Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nuclear1 on January 03, 2011, 01:29:08 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2LN9ZtsXxA
Washington (CNN) -- The Navy has opened an investigation into how a series of raunchy videos, full of sexual innuendo and anti-gay remarks, were produced and shown to the crew of the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise while on deployment supporting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Navy spokesman Cmdr. Chris Sims said the videos, which were shown to the crew in 2006 and 2007, are "inappropriate."
Excerpts from the videos and descriptions of their content were first published Saturday by The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk, Virginia.
The videos on the paper's website, reviewed by CNN, feature a man identified by two Navy officials and The Virginian-Pilot as Capt. Owen Honors, who at the time was the executive officer, or second-in-command, of the Enterprise. He recently took command of the carrier, winning one of the most coveted assignments in the U.S. Navy, which has only 11 aircraft carriers.
Honors is shown cursing along with other members of his staff in an attempt to demonstrate humor, according to videos. There are also anti-gay slurs, simulated sex acts, and what appear to be two female sailors in a shower together.
The investigation was ordered Friday by Adm. John Harvey, the four-star head of the Navy's Fleet Forces Command, after the videos were detailed in The Virginian-Pilot. The paper also posted a link to some of the material, but edited it so that expletives were censored and some identities of junior Navy crew were disguised.
The Navy issued a statement Saturday, saying in part "production of videos, like the ones produced four to five years ago on USS Enterprise and now being written about in the Virginian-Pilot, were not acceptable then and are still not acceptable in today's Navy. The Navy does not endorse or condone these kinds of actions."
The statement also said, "U.S. Fleet Forces Command has initiated an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the production of these videos; however, it would be inappropriate to comment any further on the specifics of the investigation."
But the Saturday statement was an about-face from the initial military statement to the newspaper. In that statement, the Navy said the videos were "not created with the intent to offend anyone. The videos were intended to be humorous skits focusing the crew's attention on specific issues such as port visits, traffic safety, water conservation, ship cleanliness, etc."
Disgusting son of a *****.
In addition, a previous commander of the USS Enterprise had this (http://picardfacepalm.com/picard-facepalm.jpg) to say...
-
:/
-
I'm not much interested in watching it but I assume he's not as talented or entertaining as the VAW-116 Sun Kings I take it.
-
I love the comments below that video :doubt:
-
In other news, a sailor swears like a sailor.
--
I'd be interested in seeing the actual footage, rather than the hackneyed / flame-bait / typical-pseudo-journalistic rubbish of an edit from that link, before I form a solid opinion.
-
Captain relieved of command while investigation is ongoing.
On one hand, I'm not entirely sure anything grossly wrong has been done here. You get the Playboy Channel on the carrier too. You stick several thousand people who are thirty or less in giant metal box on water and something like this is inevitable.
On the other hand, it should not involve the XO. Ever.
-
What the hell... They should throw him back into Annapolis and tell him to redo his Officer training again from square one.
I don't mind if the XO is a guy who likes being a clown, and you know what? I agree that this kind of stuff is going to happen on a carrier and to some extent I condone it. But I also agree with NGTM-1R, this is the ****ing. executive. officer.
If he likes being a clown? Fine, that's probably a pre-req on a Naval vessel. But for the sake of your commission and your integrity, don't do that **** on camera.
All these damn news people need to STFU and stop taking everything so damn seriously. I served on a Navy ship 30 years ago and we needed this kind of comic relief at times to boost morale in what is an otherwise very boring and stressful situation. Our XO was a nut at times, it was a part of his job. We are going to destroy ourselves if we try so hard to be politically correct ALL THE TIME.This video was not meant for prime time family viewing and should not be held to that standard.
This comment here on the video, I like, though. This isn't being appreciated in context. The poster's right, this wasn't meant for family viewing or anything remotely of the sort. The anti-gay slurs, though, are still in poor taste, in my opinion.
-
Frankly... with the phrases and snips being used on the news,... I m beginning to wonder how weak the actual story behind all the circus really is.
Not sure what is more disgusting... indecent behavior on a carrier or the way the news sensationalize it.
The actual material that was shown was indeed pretty weak.... most of the actual accusations were done verbally ... which leaves to wonder... can they do that to anyone who says 4 letter words on camera? Is that too much of a stretch?
-
I'd be interested in seeing the actual footage, rather than the hackneyed / flame-bait / typical-pseudo-journalistic rubbish of an edit from that link, before I form a solid opinion.
