Covid Injection Tyranny - Share and Discuss

[Grabby]

3 hours ago, Pooter said:

I just don't get the constant fascination with pinning this on China when in all likelihood our own NIH had a hand in funding the research that caused this too. And then they lied about it. 
 

 

It was developed and then released from a Chinese laboratory.  In China.  Who would you pin it on?

Are you getting your news from Chinese state-run media?  

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, Day Man said:

are we really arguing whether ethnic/racial slurs are ok? WTF is going on

That's where we are.

I feel like some of the posters have become the super old GS civilian when forced into the diversity training... which apparently we need more than I thought. 

[Sim]

https://www.stripes.com/covid/2021-09-29/coronavirus-vaccine-military-mandate-lawsuit-service-members-3070322.html

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to:
A.
Find that the use of Pfizer-BNT COVID-19 vaccine for forcible
inoculation of U.S. military members to be illegal until and unless the
Secretary of Defense complies with his statutory requirements in
requesting a waiver of informed consent and until the President makes the
requisite finding under 10 U.S.C. §1107; and
B.
Find that all members of the Plaintiffs’ class that have survived infection
with COVID-19 are still entitled to a medical exemption from vaccination
even after the Defendants have complied with their legal obligations under
the implementing DoDI 6200.02;
If applicable,
C.
Find that the use of vaccines under an EUA is illegal until and unless all of
the Defendants comply with their statutory obligations in requesting a
waiver of informed consent under 10 U.S.C. §1107a and the implementing
regulations and laws;
D.
Find that all members of the Plaintiffs’ class that have survived infection
with COVID-19 are entitled to individual assessment to determine their
eligibility for a medical exemption from vaccination even after the
Defendants have complied with their legal obligations under DoDI
6200.02;
Plaintiffs also ask this Honorable Court to:
E.
Find and declare that any order issued by DoD requiring the Plaintiffs to
receive inoculation with COVID-19 vaccines are per se unlawful;
F.
Enjoin the DoD from vaccinating any service members until this action
has completed and the status of any vaccine has been determined and the
requirements for taking away Plaintiffs’ rights of informed consent have
been met; and
G.
Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees and any other relief this
Court may find appropriat

covid_lawsuitamended.pdf

Edited October 1, 2021 by Sim

[jazzdude]

No one was arguing better or worse. Just words and their meanings. I don’t agree with it being used in any case. Nor do I agree with someone calling him a racist for using an ethnic slur. Potato pot-a-tow

This attitude drives why we have to waste time with diversity training, and why there's a push to do more diversity training across the force. Either way, it's unacceptable behavior, especially for what I'd assume it's from an officer in our military.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism
"4. racial or ethnic prejudice or intolerance."

Oxford dictionary
"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

I'll grant you that some dictionaries (Merriam Webster) only refer to race and not ethnicity in their definition. Though the meaning of words do shift, and some dictionaries are slow to capture how words are now being used.

Or we could call him a bigot if you refuse to believe the meaning of words change over time.

Then again, a lot of anti-Chinese sentiment does get placed on Asians in general. And having been on the receiving end of those kind of slurs, including the one being debated, I can assure that it often is used as a racial slur and not just as an ethnic slur.

[brabus]

@Sim Unfortunately even if they win that lawsuit, assumption is it’s not finished before the 2 Dec deadline. Doesn’t seem like it will help anyone in the AF.  

[glockenspiel]

Correct me if I am wrong but, I believe diversity is an old old wooden ship used in the civil war era.

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, brabus said:

@Sim Unfortunately even if they win that lawsuit, assumption is it’s not finished before the 2 Dec deadline. Doesn’t seem like it will help anyone in the AF.  

Plus they already fail part C. The Pfizer vaccine isn't an emergency use authorization anymore.

Edited October 1, 2021 by pawnman

[Guardian]

Jazz dude. Please explain how correcting peoples use of the often incorrectly used word racist means that we need diversity training? How does me agreeing that it’s a bad word and I don’t use it nor agree with its usage mean we need diversity training?

You can’t lump what he did into a broad spectrum definition of racial or ethic prejudice or intolerance and then say he is racist for using a word that doesn’t describe race.

If someone used a slur against me that didn’t apply to me and they were trying to use it in a racist way when it clearly can’t be by definition that would just make me turn inward and laugh at how stupid that person is. Not take offense for their poor use of language.

