tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post7579707402741436655..comments2023-09-24T07:53:50.826-05:00Comments on The Atheist Experience™: The View From the Rear View MirrorUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-6865816337252477612010-03-06T15:11:17.591-06:002010-03-06T15:11:17.591-06:00I realise that this topic, by now, is pretty much ...I realise that this topic, by now, is pretty much dead, but having read it I felt compelled to actually create an account and respond to it.<br /><br />I do not claim to be a subject matter expert on this or any other US domestic policy, but having actually served in the finnish army alongside openly homosexual people I feel comfortable saying that I have some insight on the matter.<br /><br />According to my experience having homosexuals, or any other minorities for that matter, in the army is not a liability but, on the contrary, an asset.<br /><br />Neutron described some issues that homophobia could raise among the troops but personally I have to say that it was quite the opposite. The people that were homophobes when entering service were, at least in my opinion, much less so having served with gays.<br /><br />I would argue that prejudices are derived from ignorance and the best and possibly only way to overcome them is to educate one self of them. Due to constant interaction and co-existance with people with different ideologies, opinions and sexual orientations and also people with ethnic background different than my own, I for one can say that I developed more toletance towards all of them in my army days.<br /><br />Furthermore having had both gays and lesbians as my superiors, peers and subordinates I can say that sexuality does not really matter in the army anyway. When one is crawling under a barbed-wire training course one is not thinking: "Is that damn fairy crawling behind me cheking out my ass?", but rather "Holy shit my muscles are killing me! When's lunch?"<br /><br />Basically when in the barracks or in training I for one was canstantly too tired to even think about my own sexuality not to mention someone else's. That's what leaves are for.<br /><br />Being that Finland has not been in a war since WWII I have no actual combat experience. But when it comes to homosexuals in battle conditions I have no reason to doubt their value and capabilities. Why would I? Every single gay and lesbian I met in the army always pulled their weight. The fact of the matter is that no-one can predict how a person reacts when under enemy fire, but I am certain that the said person's sexuality is not a factor. All in all when it comes to combat situations I would agree with Jen, for I too would "take a brigade of flaming queens over one with just one sociopath any day."<br /><br />And since it's always good to end with some humour here's the phrase (roughly translated from finnish) one of our instructors, am openly homosexual man in his mid-thirties, coined: "Come on! If an old faggot like me can do it, young guys like you should be able to do it twice as fast!"<br /><br />Here's hoping that the fact that english is my fourth language is not too painfully obvious<br /><br />Ville W.<br />Second lieutenant (currently in reserves)Ville from Finlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08855301971850040862noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-25734327335080856052010-02-13T07:28:21.371-06:002010-02-13T07:28:21.371-06:00@ George
I'm glad we found an understanding a...@ George<br /><br />I'm glad we found an understanding and all, but I still have to question that as I don't get agreeing with Neutron there. What he said was ""Sigh. I am reminded, yet again, of the near-impossibility of discussing an issue sensibly and civilly with liberals." And you agreed with that sentiment which was observing that people here which he thought of as liberals were 'near impossible to talk to'. My response was agreeing with you that everyone does that and pointing out to Neutron that singling it out on the left is myopia. So agreeing with him created the illusion/perception of you joining in taking an unfair jab. I mean I don't doubt people were nasty to you, people are nasty animals at times; but no one was attacking Neutron for being a conservative. We were trying to explain how bat shit stupid his assessment was. He gave an opinion on something he admits he has no experience or knowledge about (a reoccurring theme in the Climate Change Thread) and then gets upset when people point out when he's wrong of fractually wrong. Now that he's spoken more, yeah I do think he's an idiot, but because he's so entrenched in an idealized conservative mindset it's like a religious belief (yes that's unfair but...yeah). When your first thought on any issue is not "what are the facts" but "what's the left say, I should disagree with that probably" then you're either unwilling or incapable of doing critical thinking. Thus why I think Neutron is...er...special and not worth talking too. I'm rambling and said stuff everyone knows, but yeah that pushed my buttons because I have trouble seeing you buying into such bullshit (the myopia/wearing celery for shoes insanity, not the conservatism).Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-88013422394451878832010-02-12T11:29:28.198-06:002010-02-12T11:29:28.198-06:00... Because I was responding to what Neutron said....... Because I was responding to what Neutron said.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-13563832025324646922010-02-12T11:13:39.520-06:002010-02-12T11:13:39.520-06:00While I do agree with Neutron that invective is a ...<i>While I do agree with Neutron that invective is a staple of modern Left discourse*<br /><br />*Yes, the Right(ish) are guilty of it, too.</i><br /><br />George, I'm curious... if you think both sides of it are guilty then why even bother to specify "Left" first? Why not just say "invective is a staple of modern discourse"?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-26027336254880923482010-02-12T08:57:31.622-06:002010-02-12T08:57:31.622-06:00Ing,
While I do agree with Neutron that invective...Ing,<br /><br />While I do agree with Neutron that invective is a staple of modern Left discourse*, I don't assume a priori that all politically Left(ish) people are impossible to talk to.<br /><br />I also think Neuron rather jumped the gun following Jen's response. If he thought he was being misunderstood/misrepresented he should have clarified himself first, rather than resorting to "Oh there you Liberals go again, there's no talking to you people."<br /><br />BTW, the news of late has been filled with reports of high-ranking military officers admitting DADT is a complete joke and should just be dumped.<br /><br />C'mon, President Obama, we're not talking about amending the Constitution here. You could end DADT with a signature.<br /><br />DO IT! GET TO THE CHOPPA!<br />..<br />..<br />..<br />*Yes, the Right(ish) are guilty of it, too.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-12531323720748527362010-02-12T06:58:47.867-06:002010-02-12T06:58:47.867-06:00@ George
The reason why Neutro pushed my buttons ...@ George<br /><br />The reason why Neutro pushed my buttons with that is mostly because I think you are a decent bloke and would/are insulted and distressed if you really thought that the more left or moderate people here were that unreasonable and 'impossible' to talk to. I don't care a bout Neutron, he's a moron. (IRONY!) but for reasons completely unrelated to his politics.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-44272780279120997772010-02-06T16:47:19.137-06:002010-02-06T16:47:19.137-06:00Whatever, Neutron, I still blame you for the failu...Whatever, Neutron, I still blame you for the failure of BeOS.<br /><br />Hippie.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-40816387643508313722010-02-06T09:58:39.571-06:002010-02-06T09:58:39.571-06:00"
When I get a bit more time, I'll put up..."<br />When I get a bit more time, I'll put up another post about DADT for those who care about what it really is, why it came to be, and why it's been so detrimental to the military."<br /><br />I actually am interested in this. In college I knew several soldiers of various branches, some of which were in fact gay. In one case he and hsi boyfriend were in the same unit and the unit in the true spirit of all that seimper fai stuff covered for them and watched their back so brass wouldn't discharge them.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-87401516669122781062010-02-06T06:22:54.392-06:002010-02-06T06:22:54.392-06:00@Jen: "I don't believe you ..." I ...@Jen: "I don't believe you ..." I am sincerely sorry that you have come away with that impression of me.<br /><br />"... if soldiers in my unit were harassing another soldier by calling him ... UCMJ gives me everything I need to put a stop to that behavior."<br /><br />It may surprise you to know that I *do* have enough familiarity with things military to know what UCMJ stands for *without* googling it. Do I understand you correctly that, because of DADT, UCMJ does not apply if you see soldiers harassing another soldier by calling him "faggot"? If DADT specifically states that, then it *is* wrong.<br /><br />"... the prejudice that allowed that tragedy to occur was codified into law."<br /><br />That's only true in some inside-out and backward sort of sense.<br /><br />"... the chain of command had every tool they needed to prevent that murder at their disposal."<br /><br />DADT didn't authorize failure to use those tools.