Todeswind wrote:Which is why I tried to point out that the legal standards and common responses to transgressions committed by a bureaucrat in the US Gov are not the same as an officer of the US military.
Todeswind wrote:Unless my memory fails me the use of more esoteric and offensive language is no simply common in military service it's damn near omnipresent.
Engineers and tradesmen swear all the time here. Nonetheless, homophobic and racist bullshit is not tolerated by management, especially not by people who are in positions of power.
All I see is bullshit hand waving.
You all seem to be focusing on how I feel that the decision to demote him was politically motivated and seem to miss the part where I say it was the right choice. So I'll state it as blatantly as I seem to need to for people to actually read it, it was a good choice. It is possible for a decision like this to be both A) a politically motivated choice outiside what is normally enforced within the miliatary and B) a good thing.
It was clearly a political decision as it is such a minor transgression overall considering the various other abuse cases that have far greater merit but aren't tried. What he did is not abnormal within the social environment of the US military.
It was also a good political decision. Not every decision made for political reasons is a bad one or a wrong one. I think that it was a political decision to set a tone much in the way the dismissals or demotions of officers who resisted integration between black and white solders received.
Beowulf wrote:I'm just going to point out that for at least another 60 days, the military is a place where discrimination against gays is still legal.
That's being disingenuous as that is in regards to staying employed, not towards what is being discussed. As aikijahara posted here sexual harassament is not allowed. I don't see a provision there saying "unless the person to whom you are speaking is homosexual".
Beowulf wrote:I'm just going to point out that for at least another 60 days, the military is a place where discrimination against gays is still legal.
That's being disingenuous as that is in regards to staying employed, not towards what is being discussed. As aikijahara posted here sexual harassament is not allowed. I don't see a provision there saying "unless the person to whom you are speaking is homosexual".
Well yes and no, ostensibly one could complain butunder don't ask don't tell there isn't really a legal way for homosexuals to complain about sexual harassment without getting fired. If we're going to go "letter of the law" on this one anyone who is in the US military is theoretically a non-practicing or non-declared (whatever the fuck that means) homosexual, at least for the next month or so. In order for it to count as harassment one would need to declare themselves as homosexual on a legal document in some form which would be grounds for dismissal under don't ask don't tell. So using the word fag would not be "sexual" harassment only "harassment."
The other stuff not using that word specifically could, assuming you don't view it as parody, be legally viewed as sexual harassment because of its provocative nature; not because of its homophobia.
Flagg wrote:The fact that he wasn't disciplined 4 years ago is a problem. For the people who failed to discipline him. I see no reason why he cannot be disciplined now. Is there a statute of limitations on incompetency?
Nope but just as there is, based on your statements, an inherent standard to which the Captain should have conducted himself there is ALSO an unwritten and inherent standard that actions from years ago should not be suddenly addressed now. These videos aren't new news, they've been in circulation for 4 years and aside from the one statement indicating there were previous complaints (and even that statement could be taken to mean concurrent complaints rather than older complaints) it looks like everyone has been fine with them.
Why shouldn't they be addressed now? Because the initial response was to ignore the issue and now that the videos are public it's apparent that he got away with it originally?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Flagg wrote:
Why shouldn't they be addressed now? Because the initial response was to ignore the issue and now that the videos are public it's apparent that he got away with it originally?
It should be addressed but now in an effort to CYA not only does the punishment not fit the crime they have managed to absolve themselves of any responsibility by removing him of command. Like I said before. An investigation should be conducted to determine why this wasn't addressed four years ago and deal with the real problem.
Flagg wrote:The fact that he wasn't disciplined 4 years ago is a problem. For the people who failed to discipline him. I see no reason why he cannot be disciplined now. Is there a statute of limitations on incompetency?
Nope but just as there is, based on your statements, an inherent standard to which the Captain should have conducted himself there is ALSO an unwritten and inherent standard that actions from years ago should not be suddenly addressed now. These videos aren't new news, they've been in circulation for 4 years and aside from the one statement indicating there were previous complaints (and even that statement could be taken to mean concurrent complaints rather than older complaints) it looks like everyone has been fine with them.
Why shouldn't they be addressed now? Because the initial response was to ignore the issue and now that the videos are public it's apparent that he got away with it originally?
Because, right now, its an ASSUMPTION that it was ignored by those in a position of authority. AS I said there is, at this point, only the one comment indicating there have been complaints in the past (and the same comment could be read to state the complaints were contemporary). If 3-4 years have passed and only now are there complaints it goes back to the point that clearly the vast majority of those serving had no issue with this and its a matter of a few hypersensitive folks.
