CJCS responds to Rep. Gaetz

[Python]

Should they just forget about it?

The best way forward has been discussed. Look to assist in their social structure, provide better opportunities, address the disparate impacts of previous legislation.

When are the remedies that address the disparate impacts no longer needed? How much time until they are allowed to “forget about it?” Not saying to erase it from history, but to no longer have it drive policy.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Should they just forget about it?

The best way forward has been discussed. Look to assist in their social structure, provide better opportunities, address the disparate impacts of previous legislation.

Forget about it? No. But harboring a grievance and perceived injustice isn’t doing anyone any favors either.

I didn’t enslave anyone and I didn’t conquer any islands. Just like no one living today was enslaved or conquered.

Makes about as much sense as me bitching that my polish immigrant great grandfather was poor.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Should they just forget about it?

The best way forward has been discussed. Look to assist in their social structure, provide better opportunities, address the disparate impacts of previous legislation.

Discussed at length but little objective substance has been offered.

Look to assist in their social structure: How?

Provide better opportunities: Create new opportunities for only them or carve out existing ones?

Address the disparate impacts of previous legislation: How and to what end?

All of these ethereal concepts sound good but where are the actionable recommendations or processes?

 

[Python]

No clear answer, so you just pick one. It can be time-based (until some date) or event-based (number through) or performance-based (game has been raised by X amount) and you just do it. It won't be perfect, just better.

Do you not consider the possibility that after X date or X event that the recipients will say it’s not enough? After all, the choice was arbitrary. What then? We’re back in a situation just like today.

 

[Mirage]

The government also shouldn't have been in the business of segregating certain groups based on skin tone. Or giving certain groups advantages because of their skin tone by oppressing other people of color. And yet here we are.

So it was fine for much of the U.S. when the government was "helping" their particular group but now that the gov't is "helping" the other groups it becomes a problem.

I know this post was a few pages ago, but I have to point out the obvious irony.

How in the world can you not see that if you flip your 2nd sentence around it reads that you were not ok with the government helping a group other than yours but now you're ok with the government helping yours? Discriminating against Blacks (and Asians or any race for that matter) was wrong, and discriminating against whites is just as wrong.

As I said many dozens of pages ago probably, there are zero sum ways to help Black folks catch up. Giving poor Black kids a leg up on Asians or poor white kids is not zero sum. Selecting worse officers at boards because they're the favored minority is not zero sum. Once you're an officer, why the hell does the board need to consider your race or gender at a board? You've already "made it" enough that your ancestor's plight is 100% irrelevant.

FYI this image of white kids all growing up rich in families that rose up on the backs of black folks is complete BS for all but a sliver of families. 9% of Americans make more than $100k a year, and I'd wager only a small percentage of them were living in Jim Crow states or came from slave owning families.

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

How in the world can you not see that if you flip your 2nd sentence around it reads that you were not ok with the government helping a group other than yours but now you're ok with the government helping yours? Discriminating against Blacks (and Asians or any race for that matter) was wrong, and discriminating against whites is just as wrong.

Can you really not see the glaring difference between slavery and legal segregation compared to policies such as diversity initiatives that do nothing but attempt to recruit and retain people who were historically oppressed?

How is attempting to recruit and retain minorities discriminating against whites?

 

[nodropinufaka]

I know this post was a few pages ago, but I have to point out the obvious irony.

How in the world can you not see that if you flip your 2nd sentence around it reads that you were not ok with the government helping a group other than yours but now you're ok with the government helping yours? Discriminating against Blacks (and Asians or any race for that matter) was wrong, and discriminating against whites is just as wrong.

As I said many dozens of pages ago probably, there are zero sum ways to help Black folks catch up. Giving poor Black kids a leg up on Asians or poor white kids is not zero sum. Selecting worse officers at boards because they're the favored minority is not zero sum. Once you're an officer, why the hell does the board need to consider your race or gender at a board? You've already "made it" enough that your ancestor's plight is 100% irrelevant.

FYI this image of white kids all growing up rich in families that rose up on the backs of black folks is complete BS for all but a sliver of families. 9% of Americans make more than $100k a year, and I'd wager only a small percentage of them were living in Jim Crow states or came from slave owning families.

Like we said.

If the officers have met the minimum standard- how is it discrimination if the organization finds value in promoting women and minorities?

There is a benefit to having a diverse military and there is a reason it is don’t that way

 

[Mirage]

Can you really not see the glaring difference between slavery and legal segregation compared to policies such as diversity initiatives that do nothing but attempt to recruit and retain people who were historically oppressed?

How is attempting to recruit and retain minorities discriminating against whites?

What if Black officers become over-represented and the Navy decides to favor white officers to the detriment of the careers of higher performing Black officers. Ie, they do the exact thing they are doing now but black officers get the short end again. Would it be discrimination against blacks then? I sure think so. If there is not a double standard then you must think that is cool too, right?

Like we said.

If the officers have met the minimum standard- how is it discrimination if the organization finds value in promoting women and minorities?

