Don't ask, don't tell me how to get out of the military.

[Mr Skeptic]

So, as I understand it, the don't ask, don't tell policy means that anyone who is openly gay gets discharged from the military. So, anyone who is sick and tired of being stuck in Iraq, simply has to admit to being gay, and can return home. Right?

 

http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt

* Since 2001, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges have declined by almost half.

* During every major military conflict the number of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" discharges has dropped.

 

I wonder what would happen if a significant portion of the troops in Iraq simultaneously "admit" to being gay?

[Pangloss]

Your statistical trend seems to preclude that possibility. But I'm not surprised at the question. A certain segment of the American political spectrum seems to have trouble grasping either the concept that most people aren't gay, or the concept that some people might actually want to serve their country in harm's way.

 

I wonder what would happen if a significant portion of the American people simultaneously reminded progressives that they don't represent the majority view?

 

Oh right, they'd get called "teabaggers".

[swansont]

It's probably not quite as easy as declaring yourself to be gay. I served before DADT, and the director of our administrative department (DAD) was a quite colorful character (who had spent part of his career as an enlisted sailor) and he told a few stories. Claiming to be gay happened a few times, and it wasn't enough even then — it would make it far too easy to get out. In our circumstance, the students had been paid a significant bonus for joining the program, and we weren't about to let them just walk merely because they had second thoughts about their commitment to serve a complete tour of duty.

 

Apparently, after a student claimed to be gay, the DAD stood up and said, "OK, Blow me." (The student declined, apparently) There was no corroborating evidence other than the claim. Getting caught at one of the "off-limits" (i.e. openly gay clientele) clubs would have gone a long way toward substantiating the claim.

 

What I suspect is this: most of the gay members of the military want to serve. That's why they joined.

[Mr Skeptic]

Your statistical trend seems to preclude that possibility.

 

Then it could be used to make some noise. If timed properly, and with enough people, the Republicans that support DADT would have to choose between the dislike of gays and their like of soldiers.

 

But I'm not surprised at the question. A certain segment of the American political spectrum seems to have trouble grasping either the concept that most people aren't gay, or the concept that some people might actually want to serve their country in harm's way.

 

I have trouble with neither, in case you were wondering. Some people may have changed their minds since going, and also some may just want to make a statement. While there may be few gays, and probably fewer in the military, they would also have people who are against discrimination.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Apparently, after a student claimed to be gay, the DAD stood up and said, "OK, Blow me." (The student declined, apparently) There was no corroborating evidence other than the claim. Getting caught at one of the "off-limits" (i.e. openly gay clientele) clubs would have gone a long way toward substantiating the claim.

 

So it's already to the point where gay people can admit to being gay without reprisal? I guess they just need people to do some of the other forbidden activities and then that will be OK too?

[Sisyphus]

A certain segment of the American political spectrum seems to have trouble grasping either the concept that most people aren't gay, or the concept that some people might actually want to serve their country in harm's way.

 

I don't understand. Obviously gays are a minority, and obviously we have an all-volunteer military. What does that have to do with anything?

[swansont]

 

So it's already to the point where gay people can admit to being gay without reprisal? I guess they just need people to do some of the other forbidden activities and then that will be OK too?

 

Well, it was more a matter of proving that you were someone who was gay, admitting that you were gay, rather than being someone who wasn't, but trying to game the system.

[Pangloss]

If timed properly, and with enough people, the Republicans that support DADT would have to choose between the dislike of gays and their like of soldiers.

 

You underestimate the human power of self-deception.

 

At any rate, I question whether the numbers even exist in sufficient quantities to make an impressive demonstration. But given the size of the military you might have a point.

 

 

A certain segment of the American political spectrum seems to have trouble grasping either the concept that most people aren't gay' date=' or the concept that some people might actually want to serve their country in harm's way. [/quote']

 

I don't understand. Obviously gays are a minority, and obviously we have an all-volunteer military. What does that have to do with anything?

 

Oh no, Sisyphus, that's not true at all! Don't you know? Military personnel were actually shanghai'd by the promise of free education and a fair-wage job! And MOST of them are gay, because most adults are gay, and conservatives hate them because they hate themselves. Didn't you know?

 

You obviously aren't watching enough television, dude. That's where the real information is!

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, it was more a matter of proving that you were someone who was gay, admitting that you were gay, rather than being someone who wasn't, but trying to game the system.

 

If enough people try to game the system (or pretend to try to game the system knowing full well that their admission won't be accepted), then it would make things harder on the proving side.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You underestimate the human power of self-deception.

