning assassinations.'"

But the worst part of the entire situation was Dugan's replacement (spit), who was more concerned that we all look like airline pilots...

[herkbum]

At least you didn’t say his name


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[SocialD]

29 minutes ago, M2 said:

For one, Dugan didn't just say we planned to target Saddam Hussein, but also his family and even his mistress.

But the worst part of the entire situation was Dugan's replacement (spit), who was more concerned that we all look like airline pilots...

Right...I draw the line at taking out a mistresses.  WTF did she ever do but provide happiness and pleasure?!?!

To you second point, ease up brah...he was just trying to do us all a solid an prep us for our future careers.

[FLEA]

11 hours ago, M2 said:

For one, Dugan didn't just say we planned to target Saddam Hussein, but also his family and even his mistress. 

Dugan was only CSAF for 79 days so he really didn't have time to do much damage (other than to himself!), but he had been warned by Dick Chaney to keep his pie hole shut has in the past he had blabbed more than he should have.  Cheney said that Dugan showed "poor judgment at a sensitive time" adding, "We never talk about the targeting of specific individuals who are officials of other governments. Taking such action might be a violation of the standing presidential executive order 'banning assassinations.'"

But the worst part of the entire situation was Dugan's replacement (spit), who was more concerned that we all look like airline pilots...

I like how Cheney said we don't "talk about it", not that we don't "practicc" it. Goes back to socialD's post. "Why am I being fired?"

Edited January 5, 2019 by FLEA

[M2]

[matmacwc]

On 1/2/2019 at 8:13 PM, Disco_Nav963 said:

Jordan Peterson is the Noam Chomsky of what passes for conservatism these days. He may have once been a reputable academic psychologist, but at this point he's just another outrage salesman telling people what they want to be pissed off about.

Personal responsibility is a great subject to be pissed off about??!?  Read his book and report back.

[Disco_Nav963]

7 hours ago, matmacwc said:

Personal responsibility is a great subject to be pissed off about??!?  Read his book and report back.

I was referring to his moonlighting beyond the scope of his field to opine about scary sounding things like "Cultural Marxism" (which, btw, is not a thing). I'm not scoffing his actual academic work in his field (Chomsky was a great linguist, but also a terrible historian and political theorist—that's my point), or the substance of "12 Rules." But at the same time there are scores of people and books you could go to for good life advice that aren't also hucksters selling fear for profit.

[M2]

What the fuck were we talking about again?  Oh yeah, STRATCOM not having balls...

[Lord Ratner]

I was referring to his moonlighting beyond the scope of his field to opine about scary sounding things like "Cultural Marxism" (which, btw, is not a thing). I'm not scoffing his actual academic work in his field (Chomsky was a great linguist, but also a terrible historian and political theorist—that's my point), or the substance of "12 Rules." But at the same time there are scores of people and books you could go to for good life advice that aren't also hucksters selling fear for profit.

Ok, so make an actual claim. He loves the term "cultural Marxism," but he happens to be exceptionally educated about the subject.

Are you arguing that there aren't Marxists in academia? What fear is he hyping up, specifically?

[Disco_Nav963]

14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Ok, so make an actual claim. He loves the term "cultural Marxism," but he happens to be exceptionally educated about the subject.

Are you arguing that there aren't Marxists in academia? What fear is he hyping up, specifically?

 

Jesus you're dense. His Ph.D. is in clinical psychology. All his refereed publications are in psychology. To the extent any of them touch on politics, it's on the personality traits of liberals and conservatives. He has no peer-reviewed publications in history, economics, or political theory. To the extent he has any formal education in those subjects it's a B.A. in Political Science... So did my high school soccer coach. His own statements show he is hardly "exceptionally educated" about those subjects, or Marxist thought in particular. 

Of course there are Marxists in academia. There are also postmodernists/poststructuralists in academia, which is his real bête noire and what he means when he says "cultural Marxism." The two groups do not overlap. They believe very different things about basic epistemology. Saying "cultural Marxist" is like saying "Malthusian infertility medicine"; you're conflating two schools of thought or fields of study that not only don't overlap, but are actually fundamentally contradictory. Marx made specific claims about economics, politics, and history (claims that were severely wrong by the way) based on an underlying belief in epistemological realism—that is, that objective reality exists. Post-modern critical social theorists (like the gender extremists that hold gender is entirely socially constructed) believe the opposite. The targets of Peterson's ire disagree with Marx on epistemology, and they also don't care much about economics either.

