The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[SocialD]

It's times like this that I'm so glad l live (mostly) out here in the sticks.  Just as soon as I can secure some land for my grass strip, I'll be even further out.  It's much cheaper, the people are good and violent protestors know better than to come out our way. 

 

It appears the protestors broke through a gated fence to get on that street, which is private property, and some are being charged with trespassing and assault by intimidation.  Thankfully they're lawyers.  I'm a gun lover as much as the next person.  I probably would have been out there monitoring my property, but with my gun safely in its holster.  

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

The protesters come from "shitholes," are "a violent & illegal mob," study "x-grievance programs in college," are "the enemy" and "deserve to be dropped." Cool cool, sorry to have engaged, I see that your mind is well made up.

Honestly it makes me sad and disappointed that you just casually talk about your fellow citizens or just fellow human beings like that. This isn't war, where sometimes you need to dehumanize and "other-ize" in order to kill the enemy; this is America.

What I'm arguing for re: this couple and your lionizing of them is that de-escalation of the situation and demonstrating responsible gun ownership would have been a better path.

These folks are not heroic for branshing loaded firearms at people on the street walking by their house, with fingers often on the triggers and while also occasionally barrel-checking each other's backs. That's reckless behavior that I know you wouldn't tolerate in a combat zone, let alone what should be the expectation while on your front lawn in Anytown, USA.

I'll take you at good faith and yes my mind is made up about the Woke Movement.   

I would call them citizens of the same country but not fellows nor do I have any connection to them other than that.  They believe in things anti-thetical to me, my beliefs and values.  There is no common ground and we can not be friends.  That does not mean we are enemies necessarily and mea culpa for that emotional language used above but we should keep our distance from each other.  Not everything in life is meant to work out, some differences are not soluble and at least to my mind, there is a line between some groups of people that neither side can cross so that's just it.  

I'm not trying to start shit with you but I think your idea of de-escalation is cowering before them, letting them berate you, scream at you, dominate you, accuse you and your recent ancestors of being the cause of everything wrong for some people in this world and that they as the new moral arbiters of our society redistribute your wealth (not theirs btw) and restrict your freedoms and teach your children to despise you, your heritage and ultimately themselves.  That's a somewhat f'd up way to say what I feel/think while trying not to insult you, to seriously discuss with you but I can't describe it any other way.

The  McCloskeys like Trump are not perfect and there is likely some room for critique in their response but IMO not for the response.  How are the mistakes they may or may not have made in handling their weapons worse than what these goddamn animals have been doing setting fires, throwing bricks, looting, tearing down statues with no regard and vandalizing, jumping on cars and assaulting persons not down with struggle or sufficiently enough.  I know that stealing TVs and liquor is the preferred technique to fighting systemic racism so we'll just overlook that but do you not find any fault with those people who were instigating the situation on that private street and private property?

Like you I'm sad too that people in my country otherize me, excuse behavior I think they know is wrong and have lost the ability to hold people to account, even if they were dealt a shitty hand in life at the start, opportunities extended to them and a recognition of past mistakes.   They still have agency though, they still have a choice.  I can have a discussion about how to assist others so that to the maximum realistically possible we can give everyone a good start in life but I'm not gonna ever accept that it is all corrupt and evil from the roots up as they say now.  If that is their position which it appears to be then we need to seriously discuss a new form of the United States, what we have now can not work.

This is different than 1968, we may be like two train cars that just decoupled and drifting close for a short time before we just drift apart inexorably. 

[nsplayr]

7 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

I would call them citizens of the same country but not fellows nor do I have any connection to them other than that.  They believe in things anti-thetical to me, my beliefs and values.  There is no common ground and we can not be friends.  That does not mean we are enemies necessarily and mea culpa for that emotional language used above but we should keep our distance from each other.  Not everything in life is meant to work out, some differences are not soluble and at least to my mind, there is a line between some groups of people that neither side can cross so that's just it.

(break break)  

If that is their position which it appears to be then we need to seriously discuss a new form of the United States, what we have now can not work.

In that case, by your own words, unfortunately you and I are not able to be fellows, friends, etc., and that sucks. I don't agree to that deal.

