PDA

View Full Version : For the Sake of Disagreement



Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 11:57 AM
Yep, I'm out of my depth. Can't hope to converse with you highfalutin types when I'm jus' a poor working class fella.

So, this brings up an something that I have thought about for years IRT MTF.

On any given topic, everyone is going to have opinions ... and there are going to be people that have more experience about the topic than others and can discuss the topic from a point of experience / credibility.

There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. I am ignorant of many things, I can't be knowledgeable nor experienced on everything. When I am ignorant of something and someone is experienced on the topic, my ears perk up and I pay a bit of attention; I can learn from them. I may not agree with them ... but they have experience I don't.

This happens here on MTF a lot, some time ago in a thread on Air Force EPR's I asked a question because I had several Airman learning from me and could learn from the conversation and was aided by people with knowledge ... at least enough that when I discussed the matter with the Admin shop I had some background ... I was far from being an expert on EPRs, but I learned something.

A topic that is being discussed on MTF is also being discussed on another board I frequent and for some reason the discussion is much more of a ... discussion than people talking past each other and disagreeing for what can only be seen as for the sake of disagreement. I suspect that some people don't want to learn from anyone for a variety of reasons that are their own. When this happens, a person migrates from being ignorant to being stupid. It isn't about being a 'poor working class fella' or being junior or senior ... it is about someone being too stubborn to listen to anyone else or admit that someone else may have more knowledge about a topic. It often even goes beyond being stupid to being childish ...

In the smaller number of 'regulars' we have left, we still have a few hundred years of cumulative experience on a variety of topics across the military. Unfortunately, the majority of what happens here now is childish disagreement for the sake of disagreement.

Rusty Jones
06-23-2016, 12:01 PM
I know EXACTLY what currently active thread you're referring to. And the biggest perpetrator of that stupidity is not here to learn, teach, or to contribute to MTF in any meaningful or positive way.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 12:08 PM
I know EXACTLY what currently active thread you're referring to. And the biggest perpetrator of that stupidity is not here to learn, teach, or to contribute to MTF in any meaningful or positive way.

That thread is just an example (it isn't a secret which one it is), hence I pulled this discussion to a different thread because this is an ongoing thing at MTF ... unlikely to change unfortunately but it is what it is.

If I had questions about my pay, and a pay specialist was talking ... I would listen.

If I had questions about fixing a V-8 and a mechanic was talking ... I would listen.

Granted, they may be the worst pay specialist or mechanic out there, but I would at least listen since I have no experience in those areas.

Rusty Jones, you and I may disagree on 66.333% (repeating of course) of things ... but I can say that most of the time you bring an A-game level of discussion & debate. I may not agree with your points, but you make a point ...

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 12:33 PM
One of the biggest problems here, which we're having a current discussion on, is that people confuse facts and opinions. You can tell me 100 times that the speed limit is 60 MPH, which is a FACT, and I can tell you 100 times why I think it's stupid that the speed limit is 60 MPH and that I think it should be changed, then you'll respond with "But the speed limit is 60 MPH". So the discussions are apples and oranges. Are we here to learn? Are we here to discuss our opinions? The two don't really go together. I am here to discuss opinions of current regs/laws/decisions.

Rusty Jones
06-23-2016, 12:41 PM
One of the biggest problems here, which we're having a current discussion on, is that people confuse facts and opinions. You can tell me 100 times that the speed limit is 60 MPH, which is a FACT, and I can tell you 100 times why I think it's stupid that the speed limit is 60 MPH and that I think it should be changed, then you'll respond with "But the speed limit is 60 MPH". So the discussions are apples and oranges. Are we here to learn? Are we here to discuss our opinions? The two don't really go together. I am here to discuss opinions of current regs/laws/decisions.

I get your point, in the case of Mjolnir, he was dealing with someone who doesn't really value opinions either.

