Dear Yue Han,
I took it easy on you. Very easy. You want to take this to another thread, be my guest.
Your Best Friend,
Mr. Cynical
We should let our soldiers at war paint / write whatever they damned well want on those bombs. Getting all worked up in a lather over some semantic that is “politically” incorrect according to you and the ACLU is pointless. You are not there, they are, and they deserve our respect. So, to make it “Pithy”, up yours! Get over it!
Yue Han said:
And also:
Unfortunately, Yue Han either thinks that the rest of the Straight Dope’s membership cannot read, or he is a liar (and a poor one at that), or both.
Bluepony has posted three times in this thread. In only one of them does he make reference to killing people. In that post, he says:
Now, I know that that is a difficuly sentence to read, Yue Han, because it contains a few polysyllabic words and a comma, so I’ll parse a few sections for you. Bluepony refers to the person who wrote the epithet on the bomb as a:
He also says that his only concern in the big picture is that the use of the bomb results in:
In case you can’t understand it, here it is in bold italics:
As much as I try, I cannot get it to rhyme or coincide in meanining with “innocent people.” Dead terrorists . . . innocent people . . . dead terrorists . . . innocent people . . . nope, it just isn’t working for me.
His only reference to his Asian heritage was:
Which basically parses as, “You refer to me by one of those names, and depending on the circumstances, I’ll either walk away or punch your lights out.” Nothing about connecting it to 9/11, nothing about killing innocent people to avenge these slurs, nothing. You can’t fit that peg in that hole no matter how hard you try.
So are you gonna retract that lie, or attempt to just let it float out there and pretend you made a point? Everybody here at the SDMB is free to agree with anyone else, but purposefully telling lies about people (and you are too smart for me to believe you merely misunderstood what he wrote) and disparaging their characters for political points is contemptible.
Like I said, that part that strikes me as ironic is that the military doesn’t ask, “Are there any fags here?” before it decides to fight for and protect Americans, or anyone else here for that matter. Matt is right to want to combat unequal treatment and condemn homophobia – I want our military to unquestioningly accept otherwise qualified homosexual members in its ranks also, and I’ve let my Congresspeople know that. (Having spent most of my life around active duty and retired military personnel, I don’t think homophobia is as pervasive or as institutionalized as some think, but that’s for another thread). But he lives in a country where he can join the army anytime he wants, and I don’t see him running out to join. Furthermore, he and his country have benefitted from their southern neighbor’s military presence for more than half a century, and not once did our military ask, “You don’t have any queers up there, do you?”
And Otto? Joining the military? Puhleeze. If the ban were to be lifted tomorrow, does anyone think he would jump to enlist? Not a bloody chance. It’s purely an academic and political exercise for him, but in the meantime, he’s content to benefit from that military’s existence. They’ll protect him just as much as they’ll protect me, and for that he repeatedly tries to kick them in the nuts, metaphorically speaking.
Only one or two people in both threads have approved without reservation or insult the action of the person who wrote on that ordnance. And they have been summarily slapped down by just about everyone–black, white, Asian, American, Canadian, straight, gay, whatever. Those who have served in the military, with one or two exceptions (EvilGhandi pops to mind) have both condemned the person who wrote it and hoped that the bomb got its job done, and expressed an opinion that open prejudice, even against gays, won’t usually get you very far in the military.
Thanks for the excluded middle, there, phil. Blupony said those things in other threads. I just thought it was relevant, since all three people arguing had military experience, that one of them felt that way, and another, who seems otherwise ok, seems to defend him no matter what.
Basically, shortly after the attacks, Bluepony said that we need to kill the terrorists, and their families, and everyone they care about, and everyone in their country. I figured, hey, heat of the moment, but I’m allowed to have a heat of the moment too and I said that it’s wrong to kill innocent people for revenge. Then Manservant told me I was moot. The ensuing argument went on in the background shuffle of the thread.
I wrote it off, we’d all just heard, no big deal. Except Bluepony kept on saying that. Even when most people had calmed down and apologized for the crazy things they had said- we had an apology thread here in the Pit for it- he kept saying it.
And then, there was a thread, a while after the events. A thread I cannot find, which leads me to believe I have lost my fucking mind. Someone was asking if the ‘kill them all’ department had calmed down yet, and I distinctly remember Bluepony’s comments being basically: No, I want all terrorists and their families and friends and countries to die so my children can be safe, and my Asian heritage demands I be satisfied with nothing else. But I can’t find the thread, so maybe I’ve lost my mind. If this actually occurred, he hasn’t apologized for it yet, to my knowledge. If it didn’t, obviously he wouldn’t have.
And until I can see figure out if my problems with you are completely based on hallucinations, Manservant, I’m going to let this go and stay out of the Pit. Fine. You don’t like me. And when you’re saying how you don’t want to talk about why, you can’t help but making a cheap shot about why with no backup.