I'll regularly talk politics with people and my friend group is split fairly evenly between more conservative military types and more liberal neighbors and college friends. Amongst all of them, I've honestly never talked with someone, let alone a fellow servicemember, who was crouched so defensively in his or her own position that they would say things like what you wrote above.

Some of the guys & gals in my current unit are among the most die-hard right-wing Trump supporters I think likely exist, but there is always common ground, there are many shared beliefs and values, and we are friends. I refuse to believe that any honestly-felt differences on politics or policy or even values are so great as to put us in the situation you describe.

Even though I'm not religious per se, I've pledged allegiance to the idea that our nation would be, "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," and I'm having a hard time squaring your above statements with that same pledge I'm sure you also said many times.

Not trying to attack you with any of this, but real talk, I'm genuinely sad about what you're saying here and the mindset that led you to say what you did. I'm telling you all this out of respect too, because to say nothing would be to abandon you to the very division and discord you seem to not only accept, but even promote. My view is that we cannot be separate if we want to remain equal.

We need people to do the hard work of finding common ground now more than at any previous time in my lifetime and I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and know that I'm trying my best to heal rather than divide.

I hope you will reconsider.

[lloyd christmas]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

In that case, by your own words, unfortunately you and I are not able to be fellows, friends, etc., and that sucks. I don't agree to that deal.

words

We need people to do the hard work of finding common ground now more than at any previous time in my lifetime and I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and know that I'm trying my best to heal rather than divide.

I hope you will reconsider.

Ugh.

Edited July 2, 2020 by lloyd christmas

[Sim]

5 hours ago, nsplayr said:

marched by their house

Let me guess. You watch msnbc? 

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

In that case, by your own words, unfortunately you and I are not able to be fellows, friends, etc., and that sucks. I don't agree to that deal.

I'll regularly talk politics with people and my friend group is split fairly evenly between more conservative military types and more liberal neighbors and college friends. Amongst all of them, I've honestly never talked with someone, let alone a fellow servicemember, who was crouched so defensively in his or her own position that they would say things like what you wrote above.

Some of the guys & gals in my current unit are among the most die-hard right-wing Trump supporters I think likely exist, but there is always common ground, there are many shared beliefs and values, and we are friends. I refuse to believe that any honestly-felt differences on politics or policy or even values are so great as to put us in the situation you describe.

Even though I'm not religious per se, I've pledged allegiance to the idea that our nation would be, "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," and I'm having a hard time squaring your above statements with that same pledge I'm sure you also said many times.

Not trying to attack you with any of this, but real talk, I'm genuinely sad about what you're saying here and the mindset that led you to say what you did. I'm telling you all this out of respect too, because to say nothing would be to abandon you to the very division and discord you seem to not only accept, but even promote. My view is that we cannot be separate if we want to remain equal.

We need people to do the hard work of finding common ground now more than at any previous time in my lifetime and I want to be able to look myself in the mirror and know that I'm trying my best to heal rather than divide.

I hope you will reconsider.

I am coiled up because I have to be, the shift in the conversation in this country has gone from policy, positions, opinions to values and more ominously to identity, immutable traits that I can't and don't want to change, nor will I mock and insult them by pretending that I am something else or deny them.  My identity is of equal value, has no intrinsic fault, is no more guilty in the balance of history than any others and has built societies that despite being told are inherently evil, most people of other identities really want to live in, weird.

Policies, positions, etc... are tradeable things.  We can give and take on them, this tax rate up or down, this policy more stringent or lax and we can change our opinions on matters as time and circumstances change.  We can't change who or what we are fundamentally (race, gender, sexual orientation, heritage) and the Left of late is WAY more interested and invested in setting up that oppositional construct where basically its all other identities against one/two others. 

What did "they" think would or will happen?  That this COA of Identity Politics would not cause a defensive reaction in those one/two groups?  Not all of the individuals in that group are willing to be put upon and as their strategy unfolds and the collaborators of said one/two groups will eventually realize they will just be the last horses in line at the glue factory, some of them are not going to be down with the program.  They will fight back.  Legal and political means thankfully for right now but if you follow the Intersectional/Critical Race Theory out to its logical conclusion, it will destroy this imperfect but aspiring to be democratic republic multiracial society.  Maybe it's how it will end, fulfilling the cliche that like empires are never murdered, they commit suicide.