<br /><br />"I fully expect that you will continue to defend the indefensible, ..."<br /><br />That DADT is indefensible is your opinion, which you have every right to hold, espouse, and defend. Not everyone agrees with that opinion.<br /><br />"When I get a bit more time, I'l put up another post about DADT ... I don't expect you'll get much out of it."<br /><br />I look forward to reading it. My opinions are just that -- opinions. They are not set in stone.<br /><br />Let me put it this way:<br /><br />DADT is a tacit acknowledgement that there are gays in the military, as law. I see that as a step forward from the law as it existed previously. "We won't ask if you're gay; you don't have to tell us if you're gay." You seem to be asserting that what DADT *really* means is "If you find out I'm gay, it's OK to harass me and even kill me, despite UCMJ (or even the bounds of common decency)." If I have misstated your position, I apologize, but it is THAT assertion with which I disagree.<br /><br />I'd like to also repeat that I don't think DADT should exist forever; if it went away tomorrow, that would be fine with me.Neutronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-76631553698682745022010-02-06T04:59:59.045-06:002010-02-06T04:59:59.045-06:00@George From NY: "Go tell it to rms, you da...@George From NY: "Go tell it to rms, you damned hippie." My apologies, sir. I made the mistake of presuming that you, like many, take "Linux" as an overarching term for UNIX. I am a FreeBSD user myself, and EMACS and gcc are the tools of my everyday life. I have met rms, and thanked him personally for the profound effect he has had on my life in computing.Neutronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-65401871979365235672010-02-05T21:16:20.259-06:002010-02-05T21:16:20.259-06:00"I can tell you what would happen - UCMJ give..."I can tell you what would happen - UCMJ gives me everything I need to put a stop to that behavior."<br /><br />UCMJ... I think my cousin did his post-grad there.<br /><br /><br />ba-DUM<br /><br /><br />That's the kind of quality comedy I deliver, folks. No charge.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63868822490097498852010-02-05T20:00:27.047-06:002010-02-05T20:00:27.047-06:00I hold this nation's service personnel in the ...<i>I hold this nation's service personnel in the highest regard.</i><br /><br />I don't believe you. Not when you said this earlier:<br /><br /><i>The fact is that there is a percentage of people who are uncomfortable around gays/lesbians. There is some percentage of those who would be vocal about it. There is also, sadly, a percentage of reprehensible people who would be abusive, mentally and/or physically. As much as we can wish that wasn't the case, it is a reality that we'd be asking the military to deal with.</i><br /><br />In other words, Canadian soldiers, British soldiers, French soldiers, Israeli soldiers - they can all handle serving with openly gay service members, but not our troops. <br /><br />Let me give you something to think about - if soldiers in my unit were harassing another soldier by calling him nigger or wetback, what would you expect me to do about that? Would it be okay with you if I just looked the other way and pretended that nothing was going on? I can tell you what would happen - UCMJ gives me everything I need to put a stop to that behavior.<br /><br />Furthermore, I can't envision any scenario in which a chain of command that ignored overt racism in the ranks would be given a free pass, especially if a soldier was killed as a result. The chain of command is responsible for good order and discipline in the unit, end of story. Except, of course, in the case of what happened at Ft. Campbell. The only difference between my racism scenario and the Ft. Campbell murder is that the soldier was called "faggot," and the prejudice that allowed that tragedy to occur was codified into law. I just want you to understand exactly what you're defending - and that the chain of command had every tool they needed to prevent that murder at their disposal.<br /><br />I fully expect that you will continue to defend the indefensible, which is what DADT is. That being the case, I really don't have time to waste on someone who thinks that codified sexual prejudice is some kind of bridge to get us to a more tolerant place.<br /><br />When I get a bit more time, I'll put up another post about DADT for those who care about what it really is, why it came to be, and why it's been so detrimental to the military. I don't expect you'll get much out of it.Rational Jenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122282788630579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-81706360108820975302010-02-05T14:09:32.931-06:002010-02-05T14:09:32.931-06:00Go tell it to rms, you damned hippie.