–John
Ok. That’s it. I have lost my mind. Apparently a) bluepont and I have never posted in the same thread outside the Pit (not relevant, but weird) and b) while he did say comments along those line none of them came after the initial days of the WTC events. So I’m a jackass. A big fucking stupid unreliable jackass. I’ll be withdrawing myself from the more fact-required forums (GQ, GD, the Pit) for a while.
To Bluepony and Manservant, and to a lesser extent phil and this entire thread, I’m sorry. I am a fuck-up. I am a moron. And so forth.
Again, abject and profuse apologies.
–John
oh, you don’t have to do that, just next time you bash someone, check for their posts, that way you can link to them as well. (plus then i can have more than three windows to the Straight Dope open at a time without feeling like i ain’t working)
Now, as we all know, the genius who wrote this is obviously one of our best and brightest, as evidenced by the words “Highjack” and “fag.” Only Ph.D. scholars can use such high-level words. I hope some of you can see this is sarcastic. Now i am not defending this, i think it sucks, but what are you gonna do, that dipwad ain’t gonna here nothing we say. We can just hope that bomb blew the living crap out of some anti-aircraft base or the like.
Now my problem is that Otto stated that the bomb was going to be dropped on Afghani civilians. He is obviosly living in a dreamworld where the government does stuff specifically to hurt him, Otto, as mandated by the 27th Amendment, “the right to get Otto” amendment. This is evidenced by his repeated posts where he bad mouths someone or something about the good ole USA. Of course, if he didn’t say this crap, i’d get along with him fine, we have many of the same interests (star trek, comic books, etc), but these tireless anti-government tirades are annoying and especially upsettleing in these troubled times.
Bluepony: rock on, your first reply was an excellent post and right on the money.
Monty (and those who agree with him): Kind of funny you say that another job of the military is to keep people from being killed. How do they do that? Oh yeah, BY KILLING THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT KILL THE PEOPLE WE WANT TO SAVE!
What you said was basically what Bluepony said, you just sugarcoated it for everyone. Just like we apparently want our bombs sugarcoated before we drop them on Afghanistan.
Don’t these PC watchdogs get it? You know how ironic it is to be complaining about someone pushing their beliefs on you (writing fag on a bomb) and then you turn around and say they should change it to PLEASE YOU?? FUCK THAT.
This is very similar to a situation we have here at my office right now. We have a server named Treekiller, it was named that as a reminder to not use so much paper and named using a “light-hearted” approach. (That wording was weird, but I hope you understand)
Anyway, now we have 1 guy bitching about how that name offends him, and we have to fucking change it. This guy knows nothing about networks or hackers, but wants to change all the server names to something more uniform like: “Server 1” and “Server 2”…
Did he ever consider that hackers might be able to easily determine what our new server naming scheme is if we use names like this? Did he ever consider that now we will have no idea what server is what when we go over the network? No. All he knows is that he doesn’t like it, and he wants to have his little fucking voice heard.
Ok, I am rambling a bit… but the point is still the same. If you don’t like it… YOU fucking deal with it in your own way. By forcing your idea of what is right on others, you are no better than the problem you are dealing with.
BP
PS - I also find that the people who keep their mouths shut and just do their job earn a lot more respect than the ones who bitch about how everyone else does things.
Ah yes, I’m inane and/or stupid because I questioned the Great Monty. And why did I question him?
Bluepony posted that the military exists to do “X”.
Monty’s brilliant refutation consisted of (paraphrased) “Your’re wrong. You’re stupid.”
Of course! What was I thinking!? Now that Monty has stated his opinion, it should never be questioned! Much less clarified. We should be so grateful that Monty deigned to answer my question.
Monty, you are, as ever, an arrogant prick.
Demise, I concur with your post completely.
Monty, would you care to formulate an argument that is a tad more solid than: “And the military exists to do a whole bunch of other things.”?
BP
I have been reading this thread since its inception, and I felt I should chime in my .02$ on the OP.
The military do a job most people would not want to do. Most times, to do this job, they have to do things most people would not do. Sometimes the average joe civilian gets wind of what goes on in the military and, invariably gets upset at the level of barbarism, hatred, and all these other words they use to express their righteous anger.
Well, isn’t that cute! If you’re pissed off because someone wrote ‘highjack this fag’ on a bomb, too bad. You have a couple of choices:
1 - Do not look at pictures released by the military. You could see things that are a lot more upsetting than a couple of words on a bomb while looking at military pictures.
2 - Join the military, in this case the Navy, and then once you’re working with these people, if they write stuff like that on a bomb and it still makes you upset, confront them.
I have friends who are/have been in the military. My dad is retired. Now, these people were in the Canadian Army, but they saw things that are infinitely worse than what the OP describes. This has to be the silliest, most inane and pointless rant I have seen on this board. What’s next, complaining that the bombs are just too loud? That you don’t like the color of the uniforms? If you would only see some of the tatoos these guys get while in the military!:eek:
Everything except the last comments to Tars was typed late last night/early this morning but not posted because the boards went down.