But "cultural Marxism" sounds scary and taps into people's concerns about contemporary academia. Ultimately it's a meaningless pejorative like Neo-Conservative (which the Left stripped of its domestic policy meanings to use only to refer to a particular subset of foreign policy thought on the Right, because it conveniently sounds like Neo-Nazi), Neo-Liberal (which once had a particular meaning in international economics, but socialists have co-opted to attack liberals), or "Globalist." It appeals to people whose knowledge of political theory comes from owning but not actually reading/understanding Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." 

Dishonest oversimplification and claiming to speak as an expert about subjects outside your field is not what academics do. It's what hucksters do. 

Edited January 12, 2019 by Disco_Nav963
Grammar

[Guardian]

Jesus you're dense. His Ph.D. is in clinical psychology. All his refereed publications are in psychology. To the extent any of them touch on politics, it's on the personality traits of liberals and conservatives. He has no peer-reviewed publications in history, economics, or political theory. To the extent he has any formal education in those subjects it's a B.A. in Political Science... So did my high school soccer coach. His own statements show he is hardly "exceptionally educated" about those subjects, or Marxist thought in particular.  

Of course there are Marxists in academia. There are also postmodernists/poststructuralists in academia, which is his real bête noire and what he means when he says "cultural Marxism." The two groups do not overlap. They believe very different things about basic epistemology. Saying "cultural Marxist" is like saying "Malthusian infertility medicine"; you're conflating two schools of thought or fields of study that not only don't overlap, but are actually fundamentally contradictory. Marx made specific claims about economics, politics, and history (claims that severely wrong by the way) based on an underlying belief in epistemological realism—that is, that objective reality exists. Post-modern critical social theorists (like the gender extremists that hold gender is entirely socially constructed) believe the opposite. The targets of Peterson's ire disagree with Marx on epistemology, and they also don't care much about economics either.

 

But "cultural Marxism" sounds scary and taps into people's concerns about contemporary academia. Ultimately it's a meaningless pejorative like Neo-Conservative (which the Left stripped of its domestic policy meanings to use only to refer to a particular subset of foreign policy thought on the Right, because it conveniently sounds like Neo-Nazi), Neo-Liberal (which once had a particular meaning in international economics, but socialists have co-opted to attack liberals), or "Globalist." It appeals to people whose knowledge of political theory comes from owning but not actually reading/understanding Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." 

 

Dishonest oversimplification and claiming to speak as an expert about subjects outside your field is not what academics do. It's what hucksters do. 

 

 

 

(Forced gazing)

 

Seriously. I wish I could understand a 1/10 of that. Seems like it would be interesting.

 

Oh well, back to football and beer.

[Lord Ratner]

Jesus you're dense. His Ph.D. is in clinical psychology. All his refereed publications are in psychology. To the extent any of them touch on politics, it's on the personality traits of liberals and conservatives. He has no peer-reviewed publications in history, economics, or political theory. To the extent he has any formal education in those subjects it's a B.A. in Political Science... So did my high school soccer coach. His own statements show he is hardly "exceptionally educated" about those subjects, or Marxist thought in particular. 

Of course there are Marxists in academia. There are also postmodernists/poststructuralists in academia, which is his real bête noire and what he means when he says "cultural Marxism." The two groups do not overlap. They believe very different things about basic epistemology. Saying "cultural Marxist" is like saying "Malthusian infertility medicine"; you're conflating two schools of thought or fields of study that not only don't overlap, but are actually fundamentally contradictory. Marx made specific claims about economics, politics, and history (claims that were severely wrong by the way) based on an underlying belief in epistemological realism—that is, that objective reality exists. Post-modern critical social theorists (like the gender extremists that hold gender is entirely socially constructed) believe the opposite. The targets of Peterson's ire disagree with Marx on epistemology, and they also don't care much about economics either.