 

At any rate, I question whether the numbers even exist in sufficient quantities to make an impressive demonstration. But given the size of the military you might have a point.

 

I think you underestimate how much fun our bored 24 hr news networks would have with that; even if it was a minuscule percent it will still be plenty of soldiers. It will amuse Democrats and piss off Republicans. The Republicans will actually care because this one has a conflict of two of their values... they will have to choose one of the two.

 

It will also mean that the military is openly admitting that they can't abide by their own policy as the consequences are untenable, even without the discrimination aspect.

Edited February 5, 2010 by Mr Skeptic
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

I don't think anybody thinks most adults are gay. Not even most conservatives. But most vocal anti-gay activists? That I could believe.

 

And yeah, I also believe there are a lot of people in the military who would like a way out. Is that so crazy? Nobody is saying everybody. Nobody is saying most. And I believe that people join up for all sorts of reasons, not only out of a sense of duty. And I believe recruiters are often deliberately misleading. Is any of that really disputable?

[Pangloss]

The Republicans will actually care because this one has a conflict of two of their values... they will have to choose one of the two.

 

So you think all, or a majority of, Republicans hate gays and need to be taught a lesson?

[Mr Skeptic]

No, it is demonization of an immoral and untenable position that I dislike, combined with some statistical knowledge. The military admits their policy is untenable (the policy says to discharge people who admit to being gay, but the military does not do so).

[Mokele]

So you think all, or a majority of, Republicans hate gays and need to be taught a lesson?

 

According to a recent poll of random, self-identified Republicans, 77% oppose gay marriage.

 

So yes, a strong majority of Republicans hate gays.

 

And read the rest of the questions - by all indications approximated 1/3rd of the rank-and-file supporters of the Republican party are nothing short of batshit insane.

[Pangloss]

Mokele that's an opinion, not a factual statement, and I disagree with you that opposition to gay marriage equates to hating gays. I think that's an example of not understanding or caring what the opposition's argument is, and/or framing it as something it is not in order to convince people to support your cause.

 

I think a key point has been missed here, and it's exactly the same point that can be made about the compromise that the Founding Fathers made with regard to slavery. The country couldn't have been created without it. Nor would gays have been allowed in the military had Clinton (a Democrat) not imposed the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

 

Some things take time. Shaking your fist at the sky is great theater, but impractical as a means of progress in a democracy.

[Sisyphus]

Yes, some things take time. And this did take time, and now it's past time for it to end. And it is very likely to end very soon. So good.

[Pangloss]

BTW, one of the things I've never quite understood about issue advocacy is the vast pressure for immediate change. I'm sure at least part of it comes from the suffering of individuals affected by the perceived disorder, whatever it happens to be, but I can't help but also wonder if it also comes from a desire, as Conan the Barbarian put it, to crush one's enemies, to see them enemies driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

 

I think when it comes to major societal change you HAVE to take the long view. Will it really matter a century from now that gays could serve in 2010 but not 1993? I don't think it will.

[Mr Skeptic]

BTW, one of the things I've never quite understood about issue advocacy is the vast pressure for immediate change.

 

The desire to end suffering as soon as possible. For example, suppose people were crashing airplanes into buildings once a day. Would there not be extreme pressure for immediate change? No one would even suggest we take a couple years to implement the changes. Many changes need be difficult only if people make them so.

 

I think when it comes to major societal change you HAVE to take the long view. Will it really matter a century from now that gays could serve in 2010 but not 1993? I don't think it will.

 

Really? I think it will indeed matter. Put it another way: we ended slavery, and after a while put an end to legal discrimination against blacks. This was quite a while ago. Ten years ago, was there more discrimination against blacks than today? Ten years from now, will there be less discrimination against them? Would it have mattered if slavery or legal discrimination had ended sooner?

[Pangloss]

The desire to end suffering as soon as possible. For example, suppose people were crashing airplanes into buildings once a day. Would there not be extreme pressure for immediate change? No one would even suggest we take a couple years to implement the changes. Many changes need be difficult only if people make them so.

 

Nobody's dying because of don't-ask-don't-tell. I agree with you that change doesn't come without pressure. But surely you would agree that backlash is a relevant factor in politics. Do you want to fight about it, or do you want to effect change? Sometimes I thin you have to pick between the two. Not always, but sometimes.