Now it could turn out that complaints have been continuous and ignored but right now there is little to no indication that it is the case here.
SDNet World Nation: Wilkonia
Armourer of the WARWOLVES
ASVS Vet's Association (Class of 2000)
Former C.S. Strowbridge Gold Ego Award Winner MEMBER of the Anti-PETA Anti-Facist LEAGUE
"I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god. I have seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. "
-Kingdom of Heaven
Todeswind wrote:You all seem to be focusing on how I feel that the decision to demote him was politically motivated and seem to miss the part where I say it was the right choice. So I'll state it as blatantly as I seem to need to for people to actually read it, it was a good choice. It is possible for a decision like this to be both A) a politically motivated choice outiside what is normally enforced within the miliatary and B) a good thing.
It was clearly a political decision as it is such a minor transgression overall considering the various other abuse cases that have far greater merit but aren't tried. What he did is not abnormal within the social environment of the US military.
It was also a good political decision. Not every decision made for political reasons is a bad one or a wrong one. I think that it was a political decision to set a tone much in the way the dismissals or demotions of officers who resisted integration between black and white solders received.
Right.
Carrier command is inevitably going to be one of the prime slots in the US Navy. There's no shortage of fundamentally competent people to fill those slots; it does make sense to hold officers entrusted with such a position to a very high standard of professionalism. And one thing we've recognized over the past few decades is that professional leaders don't make whipping boys out of minority groups among their command.
This man has shown that he's willing to lead his crew in laughing at the wimpy 'gay' persona he adopts for comedic purposes. That does not speak well of his ability to meet the above requirement.
CmdrWilkens wrote:
Because, right now, its an ASSUMPTION that it was ignored by those in a position of authority. AS I said there is, at this point, only the one comment indicating there have been complaints in the past (and the same comment could be read to state the complaints were contemporary). If 3-4 years have passed and only now are there complaints it goes back to the point that clearly the vast majority of those serving had no issue with this and its a matter of a few hypersensitive folks.
Now it could turn out that complaints have been continuous and ignored but right now there is little to no indication that it is the case here.
I don't see why it's relevant if there were or were not complaints made. The fact is that he showed incredibly poor judgment in making these homophobic remarks in the videos. That's why he should have been relieved 4 years ago, and that's why he should be relieved now. It's only a CYA issue now because it wasn't dealt with then, but the result is the same. This "4 years ago" nonsense is just a giant red herring.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Beowulf wrote:I'm just going to point out that for at least another 60 days, the military is a place where discrimination against gays is still legal.
That's being disingenuous as that is in regards to staying employed, not towards what is being discussed. As aikijahara posted here sexual harassament is not allowed. I don't see a provision there saying "unless the person to whom you are speaking is homosexual".
Well yes and no, ostensibly one could complain butunder don't ask don't tell there isn't really a legal way for homosexuals to complain about sexual harassment without getting fired. If we're going to go "letter of the law" on this one anyone who is in the US military is theoretically a non-practicing or non-declared (whatever the fuck that means) homosexual, at least for the next month or so. In order for it to count as harassment one would need to declare themselves as homosexual on a legal document in some form which would be grounds for dismissal under don't ask don't tell. So using the word fag would not be "sexual" harassment only "harassment."
The other stuff not using that word specifically could, assuming you don't view it as parody, be legally viewed as sexual harassment because of its provocative nature; not because of its homophobia.
Actually no, that's wrong. Sexual harassment doesn't have anything to do with orientation. If someone calls you a f*g, then it doesn't matter whether you are gay, straight, bi, etc. It's sexual harassament.
In theory you are right. In practice under dont ask dont tell it risks calling unnecessary attention to gay soldiers. What happens if they go to trial and are asked point blank by a lawer if they're homosexual? If they tell the truth it ends their career, if they lie and it can be proved that it's a lie it's perjury, and if they decline to answer they're assumed to be gay and quietly sidelined.
I'm divided on this one. The four year lapse is not a red herring, as two things come straight to mind:
- The principle behind statues of limitation, and
- People do change over time
Sure he acted with poor judgement on this one, but are any of us here innocent of an occasional brain fart? Is a single instance of something like this really enough to justify absolutely screwing over a man's career? OK, if this guy really was as homophobic, intolerant, lacking in leadership, etc etc as some previous posters are saying, shouldn't he have a nice long administrative paper trail behind him (four years!!) and thus should not have had a chance at such a prestigious post in the first place? That he must have had an exemplary service record otherwise counts for nothing against what we know as a SINGLE instance of misbehaviour?
