Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

by **Post War America** » Tue May 01, 2018 5:50 pm

Northland Republic wrote:
Post War America wrote:
That's still insanely fucking stupid. One's sexual orientation has basically fuck all to do with their effectiveness in the field, ergo it's no business of the military to boot out otherwise good soldiers on account of it.

Which is why I agree that DADT was a shit policy to begin with but I can see the idea behind it though as to why it was put into place

The idea behind it was to do basically nothing. It was a gag order nothing more.

by **Northland Republic** » Tue May 01, 2018 5:55 pm

Post War America wrote:
Northland Republic wrote:
Which is why I agree that DADT was a shit policy to begin with but I can see the idea behind it though as to why it was put into place

The idea behind it was to do basically nothing. It was a gag order nothing more.

This is from the DOD

E1.2.8. Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct
E1.2.8.1. A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct in the manner described in subparagraph

E1.2.8.2., below. Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Applicants also will not be asked or required to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.

E1.2.8.2. Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces, except as otherwise provided in this section. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by the applicant that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage. Propensity to engage in homosexual acts means more than an abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexual acts; it indicates a likelihood that a person engages in or will engage in homosexual acts.

by **Post War America** » Tue May 01, 2018 5:59 pm

Northland Republic wrote:
Post War America wrote:
The idea behind it was to do basically nothing. It was a gag order nothing more.

This is from the DOD

E1.2.8. Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct
E1.2.8.1. A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct in the manner described in subparagraph

E1.2.8.2., below. Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Applicants also will not be asked or required to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.

E1.2.8.2. Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces, except as otherwise provided in this section. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by the applicant that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage. Propensity to engage in homosexual acts means more than an abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexual acts; it indicates a likelihood that a person engages in or will engage in homosexual acts.

So its a gag order.

by **Northland Republic** » Tue May 01, 2018 6:22 pm

Post War America wrote:
Northland Republic wrote:
This is from the DOD

E1.2.8. Provisions Related to Homosexual Conduct
E1.2.8.1. A person's sexual orientation is considered a personal and private matter, and is not a bar to service entry or continued service unless manifested by homosexual conduct in the manner described in subparagraph

E1.2.8.2., below. Applicants for enlistment, appointment, or induction shall not be asked or required to reveal whether they are heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. Applicants also will not be asked or required to reveal whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct, unless independent evidence is received indicating that an applicant engaged in such conduct or unless the applicant volunteers a statement that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect.

E1.2.8.2. Homosexual conduct is grounds for barring entry into the Armed Forces, except as otherwise provided in this section. Homosexual conduct is a homosexual act, a statement by the applicant that demonstrates a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts, or a homosexual marriage or attempted marriage. Propensity to engage in homosexual acts means more than an abstract preference or desire to engage in homosexual acts; it indicates a likelihood that a person engages in or will engage in homosexual acts.

So its a gag order.

Well I think looking at it Clinton should have made it so the military couldn't ask about someone sexual orientation they should have left the "tell" part out of it as well as E1.2.8.2

by **San Lumen** » Wed May 02, 2018 9:09 am

Northland Republic wrote:
Post War America wrote:
So its a gag order.

Well I think looking at it Clinton should have made it so the military couldn't ask about someone sexual orientation they should have left the "tell" part out of it as well as E1.2.8.2

But if you were outed you would have been discharged still.

by **Northland Republic** » Wed May 02, 2018 9:35 am

San Lumen wrote:
Northland Republic wrote:
Well I think looking at it Clinton should have made it so the military couldn't ask about someone sexual orientation they should have left the "tell" part out of it as well as E1.2.8.2

But if you were outed you would have been discharged still.

That wasn't how it was supposed to work nor how it would work if it was just a provision on disallowing the military from asking about it when someone joins

by **San Lumen** » Wed May 02, 2018 9:36 am

Northland Republic wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
But if you were outed you would have been discharged still.