 

 

Really? I think it will indeed matter. Put it another way: we ended slavery, and after a while put an end to legal discrimination against blacks. This was quite a while ago. Ten years ago, was there more discrimination against blacks than today? Ten years from now, will there be less discrimination against them? Would it have mattered if slavery or legal discrimination had ended sooner?

 

If I understand you correctly you're suggesting that had we ended slavery in 1776 (instead of 1863) then we might have stopped segregation sooner than the 1960s (i.e. a chain reaction pushing progress forward in the timeline). Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong.

 

I don't disagree with your logic, I simply opine that it could not have happened that way under any circumstances short of physical force, which would have had other ramifications. I don't think the course of history was the optimal one, but I don't think that wanting to end suffering guarantees the optimal path either.

 

I think a more realistic approach is better. The difference between Dr. King and Malcom X wasn't their methods, it was their patience.

 

Frederick Douglass, when talking about Abraham Lincoln years after his assassination, said:

 

http://www.ashbrook.org/library/19/douglass/lincolnoration.html

 

Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union' date=' he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.[/quote']

[Mokele]

Mokele that's an opinion, not a factual statement, and I disagree with you that opposition to gay marriage equates to hating gays. I think that's an example of not understanding or caring what the opposition's argument is, and/or framing it as something it is not in order to convince people to support your cause.

 

So, by your logic, someone who supported segregation in the 1950's wasn't racist?

 

Sorry, but wrong. If your actions (including voting) cause or perpetuate harm to people solely based on inherent characteristics, you are a bigot, period.

 

Words are utterly irrelevant - only actions matter. And if you willingly partake in actions which harm another because of nothing more than who they are, that makes you racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever.

 

It doesn't matter what petty, bigoted rationalizations they may have - what matters is their EFFECT.

 

I think a key point has been missed here, and it's exactly the same point that can be made about the compromise that the Founding Fathers made with regard to slavery. The country couldn't have been created without it. Nor would gays have been allowed in the military had Clinton (a Democrat) not imposed the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy.

 

And this should stop us from pressing forward why?

 

You don't stop after taking just one "step in the right direction". You fulfill the purpose of this and every other legitimate government, which is full equality of all citizens.

 

BTW, one of the things I've never quite understood about issue advocacy is the vast pressure for immediate change. I'm sure at least part of it comes from the suffering of individuals affected by the perceived disorder, whatever it happens to be, but I can't help but also wonder if it also comes from a desire, as Conan the Barbarian put it, to crush one's enemies, to see them enemies driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

 

I think when it comes to major societal change you HAVE to take the long view. Will it really matter a century from now that gays could serve in 2010 but not 1993? I don't think it will.

 

PG, I hate to say this, because you usually know a hell of a lot about politics, but I have to say you're horribly misinformed about the progressive movement.

 

Yes, there is pressure for change. Which we have in common with every single other political movement, from the civil rights movement to lobbyists for sugar tarriffs to local community groups that want the potholes fixed on Central Parkway.

 

Yes, we regard these issues as vitally important. Not only do we *also* have this in common with every other group, but we've got a pretty damned good reason - these are issues of fundamental human rights (which, frankly, is more important than tariffs or potholes) which *directly* affect prominent members of the movement.

 

And yes, we DO have a long-term perspective. As strange as it may be for you, it IS possible to both care deeply about an issue *and* to realize that it can take time and effort to change.

 

One of my favorite progressive blogs, Shakesville, uses the teaspoon as a logo, based on the saying "emptying an ocean with a teaspoon", and the recognition that these problems will not be solved overnight by proclamation, but by every one of us educating and speaking out over a long period of time.

 

 

And as for whether it matters, when this change comes, I'll give you a number:

 

130.

 

130 people.

 

130 Trans people died Last year alone, due to society's transphobic views.

 

Do you think those 130 people cared when change comes?

 

 

 

We attack the social conservatives and the party which has sold out to them not out of partisan bitterness, but because we see them sheltering, protecting, and promoting the people and ideas which we and the people we care for are suffering and dying from.

 

And before you even think of pulling that "we don't advocate violence" bullshit, remember that if you actively portray people as "lesser" or "other", then you are active promoting the atmosphere in which hate and violence grows.

 

 

Go to Shakesville. Read the feminism 101 FAQ. Spend the next month reading the blog it. Don't reply, don't dismiss, just sit and listen. Read the comments of people's personal experiences, how these abstract issues can become literal life-and-death issues in horrific ways, and do so far, far more often than you think.

