Why I hate Civilians - A Military-member's Manifesto

Oozlefinch · Feb 24, 2013

Zariak said:
Well, Oozlefinch, your manifesto worries me, because I have always considered you a level-headed individual here on the forum based off of your posts. As a civilian, I feel I should defend myself and explain to you why your idea that you hold contempt for civilians is flawed. Your manifesto has a basic flaw: your thesis is in direct contradiction to the rambling supporting arguments. I'm going to be that guy who analyzes your manifesto. Please don't take personal offense and I know you probably don't give a **** either way but these are just my thoughts.

Actually, the target was not at all civilians, or even a majority of them. Here is the "preamble" again.

This should not come as a surprise to many, but parts of this should be explained once again.
I largely have a pretty negative view of Civilians, and largely deal with them with contempt.
Now understand, this is largely aimed at those civilians that deal with people like me with contempt.

Yea, I am generally a pretty levelheaded person. And I will blame that ramble on several things, including the long hours I have been putting in the last 2 months, and an excess of alcohol. In addition having to read through 4 pages of political attacks back and forth in a few hours, over a topic that was pretty much a military one and had nothing to do with the politics being screamed back and forth.

Now I am sober, I would probably have phrased it more as "Policital Civilians", as in those beasts of which we have many in here, in which every little thing revolves around politics. China is testing a new fighter for their carrier? Why, this is political because the President is to weak to do anything about it!

Bah, that kind of mindset simply sickens me.

Sarcogito · Feb 25, 2013

I’m career military myself, having served on 5 continents. I think one of the biggest problems with many civilians AND military members is the tendency to lump everyone into groups and forget that they are individuals. There are monsters and heroes in both groups. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

I get it, though. It is annoying when you hear people talking about things of which they have no firsthand experience. But we ALL do it. We all have opinions on things in which we are not experts. EVERY profession is subject to the uninformed ramblings of laymen.

Monserrat · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
Nice to see that some people get it.

However, many people feel threatened when somebody says something they do not like, and feel they need to attack it. The interesting thing is, I largely do not care. This is because then you are talking about their beliefs, and I think everybody is entitled to their beliefs. I just do not want it constantly shoved in my face.

Especially when a belief is generally the center of their argument. Yea, great, Karl Marx stated that the world will eventually be Comunist, so why does that mean that Chinese/Cuban/North Korean equipment/theory/tactics is the best?

I generally only participate here in the military sections, where for the most part things should be pretty simple. What is the capability of this tank, how good is that airplane under development, and how would Army A do against Army B. Generally these are pretty clear. But so many people jump in with all sorts of political crap that really does not apply. And I know we have all seen it.

After all, it was not all that long ago that a lot of the military threads (and I am sure others as well) were filled with people who were talking about how great things would be once Ron Paul fixed everything. And to be honest, I could not care less. Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, Ho Chi Minh, Ron Paul, or Ru'Paul, it is all largely meaningless to me. When the topic is "How good is the XXXYYY fighter", do we really need to somebodies political rant on who they think should be President? Or such as a recent one, why a flight of a Russian aircraft suddenly morphs into over 10 pages of political nonsense flying back and forth on the President being weak and China?

The last time I looked, China is not Russia. And heck, we have had such overflights happen all the time since the end of WWII. All during the Cold War we did it to the Soviets, they did it right back at us. So what? But you get those that wanna air their political dirty underwear and I for one am sick of it.

And I will continue to ignore it as well.

Looking back, I should have made it more clear that I was aimed at the political individuals, not all civilians. And interestingly enough, some of those that have taken the most offense tend to be the more political individuals I have seen (which should not be surprising). These are the ones that can't look at something with a neutral eye and see what is being said. They see anything they do not agree with as a challenge, and take offense and attack it.

And just as the part that you repeated says, it was aimed at those that deal with people with contempt. If you object to my being offended because you hold me in contempt, why should I care about anything you say? It is political nonsense, and I generally flush it. If you do not hold me in contempt, then why on earth would that have offended you?