;)Go tell it to rms, you damned hippie.<br /><br />;)George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60356430982826454072010-02-05T13:29:50.978-06:002010-02-05T13:29:50.978-06:00@George From NY: *Linux cultists*? LINUX CULTIST...@George From NY: *Linux cultists*? LINUX CULTISTS??? What's wrong with *us*, other than a wholly-justified refusal to put up with the great steaming pile of green donkey dung that Microsoft pushes?Neutronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-70833006435801763822010-02-05T12:29:28.844-06:002010-02-05T12:29:28.844-06:00George: Dude, what's wrong with Back in Black?...George: Dude, what's wrong with <i>Back in Black</i>? Now, Garth Brooks fans, they're deserving!<br /><br />That was your pointless off-topic digression of the day. We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-79853294373841296832010-02-05T11:48:21.946-06:002010-02-05T11:48:21.946-06:00@Jen: "In every situation involving a seriou...@Jen: "In every situation involving a serious crime committed against a gay soldier ..." As you say, these were *crimes*. DADT is not a shield against criminal behavior, or the condoning of it, though some may have tried to use it as such.<br /><br />"Without DADT's cone of silence ..." Commanders may have used DADT as a justification, but I rather suspect that that's only because it was a handy tool. Without DADT, they'd have come up with some other rationalization for their "toxic command structure", which is the real culprit.<br /><br />DADT didn't compel such failures of command.<br /><br />As you've said yourself, DADT was codification of <i>de facto</i> policy. As such, it should have been neutral in effect. That it was not is not the fault of DADT itself, or of the people (regardless of their motivation) who crafted it. I don't buy your analysis that DADT was an enabler for crimes against gays in the military, and, obviously, there are others, even among those who have served in the military, who don't buy that analysis either.<br /><br />"... problems similar to those I cited would not have occurred if we'd just ended the ban in 1993." I'll grant that as possible. But this just says that it was <i>failure to end the ban</i>, rather than DADT, that was the cause of the failure to prevent those problems. I don't think ending the ban was politically possible in 1993, and apparently Bill Clinton didn't think so, either.<br /><br />"... the thing I find the most infuriating about this conversation is your very low regard for the troops." To the contrary, I hold this nation's service personnel in the highest regard. I have friends and relatives who served in the military, and I have nothing but respect for all of them for doing so.<br /><br />"The vast majority of service members are exceptional men and women ..." I am in full agreement here.<br /><br />"Never underestimate them. There's a reason they're the best in the world." Absolutely without question.Neutronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-63667792583199972862010-02-05T08:27:55.893-06:002010-02-05T08:27:55.893-06:00Ing,
I think Neutron is just plain wrong about t...Ing, <br /><br />I think Neutron is just plain wrong about the DADT issue, but I agreed with him in passing that invective is, in fact, a staple of Leftist discourse.<br /><br />You can of course reply the same about the Right - albeit risking tu quoque, eh?<br /><br />Based on that one passing remark from me, you wrote:<br /><br />"you should stop your whining."<br /><br />"Don't act so freaking persecuted, jebbus sake."<br /><br />"Please, don't even GO near the martyr card." <br /><br />"I mean this really bugs me especially seeing George's knee jerk response..."<br /><br />And you ended with:<br /><br />"Are the liberal people here impossible to talk to?"<br /><br />Well, you tell me. :)<br /><br />Neutron,<br /><br />While we seem to have pressed one of Ing's buttons, he is correct to distinguish criticism for CAUSE as opposed to a purely ideological or party-line condemnation.<br /><br />OK. That will be my last "debate the debate" comment for now. <br /><br />Now, taking Martin's sage counsel - although I do not "flame" people, with the exception of those who remained fans of AC/DC after Bon Scott died or Linux cultists - I shall go hug some kittens and wish happiness and peace upon all mankind.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-35279481385815274922010-02-05T04:09:27.734-06:002010-02-05T04:09:27.734-06:00[takes deep breath, hefts Loving Mallet of Correct...[takes deep breath, hefts Loving Mallet of Correction onto shoulder]<br /><br />Okay, gang. Let's all count to ten and tamp it down before it spills headfirst into flamewar territory. Argue points, attack positions, not people. Views the majority here disagree with are <i>welcome</i>, even when they're infuriating. Take the emotions off the boil and put the reason back on. Hugs.Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17933545393470431585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-60401124729259335222010-02-05T01:34:48.005-06:002010-02-05T01:34:48.005-06:00"Sigh. I am reminded, yet again, of the near-..."Sigh. I am reminded, yet again, of the near-impossibility of discussing an issue sensibly and civilly with liberals."