US Military's discriminatary new standards: Female soldiers will now allowed lipstick, nail polish, and locs

[Patooka]

You forgot to include Metaphor in your 2.2 million so your calculations are wrong and Metaphor is right in saying it affects everybody.

Why do you think males, but not females, should be forbidden from wearing nail polish in the US military?

I don't. It's just not a hill I'm prepared to die on. You, on the other hand going each and every thread you have started, appear to be going all in on faux outrage about men being victims of some bullshit woke conspiracy cabal. Good luck with that, but you should have jumped on the bandwagon in 2014 when that was a thing.

 

[Metaphor]

You forgot to include Metaphor in your 2.2 million so your calculations are wrong and Metaphor is right in saying it affects everybody.

Why do you think males, but not females, should be forbidden from wearing nail polish in the US military?

I don't. It's just not a hill I'm prepared to die on. You, on the other hand going each and every thread you have started, appear to be going all in on faux outrage about men being victims of some bullshit woke conspiracy cabal. Good luck with that, but you should have jumped on the bandwagon in 2014 when that was a thing.

So, you don't support it, but you did feel the need to respond to the thread several times not to indicate your lack of support for the US military's policy, but only to attack me? Attacking me multiple times is a hill you are prepared to die on, but heaven forfend you indicate your agreement with me on one issue?

I'm not outraged by this new policy. I'm disappointed and frustrated that the US government is introducing new policies that needlessly discriminate by sex. But even if I were 'outraged' or 'faux outraged', so what? In what way does that mean I'm 'dying' on that hill?

And of course I'm disappointed that the leftists on this board either agree with the policy, or they don't exactly agree with it but they feel the need to dismiss criticism of it because it allegedly affects nobody, as if they're certain no male in the military wants to do the things forbidden to them, and as if reinforcing sex stereotypes was not problematic all on its own.

 

[Patooka]

Cool. Let me know when someone gets punished for not adhering to these new regulations.

 

[Metaphor]

Cool. Let me know when someone gets punished for not adhering to these new regulations.

Why?

 

[laughing dog]

The names are all there. Elixir was the first cab off the rank. Then Jimmy Higgins. I mostly agree with Jarhyn's position in his first post in the thread, but as usual for someone who chooses to be ignorant, he has since made several posts fantasizing about what my position on the whole thing actually is.

Ah, I didn't realize that those people were necessarily leftists.

Because that's what rules and standards mean. Every single person is affected by the rules that apply to them. I can't understand this for you.

Of course not, because you do not understand it at all. Those rules do not affect my son or any military male who would not make those choices. They have no practical effect on their lives or choices.

It would not matter what individual attitudes are because a rule that applies to you by virtue of your sex by definition affects you.

I agree it is true in your pedantic sense, but not in meaningful sense to any sane and rational person.

The basis is the policy, laughing dog. The policy is a reality.

Your entire argument abstracts from the facts on the ground. It is virtue signalling about a minor policy with very limited negative effects.

 

[Metaphor]

Ah, I didn't realize that those people were necessarily leftists.

If they are not, they are free to correct me.

I agree it is true in your pedantic sense, but not in meaningful sense to any sane and rational person.

I disagree that it is pedantic to say 'the laws in Australia affect every person in Australia', even if most people never act, or want to act, in a way that is contrary to the law.

Your entire argument abstracts from the facts on the ground. It is virtue signalling about a minor policy with very limited negative effects.

I must suck hard at virtue signalling then, since the idea of virtue signalling is to receive approval for your stated beliefs. I certainly did not expect approval from the regulars on this board for expressing disapproval of needless sex-based discrimination from the government. I didn't expect it, and I didn't get it.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree that it is pedantic to say 'the laws in Australia affect every person in Australia', even if most people never act, or want to act, in a way that is contrary to the law.

Using pedantry to defend pedantry is truly ironic.

I must suck hard at virtue signalling then, since the idea of virtue signalling is to receive approval for your stated beliefs. I certainly did not expect approval from the regulars on this board for expressing disapproval of needless sex-based discrimination from the government. I didn't expect it, and I didn't get it.

The point of virtue signalling is denoted by its name - signal one's moral correctness/virtue. You are very prolific at the signalling. But as your response shows, you suck at applying rules of reason to your views.

 

[Jarhyn]

I disagree that it is pedantic to say 'the laws in Australia affect every person in Australia', even if most people never act, or want to act, in a way that is contrary to the law.

