Air Force Social Experiment Excludes White Males.

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • machinedrummer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Apr 5, 2010
    3,685
    113
    Kingwood, Tx
    I would love to see the first deaf, dumb, and blind aircrew. Why stop at letting people pretend being men or women….remove all logic and let natural selection work it out. I’m sure the woke’rs would be lined up to buy tickets for the maiden flight.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    “the Air Force’s best rated aircrew by harnessing diversity as a force multiplier and fostering a culture of inclusion.”

    Diversity as A Force Multiplier! That sounds like Common Core Math.

    It really takes a special type of person to believe exclusion is the way to get to inclusion.
     

    krotsman

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    104   0   0
    Aug 2, 2012
    1,365
    113
    Baton Rouge
    Well, sounds like it failed and they scrapped it. Isn't that the point of experiments? They disproved their hypothesis. If it had worked, wouldnt that be a good thing, if they truly had found a better way of doing things? I think the only reason to complain about this is if they said, well, it failed, but we're going to keep doing it anyway.
     

    Jstudz220

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    26   0   0
    Oct 14, 2020
    1,922
    113
    Harvey Louisiana
    Well, sounds like it failed and they scrapped it. Isn't that the point of experiments? They disproved their hypothesis. If it had worked, wouldnt that be a good thing, if they truly had found a better way of doing things? I think the only reason to complain about this is if they said, well, it failed, but we're going to keep doing it anyway.
    I can’t agree with that on any level. Excluding any race from selection is a terrible idea. It should be best available, not best available from a certain subgroup of people. This reminds me an awful lot of that garbage. If you can’t make the cut it is what it is. Dropping the standards just to graduate

    I’m all for experiments, test, whatever you want to call it but let it actually make sense. Seems like nothing more than woke garbage. I don’t see how something like this actually gets taken seriously or approved.
     

    krotsman

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    104   0   0
    Aug 2, 2012
    1,365
    113
    Baton Rouge
    I can’t agree with that on any level. Excluding any race from selection is a terrible idea. It should be best available, not best available from a certain subgroup of people. This reminds me an awful lot of that garbage. If you can’t make the cut it is what it is. Dropping the standards just to graduate

    I’m all for experiments, test, whatever you want to call it but let it actually make sense. Seems like nothing more than woke garbage. I don’t see how something like this actually gets taken seriously or approved.
    I'm not defending what was done, I'm just saying that sometimes you have to do "dumb" experiments to find meaningful answers. Could have been worse, they could have just made it policy and moved forward. Then it TRULY would have impacted safety and piloting abilities.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Are you just making a general opinion statement about the article or commenting specifically on my statement, above yours?

    Commenting specifically on yours.

    I'm not defending what was done, I'm just saying that sometimes you have to do "dumb" experiments to find meaningful answers. Could have been worse, they could have just made it policy and moved forward. Then it TRULY would have impacted safety and piloting abilities.

    Yes, it could have been worse. But Option B being worse than Option A does not make Option A good. Losing $1000 is worse than losing $500 but that doesn't make losing $500 a desirable thing.
     

    krotsman

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    104   0   0
    Aug 2, 2012
    1,365
    113
    Baton Rouge
    I don't disagree with your second statement. But hopefully you learned something when losing either the $500 or the $1000, as they may have done here. Painful lessons learned usually aren't what we would consider "good". And I'm not saying they didn't do this for the wrong reasons, it was probably all politically motivated, I'm basically saying It's surprising and refreshing that they scrapped it because it didn't seem to work instead of just forcing it into SOP.

    It looks like you are basing your other statement on the 4th graph of the article. A comment by an anonymous training officer. That looks like the only area in which safety and competition (better pilots) are mentioned.

    I agree that you are stifling some of the spirit of competition in the class by stacking the deck one way or another, but safety? Assuming they are all going to learn the same thing and all starting at about the same level of knowledge, seems like the only safety issue is if the trainers don't teach it. They aren't saying the took the dregs of society into the training program, just excluded white guys for this experiment. I'm not sure what the safety argument is for excluding white guys...

    As for better pilots, well, seems like that was what they were trying to figure out. Again, clearly the experiment failed because they scrapped it. If it had even partially succeeded, they would have touted it and kept it going, especially in today's political climate.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,714
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I don't disagree with your second statement. But hopefully you learned something when losing either the $500 or the $1000, as they may have done here. Painful lessons learned usually aren't what we would consider "good". And I'm not saying they didn't do this for the wrong reasons, it was probably all politically motivated, I'm basically saying It's surprising and refreshing that they scrapped it because it didn't seem to work instead of just forcing it into SOP.

    It looks like you are basing your other statement on the 4th graph of the article. A comment by an anonymous training officer. That looks like the only area in which safety and competition (better pilots) are mentioned.

    I agree that you are stifling some of the spirit of competition in the class by stacking the deck one way or another, but safety? Assuming they are all going to learn the same thing and all starting at about the same level of knowledge, seems like the only safety issue is if the trainers don't teach it. They aren't saying the took the dregs of society into the training program, just excluded white guys for this experiment. I'm not sure what the safety argument is for excluding white guys...