<br /><br />May I point out that you're the one who brought up the liberal/conservative thing? Before this was about DADT reality v misconception. Hell, why do you even assume that the people disagreeing with you are liberals? I don't know how Jen leans politically save for clearly DADT. Martain and Russel are open lefties, but no one attacked you for being a conservative, they responded to stupid shit you said. The fact that people get mad when you say dumb shit without realizing it does not mean that they're not sensible. What is non-sensible is poo pooing criticism with "well liberals are just impossible to talk to". That's not conservative that's doucheyness. <br /><br />I mean this really bugs me especially seeing George's knee jerk response agreeing "OH yeah those liberals just call everyone names" when...you know he SAW what happened, what the hell man? Are the liberal people here impossible to talk to? I don't see them harassing you for politics or calling you Colonel Kurtz or whatever? Where's that accusation come from?Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-29696716988691567082010-02-04T23:35:37.736-06:002010-02-04T23:35:37.736-06:00What we got, instead, was a small step in the righ...<i>What we got, instead, was a small step in the right direction: gays in the military were no longer illicit, but still had to remain secret.</i><br /><br />And this is yet another piece of evidence that you really don't know anything at all about this issue. Don't ask, don't tell was the de facto <b><i>policy</i></b> in the military prior to 1993. What DADT did was write it into <b><i>law</i></b>. Let me break that down for you - for the first time in the history of the US military, it was illegal to be gay. You could continue to serve only if you didn't engage in homosexual activities and never told anyone you were gay. And if no one ever accused you of being gay. This was not a bridge toward a more tolerant policy. It was open season on gays in the military.<br /><br />What we got out of this policy was a dramatic spike in discharges for homosexuality and command policies that were absolutely toxic to gay soldiers. The beating death of Barry Winchell at Ft. Campbell was an example of this. For months, his chain of command did nothing to stop his harassment. Their attitude was that being gay in the Army was illegal, and if he was gay, he deserved what he got. Some of the members of his chain of command even directly cited DADT as justification for their (in)actions.<br /><br /><i>Why do you assume that I've read your bio and am familiar with your past?</i><br /><br />In light of your vast experience with the military, I should have phrased that differently. Why would you presume to lecture anyone about how military units live? Do you have information about how military units live that would be unavailable to any civilian? Oh, and in response to your request to point out where you're wrong - pretty much everything you've said here has been wrong.<br /><br /><i>And is it your considered opinion that no similar problems would have occurred had the soldiers been free to openly declare their sexual orientation when they joined the unit? Permit me to doubt that without having actually conducted any controlled clinical trials.</i><br /><br />Controlled clinical trials??? How exactly would you go about doing "controlled clinical trials" on the effects of gays serving openly in the military? Never mind.<br /><br />It is not only my well-informed opinion that problems similar to those I cited would not have occurred if we'd just ended the ban in 1993, I have actual facts to back it up. The RAND study that Clinton requested prior to DADT said nothing adverse would happen. The experiences of some 35 other armies verify that if you end a gay ban quickly and cleanly, there are no adverse effects on unit efficiency or cohesion. Repealing DADT will be vastly less problematic than living under it ever was - for gay or straight soldiers.<br /><br />In every situation involving a serious crime committed against a gay soldier, a toxic command climate has been a major contributing factor. Without DADT's cone of silence, commanders will have to address criminal behavior for what it is. <br /><br /><i>Sigh. I am reminded, yet again, of the near-impossibility of discussing an issue sensibly and civilly with liberals.</i><br /><br />Given my understanding of this issue, including the motivation of those who enacted DADT, and your complete lack of understanding of even the basics of this policy, I think "fuck you" was the appropriate response to your bleating that I should "at least consider...." I lived under it. The reason I said what I said to you is because I know what I'm talking about. You do not. But if you need to feel like it's because I'm a liberal, don't let me deprive you of your ad hominem.<br /><br />You know, the thing I find the most infuriating about this conversation is your very low regard for the troops. The bigots and sociopaths are few and far between, and the rest won't be sorry to see them go. The vast majority of service members are exceptional men & women, and it was my great privilege to serve with them. Never underestimate them. There's a reason they're the best in the world.Rational Jenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14122282788630579139noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-74959524957423585472010-02-04T22:18:06.111-06:002010-02-04T22:18:06.111-06:00That said, I think DADT's insanity comes down ...That said, I think DADT's insanity comes down to the military being perfectly fine with asking a soldier to look into a man's eyse as he rings his neck for god and country but see a gay man.<br /><br /><br />besides it would make an AWESOME biopic if we can get a future famous general who is equal parts Chesty Puller and Oscar Wilde.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-19261251450321434612010-02-04T21:52:03.725-06:002010-02-04T21:52:03.725-06:00@ George and Neutro
