The Few, the Proud, the White

[Dill]

(09-02-2020, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, the article is about him not making Brig. General.  Do you know how hard it is to make one star, let alone four?  If he got promoted to one star would we need the article rewritten every time he doesn't make the next rank?  The entire premise of this article is based solely son supposition. 

I don't generally address PR statements in general, they don't exist to inform, they exist to placate.

I thought the article stated the reason was clear.

Let's say the Corps does have a "diversity problem".  Does that mean this particular person's case is indicative of it?  Provide one piece of solid evidence that backs up this article's claims about this particular Colonel.  Most officers don't make Colonel, much less one star General.  Quite honestly, due to the amount of politics that are involved in making O7 and above it's very likely this guy pissed of the wrong person, having nothing to do with his being black.

As an aside I wonder how many, if any, Marine Corps generals are Hispanic or Asian and if not why that's not a problem?

If the article is simply about Henderson not making Brig. General, then there is just a lot of stuff there that has nothing to do with the topic, including those paragraphs on diversity you don't wish to address and that stat Bfine seems to have missed 72-0. 

Nowdays a "diversity problem" means there is a pattern, a maldistribution across a number of points. And of course, considering any single "point," there may be "politics" and no "one piece of solid evidence."  It's only the pattern that indicates something more may be at work. 

I suspect "politics" in this case is as the article suggests--Black officers may be asked to conform in ways that whites don't. This one had trouble playing that game, despite being a good choice. Some in the senior leadership want the diversity problem addressed; others are why the problem exists. The journalist selected this case because the measurable variables which normally and visibly hinder careers are not present. Only "politics." And what sort of politics becomes important 0-7 and above?  

Whatabout hispanics and Asians, not a problem in one article about a Marine colonel? 
Latinos aren't reaching top military positions, study shows
https://thehill.com/latino/398139-latinos-arent-reaching-top-military-positions-study-shows

The data it provided showed that out of the 37 highest ranking officers in the military — four-star generals in the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, and admirals in the Navy — 32 are white men, two are white women, two are black men and one is an Asian-American man, according to data from the Department of Defense.

The next-highest rank — three-star generals and vice admirals — is slightly more diverse, according to the data from the Pentagon. Out of 144 officers, 115 are white men and seven are white women; 13 are black men and three are black women. 

The list is completed by two Asian-American men, one Pacific Islander man, one man with unknown ethnicity, one Asian-American/Hispanic woman, and one Hispanic man.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-03-2020, 03:35 AM)Dill Wrote: If the article is simply about Henderson not making Brig. General, then there is just a lot of stuff there that has nothing to do with the topic, including those paragraphs on diversity you don't wish to address and that stat Bfine seems to have missed 72-0. 

Nowdays a "diversity problem" means there is a pattern, a maldistribution across a number of points. And of course, considering any single "point," there may be "politics" and no "one piece of solid evidence."  It's only the pattern that indicates something more may be at work.

Nah.  That's not what it means and we all know it.  It means someone decided there are too many white people in "x" position and this must change.  The NBA clearly has a "diversity problem". 

Quote:I suspect "politics" in this case is as the article suggests--Black officers may be asked to conform in ways that whites don't. This one had trouble playing that game, despite being a good choice. Some in the senior leadership want the diversity problem addressed; others are why the problem exists. The journalist selected this case because the measurable variables which normally and visibly hinder careers are not present. Only "politics." And what sort of politics becomes important 0-7 and above?  

You "may" speculate all you like, after all that's pretty much the entirety of the article.  As for "politics", you've clearly never worked in a large organization with an established hierarchy because anyone who has knows exactly what is meant by "politics".

Quote:Whatabout hispanics and Asians, not a problem in one article about a Marine colonel? 
Latinos aren't reaching top military positions, study shows
https://thehill.com/latino/398139-latinos-arent-reaching-top-military-positions-study-shows

The data it provided showed that out of the 37 highest ranking officers in the military — four-star generals in the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps, and admirals in the Navy — 32 are white men, two are white women, two are black men and one is an Asian-American man, according to data from the Department of Defense.

