@Amos_Umwhat said:
The second was a descriptive term for what may be going on with this, oppositional compliance. It's like when a child thinks "I'll show You", and carries out an absurd interpretation of their parent's instruction.
I don't know about the other agencies, but Peter hegseth explicitly told all of his four-star generals that he they were not to use any of the banned words on the bandwid list. Amongst those words are the terms black, segregation, and equality, racial inequity, racism, racial equality, Men, exclusion, diversity, cultural heritage, Anti-Racism, and belong.
Those are all words that we are not to use in the government.
Tell me exactly how you would tell the story of the Tuskegee airmen without using any of those words. Of course they deleted the page. What else were they going to do? Of course they deleted the Jackie Robinson page. How do you tell his story?
Never mind the fact that it is apparently grounds for firing to mention any " topics that have received widespread or critical media," topics that have received recent attention from Congress," and "topics of federal investigations."
But yeah, opposition compliance is the real problem. ✅
Thank you, Frank. By carefully cherry picking portions of the post, and ignoring the overall sentiment and then assuming a disdainful demeanor you have aptly demonstrated in real time the very concepts I was discussing. This is indeed what it looks like.
I couldn't have done it better myself.
The message ignored, the reaction inflammatory. Perfect.
Oppostional compliance in action.
😂 Good one Steve. I didn't cherry pick "parts" as much as i chose to respond to one particular point....in it's entirety. Didn't realize that doing so isn't fair game, especially since I had nothing substantive to offer regarding your overall message.
There is no evidence to support the oppositional compliance theory whatsoever, and I would argue that it's not what happened at all. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary.
And since we are supposing theories that have no basis in fact, I'll offer one of my own. The issues of Jackie Robinson and the Tuskegee airmen may have been brought up to elected and appointed leaders, and those leaders may have instructed the departments and agencies to delete them anyways, as a sort of toe-dipping strategy designed to gauge the public's palate for such censorship and whitewashing.
My guess is that neither oppositional al compliance nor toe-dipping were in play, at least in the DoD, where military professionals follow lawful orders.
For as much as you're offended about my thoughts, I'm offended by the assertion that military professionals engage in the childish actions that you offered.
By my count, everyone's panties are equally twisted, so we can now move on.
@ScotchnSmoke sux lots of large wéiners. And tons of small ones.
@Amos_Umwhat said:
The second was a descriptive term for what may be going on with this, oppositional compliance. It's like when a child thinks "I'll show You", and carries out an absurd interpretation of their parent's instruction.
I don't know about the other agencies, but Peter hegseth explicitly told all of his four-star generals that he they were not to use any of the banned words on the bandwid list. Amongst those words are the terms black, segregation, and equality, racial inequity, racism, racial equality, Men, exclusion, diversity, cultural heritage, Anti-Racism, and belong.
Those are all words that we are not to use in the government.
Tell me exactly how you would tell the story of the Tuskegee airmen without using any of those words. Of course they deleted the page. What else were they going to do? Of course they deleted the Jackie Robinson page. How do you tell his story?
Never mind the fact that it is apparently grounds for firing to mention any " topics that have received widespread or critical media," topics that have received recent attention from Congress," and "topics of federal investigations."
But yeah, opposition compliance is the real problem. ✅
Thank you, Frank. By carefully cherry picking portions of the post, and ignoring the overall sentiment and then assuming a disdainful demeanor you have aptly demonstrated in real time the very concepts I was discussing. This is indeed what it looks like.
I couldn't have done it better myself.
The message ignored, the reaction inflammatory. Perfect.
Oppostional compliance in action.
😂 Good one Steve...I had nothing substantive to offer regarding your overall message.
By my count, everyone's panties are equally twisted, so we can now move on.
On at least this much, we can certainly agree.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
@Amos_Umwhat said:
The second was a descriptive term for what may be going on with this, oppositional compliance. It's like when a child thinks "I'll show You", and carries out an absurd interpretation of their parent's instruction.
