• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

NEWS RIP Beards and thiccbois

robav8r

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
I don't know if I've posted this here yet, but as my MC1 and I were discussing how he would search through then entirety of our installation's SM posts to remove words and phrases that had been deemed subversive by our President, I asked him if the name Winston Smith meant anything to him. I then explained that Winston Smith, the protagonist in 1984, worked at the Ministry of Truth, and that his job was to go through old news stories and change words and phrases to be more in line with The Party's propaganda. So, thanks to our civilian leadership for making us waste several days on this nonsense. The amount of lost/wasted man-hours spent on this stuff across the DoD is incalculable.

IMG_1269.jpeg
 

robav8r

Well-Known Member
None
Contributor
Presuming the sculptor got it right, I suppose we should reconsider naming a ship for this gentleman because, well....a little thick in middle... clearly brining into question his fidelity to the war-fighting ethos, to say nothing of his #lethality.
Waco-monuent-1.jpg
I’d say Doris epitomizes EVERYTHING about the warrior ethos . . . .
 

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor

Brett327

Well-Known Member
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
SNARK! Both are stories of how different administrations tried (or are trying) to manage a very specific narrative.
No they're not. One was intended to counter malign foreign influence, the other to promulgate a President's policy. The only similarity is that both efforts have been ham-fisted in their execution.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
No they're not. One was intended to counter malign foreign influence, the other to promulgate a President's policy. The only similarity is that both efforts have been ham-fisted in their execution.
Then we are in agreement.
 

Yardstick

Is The Bottle Ready?!
pilot
You mean to say that words have meaning? And perhaps that someone who's only credentials are being promoted to O-4 in the IRR and being a Fox News Host doesn't have the understanding and knowledge of how regulations are written and implemented when concerning an organization of 2 million people with very different backgrounds, and goals?

Color me shocked.

This is playing out how I imagined it would if you made an E-5 the wing commander.
Were you this upset when Austin went MIA for an extended period of time?
 

FLGUY

“Technique only”
pilot
Contributor
Earnest question here for those on here who seems very quick to throw the “Whataboutisim” flag up: What would you have someone do when they sense hypocrisy then? Because effectively saying “Sorry I know you claim that X team did this same thing Y months ago and it wasn’t reacted to in the same way back then but it’s not OK to point it out” doesn’t really hold water for me.

I fully understand that saying a “whataboutisim” does nothing to address the current topic in any conversation, but the ability to point out someone acting in bad faith which brings into question their bias and objectivity I think is very relevant.
 

sevenhelmet

Low calorie attack from the Heartland
pilot
Earnest question here for those on here who seems very quick to throw the “Whataboutisim” flag up: What would you have someone do when they sense hypocrisy then? Because effectively saying “Sorry I know you claim that X team did this same thing Y months ago and it wasn’t reacted to in the same way back then but it’s not OK to point it out” doesn’t really hold water for me.

I fully understand that saying a “whataboutisim” does nothing to address the current topic in any conversation, but the ability to point out someone acting in bad faith which brings into question their bias and objectivity I think is very relevant.

When X and Y are not the same, it presents as a weaker argument. Furthermore, many of us (myself included) did oppose the Disinformation Governance Board as too easily corrupted against freedom of speech. That time, it was about getting our arms around foreign influences in social media (still a big problem). This time, it’s about denigrating entire groups of people. Why do you think it’s being done so cruelly?

In general, Whataboutism excuses bad behavior because “well, you didn’t care last time” as if learning and growing is not part of the human experience. It’s also a cheap attempt to make something partisan, and often works in those kinds of environments.

Back to the subject at hand, POTUS can shape government publications in some ways, but that does not mean we have to like it. Others will typically follow their lead, and even if it’s done in good faith (this isn’t) it’s a slippery slope to suppression of speech (which this is), and encourages future presidents to do the same.

Remember freedom of speech? Pepperidge Farm remembers. Ad Hominem Impetum. Might as well start printing it on our money. E pluribus is no longer unum, and it’s very intentional.

So sure, you can argue however you want, but so can the other guy.
 
Last edited:
Top