The next-highest rank — three-star generals and vice admirals — is slightly more diverse, according to the data from the Pentagon. Out of 144 officers, 115 are white men and seven are white women; 13 are black men and three are black women. 

The list is completed by two Asian-American men, one Pacific Islander man, one man with unknown ethnicity, one Asian-American/Hispanic woman, and one Hispanic man.

Thank you for posting this, as certain groups only think of black people when "diversity" is mentioned.  I will point out that your own source flat out states this discrepancy has nothing to do with racism.

[Dill]

(09-03-2020, 10:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah.  That's not what it means and we all know it.  It means someone decided there are too many white people in "x" position and this must change.  The NBA clearly has a "diversity problem". 

You "may" speculate all you like, after all that's pretty much the entirety of the article.  As for "politics", you've clearly never worked in a large organization with an established hierarchy because anyone who has knows exactly what is meant by "politics".

Thank you for posting this, as certain groups only think of black people when "diversity" is mentioned.  I will point out that your own source flat out states this discrepancy has nothing to do with racism.

Reference to what "we all know" is just arguing without an argument.  Same for appealing to "what anyone knows." You are not addressing the points I made about a pattern of maldistribution at all. (And the NBA does have a diversity problem at the ownership level--red herring in this case?)

Looks like we both may "speculate" all we like, one using the evidence of testimony and data, the other appealing to what "anyone knows." The latter leads to the idlest speculation about where I have worked and under what conditions. Far afield from any sort of evidence or reasoning which could directly apply to the question of diversity in the Marines.

I don't speculate as to what institutional experiences render one unable/unwilling to address a point about differing patterns of racial representation at different levels in institutional hierarchies, a point which renders moot any claim that there is "nothing suspect" in this or that individual case; I don't write as if "speculation" is what the other guy does, or as if all speculation were equal.

ONE PERSON in my source said "racism" was not the reason for the maldistribution of Hispanics in top military leadership; must be true then? Yet that person does see a "systemic" problem.

A more productive route at this point might be to consider whether is such a thing as "systemic racism," how it is defined, and whether it applies to cases like the US military. I can start things down the road by saying that if there is systemic racism at work in military rank selection, it doesn't mean there avowed racists making conscious choices to exclude Blacks or Hispanics.  

[fredtoast]

(09-03-2020, 10:48 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah.  That's not what it means and we all know it.  It means someone decided there are too many white people in "x" position and this must change.  

Yeah, I remember when this happened with white QBs in the NFL.  Lots of people argued that sports was a meritocracy and there simply were not any black athletes smart enough to be QBs for the first 40 years of the league's existence.

Sounds like exactly what is happening with the Marines right now.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 07:03 PM)Dill Wrote: Reference to what "we all know" is just arguing without an argument.  Same for appealing to "what anyone knows." You are not addressing the points I made about a pattern of maldistribution at all. (And the NBA does have a diversity problem at the ownership level--red herring in this case?)

But not at the player level?  Never wonder why many people don't take this kind of allegation seriously.

Quote:Looks like we both may "speculate" all we like, one using the evidence of testimony and data, the other appealing to what "anyone knows." The latter leads to the idlest speculation about where I have worked and under what conditions. Far afield from any sort of evidence or reasoning which could directly apply to the question of diversity in the Marines.

It's already been demonstrably proven that the percentage of black Marine Generals is above the percentage of the of black people in the officer corps.  Hence no diversity problem,

Quote:I don't speculate as to what institutional experiences render one unable/unwilling to address a point about differing patterns of racial representation at different levels in institutional hierarchies, a point which renders moot any claim that there is "nothing suspect" in this or that individual case; I don't write as if "speculation" is what the other guy does, or as if all speculation were equal.

Next time omit this paragraph, it's a lot of words saying nothing of substance.

Quote:ONE PERSON in my source said "racism" was not the reason for the maldistribution of Hispanics in top military leadership; must be true then? Yet that person does see a "systemic" problem.

So, are they a valid source or not?  