People, can we please take a ...@ George and Neutro<br /><br />People, can we please take a minute to remember the rules of fight club (so to speak) <br /><br />Don't act so freaking persecuted, jebbus sake.<br /><br />If you say something stupid expect a dog pile. Deal with it, it's part of running with the big dogs. All of us get it too. Hell, for one of my comments I got off insanely easy and SHOULD have been chewed out more. Please, don't even GO near the martyr card. You can still post here and everything but with the DADT bs, expect a tidal wave of snark. Seriously don't complain about the same stuff you'd find amusing when piled on someone else. Stupid is stupid and will be dealt with extreme prejudiced. It's NOT about being conservative...Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-73913921639739665982010-02-04T21:03:18.088-06:002010-02-04T21:03:18.088-06:00"@Ing: "(HE DOESN'T KNOW GOOD OR EVI..."@Ing: "(HE DOESN'T KNOW GOOD OR EVIL!!!!)" Oh, yeah, I do. I'm an atheist, remember? I think that, collectively, we see good and evil a lot more clearly than any Christian ever could."<br /><br />It's an obscure reference joke to a Web comic.<br /><br />"Blogger George From NY said...<br /><br /> "Oh, please. Name-calling and offensive vitriol have been a STAPLE of the left for years."<br /><br /> Neutron is right on this point.<br /><br /> As someone of Conservative (a la Barry Goldwater, not Glenn Beck) bent, I have lost track of how many times I've been called a fascist, racist, whatever-ist.<br />"<br /><br />Bullshit. Everyone does some name calling, but considering the right has written a fucking book calling liberal fascists I think you should stop your whining.Inghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13024689390434414829noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-52979584548693218592010-02-04T20:29:06.717-06:002010-02-04T20:29:06.717-06:00"Oh, please. Name-calling and offensive vitri..."Oh, please. Name-calling and offensive vitriol have been a STAPLE of the left for years."<br /><br />Neutron is right on this point.<br /><br />As someone of Conservative (a la Barry Goldwater, not Glenn Beck) bent, I have lost track of how many times I've been called a fascist, racist, whatever-ist.<br /><br />(Fortunately for me, I love to argue and had great fun in college during the late 80s when the Leftist "PC" mindplague hit full-force. Good times. :) )<br /><br />That said, Neutron, even I have a problem with you proclaiming any benefit from DADT unless you're very clear about what you mean. Not because I think you're some gay-bashing, kitten-eating, Right-Wing space monster, etc. but simply because I find DADT to be appalling in both theory and practice and I think the facts back me up on this.George From NYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158111795024631345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33241741.post-71411453618928122002010-02-04T18:38:13.491-06:002010-02-04T18:38:13.491-06:00@Raymond: "If anything your gradual strategy...@Raymond: "If anything your gradual strategy is complicit in sustaining the bigots. It institutional bigotry. [ ... ] Quick and sudden change can happen."<br /><br />That is a fair criticism, and one I accept. However, I would point out, by Jen's own account, quick and sudden change was *on the table* in 1993, and didn't make it. What we got, instead, was a small step in the right direction: gays in the military were no longer illicit, but still had to remain secret.<br /><br />@George From NY: "It's been my experience that people cannot be gradually reasoned or coaxed out of irrational prejudices, not having arrived there through reason or moderation to begin with."<br /><br />This isn't a topic i really study, but back in the day when there were all-black units in the military, and they served with distinction, don't you think that circumstance changed at least a *few* minds?<br /><br />@Mark B: "Considering the topic and your ham-handed addressing of it ..." I refuse to concede that a simple and straightforward statement of my point of view qualifies as "ham-handed". I suppose I could have bothered to couch it in flowery language to ease you all into my opinion, but the major point of this thread has been to debunk the idea of "easing in", so I don't know that I would really have accomplished anything.<br /><br />"So maybe you could lay off the whopping over-generalizations?" Oh, please. Name-calling and offensive vitriol have been a STAPLE of the left for years. This site itself offers ample proof of that. If I went back a few years and grabbed some of the far-left name-calling of George Bush and turned it around to apply to Barack Obama, you'd be ready to have me boiled in oil. I occasionally read conservative web sites (you're probably not surprised by that), and there is nothing *like* the same thing in those places. You may, of course, take that for the anecdotal evidence it is.<br /><br />OT: "When you preview a post prior to publishing it, the verification resets." True, but that's not what I'm talking about.Neutronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08442086992156829369noreply@blogger.com