2-Month Suspension

[JeffDG]

Sorry, you're playing semantics games, trying to convince everyone that black is white and red is green.  Please, in the interest of safety, avoid crosswalks for a while?

No, you're cutting a line completely out of context and ignoring the clear definition of the term in question.

For reference, here's the post, with the context that you, intentionally, ignored:

Pet Peeve...

Saying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.  We all discriminate all the time.  Go to Burger King instead of McD's...you're discriminating.  Every single time you make a choice or decision, you're discriminating.  Don't believe me, pick up that dictionary that's gathering dust nearby and read the definition of the word...

There are specific grounds of discrimination that we, as a society, have determined are not appropriate to use.  For example, if I'm hiring someone to design a bridge, I'm entirely free to discriminate against those who have not received a degree in civil engineering.  I'm not, however, allowed to exclude Catholics just because I don't like the Pope.  If I'm renting an apartment, I can discriminate against you if you have no visible means of financial support and I don't think you can pay, but cannot discriminate against you because you're Chinese.

Oh, and the advice to actually pick up the dictionary still stands.

[bflynn]

Oh, and the advice to actually pick up the dictionary still stands.

Noted.  Advice swapped.  I'll pick up the dictionary if you avoid the crosswalks.

[bflynn]

You know, I tried to avoid this, but since you're insisting, let's play that game.

Pet Peeve...

Saying the word "discrimination" like it's a bad thing.  We all discriminate all the time.  Go to Burger King instead of McD's...you're discriminating.  Every single time you make a choice or decision, you're discriminating.  Don't believe me, pick up that dictionary that's gathering dust nearby and read the definition of the word...

dis·crim·i·na·tion   /dɪˌskrɪməˈneɪʃən/ Show Spelled[dih-skrim-uh-ney-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. an act or instance of discriminating.
2. treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
3. the power of making fine distinctions; discriminating judgment: She chose the colors with great discrimination.
4. Archaic . something that serves to differentiate.

So, when we go to Burger King, we practice discrimination.  Hmmm, do we practice the art of instance of discriminating?  Perhaps, this is a candidate.

Are we making a distinct in favor of or against a person based on the group, class or catgory to which it belongs rather than the actual merits?  No, food at Burget King pretty much has no merit.  The "hambuger" is almost certainly pink slime and they messed the french fries up years ago and still haven't fixed them.

Are we making fine distinctions?  That the hamburger would go well with a 2011 Coke, but the 2012 is still too young?  No, we're not.

Which means that if we practice discrimination, we must be discriminating.

dis·crim·i·nate   /v. dɪˈskrɪməˌneɪt; adj. dɪˈskrɪmənɪt/ Show Spelled [v. dih-skrim-uh-neyt; adj. dih-skrim-uh-nit] Show IPA verb, -nat·ed, -nat·ing,  adjective
verb (used without object)
1. to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality: The new law discriminates against foreigners. He discriminates in favor of his relatives.
2. to note or observe a difference; distinguish accurately: to discriminate between things.

Definition 1 is the verb side of a definition we rejected above - we are not making a choice to eat Burger King because we favor hamburgers over chicken.  If we were, we'd have to also consider McDonalds, Sonic, Five Guys or our own backyard grill (I choose the grill).

Are we accurately noting or observing a difference between things?  No, I don't think so, we're expresessing preference.  You eat at Burget King because that's what you like.  You are discriminating between things by making a choice.

Neither are you disciminating between things when you choose between two candiates.

But regardless, that isn't the definition that I was using in the original context and I think that if you're honest with yourself, you'll know that.  If you're not honest...hey, you have to live with yourself, it's your call.

There are specific grounds of discrimination that we, as a society, have determined are not appropriate to use.  For example, if I'm hiring someone to design a bridge, I'm entirely free to discriminate against those who have not received a degree in civil engineering.  I'm not, however, allowed to exclude Catholics just because I don't like the Pope.  If I'm renting an apartment, I can discriminate against you if you have no visible means of financial support and I don't think you can pay, but cannot discriminate against you because you're Chinese.

Actually, you are free to choose whoever you want for any reason you want.  You're a private individual, you are not bound by title VI, title VII or any other part of the CRA.

[lordmonar]

When talking about the common term "discrimination" and the way it is used in EEOC terms....there is legal and illegal discrimanation.

By our regulations we CANNOT discriminate base on race, sex, ethnics, etc.......but we are free to discriminate based on age, rank, ,membership status, safety compliance status, training, skills, availabilty, likebility, abiliites, et al.

As leaders we need to avoid favortism....that is discriminating bases solely on likeablity as opposed to abilities, training, skills ect.

But we do discriminate.

So long as we are not do so because of one of the "EEOC" reasons (race, color, sexs, etc) then we just need to avoid the favortism trap.

[abdsp51]

Someone here hit the nail on the head though I believe with this being a personality conflict.