Quote:A more productive route at this point might be to consider whether is such a thing as "systemic racism," how it is defined, and whether it applies to cases like the US military. I can start things down the road by saying that if there is systemic racism at work in military rank selection, it doesn't mean there avowed racists making conscious choices to exclude Blacks or Hispanics.  

An even more productive route would be to actual prove things instead of making allegations with nothing but supposition for proof.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 07:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Yeah, I remember when this happened with white QBs in the NFL.  Lots of people argued that sports was a meritocracy and there simply were not any black athletes smart enough to be QBs for the first 40 years of the league's existence.

Sounds like exactly what is happening with the Marines right now.

No, it doesn't.  By the statistics you provided the percentage of Marine generals how are black is larger than the percentage of black Marines in the officer's corps.  Hence, no diversity problem.

[Dill]

(09-04-2020, 07:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it doesn't.  By the statistics you provided the percentage of Marine generals how are black is larger than the percentage of black Marines in the officer's corps.  Hence, no diversity problem.

Was the problem addressed in the article "percentage of Black Marine generals/officer corps" or was it percentage of Black Marines in "senior leadership," 4 star and above? 

                                                                   0-72


WASHINGTON — All things being equal, Col. Anthony Henderson has the military background that the Marine Corps says it prizes in a general: multiple combat tours, leadership experience and the respect of those he commanded and most who commanded him.

Yet three times he has been passed over for brigadier general, a prominent one-star rank that would put Colonel Henderson on the path to the top tier of Marine Corps leadership. Last year, the Navy secretary, Richard V. Spencer, even added a handwritten recommendation to Colonel Henderson’s candidacy: “Eminently qualified Marine we need now as BG,” he wrote.

But never in its history has the Marine Corps had anyone other than a white man in its most senior leadership posts. Colonel Henderson is Black.

The bolded sets the theme of the article. It is clearly not to prove there have never been Black Marine Brigadier Generals, nor to plead for this one officer. Rather, it is about the next level, the very highest, and the difficulty Black officers have of making it to the top.

If there is no diversity problem at the top, why does the Marine Corps think there is? Do they lack experience of hierarchical organizations? They got to the top without understanding "politics"?

If the Marine Corps leadership thought "the percentage of Marine generals who are black is larger than the percentage of black Marines in the officer's corps" meant  "no diversity problem. " it's doubtful anyone would have gone on record for the article. Doubtful it would have been written.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 07:49 PM)Dill Wrote: Was the problem addressed in the article "percentage of Black Marine generals/officer corps" or was it percentage of Black Marines in "senior leadership," 4 star and above? 

                                                                   0-72

General rank is "senior leadership".  Having this debate with three people who know nothing about the military has been ponderous, to say the least. Also, your statement of four star "and above" is laughable for reasons you probably won't be able to figure out.

Quote:WASHINGTON — All things being equal, Col. Anthony Henderson has the military background that the Marine Corps says it prizes in a general: multiple combat tours, leadership experience and the respect of those he commanded and most who commanded him.

Yet three times he has been passed over for brigadier general, a prominent one-star rank that would put Colonel Henderson on the path to the top tier of Marine Corps leadership. Last year, the Navy secretary, Richard V. Spencer, even added a handwritten recommendation to Colonel Henderson’s candidacy: “Eminently qualified Marine we need now as BG,” he wrote.

But never in its history has the Marine Corps had anyone other than a white man in its most senior leadership posts. Colonel Henderson is Black.

The services were not integrated until after WW2, so what happened prior to that is not relevant for purposes of this discussion, much like the percentage of enlisted personnel is not relevant.  

Quote:The bolded sets the theme of the article. It is clearly not to prove there have never been Black Marine Brigadier Generals, nor to plead for this one officer. Rather, it is about the next level, the very highest, and the difficulty Black officers have of making it to the top.

But they make general rank at a percentage higher than their representation in the officer corps.  This is indisputable.

Quote:If there is no diversity problem at the top, why does the Marine Corps think there is? Do they lack experience of hierarchical organizations? They got to the top without understanding "politics"?

Because people like you tell them there is.  That's, unfortunately, the type of world we currently live in.