There is no common ground with those who think you are inherently evil.  Jewish people know this terrible and depressing fact of life very well unfortunately, some people will just always be your enemy.  I'm not happy about division and I'm not about promoting it but I am realistic about accepting it.  

I respect your opinions and postings on BO, don't view you as a foe, there's a gradual spectrum we all fall somewhere on in the eyes of others who are reasonable.  As to the country and the pledge you cited, it is indivisible but it is not immutable.  If the people change, what they want changes, the way they live changes, what they believe changes then why not the order under with they live change?

[AirGuardianC141747]

If they hadn’t come out, then what. Good for them...

Edited July 2, 2020 by AirGuardianC141747

[Seriously]

I would have done the same as them... but it looks like Bonnie and Rambo have never fired a gun in their lives.

[SocialD]

9 hours ago, Sim said:

 

 

Nah man, I'm sure that gate was like that before the protestors showed up.  Didn't you hear one of them in the video, it was a public street, they couldn't have destroyed this gate and wandered onto private property.  It's peaceful protesting after all...

[Clark Griswold]

Sage advice from someone who saw their country devolve:

I just hope her name is not Cassandra.

[M2]

16 hours ago, nsplayr said:

The protesters come from "shitholes," are "a violent & illegal mob," study "x-grievance programs in college," are "the enemy" and "deserve to be dropped." Cool cool, sorry to have engaged, I see that your mind is well made up.

Honestly it makes me sad and disappointed that you just casually talk about your fellow citizens or just fellow human beings like that. This isn't war, where sometimes you need to dehumanize and "other-ize" in order to kill the enemy; this is America.

What I'm arguing for re: this couple and your lionizing of them is that de-escalation of the situation and demonstrating responsible gun ownership would have been a better path.

These folks are not heroic for branshing loaded firearms at people on the street walking by their house, with fingers often on the triggers and while also occasionally barrel-checking each other's backs. That's reckless behavior that I know you wouldn't tolerate in a combat zone, let alone what should be the expectation while on your front lawn in Anytown, USA.

How you can defend those fucks are beyond me, but as usual you are blinded in thinking they are "peaceful protesters" equating them to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

While their tactics suck, those homeowners had every right to defend their property.  Anyone who has watched the news over the past few weeks knows how these "protesters" become looters in a heartbeat. 

Honestly, every time you post, I picture you kneeling...

[ImNotARobot]

https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/01/dear-white-colonel-we-must-address-our-blind-spots-around-race/

[Clark Griswold]

51 minutes ago, ImNotARobot said:

https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/01/dear-white-colonel-we-must-address-our-blind-spots-around-race/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar#:~:text=In the military%2C a political,ideology) and organization of the

[FLEA]

Colin Noir did a pretty good response on the McCleosky debacle above and what was and what was not within their rights. 

 

 

[sixblades]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar#:~:text=In the military%2C a political,ideology) and organization of the

Since when did topics of race and leadership become political? He seems to be challenging a thought process that downplays the experiences of a large subset of our force.

You may not agree with what he’s saying, it’s obviously an opinion post, but he seems to frame his argument in way to drive self-reflection from leaders at all levels on how they connect with and treat their people.

[Clark Griswold]

18 minutes ago, sixblades said:

Since when did topics of race and leadership become political? 

 

Around 2008

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/news-desk/2008/03/21/obama-typical-white-person-comment-delights-clinton-aides

[ImNotARobot]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar#:~:text=In the military%2C a political,ideology) and organization of the

Can’t disagree with you there.

[AirGuardianC141747]

Let me know when you and one other (your wife) are courageous enough to do what they did amongst many. Fear brings out the best and worst. 
 

Griswold’s great example has been going on for decades across the oceans afar. How small minded we are never to look across them, visit them, witness such occurrences and reflect what really can/is happening here. Military folks should know better than most. Stay informed, stay armed, stay well. It may very well be you and only you who can protect yourselves, etc. Sheepdog or sheep, your choice.
 

 

[busdriver]

5 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

Around 2008

https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/news-desk/2008/03/21/obama-typical-white-person-comment-delights-clinton-aides

Americans have been obsessed with race for far longer than 2008, not without cause.   The GOP was founded in opposition to the expansion of slavery.

 

I've been thinking about how this thing might turn out. 