But "cultural Marxism" sounds scary and taps into people's concerns about contemporary academia. Ultimately it's a meaningless pejorative like Neo-Conservative (which the Left stripped of its domestic policy meanings to use only to refer to a particular subset of foreign policy thought on the Right, because it conveniently sounds like Neo-Nazi), Neo-Liberal (which once had a particular meaning in international economics, but socialists have co-opted to attack liberals), or "Globalist." It appeals to people whose knowledge of political theory comes from owning but not actually reading/understanding Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." 

Dishonest oversimplification and claiming to speak as an expert about subjects outside your field is not what academics do. It's what hucksters do. 

I'm dense? This from the guy who's pretending like he's listened to the work of the guy he's criticizing?

Here's a great talk about the differences between Marxists and post modernists. Be careful though, he's a huckster...

Come back when you have a PhD, since that's the apparent prerequisite for having an opinion according to your self-eliminating metric for credibility.

[gearhog]

16 hours ago, Disco_Nav963 said:

Jesus you're dense. His Ph.D. is in clinical psychology. All his refereed publications are in psychology. To the extent any of them touch on politics, it's on the personality traits of liberals and conservatives. He has no peer-reviewed publications in history, economics, or political theory. To the extent he has any formal education in those subjects it's a B.A. in Political Science... So did my high school soccer coach. His own statements show he is hardly "exceptionally educated" about those subjects, or Marxist thought in particular. 

Of course there are Marxists in academia. There are also postmodernists/poststructuralists in academia, which is his real bête noire and what he means when he says "cultural Marxism." The two groups do not overlap. They believe very different things about basic epistemology. Saying "cultural Marxist" is like saying "Malthusian infertility medicine"; you're conflating two schools of thought or fields of study that not only don't overlap, but are actually fundamentally contradictory. Marx made specific claims about economics, politics, and history (claims that were severely wrong by the way) based on an underlying belief in epistemological realism—that is, that objective reality exists. Post-modern critical social theorists (like the gender extremists that hold gender is entirely socially constructed) believe the opposite. The targets of Peterson's ire disagree with Marx on epistemology, and they also don't care much about economics either.

But "cultural Marxism" sounds scary and taps into people's concerns about contemporary academia. Ultimately it's a meaningless pejorative like Neo-Conservative (which the Left stripped of its domestic policy meanings to use only to refer to a particular subset of foreign policy thought on the Right, because it conveniently sounds like Neo-Nazi), Neo-Liberal (which once had a particular meaning in international economics, but socialists have co-opted to attack liberals), or "Globalist." It appeals to people whose knowledge of political theory comes from owning but not actually reading/understanding Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism." 

Dishonest oversimplification and claiming to speak as an expert about subjects outside your field is not what academics do. It's what hucksters do. 

He's a dishonest huckster because you believe you've found a semantical flaw in the phrase "cultural Marxism" that he uses in a few of his arguments? 

He repeatedly admits he is open to the idea that there could be errors in his logic, and seeks to find intellectually honest debates to find "truth". You're simply dismissing the entirety of the man's ideas because you disagree with the way he placed two words together, yet you're providing no original alternatives to any of them... and it took you 4 paragraphs to do it, which reeks more of pseudo-intellectualism than anything he has said.

Edited January 13, 2019 by torqued

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, torqued said:

He's a dishonest huckster because you believe you've found a semantical flaw in the phrase "cultural Marxism" that he uses in a few of his arguments? 

He repeatedly admits he is open to the idea that there could be errors in his logic, and seeks to find intellectually honest debates to find "truth". You're simply dismissing the entirety of the man's ideas because you disagree with the way he placed two words together, yet you're providing no original alternatives to any of them... and it took you 4 paragraphs to do it, which reeks more of pseudo-intellectualism than anything he has said.

Or someone who’s taken an undergrad international political systems class.

[Danger41]

10 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Or someone who’s taken an undergrad international political systems class.

JFC is that’s what your undergrad classes sounded like than my degree from College State University is even more worthless than I thought.

[M2]

[Breckey]

[M2]

[Sua Sponte]

3 hours ago, Danger41 said:

 my degree from College State University is even more worthless than I thought.

Most Philosophy majors are 😂 

[M2]

https://www.duffelblog.com/2019/01/isis-unfollows-stratcom-on-twitter-after-offensive-new-years-tweet/