I understood that it was not aimed at all civilians and you made that clear enough in the post, I don't know how people missed it.

I don't know what's going on in the military forum, I don't usually post there, I don't know enough about the military to really get into those types of conversations/debates. I think I understand what you are talking about at least somewhat with the politics behind everything. It's frustrating when people are so far gone to one side of the fence or the other that all they can see is what's on their side and that's all that matters to them while truth/actuality gets lost somewhere in between.

longknife · Feb 26, 2013

Typical of someone who take words out of context or paints all military personnel with a broad brush.

I agree with a few of Oozlefinch's words, but certainly not all. Nor do I consider him to be a spokesperson for the rest of us.

If you can't see that, then you fall into the category of civilians he's posting about.

longknife · Feb 26, 2013

I post on political forums for variety if reasons - most of them to share items some might like. There are also posts for no other reason than to burst the balloons of those you referred to.

Thanks.

Ikari · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
I mean really, do you honestly think I am going to accept orders to storm into your house and take away all of your guns?

Or worse. I don't know what you are capable of or how far you'll take following orders. Which is why the military is to be restricted.

Oh and the "I hold civilians in contempt and they better not bad mouth the stuff I think is important or hold in reverence because then there will be hell to pay" blah blah blah is nothing more than weak, rhetorical nonsense. It's called America. Ignore a person if you want, but don't think that you're so important that the rest of us need to pay attention to your blathering arguments.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

Ikari said:
Or worse. I don't know what you are capable of or how far you'll take following orders. Which is why the military is to be restricted.

Oh and the "I hold civilians in contempt and they better not bad mouth the stuff I think is important or hold in reverence because then there will be hell to pay" blah blah blah is nothing more than weak, rhetorical nonsense. It's called America. Ignore a person if you want, but don't think that you're so important that the rest of us need to pay attention to your blathering arguments.

The military already is restricted.

And if you are worried about everybody and how far they might follow orders, you probably need to get somebody to check out that paranoia.

As for the rest, obviously you did not really read (or understand) anything I said, but that's ok. I don't remember ever threatening or anything like that. Mostly I simply said I do not give a crap about political blather. But if you feel threatened that I am ignoring political blather, then that is just to bad.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

longknife said:
If you can't see that, then you fall into the category of civilians he's posting about.

Honestly, it is not surprising to me that most of the "backlash" has actually been from the more political ones that have responded. And essentially it revolves around some form of paranoia of the military, or hatred of the system, or something else generally along those lines.

Funny how so often the response has been generally a variant of "STFU you idiot". Meanwhile, I had better not say a single word about somebody carrying a sign and screaming abuse at me, because then I would be violating their freedom of speech.

*laughs*

APACHERAT · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
Be it President Reagan, President Clinton, President Bush, or President Barack Hussin Obama. I may, or may not like any, none, or all of the Presidents I just listed. But they are all (or were) my Commander in Chief, and I give them all the proper respect their office demands.[/B]

Oozlefinch, out of the five past Commander and Chiefs you have served under, which of those C'nC's showed you the most respect and which ones didn't ?

Are you aware that there has only been one POTUS ever recognized by those serving in uniform who on their own held a ceremony to honor and say thank you to their out going Cn'C. No one serving was ordered to attend the ceremony, they attended at their own will unlike today's Cn'C where the troops are ordered to turn in their rifles to the armory and are ordered to attend a photo op. In fact you were probably serving when this ceremony took place.

The Cn'C has to earn the respect of those who serve under him.

When I became a NCO and actually was responsible for the lives of those serving under my command, I had to first earn the respect of those Marines so I could keep them alive. We all have seen the NCO or officer who didn't earn the respect of their men serving under them and had to use the threat of the UCMJ to command. Doesn't work out to well and people bleed and die.

How can one respect a Cn'C who uses him for social engineering experimentation's ?

How can someone respect their Cn'C when those on his administration make fun of the uniforms they wear ?

How can one respect their Cn'C when that Cn'C puts an officer in command of his rifle platoon who's unqualified and only has those bars on his collar because of the name of diversity ?