I think people often forget that the constitution and bill of rights don’t give you the right to not be offended. In fact if that were a thing, we wouldn’t be the country with the most freedom of speech in the world. Because to have open dialog you have to risk offending the other person because of their beliefs.

[Guardian]

As far as the word racist look at the root of the word. Race. Race defined does not include ethnicity.

The real reason we have to have diversity training is to receive the new butchered definitions of the English language that have changed since last summer to include more things so that one of the ugliest words of all time in the English language can be used to be thrown at all kinds of things and imply new things that aren’t real.

This isn’t simply just adding another meaning to a word like todays use of the word fire. When kids say it, it doesn’t mean what it used to. But it’s not in a derogatory ugly way. That’s ok. But when the definition changes to include more than just race into an influence word so people can use the word rampantly against anything they don’t like it is wrong. Evil some would say.

You start approaching a place where any word can be used for anything. Then the language becomes gibberish. Which is one of the many reasons the world laughs at us.

It’s like people are looking for more ways to be offended and shut down discussion. Is that what you want with diversity training? Or in general?

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, joe1234 said:

More than you thought? What, you're just now realizing what the temperature of the room is (and always has been)? But I suppose it's harder to notice when it's not coming in your direction.

 

Guess so. This is the first time here on the forums I've seen someone use a blatant slur...I guess I was a little taken aback at how many people jumped in to defend it as "Chinese isn't a race".

 

[Guardian]

Guess so. This is the first time here on the forums I've seen someone use a blatant slur...I guess I was a little taken aback at how many people jumped in to defend it as "Chinese isn't a race".
 

Pawn. That’s disingenuous. You’re stretching things to try and make a point and cause drama outside the truth.

No one defended his use of the word. The people that brought up “Chinese isn’t a race” as you put it were just correcting the use of the word racist against it. No one defended him or the use of the word.

So get real for a second bro. Have a beer. It’s Friday. Not everything is meant to cause you stress or a response from you. (Hardly anything if anything at all I would argue). You don’t have to be offended by everything.

[glockenspiel]

8 hours ago, pawnman said:

diversity training... which apparently we need more than I thought. 

[Guest]

[arg]

Multiple sources on this. The .gov putting them up to it?

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/29/free-speech-immunity-youtube-bans-channels-airing-criticism-of-vaccines/?fbclid=IwAR0h-9YcRdIriH06AQQXxdEwfHAHZtDaqopXfnPjN5-1zpQODv-h1eiI_2Q

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, arg said:

Multiple sources on this. The .gov putting them up to it?

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/29/free-speech-immunity-youtube-bans-channels-airing-criticism-of-vaccines/?fbclid=IwAR0h-9YcRdIriH06AQQXxdEwfHAHZtDaqopXfnPjN5-1zpQODv-h1eiI_2Q

No disrespect, but is this new news to you about YouTube (owned by Google, owned by Alphabet Inc., funded by the C.I.A.) censoring videos? The reason I ask is because I’ve known about it for years now, but it’s interesting when others say they’re just now noticing it. I don’t take it against the individual, but it’s appalling the level of information control they have over the individual especially as algorithms are doing most of the work censoring.

[VMFA187]

47 minutes ago, dogfish78 said:

No disrespect, but is this new news to you about YouTube (owned by Google, owned by Alphabet Inc., funded by the C.I.A.) censoring videos? The reason I ask is because I’ve known about it for years now, but it’s interesting when others say they’re just now noticing it. I don’t take it against the individual, but it’s appalling the level of information control they have over the individual especially as algorithms are doing most of the work censoring.

 

1 hour ago, arg said:

Multiple sources on this. The .gov putting them up to it?

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/29/free-speech-immunity-youtube-bans-channels-airing-criticism-of-vaccines/?fbclid=IwAR0h-9YcRdIriH06AQQXxdEwfHAHZtDaqopXfnPjN5-1zpQODv-h1eiI_2Q

I'm with Dogfish - This has been blatantly obvious all over every aspect of social media. 

[arg]

3 minutes ago, VMFA187 said:

 

I'm with Dogfish - This has been blatantly obvious all over every aspect of social media. 

I'm aware, question was rhetorical/sarcastic.

[VMFA187]

Just now, arg said:

I'm aware, question was rhetorical/sarcastic.

Apologies. 