Put it this why... when you've got someone that's as miserable as he is, and you saw the way the conversation was going; I think that this was really less about "opinions" and more about trying to "dictate the tempo" of the conservation, as usual.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 12:51 PM
One of the biggest problems here, which we're having a current discussion on, is that people confuse facts and opinions. You can tell me 100 times that the speed limit is 60 MPH, which is a FACT, and I can tell you 100 times why I think it's stupid that the speed limit is 60 MPH and that I think it should be changed, then you'll respond with "But the speed limit is 60 MPH". So the discussions are apples and oranges. Are we here to learn? Are we here to discuss our opinions? The two don't really go together. I am here to discuss opinions of current regs/laws/decisions.

Fair enough.

When discussing 'how it is' & 'how it should be' ... we (the collective societal 'we') should do both. But I think we should be smart about how we think about changing things to make them how they 'should be'. Militarily we like to solve things at the lowest level, why do I need to involved Congress or the SecNav to change an issue with a Rifle Platoon ... that type of thinking is often what I see and shows that sometimes people are, no insult meant to anyone ... commenting 'out of their depth' on an issue and not understanding secondary and tertiary effects of the idea. Instead of responding to someone who brings that up, there is immediate resistance ... sometimes I think based on who it is making the comment instead of the actual comment.

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 01:02 PM
Fair enough.

When discussing 'how it is' & 'how it should be' ... we (the collective societal 'we') should do both. But I think we should be smart about how we think about changing things to make them how they 'should be'. Militarily we like to solve things at the lowest level, why do I need to involved Congress or the SecNav to change an issue with a Rifle Platoon ... that type of thinking is often what I see and shows that sometimes people are, no insult meant to anyone ... commenting 'out of their depth' on an issue and not understanding secondary and tertiary effects of the idea. Instead of responding to someone who brings that up, there is immediate resistance ... sometimes I think based on who it is making the comment instead of the actual comment.

I get what you're saying. Sometimes people are required to give the political answer...then there are the rest of us.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 01:12 PM
I get what you're saying. Sometimes people are required to give the political answer...then there are the rest of us.

How is that the 'political' answer?

You give an opinion. Someone else asks if you have thought of X, Y, or Z?

Is that them being political or thinking 2, 3, 4 steps ahead on other effects of the proposal?

It may be a difference in perspective on things. This isn't about rank as much as it is about perspective. As a Sgt, SSgt etc. I didn't have the same perspective as I do on things as an XO or a LCDR.

On a ship, BM3 Jones want to make protein shakes once a day after his workout. BM3 brings onboard a blender to do so. To the guy who just wants to make a protein shake ... this seems like no big deal.

If I plug a simple kitchen blender into an outlet in the galley, I can down the entire electrical bus because of the pull on the electrical load (blenders have a surprisingly high voltage requirement). To the Auxiliaries Officer, or the Chief Engineer ... this is a big deal. Is it political of them to bring up the cascading effects of a simple issue from their perspective? Or, what it seems here many times is that it is political because they are officers and the E5 from Deck Division who just wants a protein shake is Enlisted.

Now when we talk about policy, laws, regulations etc. the issues get much larger and bigger than a simple electrical bus. But anyone who doesn't agree and tries to bring perspective is being political? Take the chip off your shoulder and realize there may be other considerations beyond what you are considering, and getting pissy with someone who points it out is not intelligent. .

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 01:25 PM
On a ship, BM3 Jones want to make protein shakes once a day after his workout. BM3 brings onboard a blender to do so. To the guy who just wants to make a protein shake ... this seems like no big deal.

If I plug a simple kitchen blender into an outlet in the galley, I can down the entire electrical bus because of the pull on the electrical load (blenders have a surprisingly high voltage requirement). To the Auxiliaries Officer, or the Chief Engineer ... this is a big deal. Is it political of them to bring up the cascading effects of a simple issue from their perspective? Or, what it seems here many times is that it is political because they are officers and the E5 from Deck Division just wants a protein shake.