How can one respect their Cn'C when he hears that the Cn'C wife responds to a General "F### Y##" when the General said "good morning" in the hallways of the White House ?

How can one respect their Cn'C when he see's the Cn'C using his military aid, a commissioned officer as a golf caddy ?

I think you know where I'm going at. There have been Cn'C's who have earned the respect of those who serve under his command and there have been Cn'C's who only recieve the respect under the rules of the chain and command.

Ikari · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
The military already is restricted.

And if you are worried about everybody and how far they might follow orders, you probably need to get somebody to check out that paranoia.

Ahh, trust you or we're crazy huh? That's it? You're entire "I hate civilians and people who speak their minds and if they don't do what I say then I'm going to ignore them" crap argument is nothing more than a crap argument based on some ultimate irrational conclusion that if people don't believe as you that they're crazy.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

APACHERAT said:
Oozlefinch, out of the five past Commander and Chiefs you have served under, which of those C'nC's showed you the most respect and which ones didn't ?

And this is the type of question I generally do not respond to. Because it gets to political and I really do not care much for politics.

Of the 5 mentioned, I only actually saw 2 of them (1 while he was Vice President). So I can't say if any of them respected me or not (or even knew I existed). There have been times I answered such questions, but it is rare. and normally as an example only.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

Ikari said:
Ahh, trust you or we're crazy huh? That's it? You're entire "I hate civilians and people who speak their minds and if they don't do what I say then I'm going to ignore them" crap argument is nothing more than a crap argument based on some ultimate irrational conclusion that if people don't believe as you that they're crazy.

Very interesting.

I notice you once again use quotes, implying that was something I actually said. It is not even close to what I said, you are not saying it is a paraphrase, and by the use of quotes you are basically lying.

Sorry, but I am pretty much flushing this entire conversation. This is exactly the type of partaisan political attacks that I can't stand. It is decietfull and arrogant, trying to tell others what I say and think when you are not even close.

APACHERAT · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
And this is the type of question I generally do not respond to. Because it gets to political and I really do not care much for politics.

Of the 5 mentioned, I only actually saw 2 of them (1 while he was Vice President). So I can't say if any of them respected me or not (or even knew I existed). There have been times I answered such questions, but it is rare. and normally as an example only.

Lets put it this way. under which Cn'C's did you experience the most respect from the civilian population ? That should be an easy one.

It was in the post Vietnam war era during the mid and late 70's that those serving in the military had little respect from the civilian population. During the Clinton administration there was some disrespect from the civilian population towards those serving in the military but they were a minority since most civilians still respected those who were willing to wear the uniform and stand post. But as we see today, under the current administration, there are more civilians who no longer respect those serving and are following Barack Obama's dislike for the military by approving huge military cuts and downsizing and destroying our nations military culture and customs and wanting the military to be used for social engineering experimentation.

It seems if the Cn'C doesn't respect the military and those who serve, there are those in the civilian population who follow the standing Cn'C example.

BTW: You are aware that the Debate Politics is a political forum ?

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

APACHERAT said:
Lets put it this way. under which Cn'C's did you experience the most respect from the civilian population ? That should be an easy one.

BTW: You are aware that the Debate Politics is a political forum ?

Well, for the first, idiots are idiots. I had probably as many idiots that were rude and antagonistic under President Reagan as I did under the current President. The Far-Right/Left toolbags will be Far-Right/Left toolbags, no matter who is in office at the time. I simply seperate them off as toolbags, and do not blame the Chief Executive for their actions (to be honest, I probably had the most under the Bush Junior administration, because a great many developed a real "in your face" attitude).

Right now actually, a lot of the Far-Left toolbags have toned down their nonsense, because they tend to feel that "they are in charge". But you still got pockets (like near where I live, Baghdad by the Bay) where they are always toolbags.

As for the left, I do sometimes get involved here politically. But it also depends on the topic. The main aim was for those that inject politics into everything. Where every single thread demands that they push in their political bias and nonsense, even if it is a simple question like "Which destroyer is better", or "Who would win a battle in XXXYYY". When you get questions like this and people throw in political nonsense, it is just insane to me.