[arg]

Next time I'll use the roll eyes emoji 😃

[FUSEPLUG]

Despite all the in-fighting and racism talk (really?!) this thread has generated, does anyone personally know of anyone who has walked away from military service because of this mandate?  I know the Air Force deadlines are a month or two away (depending on status), but I haven't seen any hard lines drawn so far.  Mostly just "news" stories about half of Seal Team Six quitting....  

 

[pawnman]

1 minute ago, FUSEPLUG said:

Despite all the in-fighting and racism talk (really?!) this thread has generated, does anyone personally know of anyone who has walked away from military service because of this mandate?  I know the Air Force deadlines are a month or two away (depending on status), but I haven't seen any hard lines drawn so far.  Mostly just "news" stories about half of Seal Team Six quitting....  

 

Last story I saw had 94% of the Air Force getting at least one dose of the vaccine.  So few and far between would be my guess.

[arg]

Quote

Mostly just "news" stories about half of Seal Team Six quitting....

Does that make them Seal team three? Haha I’ll be here all night don’t forget to tip the bartender

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

Jazz dude. Please explain how correcting peoples use of the often incorrectly used word racist means that we need diversity training? How does me agreeing that it’s a bad word and I don’t use it nor agree with its usage mean we need diversity training?

You can’t lump what he did into a broad spectrum definition of racial or ethic prejudice or intolerance and then say he is racist for using a word that doesn’t describe race.

If someone used a slur against me that didn’t apply to me and they were trying to use it in a racist way when it clearly can’t be by definition that would just make me turn inward and laugh at how stupid that person is. Not take offense for their poor use of language.

I think people often forget that the constitution and bill of rights don’t give you the right to not be offended. In fact if that were a thing, we wouldn’t be the country with the most freedom of speech in the world. Because to have open dialog you have to risk offending the other person because of their beliefs.

Fine, he's not a racist by your definition, but a bigoted ass. Just as bad on my book. The "not technically a racist" argument is garbage and misses the point that you shouldn't tolerate denegrating people solely for what they look like.

Diversity training is being forced on us because there's a perception that we couldn't provide protections for federally protected categories, including race, ethnicity, sex, national origin, etc, on our own in the military, so now it gets Congressional attention.

Plus, if a person is trying to denegrate you got how you look, they don't really care if they used the "right" slur, the intent is to denegrate you and make you feel like crap.

But you're right, nothing protects us from being offended or made to feel uncomfortable. Until it's been brought into work, in which case there are legal protections, especially in government service.

"But BO.net is basically bar banter.". Yeah, but those opinions don't magically change in the office. Maybe better hidden, but still there, and can be hard to prove that people get screwed over.

As officers and leaders within the military, we need to ensure this crap isn't tolerated in our ranks so we can ensure we present the best fighting force we can, and not allowing personal prejudices on protected categories influence the meritocracy we strive for in the military. We shouldn't tolerate people who degenerating others based on their race/ethnicity/national origin/sex/etc within our ranks, both on or off duty.

Edit-Spelling/autocorrect

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

Fine, he's not a racist by your definition, but a bigoted ass. Just as bad on my book. The "not technically a racist" argument is garbage and misses the point that you shouldn't tolerate denegrating people solely for what they look like.

Diversity training is being forced on us because there's a perception that we couldn't provide protections for federally protected categories, including race, ethnicity, sex, national Oregon, etc, on our own in the military, so now it gets Congressional attention.

Plus, if a person is trying to denegrate you got how you look, they don't really care if they used the "right" slur, the intent is to denegrate you and make you feel like crap.

But you're right, nothing protects us from being offended or made to feel uncomfortable. Until it's been brought into work, in which case there are legal protections, especially in government service.

"But BO.net is basically bar banter.". Yeah, but those opinions don't magically change in the office. Maybe better hidden, but still there, and can be hard to prove that people get screwed over.

As officers and leaders within the military, we need to ensure this crap isn't tolerated in our ranks so we can ensure we present the best fighting force we can, and not allowing personal prejudices on protected categories influence the meritocracy we strive for in the military. We shouldn't tolerate people who degenerating others based on their race/ethnicity/national origin/sex/etc within our ranks, both on or off duty.

 

Amen

[M2]

4 hours ago, arg said:

Does that make them Seal team three? Haha I’ll be here all night don’t forget to tip the bartender

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Better than being attacked by a Ninja at Inyokern !