Great, awesome example. So, I'm gonna play you here, with your post being what mine would generally be, from an "uneducated" point of view:

Blenders do not require any more voltage. If it's a 120 volt device, it uses 120 volts. Now, it does pull more amperage and use draw more watts because watts = voltage X amperage, so if wattage is raised, with a constant voltage, then amperage is also raised. The amperage draw is what has the effect on the electrical load.

Now, those are the facts, and I educated you, but it didn't really help the conversation because I was able to understand the point you were trying to make.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 01:38 PM
Great, awesome example. So, I'm gonna play you here, with your post being what mine would generally be, from an "uneducated" point of view:

Blenders do not require any more voltage. If it's a 120 volt device, it uses 120 volts. Now, it does pull more amperage and use draw more watts because watts = voltage X amperage, so if wattage is raised, with a constant voltage, then amperage is also raised. The amperage draw is what has the effect on the electrical load.

Now, those are the facts, and I educated you, but it didn't really help the conversation because I was able to understand the point you were trying to make.

Got me, I messed up volts and amps. Based on your experience (as far as I know it to be) I think you know more about that than me and I am not going to argue with you about it.

I don't take you correcting me as you talking down to me or me being uneducated, you shouldn't take me or anyone correcting you as talking down or thinking you are uneducated, but you resort to that retort often.

Rusty Jones
06-23-2016, 01:40 PM
Now, those are the facts, and I educated you, but it didn't really help the conversation because I was able to understand the point you were trying to make.

In Mjolnir's case, he DID address the point by bringing up laws. When asked why civilians can't do a certain job, Mjolnir cited a law that says they can't. But... rather than accepting that answer, there was a big stink raised about it.

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 01:49 PM
Got me, I messed up volts and amps. Based on your experience (as far as I know it to be) I think you know more about that than me and I am not going to argue with you about it.

I don't take you correcting me as you talking down to me or me being uneducated, you shouldn't take me or anyone correcting you as talking down or thinking you are uneducated, but you resort to that retort often.

But it is talking down to you. Every day, people who know very little about electrical say that their lights, or other electrical equipment, "shorted out". That's something that rarely happens. I don't correct them and explain the difference between a "short" and an "open" because it makes no difference to them and it makes me look like an ass.

Listen, I say this with all due respect to your experience and the level of responsibility you have worked at. You are so far disconnected from those below you that you can't even comprehend how belittling certain things can sound. It's a normal thing. It's like parents and their children...it's similar to a generational gap.

It's like when I tell my wife how she could improve her bowling. Even though the things I'm telling her would help, she doesn't want to hear it because, no matter how I try to get it across, it's condescending.

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 01:51 PM
In Mjolnir's case, he DID address the point by bringing up laws. When asked why civilians can't do a certain job, Mjolnir cited a law that says they can't. But... rather than accepting that answer, there was a big stink raised about it.He cited laws that state why they can't and others cited opinions about why they should be able to.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 02:10 PM
Listen, I say this with all due respect to your experience and the level of responsibility you have worked at. You are so far disconnected from those below you that you can't even comprehend how belittling certain things can sound. It's a normal thing. It's like parents and their children...it's similar to a generational gap.

Odd, cause that isn't the feedback I get, even from the anonymous surveys at PXO school and the first climate survey we had.

I have a CPO (E7) in my command with an enormous chip on his shoulder, doesn't want to listen to his DivO (an O2) when they are passing information, nor the Department Head (and O3) doesn't want to listen me (the XO), doesn't want to listen to the CO. A private conversation with him after I had been here about 2 months with him talking about how this wasn't the 'real' Navy and if we were on a ship it would be this way and that.