There are also...........simulated sex acts, and what appear to be two female sailors in a shower together.
Yeah, gotta make sure your opinion is firm. :p
-
if we have a little blackface to boost morale it's okay, people need to stop being so offendendableish
-
if we have a little blackface to boost morale it's okay, people need to stop being so offendendableish
I understand the point he's making but the snarky part of me wants to know...
What do you mean, You People?
(http://a.oscar.go.com/media/2009/images/nominees/nominations/TropicThunder_DowneyJr.R.jpg)
-
hey, man, why the ops gotta be black
-
raunchy material on a navy ship.
how is this news?
-
now that they've started letting gay men into the army, isn't it time they start letting some straight men into the navy?
with apologies to the originator
-
IN THE NAAAAAAAAVYYYYYYY!!!
-
It is rather hard to tell from the text whether this is as "big" as the newspaper makes it to be.
It appears to me that the Navy was forced to start an investigation mainly due to the news. Whether the results of this will be interpreted as "Don't do that" or, as in 99.9% of the cases "You can do that, but don't get caught while doing it" remains to be seen. While the guy is high ranking, I would wait for the results of the investigation. But it is true that the higher echelon officers usually tend to keep a lower profile, probably just to avoid stuff like this.
The commander might still be darn good at his job. I wouldn't like to know what US population said about a sort of carrier landing "simulator" they rigged next to a pool during Vietnam War in an Officer Club had it been disclosed to general public back then. The story namely goes that rather high level officers tried it... and failed.
-
To my mind, it's just sailors being...sailors. You go to any branch of the armed forces and they will have nicknames and even stereotypes for ALL the other sub-sections they work with, you'd find the same thing in any military.
I'm not quite certain how calling someone gay is actually an anti-gay stance though? I don't like intolerance of homosexuality, as many of you already know, but simply turning round and saying referring to someone as 'Gay' in that manner isn't really 'offensive' more like 'stereotyping', they aren't saying that these people are 'bad' for being gay, simply saying they are all gay, how that's taken is really up to the reciever, not the pitcher.
I suppose I can see the concern about it, but yes, it does seem that this only really became an issue because it became news, I wonder if they asked the opinion of those on the ship itself who were actually the target of these comments?
-
I've got to say, I just watched this, and I am disgusted by the lack of integrity on the part of the individuals responsible for the creation of the material. I'm also disgusted by the media involved in hyping up the information released to suit their own purposes. "We're not going to demonstrate any of the inappropriate or simulated sex material from the video, but we are going to show you this clip that has what are believed to be two female sailors in the shower." (Quote not exact) I also love the part about the Enterprise, and how it's "special" because of its reactor. It's special because it's archaic and outdated in comparison to the newer Nimitz-class. The Enterprise loses a lot of useful volume in its hull due to that old, outdated and oversized system. And of course, raunchy as it might have been, none of the connotation for what, how, and why in that video is there. Typical CNN.
Joke videos and mock training videos happen. This is special, as it shows a lack of discipline on behalf of the XO, but at some level, I'm not surprised at its existance. Furthermore, I guarantee you they've done much, much worse things in other places of the military in this vane. Does that make it OK? No. But, this is out of proportion.
-
I love the comments below that video :doubt:
this captain is going to end up on FOXNEWS as a military pundit
:)
Anyway, the video just seems weird, strange. I don't get it. Then again, I haven't seen the full video.
-
I suppose you have to get into the Military attitude though, in many ways it's a different world. I think it needs to be held in mind that these are people who are responsible for keeping each other alive, if they genuinely felt anything beyond a kind of friendly 'clannish' rivalry between them, that wouldn't work. I'll agree that, if that Video were made while he was XO, he should not have got involved, but as for the actual content, it's all tongue in cheek not something I'd send home to my mother, but I think taking the opinions stated in there as factual is probably pushing the boat out a bit far.
-
tell THAT to the sacred band
-
Heh, the thing is, if in the UK, someone made a joke about Public Schoolboys and Homosexuality, for example, it'd all be taken in good humour, I mean the whole thing is such a gold mine for comedy (for example, seniors in the highest class schools are assigned Freshmen to teach them the ropes, these Freshmen are called 'fags'.. this is true.) it doesn't really state an opinion on the concept of homosexuality, it simply states that (until recently) an all-male environment where older students are assigned fags is a breeding ground for comedic imagery.