    As for better pilots, well, seems like that was what they were trying to figure out. Again, clearly the experiment failed because they scrapped it. If it had even partially succeeded, they would have touted it and kept it going, especially in today's political climate.

    I don't have to lose any money to learn either option is undesirable. I'm basing my opinion on the fact that using some metric other than performance when evaluation for a position will either result in no loss of performance or, most likely, result in a loss of performance. If you look at the performance of people in a pool and you take the top 10 performers, you will have the highest possible average performance. If you exchange any of the top 10 for someone else in the pool, that new person must have a lower performance than the one being replaced and the average must go down. It seems like a simple enough concept to understand. With their experiment, they were not looking at training the best pilots. They were looking at training good enough pilots.
     

    Griz375

    Well-Known Member
    Premium Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 21, 2022
    51
    18
    901 AC
    I swear if I hear/see one more story touting inclusiveness or anything similar as a virtue, I'm going to puke.

    No biggie for all y'all - I'll have to clean up my own mess.

    Long ago, had 2 gays in my platoon. Both were fit & competent. One thought being in barracks was a hunting license - that lasted about 30 hours. Not sure where he went but it was away from us.

    The other guy was a good, reliable soldier - we kept him. Last I heard he retired at 20 yrs as a Company SgtMaj.
     

    DaSOB

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 18, 2014
    11
    3
    Baton Rouge LA
    I'm an AF vet, served during the Viet Nam era. This reminds me of Robert McNamara's "Project 100,000", less formally known as "McNamara's Morons". It amounted to a gigantic "dumb class", to use a dated metaphor, wherein personnel who weren't the brightest bulbs in the knife drawer could presumably be trained to a level of competence on par with their more sentient counterparts. All it would take, allegedly, would be extra training and TLC. It went over like the proverbial chunk of fecal matter in the proverbial bowl of fruit flavored party beverage - we got some of the most inept, dumchit trainees most of us had ever seen.

    That's bad enough when you're talking about someone whose job was to drive a typewriter or shove boxes around down at Supply. But when we're talking about people who would be put in command of $80M aircraft it becomes next-level serious. It is absolutely mandatory that the best and brightest be trained to accept that responsibility regardless of sex, race, perceived gender, whatever. The defining criteria should be ability and capability, not whether a particular sex or demographic is under-represented.
     
    Last edited:

    jkingrph

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 2, 2007
    138
    18
    I swear if I hear/see one more story touting inclusiveness or anything similar as a virtue, I'm going to puke.

    No biggie for all y'all - I'll have to clean up my own mess.

    Long ago, had 2 gays in my platoon. Both were fit & competent. One thought being in barracks was a hunting license - that lasted about 30 hours. Not sure where he went but it was away from us.

    The other guy was a good, reliable soldier - we kept him. Last I heard he retired at 20 yrs as a Company SgtMaj.
    Back when I was between basic and OCS in the USAF, about a two month period, there were two barracks buildings that housed gays awaiting discharge/seperation. This was early 1969.
     

    jkingrph

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 2, 2007
    138
    18
    I'm an AF vet, served during the Viet Nam era. This reminds me of Robert McNamara's "Project 100,000", less formally known as "McNamara's Morons". It amounted to a gigantic "dumb class", to use a dated metaphor, wherein personnel who weren't the brightest bulbs in the knife drawer could presumably be trained to a level of competence on par with their more sentient counterparts. All it would take, allegedly, would be extra training and TLC. It went over like the proverbial chunk of fecal matter in the proverbial bowl of fruit flavored party beverage - we got some of the most inept, dumchit trainees most of us had ever seen.

    That's bad enough when you're talking about someone whose job was to drive a typewriter or shove boxes around down at Supply. But when we're talking about people who would be put in command of $80M aircraft it becomes next-level serious. It is absolutely mandatory that the best and brightest be trained to accept that responsibility regardless of sex, race, perceived gender, whatever. The defining criteria should be ability and capability, not whether a particular sex or demographic is under-represented.
    I was USAF during that period. Spent a little over six months at Lackland for basic, a couple of months in hold status, actually processing incoming basic trainees, then OTS. I remember some of the old times talking about and shaking thier heads about some of the people coming in and out of that program. As I understand it did not last very long, most were just not up to the intelligence levels needed for most Air Force jobs.
     

    Toodamgoofy

    Don’t sweat the petty stuff, pet the sweaty stuff
    Premium Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 4, 2022
    93
    18
    CENLA
    I am a military veteran/ LEO and don’t care what race, religion, gender or sexual orientation the candidates are. If they are the best at what they do and want to stand that watch so that we may live and sleep in peace knowing we are protected then I commend them and stand with them no matter what. The protection of this nation, however screwed up it is, is of the utmost importance. If the Air Force actually did this little experiment or not just thinking this way is trying to rehash old racist ideologies and looks more like a Hitler idea.” Oh German people are better fighters than Africans and Jewish people and therefore are the chosen people? “ Come on people. It’s just another way the government has to cause separation between races and institute more hate into our lives. In the military we were all Blue or Green, no in between.
     

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,230
    Messages
    1,546,152
    Members
    29,172
    Latest member
    ksgunner82
    Top Bottom