Quote:If the Marine Corps leadership thought "the percentage of Marine generals who are black is larger than the percentage of black Marines in the officer's corps" meant  "no diversity problem. " it's doubtful anyone would have gone on record for the article.

Not at all, for reasons already exaplained.

Quote:Doubtful it would have been written.

Sure.  Also, I have some an excellent business opportunity with a Nigerian prince to discuss with you.  DM me immediately.  

[Dill]

(09-04-2020, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I don't speculate as to what institutional experiences render one unable/unwilling to address a point about differing patterns of racial representation at different levels in institutional hierarchies, a point which renders moot any claim that there is "nothing suspect" in this or that individual case; I don't write as if "speculation" is what the other guy does, or as if all speculation were equal.

Next time omit this paragraph, it's a lot of words saying nothing of substance.

At the risk of "more words"--Diversity is monitored in public and private institutions precisely by collecting data on distribution of persons by gender and ethnicity. The collection and reading of that data may show diversity is not a problem at one level or in one sector of an institution, while it is a problem in another. The article presumes people understand this.

And people who understand this also understand why "politics" is an insufficient answer to the question of why a perfectly qualified Black officer is passed over in one case while a lesser qualified is not. They also understand why "politics" doesn't erase the racial question. And they understand how evidence is to recognized and accumulated in such cases, how "allegations" are to be sorted and weighted rather than dismissed as "speculation" or "supposition."

If you don't follow the point, say so. Ask for clarification. 


This is an "allegation with nothing but supposition for proof":

". . . you've clearly never worked in a large organization with an established hierarchy because anyone who has knows exactly what is meant by "politics".

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 08:09 PM)Dill Wrote: At the risk of "more words"--Diversity is monitored in public and private institutions precisely by collecting data on distribution of persons by gender and ethnicity. The collection and reading of that data may show diversity is not a problem at one level or in one sector of an institution, while it is a problem in another. The article presumes people understand this.

Then I'd presume you know the NBA has a "diversity problem". 

Quote:And people who understand this also understand why "politics" is an insufficient answer to the question of why a perfectly qualified Black officer is passed over in one case while a lesser qualified is not.

Sure.  Now please provide with an example of this.

Quote:They also understand why "politics" doesn't erase the racial question. And they understand how evidence is to recognized and accumulated in such cases, how "allegations" are to be sorted and weighted rather than dismissed as "speculation" or "supposition."

Yes, one would certainly hope so.

Quote:If you don't follow the point, say so. Ask for clarification. 

From you?  Never.  I don't have the time to wade through eight pages of pontification.

Quote:This is an "allegation with nothing but supposition for proof"

Quote::

". . . you've clearly never worked in a large organization with an established hierarchy because anyone who has knows exactly what is meant by "politics".

It may be.  It's also accurate.  What jobs have you had?  If you have worked a job in which you'd experienced this issue I will retract my statement, with apologies.

[Dill]

(09-04-2020, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: General rank is "senior leadership".  Having this debate with three people who know nothing about the military has been ponderous, to say the least.  Also, your statement of four star "and above" is laughable for reasons you probably won't be able to figure out.

The services were not integrated until after WW2, so what happened prior to that is not relevant for purposes of this discussion, much like the percentage of enlisted personnel is not relevant. 

My question was-- Was the problem addressed in the article "percentage of Black Marine generals/officer corps" or was it percentage of Black Marines in "senior leadership," 4 star and above?  That is how the article is defining it. That is the question the Marine Command is also addressing--not simply how many Blacks have achieved "general rank." You've decided that's a non-problem because there some black brigadier generals and because in other context people use "senior leadership" more expansively.

Also, just wondering if there is some intentional "condescension" here, if my statement is "laughable" for reasons I won't be able to figure out--but which you seem unable to explain; and then I "know nothing about the military"--apparently because I focused on the main point of the article, which you have yet to acknowledge. So again, you are claiming I "laughably" know nothing while failing to demonstrate that you do know something.  Yet you've complained several times that I have condescended to you. So I am wondering what your policy on condescension is. Ok for you, not for me? Personally, I prefer to ignore it; hard to prove anyway. I hope the moderators ignore it too. And I'd be happy to ignore yours, but the double standard is curious. For the future, why don't you adopt my policy of ignoring it? Focus on arguments. Asserting that arguments, or people, are "laughable" is not serious counter-argument. People often do that when they cannot argue a point, so it is a bad look all around.