There's a reason that 'Hello Sailor' was a catchphrase for homosexuality for a long time, because it was similar all-male environment, all alone at sea for long periods of time, the Navy was victim of joke after joke about it. In many ways, it's kind of an indictator of how times have changed that now people are worrying about the exact opposite...
-
if we have a little blackface to boost morale it's okay, people need to stop being so offendendableish
For some reason, I don't see an XO onboard one of the most prestigious aircraft carriers making one of those videos while his ship is directly supporting the war effort where some of those "bleeding hearts" or "f*****s" might be fighting and dying for their country is a good morale builder.
Morale, bull****. It was straight up irresponsible. None of my squadron commanders or supervisors called members of our unit "f*****s" or bleeding hearts to imply that we would be offended. This officer's a disgrace to the uniform.
-
if we have a little blackface to boost morale it's okay, people need to stop being so offendendableish
For some reason, I don't see an XO onboard one of the most prestigious aircraft carriers making one of those videos while his ship is directly supporting the war effort where some of those "bleeding hearts" or "f*****s" might be fighting and dying for their country is a good morale builder.
Morale, bull****. It was straight up irresponsible.
i hope the humor in my statement was self-evident
'gay' is definitely an insult, it's not a description any more than 'that's so black' is
-
Anyone who's been in the military has seen in some shape or form those silly training videos (actual, official training videos, not the junk in question here). And those videos are lame, often 10 years old, and despite any point they make are mockable due to the manner in which they make their point. It's obvious here that the video above was made as a parody of those films. The problem here is the individuals who were making the production. Simultaneously, I can understand the circumstances which warrant their production, and I can lend some empathy in that regard. However, it still lacks integrity, and it's still not appropriate. I'll trust the Navy to sort it out - to Hell with CNN.
-
To Quote Carlin:
"There are no bad words, only bad thoughts"
-
tell THAT to the sacred band
Pyhrus would like a word with you.
-
tell THAT to the sacred band
Actually you could probably argue that a warship, a facility operated and administrated by teams of individuals often numbering less than 8-10 would be hampered in effectiveness if team members felt special loyalty to one member of the team that he/she didn't feel for the rest of the team, and such loyalty also hampers the decision making of these individuals when under pressure. Hell, there's a reason that some forces quietly prefer unmarried individuals.
The Sacred Band is a special case, in my opinion, since the unit was constructed basically entirely of lovers, rather than an environment closer to what might be on-board a vessel.
Anyone who's been in the military has seen in some shape or form those silly training videos (actual, official training videos, not the junk in question here). And those videos are lame, often 10 years old, and despite any point they make are mockable due to the manner in which they make their point. It's obvious here that the video above was made as a parody of those films. The problem here is the individuals who were making the production. Simultaneously, I can understand the circumstances which warrant their production, and I can lend some empathy in that regard. However, it still lacks integrity, and it's still not appropriate. I'll trust the Navy to sort it out - to Hell with CNN.
I agree, this also brings back memories of a few rather 'cringe-worthy' videos a bunch of us had to watch when I was a cadet that detailed firearm safety and another one about paying respects to Officers. It seems that the training material produced in the 80's is universally fashionable... :D
-
tell THAT to the sacred band
Actually you could probably argue that a warship, a facility operated and administrated by teams of individuals often numbering less than 8-10 would be hampered in effectiveness if team members felt special loyalty to one member of the team that he/she didn't feel for the rest of the team, and such loyalty also hampers the decision making of these individuals when under pressure. Hell, there's a reason that some forces quietly prefer unmarried individuals.
you could make this argument, but it applies right now, since the military at this moment - and for many decades - has contained pairs or groups of people busy ****ing each other. it seems to have gotten along fine.
-
Probably because they're not all doing it. :P But seriously, if you can give me an example within at least the last sixty years of a pair similar to the Sacred Band functioning effectively (in the sense that the two are in the same section or platoon sized unit, and are in combat), I may reconsider my viewpoint.
Whilst I don't doubt that people like pilots may get into relationships with each other (there was actually quite a nice read a while back about a couple, tanker driver and a fast-jet knuck, who met over Afghanistan, with the hubby tanking from the wife), I highly doubt that A) they survived for long if they were in the same squadron, the specific military legislation regarding that kind of stuff escapes me, and B) they're standing relationships in the same way that the romantic relationships between the blokes in the Sacred Band were. Again, if you can cite a specific example, I may reconsider my viewpoint.
