> Which is also a false translation (and thus a strawman) of what I said. The vast majority were treated quite damn well.
I copied and pasted exactly what you wrote.
> I did some Googling here and found that in 2013, 0.9% of all military members reported sexual assault. I don't know how that compares to civilian life, and I'll just toss this out there, I bet this varies A TON by military branch, and I will leave it at that
If you care to educate yourself, in another post I made in this thread I referenced the actual data on sexual abuse in the military. The dramatic majority goes unreported, and the cases that do get reported face retaliation from superiors. It’s a toxic cesspit.
edit I'll just add them
> Sexual assault in the United States armed forces is an ongoing issue which has received extensive media coverage in the past. A 2012 Pentagon survey found that approximately 26,000 women and men were sexually assaulted that year; of those, only 3,374 cases were reported.[1] In 2013, a new Pentagon report found that 5,061 troops reported cases of assault. Some are optimistic that this increase in reports is indicative of victims "growing more comfortable in the system".[2] Of the reported cases, only 484 cases went to trial; 376 resulted in convictions.[3] Another investigation found that one in five women in the United States Air Force who were sexually assaulted by service members reported it, for one in 15 men.[4]
20% of women reported.
> A survey for the Department of Defense conducted in 2015 found that in the past year 52% of active service members who reported sexual assault had experienced retaliation in the form of professional, social, and administrative actions or punishments.[5] In addition to retaliation against soldiers remaining in active service, many former service members who reported sexual assaults were forced to leave after being discharged. Reasons for discharge included having a "personality disorder" or engaging in misconduct related to the sexual assault such as fraternization or (prior to the end of don't ask, don't tell) homosexuality, even if the homosexual conduct was non-consensual.[6]
52% of active service members who reported experienced retaliation. 52%. Getting discharged for homosexuality as a result of _non consensual_ homosexual contact. Tell me again about all that integrity and respect in the military.
> You sound like a person who would never make it in the military.
I don’t care, truly at all, if you think I’d make it in the military. I criticized an obviously disgusting group (that you’re a part of), and you’re making a judgement of my character out of adversarialism.
I think this person is mostly just being self congratulatory. It's not seemless, they're a subcontractor, without being too directly disrespectful, their view is heavily skewed towards singing the praises of cheap outsourced labor.
> Sexual assault in the United States armed forces is an ongoing issue which has received extensive media coverage in the past. A 2012 Pentagon survey found that approximately 26,000 women and men were sexually assaulted that year; of those, only 3,374 cases were reported.[1] In 2013, a new Pentagon report found that 5,061 troops reported cases of assault. Some are optimistic that this increase in reports is indicative of victims "growing more comfortable in the system".[2] Of the reported cases, only 484 cases went to trial; 376 resulted in convictions.[3] Another investigation found that one in five women in the United States Air Force who were sexually assaulted by service members reported it, for one in 15 men.[4]
> A survey for the Department of Defense conducted in 2015 found that in the past year 52% of active service members who reported sexual assault had experienced retaliation in the form of professional, social, and administrative actions or punishments.[5] In addition to retaliation against soldiers remaining in active service, many former service members who reported sexual assaults were forced to leave after being discharged. Reasons for discharge included having a "personality disorder" or engaging in misconduct related to the sexual assault such as fraternization or (prior to the end of don't ask, don't tell) homosexuality, even if the homosexual conduct was non-consensual.[6]
I think one of the main tenants of allyship (I'm comfortable having weirdos call me "woke" for using the word allyship) is being accepting when told you did something wrong, and working to cultivate relationships in which a person is able to _simply_ say "I didn't like that", to which that feedback is taken seriously and responsibly.
I mostly think the argument "Well men will just start treating women and minorities will start being treated like radio active objects" is cultivated and pushed forward by men that aren't willing to hear they did something wrong. Binary thinking is _the problem_. If you make a comment with good intent, but it was taken poorly, the fear is you'll be labeled as a bad person/sexist/whatever. In reality, if your intent is good, and your response to being told you did something wrong was "I'm sorry, I won't do that again", nothing else really has to happen.
