• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

US Air Force removes lessons on black WWII pilots from training

But Truman was clearly wrong to desegregate the military when he did, it should have stayed segregated until American society caught up likely some time in the mid 70's. The military is not the place for that kind of woke social agenda. Using the military as an instrument of social change is exactly what they are against.
 
But Truman was clearly wrong to desegregate the military when he did, it should have stayed segregated until American society caught up likely some time in the mid 70's. The military is not the place for that kind of woke social agenda. Using the military as an instrument of social change is exactly what they are against.
Unless it is deporting immigrants, that social agenda is A OK.
 
So are we now onto the logical fallacy of flippancy (aka the non sequitur)? Please expand. What is the other way 'to do such work' and what is the other remedy, which you fail to specify?
We have been doing anti-discrimination stuff at least since the 1960's. You can oppose racial discrimination by treating everyone the same, and teaching others to treat everyone the same. And when people racially discriminate, you punish them. But that's not what DEI does. DEI explicitly calls for racial discrimination, just of the "correct" sort.
 
But Truman was clearly wrong to desegregate the military when he did, it should have stayed segregated until American society caught up likely some time in the mid 70's. The military is not the place for that kind of woke social agenda. Using the military as an instrument of social change is exactly what they are against.
And don't get me started on that woke Massachusetts 54th.
 
We have been doing anti-discrimination stuff at least since the 1960's. You can oppose racial discrimination by treating everyone the same, and teaching others to treat everyone the same. And when people racially discriminate, you punish them. But that's not what DEI does. DEI explicitly calls for racial discrimination, just of the "correct" sort.

But we are not talking about discrimination we are talking of everyone having an equal chance. In the UK they have now begun compensating soldiers who were court martialled and demobbed dishonorably just for being gay*. DEI is surely about expanding people's consciousness, not telling them what to do?

*As 10% o the population is gay then there must have been a huge number of closet gay men and women in the armed forces (especially gay women, who now had the opportunity to be openly butch).
 
And don't get me started on that woke Massachusetts 54th.
Well, according to wiki, that was in 1863. How strange nothing had changed by WWII, yet Ziggurat assures us that all that's needed are three of four changes of generations. According to Trump we have to be 'colour blind' but suddenly the African-American comes into clear view when men are needed to help win a combat. Otherwise, we are not to see them.
 
Last edited:
But we are not talking about discrimination we are talking of everyone having an equal chance.
No we aren't. If you don't discriminate, then you are giving everyone an equal chance. An equal chance isn't the point of DEI. The point of DEI is equal outcomes, which requires that you do NOT give everyone the same chance, that you do in fact discriminate. You cannot get equal outcomes if you give everyone an equal chance.
In the UK they have now begun compensating soldiers who were court martialled and demobbed dishonorably just for being gay*.
Ending discrimination against gays doesn't require that you then positively discriminate for them.
DEI is surely about expanding people's consciousness, not telling them what to do?
No, it isn't. DEI is very much about telling people what to do. If you don't tell people what to do, different people might have different preferences in what they want to do, and this could produce unequal outcomes. If fewer women than men want to become engineers (as is the case), then that produces unequal outcomes, which is undesirable. DEI can only work if you tell people what to do, if you force companies to hire more women engineers even though fewer women want to be engineers.
 
Well, according to wiki, that was in 1863. How strange nothing had changed by WWII, yet Ziggurat assures us that all that's needed are three of four changes of generations.
What's strange about it? Are you under the impression that social change always proceeds at a constant rate? That would be strange. It's also strange that you think segregation of the army is the only metric of change. But let's take a look at your date. 1863 is a bit under 80 years after the constitution was signed. Within 80 years, America went from codifying the institution of slavery in the constitution to fighting a war to end slavery. A war that killed more Americans than any other war we ever fought, and that's not even on a per capita basis. That's a pretty big social change, isn't it? So don't tell me little changes in 80 years. A lot can change. A lot has changed.
According to Trump we have to be 'colour blind' but suddenly the African-American comes into clear view when men are needed to help win a combat. Otherwise, we are not to see them.
This would be quite the argument, if the armed forces were still segregated.
 
No we aren't. If you don't discriminate, then you are giving everyone an equal chance. An equal chance isn't the point of DEI. The point of DEI is equal outcomes, which requires that you do NOT give everyone the same chance, that you do in fact discriminate. You cannot get equal outcomes if you give everyone an equal chance.

Ending discrimination against gays doesn't require that you then positively discriminate for them.

No, it isn't. DEI is very much about telling people what to do. If you don't tell people what to do, different people might have different preferences in what they want to do, and this could produce unequal outcomes. If fewer women than men want to become engineers (as is the case), then that produces unequal outcomes, which is undesirable. DEI can only work if you tell people what to do, if you force companies to hire more women engineers even though fewer women want to be engineers.