[The CyBorg is destroyed]

Someone here hit the nail on the head though I believe with this being a personality conflict.

I described it as such, though I don't think I was the only one.

Personality conflicts are rarely solvable without a commitment from both parties.

Sometimes a situation has no "good" outcome.

In that case, I think of Kenny Rogers' advice in "The Gambler:"

You gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and know when to run.

[bflynn]

In that case, I think of Kenny Rogers' advice in "The Gambler:"

You gotta know when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and know when to run.

It's sad that the answer to so many problem in CAP are "the member quits"...

[Eclipse]

It's sad that the answer to so many problem in CAP are "the member quits"...

CAP is not for everyone, sometimes the only way to "win" is not to play.

[bflynn]

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it less sad.

In one way it's selfish.  If my airplane ever puts me in a position where I'm stuck and my elt is my only chance of getting out of it, I'd like it a lot better to be rescued by an organization where all the member haven't quit;

[Eclipse]

It's not "sad" at all, it just "is".

You're no more likely to be found with an organization full of people who can't work and play well with others, either, and SAR is only a part of our total mission, which includes the ability to help shape our youth membership into productive citizens. 

CAP expects a pretty high level of performance and behavior from its members, far more than a lot of other volunteer organizations that people want to compare, but are, in fact, nothing like CAP.

Leaving because you don't fit in, or aren't enjoying your time spent, is just accepting reality - there's 100 other organizations that need help,
find one you're more suited to.

Life does not provide participation trophies, and we shouldn't either.

[Spaceman3750]

Perhaps, but that doesn't make it less sad.

In one way it's selfish.  If my airplane ever puts me in a position where I'm stuck and my elt is my only chance of getting out of it, I'd like it a lot better to be rescued by an organization where all the member haven't quit;

I'll take a ground team of 5 highly trained professionals than 10 nincompoops any day.

[lordmonar]

Yes it is sad that we all can't be adults and get over our differences and keep the mission (what ever it is) as our prime focus.

But push comes to shove.....If we can't resolve the differences then someone has got to go.

Sometimes that would be the member, sometimes that would be the leader.

Hence why the advice to go up to wing/group is still the best and only course of action.  Let them know what the problems are and let them fix it.

Bottom line.....if you can't work and play with in the organisation (no matter who you are or what position you hold) you need to move on.

Again as  a leader we tend to side with the other leaders of the organisation.....this is called loyalty.....unless we have clear proof that they leader is out of line.

That is why these sort of threads are so unsatisfying.  We usually only have one side of the story (and usually only second hand).  There is no way of objectively looking at the situation and finding out what the facts are.

So even if it comes down to a personality conflict........"I don't like you, you don't like me".......it all falls at the feet of the commander.

This situation reads to me as simply a new commander putting her foot down.  Saying "You will not go around me and usurp my authority."  So she used one of here tools to correct the situation.

That is the basic facts of the situation as I read them.

The member is free....and encouraged....to go up the chain of command for redress of greivances.

[FlyTiger77]

Life does not provide participation trophies, and we shouldn't either.

+1

[bflynn]

sometimes that would be the leader.

When is the last time that happened?

Life does not provide participation trophies, and we shouldn't either.

The CAP doesn't give participation trophies.  Pithy, but hardly relevent.

[AngelWings]

This has gotten ridiculously off topic.

[lordmonar]

sometimes that would be the leader.

When is the last time that happened?

There have been a lot of squadron/group/wing/region/national commanders removed.

Not to mention a lot of other staff officers and just plain members.

[Eclipse]

The CAP doesn't give participation trophies.  Pithy, but hardly relevent.

On target relevant, because there are many people, both within and outside, who would like to see CAP as an all-inclusive rec center, which little thought to how that would negatively effect our mission, and this idea that we should just let people "do what they will" with no ramifications is at the center of that.

A lot of people want to carry the card and wear the uniform, but not behave in the way that is required.

[abdsp51]

There have been AD AF leaders removed or whichever term you want to use from positions as well. 

[FW]

The CAP doesn't give participation trophies.  Pithy, but hardly relevent.

On target relevant, because there are many people, both within and outside, who would like to see CAP as an all-inclusive rec center, which little thought to how that would negatively effect our mission, and this idea that we should just let people "do what they will" with no ramifications is at the center of that.

A lot of people want to carry the card and wear the uniform, but not behave in the way that is required.

Well said.  Unfortunately for us, the time has come to "pay the piper" in regards to our disregard for our core values and ethics.  It's been reported the volunteers, in the form of the NB, have lost the right to elect the national leaders who, will appoint everyone else. 

Yes, there are accountablities to our actions.  We are now seeing the payback.  I just wonder how much we will be "paying" in the next few years...

[rustyjeeper]

This has gotten ridiculously off topic.

Maybe its time to introduce how we are all suffering ABU discrimination