Posted on Jun 23, 2016
Have you ever seen a post on RP by an AD officer or senior enlisted that was prejudicial to good order and discipline- what did you do ?
1.35K
26
25
1
1
0
Posted in these groups: 
RallyPoint
RallyPoint
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
4
4
0
I got into a VERY heated discussion with an Army Major on here about his religious views. He was very adamant, over the course of several posts, that only his particular religious views were correct and called all others "agents of satan". I was professional, when I called his decision making ability in to question, based on the unsettling tone and careless delivery
The thread continued for a few days, and I was never out of line or directly disrespectful. The discussion was civil for the most part, a point/counterpoint... and then he threatened me with an article 89, to which I responded that his very open bigotry and unprofessional conduct was in violation of Article 133. He never responded in the thread.
The thread continued for a few days, and I was never out of line or directly disrespectful. The discussion was civil for the most part, a point/counterpoint... and then he threatened me with an article 89, to which I responded that his very open bigotry and unprofessional conduct was in violation of Article 133. He never responded in the thread.
(4)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
the very kind of thing I am asking the question for - I shudder to think that someone like that might be sitting in judgement on an Art 15 or a summary court - and if that person is of a different faith - an 'agent of satan' - jeeze.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
We know who he is, and he has bullied others in the same manner. I mentioned to him that some of his posts would come back to bite him in the backside if any of his subordinates ever filed a grievance against him. At least one of those posts disappeared without fanfare. It's a poor excuse for a leader who has to threaten subordinate-ranking personnel when his bigotry is challenged.
(2)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
MSgt Lowell Skelton - I think several of us have had 'pleasant' encounters with this individual. I am at the point where there are a couple of folks making comments who are in command positions that seriously make me wonder about their judgement.
What you post on social media is a reflection of yourself and sometimes folks on social media will post things that they truly think and believe, but would not utter in a face-to-face situation or in a professional setting, but they believe it and are influenced by their beliefs.
Posting on social media does not exempt your words from scrutiny nor is it an excuse - we all have seen examples both in the civilian and military world where social media posts have led to 'career defining' moments.
What you post on social media is a reflection of yourself and sometimes folks on social media will post things that they truly think and believe, but would not utter in a face-to-face situation or in a professional setting, but they believe it and are influenced by their beliefs.
Posting on social media does not exempt your words from scrutiny nor is it an excuse - we all have seen examples both in the civilian and military world where social media posts have led to 'career defining' moments.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
RP is a social network that provides humorous relief; good gouge sharing; real life vignettes (aka, Sea Stories); and social bonding among the Band of Brothers and Sisters.
RP is not an official DoD site nor is it construed to be one. It is hard to imagine how anything posted here is contrary to the good order and discipline of the operational military.
RP is what the Club System used to be.
RP is not an official DoD site nor is it construed to be one. It is hard to imagine how anything posted here is contrary to the good order and discipline of the operational military.
RP is what the Club System used to be.
(2)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
Your standard is dangerous. "one should be held accountable for statements that indicate a belief or attitude that is harmful to others". What is harmful? Does it hurt their feelings or do them real harm. Are words equal to action? We are allowed to have different beliefs even if those beliefs do not always align. You want everyone to think the same way you do. That will never happen.
Christians and muslims disagree on the basic tenants of who God is, what his attributes are etc. Them disagreeing with each other isn't racism or some other ism. It is a simple world religion view.
I would suggest not turning RP into a tattle tell club or it will have a chilling effect on free speech here. Not all speech is comfortable. At least that is what the left always says.
Christians and muslims disagree on the basic tenants of who God is, what his attributes are etc. Them disagreeing with each other isn't racism or some other ism. It is a simple world religion view.
I would suggest not turning RP into a tattle tell club or it will have a chilling effect on free speech here. Not all speech is comfortable. At least that is what the left always says.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Cpl Jeff N. - No it's not dangerous - it's common sense - it's fairly easy to weed out the stuff that you don't need to bother with. But if you see someone with command authority who makes a post like "Most blacks are criminal, it's in their genes" or "All gays are perverts, it's disgusting and not wanted in the military' ....and other similar statements -....or would you simply ignore a person on FB who posts anti-gay or anti-muslim rants, then poses with weapons and states 'going to fix the problem' - you'd ignore that?