Peeling the onion back a bit on his background, less time in the military than me, less time in the Navy than me, less time at sea than me, less time deployed in any capacity than me. So I say (paraphrasing)

"If your argument is that experience in the Navy, at sea or deployed is what should count about how we do things, my experience trumps yours; if the argument is about rank, mine trumps yours ... so does the O2's. I value your experience, and your position in the Command, but you need to take the chip off your shoulder that every one senior to you is a dumbass because: officer = dumbass. Some of the smartest people we have in this command are the most junior Sailors ... so it isn't about rank. If you are teaching them by your example to be belligerent just because someone is senior, you aren't helping them at all."

I see a lot of that mentality here. I am far from perfect ... but too many egos wrapped around someone being a dumbass because of their rank (going up the pay scale and down it). based on some of the experiences people here have relayed about their time in the military ... frankly some of you had some shitty leadership (all of us have to some extent or another) and it may have contributed to varying degrees of an unnecessary chip on your shoulders.

Rusty Jones
06-23-2016, 02:14 PM
He cited laws that state why they can't and others cited opinions about why they should be able to.

Great, but are those opinions even relevant? That's like a kid asking his dad for a new toy, and when his dad tells him that he doesn't have the money right now, the kid begins to tell his did that he should be getting paid more, etc, etc... when that's beyond his dad's control. Sure, the fact that it's beyond his control is relevant, but what's most important is the fact that his dad doesn't have the money, so that toy is not going to be purchased any time soon.

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 02:18 PM
Odd, cause that isn't the feedback I get, even from the anonymous surveys at PXO school and the first climate survey we had. I don't understand the climate survey results one bit. We do one every year, people put their bitches and complaints, and when the Commander briefs us it comes out with results that everything is good.


I have a CPO (E7) in my command with an enormous chip on his shoulder, doesn't want to listen to his DivO (an O2) when they are passing information, nor the Department Head (and O3) doesn't want to listen me (the XO), doesn't want to listen to the CO. A private conversation with him after I had been here about 2 months with him talking about how this wasn't the 'real' Navy and if we were on a ship it would be this way and that.

Peeling the onion back a bit on his background, less time in the military than me, less time in the Navy than me, less time at sea than me, less time deployed in any capacity than me. So I say (paraphrasing)

"If your argument is that experience in the Navy, at sea or deployed is what should count about how we do things, my experience trumps yours; if the argument is about rank, mine trumps yours ... so does the O2's. I value your experience, and your position in the Command, but you need to take the chip off your shoulder that every one senior to you is a dumbass because: officer = dumbass. Some of the smartest people we have in this command are the most junior Sailors ... so it isn't about rank. If you are teaching them by your example to be belligerent just because someone is senior, you aren't helping them at all."

I see a lot of that mentality here. I am far from perfect ... but too many egos wrapped around someone being a dumbass because of their rank (going up the pay scale and down it). based on some of the experiences people here have relayed about their time in the military ... frankly some of you had some shitty leadership (all of us have to some extent or another) and it may have contributed to varying degrees of an unnecessary chip on your shoulders.I'm not saying anyone here is a shitty leader. I'm not saying that anyone here is spouting bullshit. I just think it's a level of understanding between the different ranks.

Our Squadron currently has a Commander who seems to be respected by most. I don't know how to quantify it but I would call him a very good Commander. I still don't think he is able to relate to the enlisted corps, though. He tries, and everyone plays along, but it just doesn't work. That doesn't mean I think any less of him. He does an excellent job, as I'm sure you do. That doesn't mean you relate to your enlisted corps in the way that you think you do. Again, that's not a criticism. It's just a fact. Hard to see it from the inside, though.

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 02:23 PM
Great, but are those opinions even relevant? That's like a kid asking his dad for a new toy, and when his dad tells him that he doesn't have the money right now, the kid begins to tell his did that he should be getting paid more, etc, etc... when that's beyond his dad's control. Sure, the fact that it's beyond his control is relevant, but what's most important is the fact that his dad doesn't have the money, so that toy is not going to be purchased any time soon.

I think a better analogy is this: A dad spanks his kid with a belt. One person says "you can't do that, that's illegal". The discussion then becomes about whether or not it should be legal. Nobody is arguing that it is or isn't. They are arguing the validity and the adherence to those laws.