(09-04-2020, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But they make general rank at a percentage higher than their representation in the officer corps.  This is indisputable.

Because people like you tell them there is.  That's, unfortunately, the type of world we currently live in.

Not at all, for reasons already exaplained.

What you call "indisputable" is not material to the point addressed by the article. You are responding as if it put forth some thesis about Marine officers in general, which you'd "refute" by citing some number of generals below four stars.

And yet again, you don't really address arguments as arguments. You are satisfied with vague implications about the people who make them.

Claiming that the Marine Corps sees a diversity problem at the top because "people like [me] tell them there is" is not the kind of statement I expect from someone claiming greater knowledge of the military. Maybe your argument could be strengthened if you really relied on that greater knowledge, rather than just claiming it. Have you ever had face to face discussions with military officers about diversity or any issue in the military? Were you in the military and positioned to do any work on personnel matters? Where does pressure for "diversity" policy come from? What metrics are used to assess it and under what specific rationales?

[Dill]

(09-04-2020, 08:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:If you don't follow the point, say so. Ask for clarification.

From you?  Never.  I don't have the time to wade through eight pages of pontification.

It may be.  It's also accurate.  What jobs have you had?  If you have worked a job in which you'd experienced this issue I will retract my statement, with apologies.

Hmmm. You have asked for clarification in the past on a number of topics--liberal democracy, anti-communism, the separation of powers, what constitutes scholarship--and you've received professional grade answers. That bothered you?

As far as "what jobs I have had," I'd rather not say. I don't approve of people in forums claiming "experience" in place of constructing arguments. That's just another form of arguing from authority. And you frequently seek to convert our forum debates/arguments to just that. Then argument is just a matter of claiming or disclaiming credibility. The better ad hominem wins.

But last week I did go so far as to tell you that I spent almost six years on deployed sites in the Greater Middle East. That never registered with someone who "knows the military"? "Deployed sites": that means on military bases. The military--a large organization with an established hierarchy. You can't just walk onto their bases--especially in the Middle East, especially in war zones. That means I was under military control/command, traveling on orders, IRT training. Subject to General Order Number One plus every command's whims and crochets regarding everything from clothing to drinking to smoking to eating to sleeping quarters to travel to cell phone use to office space to computers* to what color flashlight I could use at night. For years.

But no argument or point I have made on this thread regarding Dino's article rests, or need rest, on such experience.

*twice had my office computer snatched with no warning. Came back from lunch--gone. Lost all my Abu Dhabi pictures the first time.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2020, 07:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: But not at the player level?  Never wonder why many people don't take this kind of allegation seriously.

Recause the ownership and management level are the minority.

Racism is only an issue whent the majority is oppressing the minority.  It is pretty silly for a white person to cry about being a victim of racism when white people are the ones giving preference to black people.

So now you don't have to wonder anymore.

[fredtoast]

(09-04-2020, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Having this debate with three people who know nothing about the military has been ponderous, to say the least.

That is a pretty interesting comment considering you believe even the top Marine leaders don't even understand the issue with the Marines

(09-04-2020, 07:49 PM)Dill Wrote: If there is no diversity problem at the top, why does the Marine Corps think there is?

(09-04-2020, 08:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because people like you tell them there is.  That's, unfortunately, the type of world we currently live in.

What difference does it make if people "know nothing about the marines" when the marines themselves know nothing about the Marines?

Semms that you are saying you understand better than all the people who were nat Marines AND the people who have made their career in the Marines.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-04-2020, 09:38 PM)Dill Wrote: Hmmm. You have asked for clarification in the past on a number of topics--liberal democracy, anti-communism, the separation of powers, what constitutes scholarship--and you've received professional grade answers. That bothered you?

Oh my, someone is very impressed with themselves. 