That wasn't how it was supposed to work nor how it would work if it was just a provision on disallowing the military from asking about it when someone joins

But it was and that's what made it wrong. No one should be discriminated against in the military for any reason. Anyone of any ethnic background, religion, race or sexual orientation should be allowed to serve without fear of discrimination.

by **Petrasylvania** » Wed May 02, 2018 9:49 am

And it didn't matter if the enlistee kept quiet about being gay. The military found out, especially through personal douchebaggery, still got kicked out.

by **Post War America** » Wed May 02, 2018 10:31 am

Northland Republic wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
But if you were outed you would have been discharged still.

That wasn't how it was supposed to work nor how it would work if it was just a provision on disallowing the military from asking about it when someone joins

But that's exactly How it ACTUALLY worked.

by **Northland Republic** » Wed May 02, 2018 12:04 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Northland Republic wrote:
That wasn't how it was supposed to work nor how it would work if it was just a provision on disallowing the military from asking about it when someone joins

But it was and that's what made it wrong. No one should be discriminated against in the military for any reason. Anyone of any ethnic background, religion, race or sexual orientation should be allowed to serve without fear of discrimination.

So you want the military to allow people into it's ranks who may have thoughts of killing people for fun or allowing people in with mental disabilities or that they should allow children into the military because currently the military disallows all of them and that could be considered discrimination as well. The point being is the military discriminates all the time.

by **New Emeline** » Wed May 02, 2018 12:09 pm

Northland Republic wrote:
San Lumen wrote:But it was and that's what made it wrong. No one should be discriminated against in the military for any reason. Anyone of any ethnic background, religion, race or sexual orientation should be allowed to serve without fear of discrimination.

So you want the military to allow people into it's ranks who may have thoughts of killing people for fun or allowing people in with mental disabilities or that they should allow children into the military because currently the military disallows all of them and that could be considered discrimination as well. The point being is the military discriminates all the time.

Because being gay= wanting to murder people?

by **Northland Republic** » Wed May 02, 2018 12:11 pm

New Emeline wrote:
Northland Republic wrote:
So you want the military to allow people into it's ranks who may have thoughts of killing people for fun or allowing people in with mental disabilities or that they should allow children into the military because currently the military disallows all of them and that could be considered discrimination as well. The point being is the military discriminates all the time.

Because being gay= wanting to murder people?

The fact is that there is really no point in being open about your life all of the time there are curtain things that should remain private and sexual orientation is one of them.

by **Northland Republic** » Wed May 02, 2018 12:14 pm

also in case anyone wants to know this is a list of things that the US military doesn't allow you to have if you want to join. some of these are just dumb.

by **Kubumba Tribe** » Wed May 02, 2018 12:40 pm

Has anyone heard of videogames based on the Syrian refugee crisis? Apparently, there's been a lot of video games based on them:
https://www.google.com/search?safe=stri ... RkywCk8%3D
Imo, people shouldn't be doing this, especially people who haven't gone through something like this, that'd be dumb. It desensitises peopleto what's actually happening in the world and people think fleeing a civil war, being traumatized by what you've seen, and leaving everything behind to go to a country that barely wants you with people who hate you for where your from as "just a game'".

What do y'all think?

by **San Lumen** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:02 pm

Kubumba Tribe wrote:Has anyone heard of videogames based on the Syrian refugee crisis? Apparently, there's been a lot of video games based on them:
https://www.google.com/search?safe=stri ... RkywCk8%3D
Imo, people shouldn't be doing this, especially people who haven't gone through something like this, that'd be dumb. It desensitises peopleto what's actually happening in the world and people think fleeing a civil war, being traumatized by what you've seen, and leaving everything behind to go to a country that barely wants you with people who hate you for where your from as "just a game'".

What do y'all think?

Its a terrible idea. Its dumbs down the whole refugee crisis and makes it into entertainment. it could further fuel the racism and bigotry that refugees face.

by **Valgora** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:05 pm

Kubumba Tribe wrote:Has anyone heard of videogames based on the Syrian refugee crisis? Apparently, there's been a lot of video games based on them:
https://www.google.com/search?safe=stri ... RkywCk8%3D
Imo, people shouldn't be doing this, especially people who haven't gone through something like this, that'd be dumb. It desensitises peopleto what's actually happening in the world and people think fleeing a civil war, being traumatized by what you've seen, and leaving everything behind to go to a country that barely wants you with people who hate you for where your from as "just a game'".