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 02:27 PM
I'm not sure how the "anonymous" climate surveys work in the Navy, but I know that in the Air Force it has select age, gender, squadron, and work center at the beginning (and possibly a couple other demographics). The only thing not given is the name. Not sure how anonymous that is. Probably different in the Navy.

Rainmaker
06-23-2016, 02:33 PM
There's a Pavlovian response to repetition.

For SJ and Rusty their pavlovian response is defaulting to internal programming that "Diversity is our Greatest Strength". They'll immediately reject out of hand anything that threatens this notion and attack it on the basis of being "rayciss", "anti-semetic", "right wing political talking points/buzzwords"

Take for example the thread in question. When Rainmaker posted his skepticism about these personnel reform initiatives having less to do with military necessity and more to do with achieving the Pentagon's stated goal of making the Senior ranks more diverse (too many white males). Rusty immediately attacked it, refused to address it and then opened up a new thread "so that Rainmaker can post all of his bullshit personal issues with diversity". Sandjames immediately started hyperventilating and decided to pile on with a nonsensical post about "Jew-Fags".

Direct appointment of officers may have some limited value. But, based on the track record of this administration, there is reason for concern that the program will be misused to "fundamentally transform" the demographic makeup of the Upper echelons of the military.

Now with that..... Rainmaker will let you two divas get back to telling Retired Navy Chiefs to go kill themselves and patting one another on the ass and whispering sweet nothings to yourselves, about how open minded and reasonable you are.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 02:38 PM
I don't understand the climate survey results one bit. We do one every year, people put their bitches and complaints, and when the Commander briefs us it comes out with results that everything is good.


I have seen Commanders (CO's -- not the USN rank) who went full 'open kimono' on bad results, others who apply spin. When I went to PXO school before this job, 5 people from my previous command (2x senior to me, 1x in my grade, 2x junior to me) provided anonymous evaluations of my performance, strengths & weaknesses. Our command also did one right after I came onboard, as the XO I can see the full results but not names. I did very well on interactions with the Sailors. I am not saying I don't correct people, but I don't think I talk down to anyone ... well ... unless they really need it.


I'm not saying anyone here is a shitty leader. I'm not saying that anyone here is spouting bullshit. I just think it's a level of understanding between the different ranks.

Of course there is, but you also take the stance that officer = political. I was enlisted for 12 years (E1 - E7 and repeated E3 & E4), I do have a perspective beyond my commission. But yes, I now look at things with the perspective of being an O4 which means I look further beyond the immediate issue than I did (most of the time) as a Sgt etc. But, retorting that doing so is 'political' is inaccurate.


Our Squadron currently has a Commander who seems to be respected by most. I don't know how to quantify it but I would call him a very good Commander. I still don't think he is able to relate to the enlisted corps, though. He tries, and everyone plays along, but it just doesn't work. That doesn't mean I think any less of him. He does an excellent job, as I'm sure you do. That doesn't mean you relate to your enlisted corps in the way that you think you do. Again, that's not a criticism. It's just a fact. Hard to see it from the inside, though.

Most commanders don't have prior enlisted experience. Even with my experience, I haven't been enlisted for 13 years and don't know about a lot of things that impact the lives of 18 year old E3's these days etc. But ... contrary to what many say, just because an officer does something the juniors don't agree with, it isn't (necessarily) because they don't relate, understand the concerns or issues of the enlisted workforce (yeah ... they do most of the 'heavy lift') ... they are likely looking beyond the level that the junior people are. Is it talking down or degrading the juniors if I say that? No ... that is your job as you get more senior. But ... too often people ... to include people here resort how you did earlier (in jest or not)earlier ... "it is political". This adversarial mentality is bullshit ... aids in nothing and only gets worse when we train our replacements to think the same way.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 02:46 PM
I'm not sure how the "anonymous" climate surveys work in the Navy, but I know that in the Air Force it has select age, gender, squadron, and work center at the beginning (and possibly a couple other demographics). The only thing not given is the name. Not sure how anonymous that is. Probably different in the Navy.

