In today's news...

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

The proposed additions to the US military will be women who are much less likely to be subject to this harassment, or who will 'sack up' on their own when it does happen. (generalizing here)

Women being forced to deal with the issue themselves is why the current system is broken.

The women will be more agressive, more capable of defending themselves, and much less likely to put up with bullshit.

Should they have to be more aggressive? more capable of defending themselves and less likely to put up with bullshit? why should they change? that is the question they will ask.

They won't have to because the institution will have to change in order for this to be successful. Sexual Harassment and sexual assault will have to be dealt with internally, it shouldn't ever be the job of the woman to have to fend for herself just because she is a woman.

How can you believe that placing them in the military is going to cause -more- cases of females being victimized?

There will certainly be more opportunities for sexual harassment and sexual misconduct (by both parties), i doubt that because the woman has a fully automatic weapon now is going to do much to change this, but if it does and she does shoot him, i'll chalk that up as another unforeseen consequence.

 

[Shrike7]

Re: In today's news...

I can agree with you on those points, but for me, I think it's a bit deeper than that. The level of stupidity/psychosis/whatever required to engage in sexual harassment would be very different if someone like me (more likely to be a cook in the military, if there at all. Not physically imposing, generally softspoken, etc.) was the target, as opposed to someone like Sin (combat trained, more imposing, braver, etc.).

I'm not saying that we should have to defend ourselves, I'm saying that the kind of people enlisting for combat duty would have to defend themselves less. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a change in the processes required, but at the same time, having these women around may start to reduce instances on their own, irregardless of anything else done about it. If there's a woman in the squad that you know is not to be fucked with, that opens the mental processes that help regard women as equal more than sitting in a room with a sexual harassment video that you likely aren't paying attention to anyways. Preventing them from joining in while things are talked about could make things take far longer than needed, and do more harm than good.

 

[Unknown Squid]

Re: In today's news...

((Slow written overlap post. Pretty much what Shrike said.))

Should they have to be more aggressive? more capable of defending themselves and less likely to put up with bullshit? why should they change? that is the question they will ask.

Shrike wasn't saying that they would have to become more aggressive or capable of defending themselves, but that the women in question will be soldiers that have gone through the full and equal combat training as the men. They inherently will be tougher and better ready to stick up for themselves. Merely by having applied for a direct combat role, says at least a little bit about the comparative vulnerability you can expect next to the female cooks, medics and mechanics that are already present on military bases.

They're not changing for anyone. They're enlisting to become a soldier, expecting having to work even harder than their peers in order to overcome the natural disadvantages of their genes and frame.

If anything, perhaps when the next over touchy-feely infantry grunt thinks he can get away with some unsuitable behaviour, he might get a broken nose from a combat trained female soldier and be forced to explain to his superiors how he got his injury, rather than getting away with it, and perhaps rethink such behaviour in future.

Some kind of proper action against the rape issue is needed as well, but what more than this is going to encourage it being handled seriously? I very much imagine that the issue is top on their lists of considerations when going about implementing this. The controversy generated over women serving in combat roles may very well draw enough attention to the fact that women are already serving anyway, to get the rape issue actually looked into properly and taken seriously.

 

[Sinfulwolf]

Re: In today's news...

This may be unrelated to this entire argument but you understand that a soldier's profession is to kill people.......right? I suppose you can call a group of trained killers "a group of good human beings".

After all, when you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.

Wow... just, fucking wow.

You do understand that a soldier does more than kill people right? And that being put in such a situation does not automatically make them a bad person right?

Well military service people of the forum, we are no longer good people apparently. Because part of our job is to kill people. Never mind saving people, humanitarian efforts, and the like.

 

[Armacalic]

Re: In today's news...

Wow... just, fucking wow.

You do understand that a soldier does more than kill people right? And that being put in such a situation does not automatically make them a bad person right?

Well military service people of the forum, we are no longer good people apparently. Because part of our job is to kill people. Never mind saving people, humanitarian efforts, and the like.

Because adding "fucking" will give impact to your fucking wow.

It's an opinion. But more than that, there's some truth behind it. While it does not automatically make people killers, that you accept one such job means that there's a chance that you'll be put in a situation in which you'll have to kill. It's a possibility of the job, and you accept that, at least, it's more probable than in any other job out there.

Some people have more respect for others's life than others, that includes soldiers, though.

 

[lurker]

Re: In today's news...

Because adding "fucking" will give impact to your fucking wow.

It's an opinion. But more than that, there's some truth behind it. While it does not automatically make people killers, that you accept one such job means that there's a chance that you'll be put in a situation in which you'll have to kill. It's a possibility of the job, and you accept that, at least, it's more probable than in any other job out there.

Some people have more respect for others's life than others, that includes soldiers, though.

There's a reason PTSD is a thing though. Trying to say that people enjoy the thought of having to level a rifle at someone (with the added disclaimer that the person involved isn't already a homicidal jerkwad) is like saying it's easier to walk uphill. Respect for life is something, but when you finally reach the moment of having the pull the trigger, there's a good chance that most of us here would hesitate, no matter what your score on Generic Shooter number 404 is.

 

[Nunu]

Re: In today's news...

My counterpoint to not letting women in the army because of potential rape is that by similar logic women shouldn't be allowed to date or drink alcohol because those may also lead to potential rape (after all there is far more rape on drunk girls and by dating than there is in the military).