Tars
Oh, as opposed to the other things of vital importance that get ranted about in the Pit? Why don’t you run off to my purple ketchup rant and bitch about how since red, white and blue make purple, it makes me unAmerican?
Since I’ve stated on numerous occasions that I am a pacifist, no, I would not prefer that someone be battered instead.
If a servicemember assaulted someone because of their sexual orientation, yes I would complain. Wouldn’t you? Or do you think it’s OK to “cut them some slack” to beat up fags, as long as they’re “serving their country” while they’re doing it?
gobear
Hmm, let’s see, out of over 1300 posts to date, somewhere in the neighborhood of maybe 20-30 deal with various government policy-type stuff. Yeah, that’s a real good conclusion for you to draw. Is there some reason why criticising the government and even criticising people who happen to be Americans means that I “hate America”? In point of fact, I don’t hate America. I don’t hate any country. I hate it when my country and other countries do stupid things. Sorry if that’s not sufficiently gung-ho for your tastes. What do I need to do, put “I love America” in my sig?
MH
Insinuate hell. I’ll say it flat out. We target civilians. As primary targets? I certainly hope not, at least not anymore. But we don’t seem to care a whole lot when they get caught, do we? Collateral damage, I think we call it…
Tars
Three points: First, the 27th Amendment states “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives has intervened.” Proposed along with the Bill of Rights in 1789, ratified in 1992. Second, since I’m not Afghani, the dropping of bombs on Afghani civilians doesn’t “specifically hurt [me].” Third, I have never said that the government is out to get me. I’m a skeptic, not a paranoid. But I also believe that as citizens we have not only the right but the obligation to question the actions of the government we elected to represent us. And that responsibility doesn’t end on the basis of whatever crisis we happen to be facing at any given time. In fact, in times of crisis I would argue that this obligation increases, if for no other reason than to counteract the people who think that times of crisis give the government a free pass.
(Well, maybe a small one)
What would OTTO like as bomb graffiti? Hmmm…?
Okay, someone take the lead here. I gotta pee.
Ah, but you see, the government didn’t write anything on the bomb, a foolish sailor (or Marine) did. Harassment, of any kind, is not allowed in the United States Armed Forces. I’m not sure where it would fall, Article 117 (Provoking speeches or gestures) or perhaps Article 134 (General Article)? I would suspect, however, it would fall under “hazing,” which is severely frowned upon. In fact, from United States Marine Corps, Marines Awaiting Training, lesson title: Hazing:
and
One of the problems, IMO, with today’s “kinder, gentler” military is the candy-ass civilians speaking out about all the terrible things going on, things of which they frequently have no clue. So let me clue you in to something, homosexuals are tolerated a whole hell of a lot more than the media and cinema portray. Most often, people look the other way and ignore it as long as the guy (or gal) gets their job done. Most soldiers (that I know) feel it’s none of their business. Frequently, folks have a bit more on their mind than who is attracted to whom, JAG or A Few Good Men notwithstanding.
One guy wrote something on one of, literally, hundreds (thousands?) of bombs that was slanderous toward homosexuals and suddenly the entire Military, the entire Government, are homophobes and perpetrators of hate-crime? The bombs I’m sure you didn’t see, “Hijack this, motherfucker!” “Hijack this, beard-boy!” or “Hijack this, Pastrami au Gratin!” might piss off Oedipal-oriented, facial-haired, or Italian-culinary folks, but you didn’t see those bombs.
A guy wrote something and it was stupid and, while it is right not to like the word and it’s use, it’s wrong to blame the institute that fights to defend your right to live free and bitch about it.
My $0.02, I’m going home.
I find it disheartening our great military that I respect a great deal is being defended as “boys will be boys.”
Esprix
If you’re the one that loads or drops the bombs, then you can write any “endorsement” you prefer. If not, then shut up; we’re busy.
It’s not “boys will be boys,” it’s people sometimes do stupid or thoughtless things and that’s no reason to go completely off the deep end and use it as an opportunity to accuse an entire institution of prejudice. That coupled with improper remarks about civilian targetting, well, it tends to piss people off. I don’t mean y’all, Esprix. matt_mcl, et al…
Too busy to follow the regulations, Chief?
Never thought I’d have to ask a CPO that question!
As Scylla said in the other thread (where this is also being discussed in exactly the same way - 
), it’s not even what they wrote or that they wrote it, it’s that the military was stupid enough to release the photo in the first place. It (obviously) casts a poor light on our fighting men and women, and does nothing to rally people together in this time of crisis (unless a lot of people going, “Yeah, they’re nothing but a bunch of damn faggots!” is considered unity).
Esprix
Manservant---------
I’m generally agreeing with your posts here.
But…
I count two references so far, to inflicting bodily harm, with premeditated intent.
Not a good sign, bro…
Esprix, you’ll find no argument from me WRT the disclosure of that photo, it simply makes no sense to disseminate it! I, too, wonder about the reasoning behind making that particular photograph available…it’s seems odd (kinda like having two multi-page threads about the exact same thing, but I digress…)