Comments have been disabled
Responses: 23
SFC Mark Merino
I was FORCED to read a book by a professor at APSU called "The Spitting Image." He said it was about how Vietnam veterans over-reacted to the incidents of coming home and that very few people were spit upon....................(long moment of silence as I looked at him)....................."F!@#...... that......S!@#!!!!" was my response and I went to the registrar and withdrew from the class. I didn't lead any protest, but my opinion was LOUDLY heard. I just saw this movie yesterday for the first time with my little Hitomi. It wasn't anti-muslim. If anything it drives home the fact that war sucks, but there IS evil out in the world that needs to be defeated.
1px xxx
Suspended Profile
>1 y
Thank you for responding SFC Merino. I too feel that this is not "anti" anything, other than the hell of war, the decision one must make, and the reality of those decisions.

Perhaps the young, college mind involved in this "exercise in self discovery" is only that...an inexperienced, young mind. I am a fairly objective person, but this topic, and MANY like it, have challenged me greatly in the last year or so.
MSgt Robert Pellam
SSgt Ez Taylor
I understand what you mean by saying "Not have a "passionate" response"

This gnaws at the very basic understand of freedom that we hold dear to this country. First time I read the article I was like "Are you F*&^ serious!" But then I stopped.

This planet has billions of people out there with billions of opinions. I believe Social media allows many opinions to come to the fore front that honestly would never be heard of 10 years ago.

So I asked myself Why is this young woman saying these things.
First I will never EVER say I understand women. Nothing against Women I am just dense that way.

Second. Was she doing this because she felt that way or was there an ulterior motive.
I am going with the later, because if it was just for herself, there would have been no letter, no public outcry. She seems to have an agenda.

Third, what is her agenda. Well since it said she was head or part of the campus Muslim group I think it was either based on Jealousy or fame. She did not like the fact that a movie was being shown that didn't include her group in a good light so no one is going to watch it. (If we don't play by my rules I am taking the ball and going home syndrome) Or She wanted to get her name out there, and what better way then cry wolf on a popular controversial topic.

It seems popular of late, like in the last few years, that if you want your 15 minutes of fame, you just cry over a popular controversial topic. And the media, sensing your political correctness has been threatened, will come running to your rescue to blow this issue completely out of proportion. YAY Media.

Both political sides use this technique to get noticed all the time. I do what they don't want me to do, what this young girl doesn't want me to do. I just don't care.

If no one cares then it no longer becomes a issue. The school will handle it, like they have, without a fuss or muss. And life will go on.

I know how hard it is not to say something, I know you want to smack some common sense into people that do this. And I know how hard it is to not care because they hit you right in your morals and virtues. But that is what they want. They want you nice and upset so they can point at you and say "see my point is right look at the $$$%$ come out now!"

Now how to actually make a point against her, or let your voice be heard without playing into their hands. Simple. make a logical argument set with facts, and keep it neutral and positive. Never belittle, nor put down the other person. Make sure your emotions are down (Hardest part). And keep the response simple, straight forward and to the point. And then send it and forget it.

They will try and come back to bait you but you have to keep moving on. Its over, the people making the decisions know your feelings. They have an accurate, fact hard response from you that will press against their rationality. And if these people who are making the decisions Rational, then they will always take facts over emotions. Not always, but most of the time. And that is what you can do.

Sorry this is so long. I hope it helps. And if you don't like it you can tell me to go sit in a corner and I will be happy to. Have a great night/day and keep asking questions, and never stop learning.
MSgt Robert Pellam
MSgt Robert Pellam
>1 y
SSgt Ez Taylor

I do agree with you on the Kit gloves bit. I get tired of people screaming (offended) and watch everyone go into react mode.

Growing up I was always told, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease."
So when do we get tired and just remove the squeaky wheel and put a good one on?
CW3 Guy Snodgrass
CW3 Guy Snodgrass
>1 y
Something to think about. I teach classes primarily to folks who are interested in dealing with emergencies (natural or human-influenced disasters). One of the classes I include is a class in dealing with change. In this class I talk about staying balanced (what I call "the core of calm (R)). When we allow ourselves to become imbalanced, we cease to think/act "rationally". We fall back to our baser instincts of "fight, flight, or freeze". However, if we remain "balanced" we are able to use our prefrontal cortex which is the part of our brain that guides "higher reasoning".
When we become "emotional" or allow our emotions to overrule our thinking we fall back to our "base instincts". Folks like this gal are trying to "push our buttons" to add the emotional aspect to a situation so that we will not think rationally. This leads others to react with emotion which may cause us to take the very actions these types of folks want us to. We say or do something that will add fuel to the fire, instead of putting the fire out.
I'm not trying to say this is easy to do, but if we can remain balanced, even when (or especially with) people who are trying to "push a cause", then we can think rationally and react appropriately. Instead of reacting emotionally and continue to fan the flames and make something rather insignificant into something worse. Just a thought.
SSG Robert Perrotto
SSG Robert Perrotto
>1 y
CW3 Guy Snodgrass - problem is - that when you DO present facts and have a sound rational counter arguement - they take bullet points straight from Alinsky - make it emotional, discredit the person, not the arguement, and use labels, make it polarized, make it us vs them, and move the goalposts. How people do not see that this type of behavior along with the gun control crowd, are being manipiulated, not only by the media - both social and tradional, but by those that want our freedoms curtailed to the point that we become afraid to speak for fear of social ostracization.
CW3 Guy Snodgrass
CW3 Guy Snodgrass
>1 y
I agree, the whole deal is ridiculous. Personally, I don't see things changing much any time soon. But I do feel if we can keep the emotions out of the situation it can be contained more effectively. Your example of the "gun control crowd" is perfect. Those folks are being manipulated by their emotions. Which is exactly what those who want are guns want to happen. If "rational" thought was applied to the purpose the removing of our guns achieves, a "rational person" should be able to understand that no good can come from disarming the "honest citizen".
MAJ Contracting Officer
"Don't like it, Don't watch it" works for me. I wonder if this person's "unsafe" feeling comes from know that there are those who follow her belief system who are willing to murder innocent people to further their version of their beliefs. Several scenes from the moving come to mind and I can only be thankful that Kris Kyle was present to protect the lives of those who would have died but for his well-placed shot. Personally, I think her "feeling" is unjustified.

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close