I don't know about the other agencies, but Peter hegseth explicitly told all of his four-star generals that he they were not to use any of the banned words on the bandwid list. Amongst those words are the terms black, segregation, and equality, racial inequity, racism, racial equality, Men, exclusion, diversity, cultural heritage, Anti-Racism, and belong.
Those are all words that we are not to use in the government.
Tell me exactly how you would tell the story of the Tuskegee airmen without using any of those words. Of course they deleted the page. What else were they going to do? Of course they deleted the Jackie Robinson page. How do you tell his story?
Never mind the fact that it is apparently grounds for firing to mention any " topics that have received widespread or critical media," topics that have received recent attention from Congress," and "topics of federal investigations."
But yeah, opposition compliance is the real problem. ✅
Thank you, Frank. By carefully cherry picking portions of the post, and ignoring the overall sentiment and then assuming a disdainful demeanor you have aptly demonstrated in real time the very concepts I was discussing. This is indeed what it looks like.
I couldn't have done it better myself.
The message ignored, the reaction inflammatory. Perfect.
Oppostional compliance in action.
😂 Good one Steve...I had nothing substantive to offer regarding your overall message.
By my count, everyone's panties are equally twisted, so we can now move on.
On at least this much, we can certainly agree.
Clearly not on the second point 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@ScotchnSmoke sux lots of large wéiners. And tons of small ones.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
US political rhetoric: Analysis of 8 million speeches shows increased reliance on personal beliefs over facts
by University of Konstanz
Discussion of "alternative facts" has gained sad notoriety in US politics. Yet the question has been around much longer: How do people conduct political debates—is the focus more on facts or personal opinions? In the journal Nature Human Behaviour, a team of international researchers led by the Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality" looked into the matter.
The researchers examined political rhetoric in 8 million speeches by members of the US Congress between 1879 and 2022 to see if the focus of their language was more on data and facts or personal convictions and subjective interpretations.
The team noticed a significant decline in the use of evidence-based political rhetoric since the 1970s, with a historic low in the present. Over the same period, the researchers observed a decline in legislative productivity, an increase in the political polarization of both political parties as well as growing economic inequality in the US.
Comments
😂 Good one Steve. I didn't cherry pick "parts" as much as i chose to respond to one particular point....in it's entirety. Didn't realize that doing so isn't fair game, especially since I had nothing substantive to offer regarding your overall message.
There is no evidence to support the oppositional compliance theory whatsoever, and I would argue that it's not what happened at all. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary.
And since we are supposing theories that have no basis in fact, I'll offer one of my own. The issues of Jackie Robinson and the Tuskegee airmen may have been brought up to elected and appointed leaders, and those leaders may have instructed the departments and agencies to delete them anyways, as a sort of toe-dipping strategy designed to gauge the public's palate for such censorship and whitewashing.
My guess is that neither oppositional al compliance nor toe-dipping were in play, at least in the DoD, where military professionals follow lawful orders.
For as much as you're offended about my thoughts, I'm offended by the assertion that military professionals engage in the childish actions that you offered.
By my count, everyone's panties are equally twisted, so we can now move on.
On at least this much, we can certainly agree.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
Clearly not on the second point 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
In case anyone was wondering, the Harriet Tubman page was edited with a couple additions and then back up in entirety by April 7th.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/nps-harriet-tubman-underground-railroad/
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
US political rhetoric: Analysis of 8 million speeches shows increased reliance on personal beliefs over facts
by University of Konstanz
Discussion of "alternative facts" has gained sad notoriety in US politics. Yet the question has been around much longer: How do people conduct political debates—is the focus more on facts or personal opinions? In the journal Nature Human Behaviour, a team of international researchers led by the Cluster of Excellence "The Politics of Inequality" looked into the matter.
The researchers examined political rhetoric in 8 million speeches by members of the US Congress between 1879 and 2022 to see if the focus of their language was more on data and facts or personal convictions and subjective interpretations.
The team noticed a significant decline in the use of evidence-based political rhetoric since the 1970s, with a historic low in the present. Over the same period, the researchers observed a decline in legislative productivity, an increase in the political polarization of both political parties as well as growing economic inequality in the US.
https://phys.org/news/2025-04-political-rhetoric-analysis-million-speeches.html