-
you're missing the fundamental point this is about, which is the question of whether gays can operate openly in the military;
I suppose you have to get into the Military attitude though, in many ways it's a different world. I think it needs to be held in mind that these are people who are responsible for keeping each other alive, if they genuinely felt anything beyond a kind of friendly 'clannish' rivalry between them, that wouldn't work.
the notion that allowing gays in will somehow cause an eruption of inter-unit lust is absurd because mixed-sex units have functioned (admittedly with a lot of rape and pregnancy) and there's nothing to suggest that gay people lack the kind of self-control that hets have. they apparently can feel something beyond a kind of friendly clannish rivalry, namely the desire to **** each other's brains out, and still function, even - heavens to betsy - without indulging said desire
on that note
But seriously, if you can give me an example within at least the last sixty years of a pair similar to the Sacred Band functioning effectively (in the sense that the two are in the same section or platoon sized unit, and are in combat), I may reconsider my viewpoint.
i'm not sure what viewpoint is being reconsidered or what kind of example you need, the point here is that coupling has clearly happened in the military forever and yet they still function. even when the penalty was flogging or hanging (like in the british navy) you still got people doing it.
pick any given unit in any period of time and there's probably been some gay sex going on
-
you're missing the fundamental point this is about, which is the question of whether gays can operate openly in the military;
I must, because that wasn't going through my head at all. :P Reading back and finding Flipside's earlier post gives a world of context.
the notion that allowing gays in will somehow cause an eruption of inter-unit lust is absurd because mixed-sex units have functioned (admittedly with a lot of rape and pregnancy) and there's nothing to suggest that gay people lack the kind of self-control that hets have. they apparently can feel something beyond a kind of friendly clannish rivalry, namely the desire to **** each other's brains out, and still function, even - heavens to betsy - without indulging said desire
This, I agree with. I'm quite sure I supported this view not too long ago on a similar thread.
i'm not sure what viewpoint is being reconsidered or what kind of example you need, the point here is that coupling has clearly happened in the military forever and yet they still function. even when the penalty was flogging or hanging (like in the british navy) you still got people doing it.
pick any given unit in any period of time and there's probably been some gay sex going on
Fair enough, but I don't believe that it's actually conducive to the functioning of the unit. And I still don't condone relationships within a unit, and that's not a view I'm going to debate. :P
-
oh i agree, i don't think that ****ing unit members is productive either, not only because of the favoritism introduced but because it pisses off everyone else.
married couples may be a different matter, maybe. if long-term space crews ever get put together they will probably be married folk.
-
Yeah, I agree, that'd be a good way of doing it.
-
oh i agree, i don't think that ****ing unit members is productive either, not only because of the favoritism introduced but because it pisses off everyone else.
married couples may be a different matter, maybe. if long-term space crews ever get put together they will probably be married folk.
All ****ing should be resticted to intra-unit ****ing. Otherwise too many ****ers would have too much ****ing fun which may in turn **** the whole ****ing unit. :P
the notion that allowing gays in will somehow cause an eruption of inter-unit lust is absurd because mixed-sex units have functioned
To add to this, IIRC the "unit cohesion" arguments were used long ago to keep the military segragated.
EDIT: Yes it was (http://www.bookrags.com/research/race-and-the-military-aaw-04/)
The army was segregated and denied blacks substantive participation. Similar practices were followed in World War II; integration was considered disruptive to unit cohesion and fighting ability.
-
you're missing the fundamental point this is about, which is the question of whether gays can operate openly in the military;
I suppose you have to get into the Military attitude though, in many ways it's a different world. I think it needs to be held in mind that these are people who are responsible for keeping each other alive, if they genuinely felt anything beyond a kind of friendly 'clannish' rivalry between them, that wouldn't work.
the notion that allowing gays in will somehow cause an eruption of inter-unit lust is absurd because mixed-sex units have functioned (admittedly with a lot of rape and pregnancy) and there's nothing to suggest that gay people lack the kind of self-control that hets have. they apparently can feel something beyond a kind of friendly clannish rivalry, namely the desire to **** each other's brains out, and still function, even - heavens to betsy - without indulging said desire
Your actually misreading what I'm saying there, though I can understand why, what I am talking about is referring to the fact that these people might hurl 'playful' insults at each other based on stereotypes, that may even be bad practice, but what it isn't (or at least, what it wasn't intended to be) is the homophobia it seems to be made out as. It's nothing about their personal relationships as such, it's about the fact that just because as XO makes a comment like 'You Gay Flyboys', it doesn't mean he genuinely believes that statement nor particularly cares whether it's true or not.