(1)
(0)
Col Jim Harmon
GySgt Carl Rumbolo - We must have frequented some very different clubs in our youth. The ones I attended were places where mentoring and comradery were practiced with extreme prejudice.
Both officers and enlisted went to the clubs and had the opportunity to speak directly with more senior personnel in a social environment. The clubs afforded junior personnel the ability to use their superiors as sounding boards, educators, and mentors where hard lessons were learned, and avoided, through guidance. And to approach their superiors with concerns in a social setting, that might not be so easy back in the barracks. The club system was separated by design so that each group could speak freely among their peers. Lance Corporals and Colonels have very different concerns (trust me I’ve been both). But the use of Bosses Nights and Open Nights allowed for sharing across the ranks.
I spent many a night in the E-Club, the Staff Club, and O-Club both learning and teaching. The quickest way to find out what was going right, what was going wrong, and to check the pulse of the unit was to sit in the club and listen, talk, and share in the comradery.
The death of the Club system was a mistake. A sacrifice on the altar of Political Correctness that diminished a valuable aspect of martial life.
As to being held accountable for what people say on social media. I agree to a limit. Caution needs to be exercised here. The First Amendment gives the freedom of speech to everyone. Even idiots, malcontents, and the malicious. We may find what they say offensive, but when we begin to limit what they can say we are starting down a very dangerous road. There are obvious exemptions to this freedom, where people are espousing violence and making threats. But in general, it is better to let them speak publicly and self-identify themselves for inclusion in the twit of the year competition than to restrict a prime right to free speech.
Both officers and enlisted went to the clubs and had the opportunity to speak directly with more senior personnel in a social environment. The clubs afforded junior personnel the ability to use their superiors as sounding boards, educators, and mentors where hard lessons were learned, and avoided, through guidance. And to approach their superiors with concerns in a social setting, that might not be so easy back in the barracks. The club system was separated by design so that each group could speak freely among their peers. Lance Corporals and Colonels have very different concerns (trust me I’ve been both). But the use of Bosses Nights and Open Nights allowed for sharing across the ranks.
I spent many a night in the E-Club, the Staff Club, and O-Club both learning and teaching. The quickest way to find out what was going right, what was going wrong, and to check the pulse of the unit was to sit in the club and listen, talk, and share in the comradery.
The death of the Club system was a mistake. A sacrifice on the altar of Political Correctness that diminished a valuable aspect of martial life.
As to being held accountable for what people say on social media. I agree to a limit. Caution needs to be exercised here. The First Amendment gives the freedom of speech to everyone. Even idiots, malcontents, and the malicious. We may find what they say offensive, but when we begin to limit what they can say we are starting down a very dangerous road. There are obvious exemptions to this freedom, where people are espousing violence and making threats. But in general, it is better to let them speak publicly and self-identify themselves for inclusion in the twit of the year competition than to restrict a prime right to free speech.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
Col Jim Harmon - Yep....we didn't socialize different clubs - we have a different view of the matter. I saw too many incidents of outright sexual misconduct and bigotry that folks tried to pass off as 'just guys blowing off steam in the club' - or 'just a few too many beers' - I suppose it's how you look at it - but I was around when the Navy had it's 'Top Gun' moment of fame - and that was just 'boys being boys".
With all due respect sir, the idea that spouting off bigotry in the 'club' is just comradery is excusing it. Now I don't personally know you and how you handled that - the rare ones I saw where those who took swift corrective action against that kind of behavior - but far too many blew it off as just 'club talk'.
My point with this post was to point out a dangerous tendency to ignore what people say on social media as just 'talk'. Sometimes it is just 'talk', and other times it's a person letting their true beliefs show, with the false idea that social media is some sort of exempt 'free fire zone'.
When I see field grade officer or a senior enlisted advisor make comments to the extend that their personal christian beliefs would weigh in judging a gay service member or that their beliefs around women in the service (at this point history especially) would impact promotion recommendations or service school recommendations - then there is reasonable cause for concern.