The 1960's were similarly tumultuous, and the republic came out the other side better for it. 

The Iranian revolution was ostensibly led by both secular leftist and religious thinkers, but fed by large numbers of unemployed men.  Obviously the Ayatollah ended up as the leader of record.  I'm seeing a lot of similarities with Iran, with respect to varying ideologies within the political parties.  I suspect things will get worse before they get better.  I think the DNC and RNC as we know them now are finished.  I think it's just a matter of time, with my only question being what comes out the other end?

[sixblades]

Around 2008
https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/news-desk/2008/03/21/obama-typical-white-person-comment-delights-clinton-aides

2008, huh? Seems like veiled language for something else, but regardless, Americans have been dealing with matters of race for 400+ years and it only becomes political when people become uncomfortable talking about it or somehow when it involves discussions about equality and humanity.

For something that you describe as an immutable characteristic (race, sexual orientation, heritage...) why is it controversial to acknowledge and discuss salient issues that involve them if they pertain to leadership?

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, sixblades said:

2008, huh? Seems like veiled language for something else, but regardless, Americans have been dealing with matters of race for 400+ years and it only becomes political when people become uncomfortable talking about it or somehow when it involves discussions about equality and humanity.

For something that you describe as an immutable characteristic (race, sexual orientation, heritage...) why is it controversial to acknowledge and discuss salient issues that involve them if they pertain to leadership?

It's not a conversation now but a relentless propaganda stream that is only acceptable to one side if the other side is in receive only mode.

Douglas Murray has it down, once it was about equality before the law but now it's some are better than others, some are have greater moral worth than others.  4 legs good, 2 legs better... the right didn't screw this up, the left did when they decided they would fix past racism with a type of caste system in the West designed according to their paradigm of history, race relations and biases that would "fix" everything.  #reallyreallybadidea

As to your question on the discussion of immutable characteristics on leadership, I would disagree with your premise completely, immutable characteristics have nothing to do with military leadership in this case.  Everyone brings different perspectives, experiences and opinions to the table combined with their natural talents, knowledge and skills acquired and personal drive.  Those things are influenced by our immutable characteristics but that are not solely determined by immutable characteristics, we have agency. 

If we are X majority percentage the result of our immutable characteristics then we should just drop the pretense of saying we are a egalitarian meritocracy and admit we are a formulaic caste system where based on mainly who you are and not what you can or have done will be used to assign, award and allow opportunities.  To hell with that. 

No race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity has a better or worse mix of that, attempting to ascribe value to that which we did not earn or produce but were merely assigned by the accident of our birth is a recipe for continual inter-group strife and likely poor leadership selection in the case of military leadership.  That idea of using something not related to strategic insight, tactical skill and adaptive thinking is what the enemies we historically fight and defeat do.  Party loyalty, ethnic heritage, etc... that's what they use often, to support typically corrupt and authoritarian societies.  Is us using something that is like that but with a gentler facade on it and smooth language attached to it better?

That is not a Pollyanna denial of the reality that some people are racists and use their power and position in life to be dicks to others and cause harm to them sometimes, it is just a statement saying that replacing one corrupt racial value assignment system with another is not a good idea.

You don't fix one cut on a person by causing another, you stitch the wound, treat it and wait for it heal, albeit maddeningly slowly.

[nsplayr]

2 hours ago, sixblades said:

2008, huh? Seems like veiled language for something else, but regardless, Americans have been dealing with matters of race for 400+ years and it only becomes political when people become uncomfortable talking about it or somehow when it involves discussions about equality and humanity.

For something that you describe as an immutable characteristic (race, sexual orientation, heritage...) why is it controversial to acknowledge and discuss salient issues that involve them if they pertain to leadership?

Reminds me of this quote from a book I'm reading right now:

"I call it the democratization of discomfort. There were whole swaths of people uncomfortable all of the time. Now we're democratizing it. Now more people across different races and religions feel uncomfortable." - Jennifer Richeson, in Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein, p. 125.

Edited July 3, 2020 by nsplayr

[Erthwerm]

Joe Rogan just had James Lindsay on his podcast again today and talked about how the woke culture has started to spread and the "epigenetics" of it, if you will. I found it a pretty scholarly dissection of the climate. 