What do y'all think?

It's fine that someone makes a video game about it.
Especially if they keep the video game factual as to how it is like to be a Syrian refugee.

Honestly, the idea that one should make a video game because it's too real and/or too recent or something is stupid to me.
The last Medal of Honor allowed you to play as the Taliban in multiplayer against the US military. At lot of people were angry about that even though that happened. You can play as a Nazi soldier fighting the allies and everyone is fine with that.

by **Caraani** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:07 pm

I actually wrote a long reply about what it did to Europe, but I deleted it after realizing most of the people here are left-wing regressives that will inevitably call me racist and what not. Bottom line was, it was done terribly in Europe, because those who come in by the millions segregate themselves, don't engage with the local communities, are left out, end up unemployed because they never bothered to engage, probably live on social wellfare, furthering the divide, and come from a culture that is almost if not entirely incompatible with our own, the only outcome being that they will integrate (unlikely), be kicked out of the EU, or take over thanks to the fact that they make 4-5 children, whereas we only make 1.50 or so.

by **Valgora** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:07 pm

Northland Republic wrote:also in case anyone wants to know this is a list of things that the US military doesn't allow you to have if you want to join. some of these are just dumb.

HIV/AIDS
Frequent motion sickness
Being an organ transplant recipient

Tumors

History of large benign tumors anywhere in the body
Auditory canal
Bone, if trauma prone
Anywhere in nervous system
Eyes

Any malignant tumor (present or removed).
Any tumor that affects duty performance ability

Skin

Chronic hives (urticaria)
Scarring, if it interferes with ability to use equipment or wear uniform
Psoriasis
Extensive, resistant fungus
Chronic, resistance eczema
Severe acne

Psychiatric

Suicidal behavior
Any history of psychosis
Anything beyond mild stuttering/stammering
Frequent and persistent sleepwalking
Frequent and/or recurring encounters with law enforcement
Personality disorders manifest by drug or alcohol addiction
Inability to adjust in work, school, or home environments
History of drug/alcohol dependence

Neurological Disorders

Tremors
Sleeping disorders
Meningitis associated head injury (within five years)
Epilepsy (after age of five)
Paralysis
Multiple sclerosis
Intellectual deficit
Embolism
Head injury resulting in unconsciousness/amnesia
Congenital malformations
Brain hemorrhage

Nasal

Chronic rhinitis (allergies)
Uncontrolled hay fever
Deviated/perforated septum

Mouth

Harelip
Mutilation
Perforated hard palate

Chest and Lungs

Acute, chronic beyond mild disease (pneumonia, bronchitis, etc.)
Asthma (any age)
Removal of any part of lung
Mastectomy (females)
Tuberculosis (within 2 years or two or more times)

Heart, Vascular Conditions

High blood pressure if requiring medication or dietary regulation
Heart disease

Head and Neck

Concussions
Depressed skull fracture/s
Loss or removal of any part of skull

Kidneys

Bed wetting
Missing a kidney
Kidney stones (within one year or occurring more than twice, or current)

Genitourinary (Females)

Congenital absence of uterus
Acute or recurring infections
Vulva, condyloma accuminatum, dystrophic conditions
Vagina, congenital abnormalities that interfere with physical activity
Painful periods
Surgery induced menopausal symptoms
Irregular, or no periods
Genitourinary (Males)

Missing both testicles
Undescended testicles
Urethritis, if chronic or acute

Eyes

Absence of lens
Lens implant
Scarred cornea
Double vision
Requirement of contact lenses
Opacity of cornea or lens
Night blindness
Glaucoma

Back and Spine

Symptomatic (healed) fractures
Ruptured disc
Recurring back pain
Infections
Scoliosis (curving of the spine), if severe
Congenital deformities

Orthopedic, extremities

Soft/softening of bones, osteoporosis
Scars, if problematic, adherent, painful
Plantar fasciitis, resistant to treatment
Weakness of or paralysis of muscles

Amputation of big toe, hand, arm, foot, leg, more than 1/3 or distal part of thumb, one joint on 2+ fingers (except little finger), two joints on index, middle, or ring fingers
Fractures of any ‘major’ bone within 6 months
Improperly healed fracture
Metal implants for fracture repair
Beyond moderate arthritis
Knee cartilage torn (unless surgically corrected more than 6 months prior)
Unstable, deranged joints
Knee ligament surgery

Endocrine/Metabolic Conditions

Most of em, other than low thyroid that’s medically controllable.