You may disagree - that is fine, no harm there - it's a personal opinion and we both served for the same thing - to preserve that.
Semper Fi
With all due respect sir, the idea that spouting off bigotry in the 'club' is just comradery is excusing it. Now I don't personally know you and how you handled that - the rare ones I saw where those who took swift corrective action against that kind of behavior - but far too many blew it off as just 'club talk'.
My point with this post was to point out a dangerous tendency to ignore what people say on social media as just 'talk'. Sometimes it is just 'talk', and other times it's a person letting their true beliefs show, with the false idea that social media is some sort of exempt 'free fire zone'.
When I see field grade officer or a senior enlisted advisor make comments to the extend that their personal christian beliefs would weigh in judging a gay service member or that their beliefs around women in the service (at this point history especially) would impact promotion recommendations or service school recommendations - then there is reasonable cause for concern.
You may disagree - that is fine, no harm there - it's a personal opinion and we both served for the same thing - to preserve that.
Semper Fi
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Some additional points - I am not talking about political commentary or other protected speech. I am talking about comments or statements that are discriminatory or may constitute illegal acts committed or supported by the person, or statements that indicate they would not be a fair and impartial judge while administering military discipline.
(2)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
All these statements were made on just ONE RallyPoint topic by an active duty officer:
"Frankly, I don't believe character is possible in an atheist context, but that is based on my belief on where morals and character come from."
"I don't personally believe character and atheism can coexist, anyway."
"... but I can't separate character from God, so I can't acknowledge it without God."
"People feel insulted when it is even suggested they can't get morality from somewhere other than God or that a horrible fate awaits them."
"I will conclude by saying it is inappropriate to even publicly wonder how I treat Soldiers in the context of this discussion."
"An atheist should be able to say "so help me God" with less angst than a believer, because it actually means something to the latter. This is a made up controversy with no victims by people who revel in victimhood."
"So, when I say morality is not compatible with atheism, it is not an insult, as I am no better a person than an atheist, but a statement of the truth that morality comes from God."
"You are not allowed to infer things from what I say."
"there is nothing more depressing than a atheist who has stopped asking questions, no longer caring about purpose (which is all of them)"
Here's the kicker:
"You cannot possibly hold yourself to a higher standard than God."
YES, I can. I do not commit genocide, nor do I have any desire to.
"Frankly, I don't believe character is possible in an atheist context, but that is based on my belief on where morals and character come from."
"I don't personally believe character and atheism can coexist, anyway."
"... but I can't separate character from God, so I can't acknowledge it without God."
"People feel insulted when it is even suggested they can't get morality from somewhere other than God or that a horrible fate awaits them."
"I will conclude by saying it is inappropriate to even publicly wonder how I treat Soldiers in the context of this discussion."
"An atheist should be able to say "so help me God" with less angst than a believer, because it actually means something to the latter. This is a made up controversy with no victims by people who revel in victimhood."
"So, when I say morality is not compatible with atheism, it is not an insult, as I am no better a person than an atheist, but a statement of the truth that morality comes from God."
"You are not allowed to infer things from what I say."
"there is nothing more depressing than a atheist who has stopped asking questions, no longer caring about purpose (which is all of them)"
Here's the kicker:
"You cannot possibly hold yourself to a higher standard than God."
YES, I can. I do not commit genocide, nor do I have any desire to.
(0)
(0)
GySgt Carl Rumbolo
smh - The response to that kind of 'reasoning' is a straight-forward question: "Please demonstrate that your god actually exists, with proofs that can be verified by testable means and observation"
That question will result in outrage, condemnations and eventually a refusal to talk - a reference to a book purporting to the "Word of God" because the book says it is the word of god is a non-testable proof and therefore disqualified, the fact that people belief something is not proof - people believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth too. Didn't make it true.
That question will result in outrage, condemnations and eventually a refusal to talk - a reference to a book purporting to the "Word of God" because the book says it is the word of god is a non-testable proof and therefore disqualified, the fact that people belief something is not proof - people believed the world was flat and the sun circled the earth too. Didn't make it true.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Lowell Skelton
Funny that those I challenge in that manner either go on the attack, or fall completely silent.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google