There is a benefit to having a diverse military and there is a reason it is don’t that way

Minimum standards are irrelevant and can be made anything anyone wants. "Separate but equal" had minimum standards as well, but it was still discrimination.

Again, flip your sentence and imagine saying "how is it discrimination if the organization finds value in promoting white men" (with the clear implication you mean at artificially higher rates than their performance would dictate)

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Like we said.

If the officers have met the minimum standard- how is it discrimination if the organization finds value in promoting women and minorities?

There is a benefit to having a diverse military and there is a reason it is don’t that way

Because then, in your example, the minimum standard for promotion is higher for males and non-minorities than it is for women and minorities thus creating disparate classes and using them as a discriminator for promotion.

 

[nodropinufaka]

What if Black officers become over-represented and the Navy decides to favor white officers to the detriment of the careers of higher performing Black officers. Ie, they do the exact thing they are doing now but black officers get the short end again. Would it be discrimination against blacks then? I sure think so. If there is not a double standard then you must think that is cool too, right?

Minimum standards are irrelevant and can be made anything anyone wants. "Separate but equal" had minimum standards as well, but it was still discrimination.

Again, flip your sentence and imagine saying "how is it discrimination if the organization finds value in promoting white men" (with the clear implication you mean at artificially higher rates than their performance would dictate)

They are finding value in promoting under represented officers such as women and minorities.

And of course minimum standards exist. There are minimum standards to become an officer.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Because then, in your example, the minimum standard for promotion is higher for males and non-minorities than it is for women and minorities thus creating disparate classes and using them as a discriminator for promotion.

How is it a discriminator.

The organization (US Military) finds value in having a diverse workforce that mirrors the general public.

So if you meet the standard for a promotion. Why is it discriminatory for the military to decide to maintain a diverse workforce.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

How is it a discriminator.

The organization (US Military) finds value in having a diverse workforce that mirrors the general public.

So if you meet the standard for a promotion. Why is it discriminatory for the military to decide to maintain a diverse workforce.

What value are they finding? If they find value in having less women and less minorities would that make it ok to discriminate?

Of course not. But you keep making the same ridiculous argument anyway.

 

[wink]

Whoa. Back the hell up. Since when does a Hawaiian feel ashamed of being Hawaiian, IN HAWAII?!?!?! What does that look like? I have never lived in HI, but have been a very frequent visitor over 40 years both professionally and on vacation. My wife's grandmother had a place we would visit. My wife did live there for 3 months in her youth. I have to say every Hawaiian I ever met or observed for any amount of time was very proud of their heritage. It was hard to miss. And Hawaiians imprisoned in my state's correctional system by contract with HI have fought hard, and brought a federal law suit, to be able to maintain native religious and cultural practices in prison far from home. Sorry. I call BS on the idea of native Hawaiian's ashamed of their heritage.

 

[HAL Pilot]

Serious question. Does that make it ok?

Was the overthrow of Hawaii justified because history is full of nations being overthrown?

Was the Indian Removal Act justified?

History is history and should not be judged by today’s standards but the standards of the time it happened. Use today’s standards to judge what is happening now. Remember history, learn from history but get the fuck over things that happened in well in the past. Especially shit that happened well before anyone alive was born (Hawaii, Indians, slavery, etc).

Discriminating against one group today to try and “correct history” is wrong and will not help at achieving an end to racist thoughts.

Promotion, advancement, success, etc, should be achieved based on merit without regard to race. The exact equal opportunity for everyone.

And in answer to the question asked over and over by a couple of posters, yes promoting or hiring one race over another in the name of diversity is discrimination. If by the slim chance all candidates are exactly equal, picking one based on race or sex is discriminating against everyone not of that race or sex. The only nondiscriminary method would be a random selection.

Your utopia of a perfectly diversely balanced workforce is just that, an unrealistic utopian pipe dream that will never be reality.

 

[nodropinufaka]

History is history and should not be judged by today’s standards but the standards of the time it happened. Use today’s standards to judge what is happening now. Remember history, learn from history but get the fuck over things that happened in well in the past. Especially shit that happened well before anyone alive was born (Hawaii, Indians, slavery, etc).

Discriminating against one group today to try and “correct history” is wrong and will not help at achieving an end to racist thoughts.

Promotion, advancement, success, etc, should be achieved based on merit without regard to race. The exact equal opportunity for everyone.

And in answer to the question asked over and over by a couple of posters, yes promoting or hiring one race over another in the name of diversity is discrimination. If by the slim chance all candidates are exactly equal, picking one based on race or sex is discriminating against everyone not of that race or sex. The only nondiscriminary method would be a random selection.

Your utopia of a perfectly diversely balanced workforce is just that, an unrealistic utopian pipe dream that will never be reality.

Imagine this was your child.

Incidents like this weren’t single incidents or uncommon.

Now imagine you’re still alive and related and people are saying “get over it”

Also- please explain why it’s unreasonable to have a diverse workforce? Cause when I was in the war college in a Republican administration they worked hard and spent a lot of money to advance women and minorities into senior ranks under affirmative action.