[jazzdude]

That idea of using something not related to strategic insight, tactical skill and adaptive thinking is what the enemies we historically fight and defeat do.  Party loyalty, ethnic heritage, etc... that's what they use often, to support typically corrupt and authoritarian societies.  Is us using something that is like that but with a gentler facade on it and smooth language attached to it better?
That is not a Pollyanna denial of the reality that some people are racists and use their power and position in life to be dicks to others and cause harm to them sometimes, it is just a statement saying that replacing one corrupt racial value assignment system with another is not a good idea.

It's easy to say that we're a meritocracy as a military, but if you look at the comments on this forum, it doesn't seem to play out that way. Maybe to major, where if you work hard and are competent, you can make it pretty much on your own. But past that, it becomes a game of who you know, who is sponsoring you, and luck/timing (which can be influenced by a senior enough sponsor).

It's the frustration of the guys/gals on the line hacking the mission seeing guys/gals who do exec/aide de camp have their careers accelerated. That in of itself may not be bad, but many of those interviews are done in person, or the application package required a full length official photo. If it was a true meritocracy, no photo would be needed, and any interviews could be conducted as blind interviews, in order to remove non relevant biases. But hiring boards still insist on requiring a photo, which allows the board to apply unconscious (or conscious) biases in their decision making.

Any biases in the hiring decisions affects more than just that one job. It can make the difference between getting on/remaining on the fast track for promotion and not, or for command opportunities.

The army did research into whether having an official photo in an officer promotion package affected promotion outcomes, and found that it did, with minorities/women doing better when no picture was included in their file. So now the army is set to remove photos from officer promotions, and they are going to rerun their experiment for their enlisted and warrant promotions. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/25/inside-armys-decision-eliminate-photos-officer-promotion-boards.html

I get that we don't have photos in our promotion records, but since they are still used in hiring for career enhancing jobs, it still affects promotions by removing opportunities due to potential biases in the board.

tldr: I wholeheartedly disagree with having minority quotas for boards. But I'm for any change that removes biases based on race/ethnicity/gender from hiring/promotion boards so that we can live up to our meritocracy ideal rather than just giving it lip service.

[Clark Griswold]

On 7/3/2020 at 7:17 AM, jazzdude said:

It's easy to say that we're a meritocracy as a military, but if you look at the comments on this forum, it doesn't seem to play out that way. Maybe to major, where if you work hard and are competent, you can make it pretty much on your own. But past that, it becomes a game of who you know, who is sponsoring you, and luck/timing (which can be influenced by a senior enough sponsor).

It's the frustration of the guys/gals on the line hacking the mission seeing guys/gals who do exec/aide de camp have their careers accelerated. That in of itself may not be bad, but many of those interviews are done in person, or the application package required a full length official photo. If it was a true meritocracy, no photo would be needed, and any interviews could be conducted as blind interviews, in order to remove non relevant biases. But hiring boards still insist on requiring a photo, which allows the board to apply unconscious (or conscious) biases in their decision making.

Any biases in the hiring decisions affects more than just that one job. It can make the difference between getting on/remaining on the fast track for promotion and not, or for command opportunities.

The army did research into whether having an official photo in an officer promotion package affected promotion outcomes, and found that it did, with minorities/women doing better when no picture was included in their file. So now the army is set to remove photos from officer promotions, and they are going to rerun their experiment for their enlisted and warrant promotions. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/25/inside-armys-decision-eliminate-photos-officer-promotion-boards.html

I get that we don't have photos in our promotion records, but since they are still used in hiring for career enhancing jobs, it still affects promotions by removing opportunities due to potential biases in the board.

tldr: I wholeheartedly disagree with having minority quotas for boards. But I'm for any change that removes biases based on race/ethnicity/gender from hiring/promotion boards so that we can live up to our meritocracy ideal rather than just giving it lip service.

 

No argument with specific proposals you mentioned and agree that personal connections begin to make an undue contribution to selection at certain ranks and I would even say at Lt to Capt with reference to school / program selections then setting up said O for the fast track to the top.

I would qualify the type of meritocracy the AF and America is, an imperfect meritocracy that gets it about 80% right.  The 20% remaining is the tradespace where the two sides can and should meet to figure how to shrink, it will never completely go away but that is one of our life tasks to constantly try to shrink it. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by Clark Griswold