[Moontanman]

Don't ask don't tell is a cruel joke, my oldest son who is gay but not the least bit infeminant like most people think gays are was kicked out of Air force ROTC because he refused to sign a document swearing he was not gay. Later his buddies some how found out and beat him to a pulp. Homophobes are criminals, my son was on what they called a fast track to being a pilot, he was not enfeminant, he didn't troll for sex among his fellow class mates but due to his honesty and me telling him his whole life that real men do not lie he lost his scholarship, his dignity and almost his life at the hands of homophobes who due to the current gestalt of thinking about gays thought him less than human. I am sure that many of his class mates weren't really threatened by his sexuality but they followed the crowd that said gays are less than human. Anyone who thinks gays should be treated as less than human should spend a few days in their shoes, it will open your eyes to how unfair this really is.

[john5746]

I think a more realistic approach is better. The difference between Dr. King and Malcom X wasn't their methods, it was their patience.

 

I think quite the opposite. King was not patient and he wasn't preaching evil stupidity. He was using peaceful protest to force society to change, to have all races living as equals. The nation of islam just wanted to reverse the situation or worse.

 

I agree with your overall point that sometimes we must compromise to avoid chaos, but it appears that the military as an institution is ready. Sure, there will always be individual bigots who will cause problems, but the younger generations have proven to be more tolerant to diversity.

 

1993 was a compromise, the next step doesn't need to be.

[John Cuthber]

Sorry, I seem to have missed something.

Please could someone explain to me why someone's sexual preferences should be correlated ( positively or negatively) with, for example, their desire to defend their country's interests?

I also don't understand why it would make a difference to their effectiveness as a member of the armed forces, but perhaps that's just me. I wasn't aware that battles generally stopped if one of the people involved wished to sleep with one of the others.

 

The question of whether or not military action is in the interest of their country is another matter.

[Pangloss]

So, by your logic, someone who supported segregation in the 1950's wasn't racist?

 

Don't you have better things to do than to put words in people's mouths?

 

 

If your actions (including voting) cause or perpetuate harm to people solely based on inherent characteristics, you are a bigot, period.

 

Well if that's how you feel, more power to you. But as I said before, these are your opinions, they're not statements of fact. You're certainly entitled to feel that way.

 

 

Words are utterly irrelevant - only actions matter.

 

I disagree, and so did Dr. King. However, you certainly will find no shortage of people in this world who share your opinion on this.

 

 

And if you willingly partake in actions which harm another because of nothing more than who they are, that makes you racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever.

 

It's a sweet setup for you -- judge the oppositions argument to be illogical and without merit, then attack them for making an argument that is illogical and without merit.

 

Sure beats actually convincing them, right?

 

 

It doesn't matter what petty, bigoted rationalizations they may have - what matters is their EFFECT.

 

I disagree. I think their petty rationalizations are actually the most important thing, and the very heart and soul of politics in a democracy. Effects are actually what don't matter much. 130 people died in attacks on gays last year? Yay. 20-something-thousand died on highways. Reality bites, huh?

 

No, in my opinion what matters is the effort and the general direction. Very little can be solved in my lifetime, so why stress over some temporary injustice?

 

My two bits anyway. As I said, you're welcome to disagree.

[Mokele]

I disagree, and so did Dr. King. However, you certainly will find no shortage of people in this world who share your opinion on this.

 

Bullshit.

 

Give me a single reason *why* the ability to construct any sort of explanation - rational or otherwise - excuses actual behavior.

 

I think their petty rationalizations are actually the most important thing, and the very heart and soul of politics in a democracy.

 

Do you have more to this bland, useless platitude? Or is it just here so you can sound wise and composed?

 

130 people died in attacks on gays last year? Yay. 20-something-thousand died on highways. Reality bites, huh?

 

News flash - just because something worse happens elsewhere does not mean we have to stop caring about issues with a lower bodycount. Are you even listening to yourself? This is some of the shittiest logic outside of "relativity is wrong" threads.

 

No, in my opinion what matters is the effort and the general direction. Very little can be solved in my lifetime, so why stress over some temporary injustice?

 

Um, because it's people I know and love who are suffering and dying as a result?

 

This is, hands down, the most blatant display of straight white male privilege I've seen in a while, and frankly, I'm disappointed in you.

 

How can you just wave aside the suffering of others as "temporary injustice"? Do you have ANY idea how cruel, dismissive, and warped that is?

[Pangloss]

No, why don't you tell me, Mokele.

[Mr Skeptic]

Do the mods need be told to behave?