Ears and Auditory

Acute, chronic canal infection
Missing an (or both) ears
Mastoidectomy
Acute mastoiditis
Acute or chronic middle ear infections
Perforated eardrums
Hearing loss caused by eardrum scarring (+20dB loss)
Canal tumors
Smallness or closing of eardrums
Meniere’s syndrome

Dental

Braces or other ortho gear, acceptable in DEP (Delayed Entry Program) but must be removed prior to active duty.
Inability to eat ordinary food

Blood, Blood-Forming Tissue Disease

Anemia, unless correctable
Bleeding or clotting disease
Enlarged spleen
Immunodeficiency disease
Leukemia
Low white blood cell count

Allergies

Hay fever, skin allergies
Asthma, reactive airway disease, exercise induced spasms, asthmatic bronchitis (any age)
Allergic manifestations, history of life-threatening responses to stinging insects, history of moderate to severe reactions to foods, spices, or food additives.

Abdominal, Digestive Sytem

Ulcers
Tumors
Splenectomy (unless due to trauma)
Scars showing bulging or herniation, interfering with ability to perform, or causes pain
Resection of any part of digestive tract
Prolapse or stricture of rectum
Acute or chronic pancreas disease
Hernia, if present
Hepatitis within 6 months
Symptomatic hemorrhoids
Current gallstones
Fistula in anus
Cirrhosis
Abdominal surgery within two months

If you're on ADD meds, you can't join until you've been off of them for a year.
That's stupid because ADD medication ain't addictive like other kinds of meds. You don't go into withdraw if you suddenly stop taking them.

by **Valgora** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:09 pm

Caraani wrote:I actually wrote a long reply about what it did to Europe, but I deleted it after realizing most of the people here are left-wing regressives that will inevitably call me racist and what not. Bottom line was, it was done terribly in Europe, because those who come in by the millions segregate themselves, don't engage with the local communities, are left out, end up unemployed because they never bothered to engage, probably live on social wellfare, furthering the divide, and come from a culture that is almost if not entirely incompatible with our own, the only outcome being that they will integrate (unlikely), be kicked out of the EU, or take over thanks to the fact that they make 4-5 children, whereas we only make 1.50 or so.

Maybe Europe should find ways for them to engage with the local community.

Also, most developed countries have low birthrates.
If the country doesn't bring that up to at least 2.5 children, they need immigrants to replace an aging workforce.

by **San Lumen** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:11 pm

Caraani wrote:I actually wrote a long reply about what it did to Europe, but I deleted it after realizing most of the people here are left-wing regressives that will inevitably call me racist and what not. Bottom line was, it was done terribly in Europe, because those who come in by the millions segregate themselves, don't engage with the local communities, are left out, end up unemployed because they never bothered to engage, probably live on social wellfare, furthering the divide, and come from a culture that is almost if not entirely incompatible with our own, the only outcome being that they will integrate (unlikely), be kicked out of the EU, or take over thanks to the fact that they make 4-5 children, whereas we only make 1.50 or so.

Amazing everything in that statement is wrong.

by **Caraani** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:13 pm

Valgora wrote:
Caraani wrote:I actually wrote a long reply about what it did to Europe, but I deleted it after realizing most of the people here are left-wing regressives that will inevitably call me racist and what not. Bottom line was, it was done terribly in Europe, because those who come in by the millions segregate themselves, don't engage with the local communities, are left out, end up unemployed because they never bothered to engage, probably live on social wellfare, furthering the divide, and come from a culture that is almost if not entirely incompatible with our own, the only outcome being that they will integrate (unlikely), be kicked out of the EU, or take over thanks to the fact that they make 4-5 children, whereas we only make 1.50 or so.

Maybe Europe should find ways for them to engage with the local community.