Ikari · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
Very interesting.

I notice you once again use quotes, implying that was something I actually said. It is not even close to what I said, you are not saying it is a paraphrase, and by the use of quotes you are basically lying.

Sorry, but I am pretty much flushing this entire conversation. This is exactly the type of partaisan political attacks that I can't stand. It is decietfull and arrogant, trying to tell others what I say and think when you are not even close.

OK, your hysterics have been noted. We understand, you hate civilians because they voice their opinions and those opinions are not yours. Fine. But to think that we have to agree with you or you're going to claim we need "help for paranoia" (and that you did say) is intellectually dishonest drivel devoid of anything remotely worthwhile. Grow a pair and grow up, and maybe then you can debate like a big boy. But if all you're going to do is claim you hate civilians and they have to respect whom you tell them to respect or their arguments are ignored or whatever other deflectionary tactics you use so that you do not have consider opposing views; then you should understand that your arguments are weak, pathetic, and stupid.

And dollars to donuts, all you can do is deflect. But prove me wrong if you have what it takes to do so.

APACHERAT · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
even if it is a simple question like "Which destroyer is better",

There's no argument when it comes to which destroyer was better. The Gearing class destroyers were the most successful destroyers to ever go to sea with the Summner and Fletcher class a close second. And all three were politically incorrect destroyers because they all had urinals on the weather deck.

Couldn't help it, I had to insert politics in to it.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

Ikari said:
OK, your hysterics have been noted.

It's hysterics because you falsify quotes by me?

No, it is calling you out for being dishonest and insisting that you stop trying to put words into my mouth that I did not say.

I guess I should just sit back and let you lie freely then, right?

Ikari · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
It's hysterics because you falsify quotes by me?

I did not falsely quote you in that post. Quit deflecting.

Oozlefinch said:
No, it is calling you out for being dishonest and insisting that you stop trying to put words into my mouth that I did not say.

What in that post was falsely quoted, put up or quit deflecting.

Oozlefinch said:
I guess I should just sit back and let you lie freely then, right?

What in that post was a lie. Put up or quit deflecting.

You bitched, I listened. I put quotes on only 1 thing in that post. So is this it? That's all you got? Nothing more than this deflection? Pretty much exactly as I said was all you could produce? Thought so.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

Ikari said:
I did not falsely quote you in that post. Quit deflecting.

What in that post was falsely quoted, put up or quit deflecting.

What in that post was a lie. Put up or quit deflecting.

You bitched, I listened. I put quotes on only 1 thing in that post. So is this it? That's all you got? Nothing more than this deflection? Pretty much exactly as I said was all you could produce? Thought so.

Ikari said:
Oh and the "I hold civilians in contempt and they better not bad mouth the stuff I think is important or hold in reverence because then there will be hell to pay" blah blah blah is nothing more than weak, rhetorical nonsense.

Ikari said:
"I hate civilians and people who speak their minds and if they don't do what I say then I'm going to ignore them"

You asked for it. When you put something in quotes, you are saying that is what I said. And when you repeatedly do that saying I said something that is not even remotely close, that is dishonest.

I guess you are not used to people calling you on that though. And it was not once, you have done it several times.

If you want to talk about soemthing I said, fine. If you want to talk about your bastardized interpretation of what you think I said, then come back when you want to have a real conversation.

Ikari · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
You asked for it. When you put something in quotes, you are saying that is what I said. And when you repeatedly do that saying I said something that is not even remotely close, that is dishonest.

I guess you are not used to people calling you on that though. And it was not once, you have done it several times.

If you want to talk about soemthing I said, fine. If you want to talk about your bastardized interpretation of what you think I said, then come back when you want to have a real conversation.

Can you not read? I said I heard you bitch and I listened. Meaning that I changed the style I was debating with.

SO this is nothing more than deflection. I asked in the last post you quoted what was wrong, what was a lie, and you couldn't produce it. You had to go back to earlier posts and take sarcastic posts as your truth. Fail. "In that post", "In that post" Is it that hard to read and comprehend the English language these days?

