The Few, the Proud, the White

[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."