Using pedantry to defend pedantry is truly ironic.

I must suck hard at virtue signalling then, since the idea of virtue signalling is to receive approval for your stated beliefs. I certainly did not expect approval from the regulars on this board for expressing disapproval of needless sex-based discrimination from the government. I didn't expect it, and I didn't get it.

The point of virtue signalling is denoted by its name - signal one's moral correctness/virtue. You are very prolific at the signalling. But as your response shows, you suck at applying rules of reason to your views.

The evidence for whether someone is just being virtuous versus just virtue signalling is, to me the presence (or in this case absence) of uniformity in application.

For instance, Metaphor virtue-signals, but has no actual virtue. This is apparent to me by the lack of arguement against those systems of discrimination that harm anyone other than men specifically (one recent thread notwithstanding; though it was followed up with this one). They only do it on behalf of men.

Then "the leftists" come in here and point out that this policy is a step in the right direction! Now, people who wish to identify with the population that socially signal having-their-shit-togetherness with personal presentation can do that. It isn't even really a question, culturally, whether "men at large" can signal that way; they can't. It in fact signals the inverse.

But us on the left have also been pretty open that we find it ridiculous that people can't just select which uniform standard and run with it. It IS sexist. The fact that I can identify that fact acts as an internal indication to myself that I'm not just being a virtue signaller, and trying my best to actually have virtue.

I do think this will make things harder for women in the military insofar as it pushes expectations on them. It doesn't let them attain "having their shit together" without the spectre of beatification.

It's not a perfect solution. We recognize that. It needs more work, and incrementalization is a bitch.

But here we have someone pissing on the only increment that was attainable rather than applauding it while noting we still need to keep moving and being honest about the final destination.

 

[ronburgundy]

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

I didn't call them "the same". I pointed out one of the absurdities that results from the interaction of US Army sex and gender policies.

I find it absurd that a male who wants to wear lipstick is forbidden from doing so, but a trans-identified male is not forbidden from doing so. What I would have found absurd a few years ago - though no longer - is leftists defending a government agency doubling down on sex-based stereotypes and approving of discrimination by sex in aesthetic standards.

What isn't surprising is that you pretend that this is arising b/c of the left when in fact the fault lies entirely with traditional gender norms and the right-wingers who enforce them and who generally share your hatred of "woke" attempts to reduce discrimination. The "woke" left favors zero gender norms in dress or behavior, so they would inherently oppose the rules you are pretending to object to. The conservatives responsible for the gendered rules would love to ban trans people and gays from the military, and ban women from combat duty. The law and court rulings and clear violation of civil rights makes those goals untenable. However, they currently can still get away with enforcing conservative gender norms in general by having separate rules for men and women. So, that is what they are doing, and you, via contortions that could get you a gig in a circus "freak" show, somehow blame the left for it.

 

[Jarhyn]

That you thinkt those two situations are the same with respect to effect on that hypothetical's soldier's life says a lot about the lack of depth in your thinking.

I didn't call them "the same". I pointed out one of the absurdities that results from the interaction of US Army sex and gender policies.

I find it absurd that a male who wants to wear lipstick is forbidden from doing so, but a trans-identified male is not forbidden from doing so. What I would have found absurd a few years ago - though no longer - is leftists defending a government agency doubling down on sex-based stereotypes and approving of discrimination by sex in aesthetic standards.

What isn't surprising is that you pretend that this is arising b/c of the left when in fact the fault lies entirely with traditional gender norms and the right-wingers who enforce them and who generally share your hatred of "woke" attempts to reduce discrimination. The "woke" left favors zero gender norms in dress or behavior, so they would inherently oppose the rules you are pretending to object to. The conservatives responsible for the gendered rules would love to ban trans people and gays from the military, and ban women from combat duty. The law and court rulings and clear violation of civil rights makes those goals untenable. However, they currently can still get away with enforcing conservative gender norms in general by having separate rules for men and women. So, that is what they are doing, and you, via contortions that could get you a gig in a circus "freak" show, somehow blame the left for it.

The thing I find funny here is that I used the exact same language as metaphor about it... Yet for some reason (I can't possibly imagine what that reason may be*) I am not being attacked the way he is...



*I lied; the reason misogyny

 

[Metaphor]

What isn't surprising is that you pretend that this is arising b/c of the left

I did not say this rule arose from the left. I said the leftists on this board who have responded in this thread have not done so to express their disapproval of the rule, but rather attack me for posting about it.