I don't know, I don't think there is enough here to go on about whether it was a right decision or a wrong decision. Far too much unknown. However, based on what is known here
- Guy was selected to be the commander, which means that he must have been very, very impressive, and implies an unblemished track record
vs
- A single instance of misbehaviour 4 years ago, with no obvious other issues since that occurrence
It just sounds very unfair to me.
Mind you, if it turns out that somebody upstairs turned a blind eye to continual complaints against this guy because he was a golden boy of some bigwig, well, by all means, throw the book at him. However there is no indication that this is the case, and based on what we know, I don't think this is justice being done. This is PC gone mad.
I know there is a method, but all I see is the madness.
He had to write the script, film and distribute it, so he had ample time where he could have taken a step back and told himself "Wait, that's a pretty bad idea", so calling it a "brainfart" is mischaracterizing it. Also, considering how easy it is to not use bigoted slurs, I simply can't bring myself to have any pity with a man who couldn't even muster that miniscule amount of self-restraint. I must also ask if he had had that much defenders if he had instead thrown around the word "nigger" and then shown a bunch of black crewmen chowing away on a water melon*.
*for those who haven't seen it, the video contains the captain calling out the "fags" and a scene of two men making out under the shower, AKA playing into the whole "gay=super-promiscuous" stereotype, hence my comparison.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)
Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula
O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
Metahive wrote:He had to write the script, film and distribute it, so he had ample time where he could have taken a step back and told himself "Wait, that's a pretty bad idea", so calling it a "brainfart" is mischaracterizing it. Also, considering how easy it is to not use bigoted slurs, I simply can't bring myself to have any pity with a man who couldn't even muster that miniscule amount of self-restraint. I must also ask if he had had that much defenders if he had instead thrown around the word "nigger" and then shown a bunch of black crewmen chowing away on a water melon*.
*for those who haven't seen it, the video contains the captain calling out the "fags" and a scene of two men making out under the shower, AKA playing into the whole "gay=super-promiscuous" stereotype, hence my comparison.
The film was suppose to be a comedy. Slurs are used in comedy. Several pages in and nobody has been able to establish that this man is a bigot. Bigots deserve serious punishment. People who make mistakes do not.
Clarifying - People who make mistakes still do deserve punishment but said punishment should fit the crime.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
The film was suppose to be a comedy. Slurs are used in comedy. Several pages in and nobody has been able to establish that this man is a bigot. Bigots deserve serious punishment. People who make mistakes do not.
People who make mistakes in positions of responsibility in the military get people killed. What if he had been mocking Arabs instead of homosexuals?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
I don't see how the punishment "doesn't fit the crime". The fact is that he has shown himself to be an incompetent leader by making these videos. His judgment is now in question and the Navy shouldn't entrust him with a nuclear powered warship with thousands of crewmembers.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Kamakazie Sith wrote:The film was suppose to be a comedy. Slurs are used in comedy.
As was already established, the fool's license is not a privilege of the captain of the USS Enterprise.
Several pages in and nobody has been able to establish that this man is a bigot.
The casual use of slurs and humiliating stereotypes is sufficiently bigoted.
Bigots deserve serious punishment. People who make mistakes do not.
Clarifying - People who make mistakes still do deserve punishment but said punishment should fit the crime.
It's fitting. He's shown he's a bad teamleader so the team is given to someone else.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)
Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula
O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
Flagg wrote:I don't see how the punishment "doesn't fit the crime". The fact is that he has shown himself to be an incompetent leader by making these videos. His judgment is now in question and the Navy shouldn't entrust him with a nuclear powered warship with thousands of crewmembers.
The punishment doesn't fit the crime because we haven't identified a single person that has been damaged by this nor to what degree. You haven't shown that his command has been compromised. You haven't shown why this is suddenly enough to warrant dismissal from his station when it happened four years ago. Has he continued to do this?
General Zod wrote:People who make mistakes in positions of responsibility in the military get people killed. What if he had been mocking Arabs instead of homosexuals?
True. Do you have any evidence that his man makes poor leadership decisions that would cause people to die? Hint - A video made four years ago with bad comedy doesn't blow my skirt up. You need more. Show me that those under his command lost faith in him. Show me that someone was victimized due to this video.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:Where was this established? By who?
So you couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread before replying? Your lack of courtesy and diligence shall not be my concern.
What degree? How do you measure this?