Yeah the parent's comment is just a person refusing to have any amount of tact. Harassment isn't defined as an isolated incident, nor is it immediately a huge deal. Almost all rational humans have some amount of tolerance for ambiguity, if you really can't possibly fathom what would or would not be offensive to a person, you have absolutely no business working alongside other people.
Not to mention, a lot of what was reported couldn't possibly have been ambiguous. Commenting on a coworker's breasts (the report of a woman repeatedly being questioned on whether her breasts were real, and then having a manager demand to feel them to verify) is just totally unacceptable.
Harassment intentionally includes observers. If you do something to someone, and a third party observes it and is made uncomfortable, that is harassment in the workplace.
To say "Guys are just ribbing eachother" ignores people that observe that behavior and find it uncomfortable/hostile/toxic. This is also an extremely generous description of what happened. Women were harassed, both sexually and not. Their pay was lower, their performance reviews were tougher, they were fired more frequently. Worse, they were groped, sexually harassed/assaulted, one of them commit suicide over it. To compare "guys just ribbing" to what happened is a real gross take.
> I may be biased, I spent 4 years in the military where ribbing was literally CONSTANT (it was worse than anyplace else I've worked) and the women there really had to have a thick skin. (I'm also 49 years old and a lot has changed.)
"Women have to have thick skin" is just nonsense to not have to type "The women are harassed relentlessly". It's also worth noting that the military is a toxic cesspit for sexual abuse. Comparing any sane workplace to the military is a joke. Nobody should want to be like the military, including the military.
Generous to think the original talent didn't cultivate the sexist cesspool it is today. I certainly don't extend them that grace. Morhaime was involved. Kaplan was involved. Nobody in executive leadership is innocent.
Also work in the industry (but in the US as an employee, not a subcontractor), totally opposite opinion. Outsourced labor is similar to Associate-level responsibilities. The reasons assholes don't get fired in the games industry is because experience and skill is so difficult to find.
That's one take. Mine was more about efficacy. J&J IIRC was around 60%, while mRNA vaccines are around 90%. Big brain vaccine scientists tell me that 60% is fine but all I see is 30% less efficacy. I wouldn't be able to feel confident/safe even after getting J&J.
It may be splitting hairs, but I wouldn't really call most vaccine skeptics "anti vaxxers". The legitimate "anti vaxx" community are legitimately uninterested in science. These people will never get vaccinated, regardless of data.
A much larger group of people is skeptical of the government and vaccines. These people might get vaccinated, and every piece of information that comes out in favor of vaccination has the possibility to sway some of them.
My post was about the first group, not the second.
I'm sorry, I can't really tell how your comment is related to my comment? What does verifying that you took precaution to prevent the spread of covid have to do with dignity?
It's true that you can't choose, but lots of places are listing what vaccines they're doing on specific days. You can "choose" by booking an appointment at a location that has the one you want, or by avoiding locations that have ones you don't want.
As an example, I booked my appointment specifically at a location that only carried Pfizer.
跳过整篇文章。
> 事实是，军队中发生性侵犯的几率很低
你从哪里得到的“低”数字？我根本不会说它低。我会称其为疯狂的高。
> 但显然，如果 2% 的穆斯林成为自杀式炸弹袭击者，那么所有穆斯林都是坏人，
你说了很多非常可笑的话。如果一个机构纵容性虐待，那么指出它是公平的。
> 祝你好运，将其应用到整个社会（顺便说一句，社会正在与军队一起进步）。
我想这完全取决于你如何看待它（也就是说，如果你选择举起双手说“一切顺利！”而没有真正注意）。
> 再次强调，让批准依赖于完美（而不是持续改进）是优秀的敌人
谁带来了完美？我是说这绝对是一部狗屎剧，有数据可以证实。你说“不，它正在改善”，基于合法的 0 数据。