Clock, you're new hear so you may have somehow missed earlier when sin mentioned her tour as infantry in Afghanistan. I'll leave the details of that to your imagination but suffice to say that her opinion on everything that has come up in this thread is pretty much first hand. I also believe that there is a fundamental difference when killing in war or in self defense and such things and its not fair to equate soldiers with murderers while they may both semantically be "killers".

Serafin, if you ever call the people who risk their lives for your safety not "good people" again its a perma ban. but in short your argument seems to be that the problems are still being fixed but you are technically behind full integration and equality. your descriptions though seem to mire your points in other less savory positions.

I'll give each person one more post on this topic and then delete anything further.

 

[Mind Flayer]

Re: In today's news...

Getting away from the military shit going on regardless of who's right or wrong. Actor James Gandolfini was found dead earlier today in Rome while he was on holiday. Another actor gone that brought many of us entertainment.

You must be registered to see the links

 

[Chibichibi]

Re: In today's news...

The series finale was such bullshit. xD

 

[Mind Flayer]

Re: In today's news...

Aye it was Chibi, apparently his life ended much like his character did... suddenly. From what I've read so far they seem to think that it was either a heart attack or a stroke or something of the sort.

 

[Chibichibi]

Re: In today's news...

Heart Attack is what I've seen. I know how his kinds are feeling right now.

 

[dmronny]

Re: In today's news...

The military is ponderously slow to change and adapt to society, it's quite true. However it will never change unless it is forced to by allowing women to serve in the same roles as men. Yes there are going to be problems such as rape and the like but keep in mind a lot of the reason that you are suddenly seeing an increase in rape cases in the US military is because they are now being reported and handled because of the current changes that are happening.

Also just to point something out to Squid, you can't join the US Army, and I'm pretty sure the other branches are the same, without having at the least a High School diploma or it's equivalent. Not to mention all the physical tests and requirements you have to be able to meet, there are a lot of people who get turned away for various reasons. Also that 13 months is only USMC basic training they all have another school for there various military careers they attend afterwards which is another 12 months depending on their job.


And now onto the latest news. Heart attack seems the most likely but I wouldn't rule out a stroke, same ending either way. And the season finale was indeed bullshit.

 

[XSI]

Re: In today's news...

Stock markets dropping again. It's fairly bad, but not as bad as 2008(At this time)

You must be registered to see the links

Gold also dropped, so everyone who bought gold thinking it would keep them safe from economic disaster is kinda screwed.
Recovery is still possible, it's slightly difficult to predict what's going to happen at this time

 

[OAMP]

Re: In today's news...

Since they started going back up to record levels, a lot of people, including myself, knew this would happen. It's the way the stock market works. It's what happens when the economy is based off confidence and gets super inflated.

 

[dmronny]

Re: In today's news...

Hell, I learned how the stock market works in consumer economics in high school. It's not exactly rocket science but apparently no one else was paying attention in the required classes. Not that I thought most of them were paying attention mind you.

 

[XSI]

Re: In today's news...

Got these two linked to me for today

You must be registered to see the links

French far-right party could possibly be prosecuted for their views if the European Union decides to make it acceptable to do so.

I don't think anyone needs to say anything on how important it is not silence political opponents.

------
And one that goes unreported in most other media, a UN report on Israel that doesn't surprise anyone.

(Warning, reading some details of this may be bad for blood pressure in some people)

You must be registered to see the links

Israel calls it “recycling old stuff” that carries “no importance.”. The UN meanwhile exposes seriously bad stuff that's almost cartoon-villain level of evil.

Pretty sure nobody likes Israel anyway, so I'll not bother to give my opinion on this one.

 

[Serifyn]

Re: In today's news...

Sinful misread my statement and overreacted, do you really think i'd call every soldier a bad person without knowing them?

The entire statement was said in order to point out the irony of calling trained killers 'good people', nothing more. It was a bad decision to include this into my posts, i thought people would see it and understand, but then i suppose some people aren't interested in anything more than being offended and letting everyone around them know how offended they are.

The fact that a ban can be threatened against me for offering my opinion in a section where one would believe is the only section appropriate for doing so is just disgraceful.

If you have a reason to ban me, i'd hope it would be for a reason better than having a philosophical disagreement with your friends, that you so easily threaten the nuclear option against me, who has contributed hundreds of creative posts to the blank page makes me wonder whether i made the right decision in coming to this community over 2.5 years ago, as clearly my value as a member of the community isn't as important as letting Sinful know you have her back.

I'm done with this topic and perhaps, the forum entirely.

 

[Nunu]

Re: In today's news...

Take off your drama hat. the ban was about the blanket statement you just retracted and if you read what said i think i was fairly understanding of your opinion, of which there was no real statement other than to end the conversation. that includes replying to this publicaly.

 

[Starke]

Re: In today's news...

EDIT: Bad joke, I really suck at jokes.

 

[Obsidious]

Re: In today's news...

I'll just avoid the landmines and ask something on-topic:
What's great about this thread is, that there is information to be found that often won't even be mentioned at all in the mainstream media. Many of these non-mainstream sources are either local news, blogs or some other online resource, most of which I have never heard of.

So this goes to the ones that contribute to this thread on a regular basis. I don't assume you spend like eight hours a day to skim through hundreds of newspapers. So either there are some great resources I don't know of that link to other news sites, or you have subscribed to a lot of RSS feeds, or ... I don't know.

So how do you keep yourselves informed?