Quote:As far as "what jobs I have had," I'd rather not say. I don't approve of people in forums claiming "experience" in place of constructing arguments. That's just another form of arguing from authority. And you frequently seek to convert our forum debates/arguments to just that. Then argument is just a matter of claiming or disclaiming credibility. The better ad hominem wins.

Pretty much as I thought.  I could honestly spend a considerable amount of time explaining this, but then you'd respond with a three page dissertation about a bunch of irrelevancies and then claim you actually debunked what I wrote.

Quote:But last week I did go so far as to tell you that I spent almost six years on deployed sites in the Greater Middle East. That never registered with someone who "knows the military"? "Deployed sites": that means on military bases. The military--a large organization with an established hierarchy. You can't just walk onto their bases--especially in the Middle East, especially in war zones. That means I was under military control/command, traveling on orders, IRT training. Subject to General Order Number One plus every command's whims and crochets regarding everything from clothing to drinking to smoking to eating to sleeping quarters to travel to cell phone use to office space to computers* to what color flashlight I could use at night. For years.

I'm guessing translator.  It's odd that you spent so much time around military personnel but have no idea what I'm talking about.

Quote:But no argument or point I have made on this thread regarding Dino's article rests, or need rest, on such experience.

Or any facts, apparently.

Quote:*twice had my office computer snatched with no warning. Came back from lunch--gone. Lost all my Abu Dhabi pictures the first time.

How unpleasant.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2020, 11:27 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Recause the ownership and management level are the minority.

Racism is only an issue whent the majority is oppressing the minority.  

Nothing I could ever write would explain this thread better than this post.

(09-05-2020, 11:35 AM)fredtoast Wrote: That is a pretty interesting comment considering you believe even the top Marine leaders don't even understand the issue with the Marines






What difference does it make if people "know nothing about the marines" when the marines themselves know nothing about the Marines?

Yeah, that's not what I said.  Pretending someone said things they didn't doesn't win any arguments, Fred.  It's just a tiresome distraction.

Quote:Semms that you are saying you understand better than all the people who were nat Marines AND the people who have made their career in the Marines.

Well, I do understand that an enlisted person can't be promoted to general. 

[fredtoast]

(09-05-2020, 12:25 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, that's not what I said.  Pretending someone said things they didn't doesn't win any arguments, Fred.  It's just a tiresome distraction.

Marine leaders say they have adiversity problem.  You say they don't.  I don't see any other possible explanation than you are claiming you know more than the Marine leaders.

So if it is "not what you said" then please tell me what you did say.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2020, 12:52 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Marine leaders say they have adiversity problem.  You say they don't.

Actually I don't believe I said either way, other than using your own argument against you.  I did say the claim of having a problem doesn't shock me, given the current climate.

 

Quote: I don't see any other possible explanation than you are claiming you know more than the Marine leaders.

That doesn't surprise me at all.

Quote:So if it is "not what you said" then please tell me what you did say.

Just go back and actually read the posts, Fred.  Why are you and your buddies the only ones that have this issue with misquoting people and then asking for endless repetition?

[Dill]

(09-05-2020, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh my, someone is very impressed with themselves. 

Pretty much as I thought.  I could honestly spend a considerable amount of time explaining this, but then you'd respond with a three page dissertation about a bunch of irrelevancies and then claim you actually debunked what I wrote.

I'm guessing translator.*  It's odd that you spent so much time around military personnel but have no idea what I'm talking about.

Or any facts, apparently.

No, you couldn't "honestly spend a considerable amount of time explaining this."  

And if you had any idea what you are talking about, you'd have already explained it in a short amount of time. You can't. Hence the quippery and pretension to a knowledge of the military and its "politics" you cannot establish that you actually have. 

You've basically treated Dino's article like a Rorschach blot, projecting your own post-racist themes and anxieties onto it.  You decided the complaint was that there weren't enough Black Marine generals, then "proved" there were enough for your taste. LOTS of Black officers; there is diversity in the NBA too! All that other stuff about 4-stars and what concerned top Marine brass was irrelevant to what YOU decided the article was about. No "hard evidence" Hendersen was discriminated against (as if "no hard evidence" wasn't central to the journalist's argument). That was the case so case closed. 