You ran your mouth, you ran it hard. What in the post where you said "t's hysterics because you falsify quotes by me?

No, it is calling you out for being dishonest and insisting that you stop trying to put words into my mouth that I did not say.

I guess I should just sit back and let you lie freely then, right?"

In which you quoted this post "OK, your hysterics have been noted. We understand, you hate civilians because they voice their opinions and those opinions are not yours. Fine. But to think that we have to agree with you or you're going to claim we need "help for paranoia" (and that you did say) is intellectually dishonest drivel devoid of anything remotely worthwhile. Grow a pair and grow up, and maybe then you can debate like a big boy. But if all you're going to do is claim you hate civilians and they have to respect whom you tell them to respect or their arguments are ignored or whatever other deflectionary tactics you use so that you do not have consider opposing views; then you should understand that your arguments are weak, pathetic, and stupid.

And dollars to donuts, all you can do is deflect. But prove me wrong if you have what it takes to do so."

So what in there was misquoted? I even specifically referenced this post when I said that I only quoted on thing in it; but apparently you were too busy making deflection arguments to read and understand.

So prove me wrong. Come on. What in that post is misquoted? I heard you bitching, I listened. Which seems to be a might bit more than you're capable of.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

Ikari said:
Can you not read? I said I heard you bitch and I listened. Meaning that I changed the style I was debating with.

OK, you are offended. Got ya. You win, I should not hold people in contempt that hold me in contempt. You are right in everything you say, and I got no right to say anything.

*shakes head and mumbles as he walks away*

Ikari · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
OK, you are offended. Got ya. You win, I should not hold people in contempt that hold me in contempt. You are right in everything you say, and I got no right to say anything.

*shakes head and mumbles as he walks away*

I am right, the sooner you figure that out the better. But that doesn't excuse the promotion of Ginger suicide.

KevinKohler · Feb 26, 2013

Well.

You're like a bartender that hates drunk people.

You should look for a new job, yeah?

APACHERAT · Feb 26, 2013

Oozlefinch said:
You asked for it. When you put something in quotes, you are saying that is what I said. And when you repeatedly do that saying I said something that is not even remotely close, that is dishonest.

I guess you are not used to people calling you on that though. And it was not once, you have done it several times.

If you want to talk about something I said, fine. If you want to talk about your bastardized interpretation of what you think I said, then come back when you want to have a real conversation.

I've seen a lot of that on the DP where forum members accuse someone of saying something they never said.

The best ones are is when someone accuses you saying something that you never said and then turn around and support your actual words or opinion as they weren't your own but theirs.

That's when you have to call them on it and demand they provide a copy and paste of what you never said.

Oozlefinch · Feb 26, 2013

APACHERAT said:
That's when you have to call them on it and demand they provide a copy and paste of what you never said.

Well, I provided his exact quote of what he claims I said. And he is more then welcome to go back and point out where I said that. But never has, just more word games and saying that is what I said, when I never said that.

This is the type of political circle games I absolutely detest. Be honest. If you are going to quote somebody, quote them, don't just give your interpretation of what you think they said, and put that in quotes. Especially in this instance when it is so completely wrong and nothing even close to what I said.

It all goes right back to the contempt, and respect. When I quote somebody, I make it clear that is a quote, and give it exactly as said. I do not paraphrase it into my own words what I think (or want) them to say. That is dishonest, and basically lying.

But to a lot of people, apparently this is perfectly acceptable behavior. They twist somebodies words around and then use those words to demonize them. I however refuse to play those games. Quote me as I say something, accurately and within context or be gone with you.. Because I give the exact same consideration in return.

And to go slightly political here, I most often see that kind of behavior in those that are on the left side of the political spectrum, or on the extremes on both sides. Especially from those that call themselves "Progressives". Then it is almost always about their interpretation and beliefs, and very little about facts and reality.

"Oh, what you said made me feel like this, so that is how I am going to respond to you as."