No, no no. The point of education is to expand people's horizons. The reason fewer women than men want to become engineers is not because of anything inherent, it is because engineering is presented as a male subject quite early on in the curriculum. When I was at school it was common or girls who left early at 16 to go into nursing or teacher's training. It is cultural. Do you seriously believe that the lack of females in , say Afghanistan, in higher education is because of some kind of natural inclination to stay home in the kitchen?

Might I suggest you partake of a little DEI training yourself and perhaps expand your awareness of why things are the way they are, and that females that want to be engineers or fly military planes aren't some kind of weird outliers?

Of course you don't want to because your world view would be shattered and you are too fragile for that.
 
Last edited:
Air & Space has the full story on this issue:


Bottom Line: ONE class of airmen missed the videos dealing with the Tuskegee Airmen and WASPS due the USAF leadership scrambling to comply with the Trump Administrations new policies. So everyone got their panties in a wad over mostly nothing. And these are just a pair of short videos that are part of a long list of videos new Airmen are required to watch during basic training, which cover the history of the USAF, and it's various commands, and aircraft. I think there's a test at the end. Honestly, in the old days when these videos were on film shown in darkened rooms it was a chance for Airmen to catch a nap during basic.

I hate Trump, I think DEI has become Jim Crow, but this story is nothing but political hype.
 
No, no no. The point of education is to expand people's horizons. The reason fewer women than men want to become engineers is not because of anything inherent, it is because engineering is presented as a male subject quite early on in the curriculum.
Nope.
When I was at school it was common or girls who left early at 16 to go into nursing or teacher's training. It is cultural. Do you seriously believe that the lack of females in , say Afghanistan, in higher education is because of some kind of natural inclination to stay home in the kitchen?
Here's where I know that you don't actually have a clue about the topic. Sure, in Afghanistan, women are oppressed and aren't given the opportunity to become engineers. But in most countries, the percentage of women in stem isn't correlated with gender equality. In fact, it's negatively correlated with gender equality. This may come as a surprise to you, but it's been well studied for quite some time. I don't think there's a universally agreed upon explanation for why that's the case, but the fact that it's true disproves what are clearly your own naive beliefs about it.
Might I suggest you partake of a little DEI training yourself and perhaps expand your awareness of why things are the way they are, and that females that want to be engineers or fly military planes aren't some kind of weird outliers?
You say I don't understand why things are the way they are, but you're fundamentally wrong about what things are.
Of course you don't want to because your world view would be shattered and you are too fragile for that.
If you're going to insult me, please, at least make it clever. This is just boring.
 
Nope.

Here's where I know that you don't actually have a clue about the topic. Sure, in Afghanistan, women are oppressed and aren't given the opportunity to become engineers. But in most countries, the percentage of women in stem isn't correlated with gender equality. In fact, it's negatively correlated with gender equality. This may come as a surprise to you, but it's been well studied for quite some time. I don't think there's a universally agreed upon explanation for why that's the case, but the fact that it's true disproves what are clearly your own naive beliefs about it.

You say I don't understand why things are the way they are, but you're fundamentally wrong about what things are.

If you're going to insult me, please, at least make it clever. This is just boring.

No I wasn't intending to insult you at all. If you want feedback, I just feel that your view is a set dogma and hence there is no real debate happening here.
 
Air & Space has the full story on this issue:


Bottom Line: ONE class of airmen missed the videos dealing with the Tuskegee Airmen and WASPS due the USAF leadership scrambling to comply with the Trump Administrations new policies. So everyone got their panties in a wad over mostly nothing. And these are just a pair of short videos that are part of a long list of videos new Airmen are required to watch during basic training, which cover the history of the USAF, and it's various commands, and aircraft. I think there's a test at the end. Honestly, in the old days when these videos were on film shown in darkened rooms it was a chance for Airmen to catch a nap during basic.

I hate Trump, I think DEI has become Jim Crow, but this story is nothing but political hype.

If one class missing the Tuskegee and WASP's video can cause an international storm (BBC had it large on their front page), it shows the depth of opposition. Hegseth promised to put it back on Sunday, within a day of the outcry, so it is clearly reputation damage limitation. The training stuff might still be missing were it not for the Tuskegee guys kicking up an immediate stink.
 
But it is a harbinger of things to come.

likely, there’s a bunch of looming federal employee job loss, the disruption to any projects involved in green energy, and anyone dealing in imports or exports is probably slowing spending and anticipating a rocky future right now. they’re not gearing up to expand.

uncertainty is not good for the economy
Not sure the huge layoffs in the feds are going to happen but yeah,he is going to wreck the economy.
 

Back
Top Bottom