Also, most developed countries have low birthrates.
If the country doesn't bring that up to at least 2.5 children, they need immigrants to replace an aging workforce.

Luxemburgist/Syndicalist, brony, metalhead
Valgora =+/-IRL views
8 Values

Pro - Socialism/communism, Palestine, space exploration, left libertarianism, BLM, guns, LGBTQ, Industrial Hemp
Anti - Trump, Hilary, capitalism, authoritarianism, Gun Control, Police, Automation of the workforce

The thing is, and I know it's obnoxious of me, and at that very obnoxious, but I simply cannot imagine talking to a person that is pro communism, and anti capitalism, and expect to have a real discussion. That's why I said I deleted my first comment. I don't have high expectations. Also, if you're pro-LGBTQ, and anti-authoritarianism, you ought to be anti-immigration, as most people coming in think gays are not a real thing, but if they are they should be killed on sight, and support autocratic governments, while hating most things leftist stand for, such as freedom, and free speech.

by **Caraani** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:14 pm

San Lumen wrote:
Caraani wrote:I actually wrote a long reply about what it did to Europe, but I deleted it after realizing most of the people here are left-wing regressives that will inevitably call me racist and what not. Bottom line was, it was done terribly in Europe, because those who come in by the millions segregate themselves, don't engage with the local communities, are left out, end up unemployed because they never bothered to engage, probably live on social wellfare, furthering the divide, and come from a culture that is almost if not entirely incompatible with our own, the only outcome being that they will integrate (unlikely), be kicked out of the EU, or take over thanks to the fact that they make 4-5 children, whereas we only make 1.50 or so.

Amazing everything in that statement is wrong.

This. This is what I meant.

by **Valgora** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:16 pm

Caraani wrote:
Valgora wrote:Maybe Europe should find ways for them to engage with the local community.

Also, most developed countries have low birthrates.
If the country doesn't bring that up to at least 2.5 children, they need immigrants to replace an aging workforce.

Luxemburgist/Syndicalist, brony, metalhead
Valgora =+/-IRL views
8 Values

Pro - Socialism/communism, Palestine, space exploration, left libertarianism, BLM, guns, LGBTQ, Industrial Hemp
Anti - Trump, Hilary, capitalism, authoritarianism, Gun Control, Police, Automation of the workforce

The thing is, and I know it's obnoxious of me, and at that very obnoxious, but I simply cannot imagine talking to a person that is pro communism, and anti capitalism, and expect to have a real discussion. That's why I said I deleted my first comment. I don't have high expectations. Also, if you're pro-LGBTQ, and anti-authoritarianism, you ought to be anti-immigration, as most people coming in think gays are not a real thing, but if they are they should be killed on sight, and support autocratic governments, while hating most things leftist stand for, such as freedom, and free speech.

No, that ain't going to make me anti-immigration. They have a right to come here and become citizens if they integrate - and we should help them integrate as well.

But I prefer to deal with things on an individual basis. To me, a person who's an immigrant who hates freedom doesn't mean that all immigrants hate freedom.
That's.... it's more of a stereotype instead of a generalization.

Plus, if their religion makes them hate gays, that's the person's problem. They can practice their religion how ever they want until it infringes on the rights of others.

by **San Lumen** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:20 pm

Caraani wrote:
San Lumen wrote:Amazing everything in that statement is wrong.

This. This is what I meant.

First of all people like to be with those that are like them hence why you have Chinatowns for example.

They engage plenty with the local community and those that are not citizens cannot collect welfare.

What culture is incompatible with our own? What is our this case?

How do you define integration? No country is going to kick out all the immigrants. Its not feasible or practical. And they are not going to take over. You really think Germany is going to become a Islamic state like Iran? Countries in Europe will get less and less white over time. You cannot stop it. By 2035 the United States will be majority non white with Canada to follow shortly after. Nothing can stop it.

by **Washington Resistance Army** » Wed May 02, 2018 1:25 pm

San Lumen wrote:What culture is incompatible with our own?

Stereotypical Islamic culture. Have you ever responded about how you feel you that Muslims on this very board support whipping gay people a hundred times and that such a position has very wide support?

Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

Who is online