So why does the Marine Corps see a problem? Decades of research cumulating in DOD directives about representation in leadership, diversity, force readiness and metrics for measuring and addressing these play no role here for people with "greater knowledge" of the military. No, "people like me" turn the generals' heads, not to mention those of the civilian military leadership. 

Its "politics"! Which everyone knows except people who know nothing about the military. Like the Marine generals.
When I tried to explain the article to you, you went where you always go--ad hominem.  You turned an argument about policy into an argument about credentials, denigrating Fred's and mine without bothering to produce your own. You found that position outside argument from which you can laugh at others while referring to some non-specific "What everyone knows."  So you behave as if it's obvious you know what you are talking about, and others don't, without actually earning that position, without demonstrating you understand the OP or the Marines diversity policy, without actually arguing. The rest is all deflection. Quippery.

*Certainly what I did/do requires close, accurate reading, translator level focus on language, but also research and evidence-based argument of the sort which can address and communicate that research and align it with policy in venues--military and civilian--where no one can spin vagaries about  "what everyone knows."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-05-2020, 02:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Actually you couldn't "honestly spend a considerable amount of time explaining this."

Sure I could.  Your claim of omnipotence are amusing though.
 

Quote:And if you had any idea what you are talking about, you'd have already explained it in a short amount of time. You can't. Hence the quippery and pretension to a knowledge of the military and its "politics" you cannot establish that you actually have. 

Sure, Dill.  You got me. 

Quote:You've basically treated Dino's article like a Rorschach blot, projecting your own post-racist themes and anxieties onto it. 

Is there any subject you aren't an expert at?  It really is quite impressive.

Quote:You decided the complaint was that there weren't enough Black Marine generals, then "proved" there were enough for your taste.

The article decided that.  I didn't prove anything, Fred did when he posted the numbers that the percentage of black generals is higher than the percentage of black officers.

Quote:LOTS of Black officers; there is diversity in the NBA too! All that other stuff about 4-stars and what concerned top Marine brass was irrelevant to what YOU decided the article was about.

You need to make up your mind about what the article is about.  Is it about a black Colonel being unfailr held black due to his being black or that there hasn't been a black 4 star?

Quote:No "hard evidence" Hendersen was discriminated against (as if "no hard evidence" wasn't central to the journalist's argument). That was the case so case closed. 

Yeah, I have this weird thing about needing some evidence for sweeping claims.  Silly me. 

Quote:So why does the Marine Corps see a problem? Decades of research cumulating in DOD directives about representation in leadership, diversity, force readiness and metrics for measuring and addressing these play no role here for people with "greater knowledge" of the military. No, "people like me" turn the generals' heads, not to mention those of the civilian military leadership. 

Everyone has to "see a problem" until complete proportional parity is reached.  That's the way of the current world.

Quote:Its "politics"! Which everyone knows except people who know nothing about the military. Like the Marine generals.

I said politics have a lot to do with who makes general rank, because it does.  

Quote:When I tried to explain the article to you, you went where you always go--ad hominem.  You turned an argument about policy into an argument about credentials, denigrating Fred's and mine without bothering to produce your own.

I didn't have to denigrate either position, neither is based on any solid evidence, just your opinions btw.  You can't decide what the article is about and Fred knows so little he's not aware that enlisted personnel can't be promoted to General.

Quote:You found that position outside argument from which you can laugh at others while referring to some non-specific "What everyone knows."  So you behave as if it's obvious you know what you are talking about, and others don't, without actually earning that position, without demonstrating you understand the OP or the Marines diversity policy, without actually arguing. The rest is all deflection. Quippery.

I've used your own hard data against you.  When your points are proven wrong you ignore them.  If anyone is engaging in deflection in this thread it would be you.  

Quote:*Certainly what I did/do requires close, accurate reading, translator level focus on language, but also research and evidence-based argument of the sort which can address and communicate that research and align it with policy in venues--military and civilian--where no one can spin vagaries about  "what everyone knows."

I am, as ever, in awe of the depth and breadth of your knowledge.