A bit more shielded than that. I can't see that a Male, 28 year old E5 said "XXXXXXXX". I see that E1-E3's said "XXXXXXXXX", "XXXXXXXXXX", "XXXXXXXXXX". Same for E4-E6, E7-E9, CWO2-O3. Not really easy to pick out who is who unless they describe something really specific.

Rusty Jones
06-23-2016, 02:47 PM
I think a better analogy is this: A dad spanks his kid with a belt. One person says "you can't do that, that's illegal". The discussion then becomes about whether or not it should be legal. Nobody is arguing that it is or isn't. They are arguing the validity and the adherence to those laws.

The big difference? Even though what the dad may be doing is illegal, he has the ability to disobey that law.

If a certain position can only be filled by military personnel, it IMPOSSIBLE to hire a civilian to do it.

Rainmaker
06-23-2016, 03:33 PM
The big difference? Even though what the dad may be doing is illegal, he has the ability to disobey that law.

If a certain position can only be filled by military personnel, it IMPOSSIBLE to hire a civilian to do it.

A law is only as good as it is enforced & The government is your daddy.

What's currently going on in the Cyber career field has many parallels to what went on in the Intelligence fields throughout the last decade. Let me give you a first hand example. During the force beddown for both the Iraq (07) and Afghan (09-10) Surge Operations there was huge shortage for analysts of all types. contractors can perform collection and analysis. However, certain inherently governmental functions BY LAW, are to be performed by govt personnel.

However, following 9-11 attacks the CONgress began passing the Supplemental (Emergency) O&M funding. Now, this type of funding was designed to be temporary. So, You can't increase your Military or Civil Service end strength with it. So, the work had to be outsourced. There was no other way. The Congress has continued the supplemental indefinitely. As a result many of the CGO'S and NCO's got out in droves. Because if you're going to get deployed to some dusty shithole 6 months every year, then you might as well be getting paid 5 times the salary.

This was a self inflicted wound because the services wound up serving as a training ground for defense contractors. The Military leadership did not (and doesn't) want to change it. As a result, today The military no longer has the expertise to accomplish the intelligence activities it is tasked with, without using contractors and the contractors are not that good anymore because their recruiting base is the services and the quality of the intelligence produced is now shit.

Contractors perform these types of functions all the time in every intelligence field (to include Counter terrorism). Technically it's a violation. But, they're not breaking the law. Why? Because, they said they're not and there's no enforcement mechanism to ensure they don't and quite frankly when you have thousands of billets and 80% of them are contracted out, there's no way you can accomplish the mission without breaking the law.

.gov wants to perpetuate this status quo because, our industry "partners" have made a fucking killing on the Forever war.

sandsjames
06-23-2016, 05:42 PM
A bit more shielded than that. I can't see that a Male, 28 year old E5 said "XXXXXXXX". I see that E1-E3's said "XXXXXXXXX", "XXXXXXXXXX", "XXXXXXXXXX". Same for E4-E6, E7-E9, CWO2-O3. Not really easy to pick out who is who unless they describe something really specific.

You should try something. Without qualifying it in any way, do a poll of your unit to find out how many people are confident that the climate survey is anonymous.

The answers you'll receive may surprise you, from having to list demographics to being logged in with a CAC. Whether it's true or not that they aren't anonymous, most people do not believe it is.

Mjölnir
06-23-2016, 06:25 PM
You should try something. Without qualifying it in any way, do a poll of your unit to find out how many people are confident that the climate survey is anonymous.

The answers you'll receive may surprise you, from having to list demographics to being logged in with a CAC. Whether it's true or not that they aren't anonymous, most people do not believe it is.

That is actually a good idea. You literally just created work for my CMEO (EEO) to build that into our debrief.