I laid out how in the very post you initially replied to. Once more, your laziness is your failure, not mine.
You've failed to demostrate that his poor taste in comedy has compromised his ability to lead a team.
Creating a hostile work environment for minorities within your team by humiliating and stereotyping them is a failure of leadership.
Don't reply to me again until you've ploughed through the whole thread. You're not making any new arguments.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)
Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula
O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
Metahive wrote:It's fitting. He's shown he's a bad teamleader so the team is given to someone else.
I'm guessing you have ZERO experience with leadership, or else you might have some idea of what it takes to be an effective leader.
Leadership (in this case) is about getting his crew to accomplish a common task (i.e., sail the ship safely and effectively, and accomplish the mission). In order to demonstrate that he's a bad leader, you have to demonstrate that he's lost the trust of his crew, they don't listen to him, safety has been compromised, morale is poor aboard Enterprise, or similar things... none of which has even been suggested.
This is like arguing that because Michael Vick killed dogs, he's a bad leader and a terrible football player. When in reality he's having a career year and his teammates support him because he's a great player. The one has nothing to do with the other.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
Metahive wrote:Creating a hostile work environment for minorities within your team by humiliating and stereotyping them is a failure of leadership.
Did he really create a hostile work environment, or is that politically correct bullshit from someone lacking real world experience? I've had all sorts of bosses - some were great, others were assholes. I had a boss once who made everyone feel great all the time, telling them how fantastic of employees they were... he was a shitty boss because no one trusted or listened to him. I had another boss who was a royal asshole, constantly putting down his employees, but he was highly effective at getting results.
I'll give you a military example - George Patton; he nearly got court martialed for striking two soldiers with shellshock. He obviously created a hostile work environment for those two guys, and who knows how many others. But Patton kept his job because he was very, very good at killing Germans, and getting the soldiers of the 3rd Army to kill Germans.
Leadership isn't about being inoffensive and not insulting anyone; it's about getting results. Don't confuse being inoffensive with being an effective leader.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
Yes, as long as he only bashes minorities and the straight, WASPy majority feels warm, comfortable and cushy, it's all smiles and sunshine. Why can't those "fags", "wogs", "niggers" and "gooks" not see how their wacky antics bring warm sunrays into the miserable lives of the "not-abnormal" crewmen? Why do they have to ruin it for the poor, oppressed majority? Damn political correctness, it's all gone mad!
...and they say I know nothing about leadership. I guess it's so, I only know about good leadership.
People at birth are naturally good. Their natures are similar, but their habits make them different from each other.
-Sanzi Jing (Three Character Classic)
Saddam’s crime was so bad we literally spent decades looking for our dropped monocles before we could harumph up the gumption to address it
-User Indigo Jump on Pharyngula
O God, please don't let me die today, tomorrow would be so much better!
-Traditional Spathi morning prayer
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
The film was suppose to be a comedy. Slurs are used in comedy. Several pages in and nobody has been able to establish that this man is a bigot. Bigots deserve serious punishment. People who make mistakes do not.
People who make mistakes in positions of responsibility in the military get people killed. What if he had been mocking Arabs instead of homosexuals?
Nobody would have cared, at least nobody capable of doing anything about it. Mocking Islam has become a running gag within the US military including, but not limited to, sprinkling bacon bits in one of Saddam's palaces, drawing pigs or portraiture of mohammed on bombs about to be dropped, and so on. Removing someone from a command position for being insulting to "terrorists" would be politically unviable, the Tea Party would have a riot and the GOP would come to his defense.
Metahive wrote:So you couldn't be arsed to read the whole thread before replying? Your lack of courtesy and diligence shall not be my concern.
I did read the whole thread. I see opinions, but no fact. Here's a fact, many commanders do utilize comedy as a way of lifting morale, training, etc. So, your claim that a fools license is not a privilege of a commanding officer is not based on reality.
I laid out how in the very post you initially replied to. Once more, your laziness is your failure, not mine.
Oh right. More personal opinion on to what is "sufficiently bigoted" as if bigotry is some sort of a scale. You either are bigoted or you aren't. There is no middle ground. To me a bigot is a person who is intolerant of people with different beliefs. Was Captain Honors intolerant of homosexuals?
Creating a hostile work environment for minorities within your team by humiliating and stereotyping them is a failure of leadership.
Again, the same claim without supporting evidence.
Don't reply to me again until you've ploughed through the whole thread. You're not making any new arguments.
That's right. You and others have failed to answer the old arguments. Your opinions are not answers.