As I said before, not suitable behaviour for an XO, but trying to remove those kinds of attitudes from the military would be very difficult indeed.
-
right, i don't necessarily disagree with that
-
Why is everyone getting so pissed off? If someone on board the carrier got pissed off at it, shouldn't it be their problem to go and talk to the CO personally, or file a report or something? If nobody had a problem with it on the boat, accept is as joking to build morale and leave it. Frankly, it isn't the paper's business to fight nonexistant battles.
Plus I might add, the only reason this is such a big deal right now is because people are up in arms over DADT, which is probably why the paper released it now.
-
Would you feel comfortable talking to an XO that said anyone with problems were "bleeding hearts" or "f*****s"?
-
I'd be interested in seeing the actual footage, rather than the hackneyed / flame-bait / typical-pseudo-journalistic rubbish of an edit from that link, before I form a solid opinion.
There are also...........simulated sex acts, and what appear to be two female sailors in a shower together.
Yeah, gotta make sure your opinion is firm. :p
I was referring to the... erm... the editing! :nervous: (I meant that I wanted to see it uncut, not necessarily uncensored. [/serious])
Get your mind out of the gutter! :P (And, honestly, you can write better euphemisms than that. ;P)
-------------------------
Would you feel comfortable talking to an XO that said anyone with problems were "bleeding hearts" or "f*****s"?
Aside from the video, which appears to be an attempt at humor, there is no indication that this particular XO acts like that. And in the event that he does, file a report or something?
-
Would you feel comfortable talking to an XO that said anyone with problems were "bleeding hearts" or "f*****s"?
frankly, if you take it personally or seriously to begin with, you probably deserve to be mocked a bit. It wasn't meant to be hurtful, it was just the subject that was joked about that everyone's pissed about. If it had been about middle class white people, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. If it was a persistant series of attacks on a specific group, and my understanding is that it was a single video, then it should be stopped. Jokingly targeting a group of people with the intent of comedic effect isn't bad, so long as it doesn't progress to harassment. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals unfortunetly lend themselves to be joked about, which is why they specifically were targetted.
Personally, I don't find the vid all that funny.
-
Would you feel comfortable talking to an XO that said anyone with problems were "bleeding hearts" or "f*****s"?
frankly, if you take it personally or seriously to begin with, you probably deserve to be mocked a bit. It wasn't meant to be hurtful, it was just the subject that was joked about that everyone's pissed about. If it had been about middle class white people, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. If it was a persistant series of attacks on a specific group, and my understanding is that it was a single video, then it should be stopped. Jokingly targeting a group of people with the intent of comedic effect isn't bad, so long as it doesn't progress to harassment. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals unfortunetly lend themselves to be joked about, which is why they specifically were targetted.
wow
-
frankly, if you take it personally or seriously to begin with, you probably deserve to be mocked a bit. It wasn't meant to be hurtful, it was just the subject that was joked about that everyone's pissed about. If it had been about middle class white people, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. If it was a persistant series of attacks on a specific group, and my understanding is that it was a single video, then it should be stopped. Jokingly targeting a group of people with the intent of comedic effect isn't bad, so long as it doesn't progress to harassment. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals unfortunetly lend themselves to be joked about, which is why they specifically were targetted.
Personally, I don't find the vid all that funny.
Except that it's not okay to turn a group of people into a joke.
-
Titan, do you honestly believe that?
-
frankly, if you take it personally or seriously to begin with, you probably deserve to be mocked a bit. It wasn't meant to be hurtful, it was just the subject that was joked about that everyone's pissed about. If it had been about middle class white people, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. If it was a persistant series of attacks on a specific group, and my understanding is that it was a single video, then it should be stopped. Jokingly targeting a group of people with the intent of comedic effect isn't bad, so long as it doesn't progress to harassment. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals unfortunetly lend themselves to be joked about, which is why they specifically were targetted.
Actually, I don't really have a problem with what you're saying, apart from the context in which you're saying it. The rest of what you said is applicable, IMO, if the joke made was something other than about a group of people who've been on the receiving end of the **** for much longer than they deserve.
Jokingly targeting a group of people with the intent of comedic effect isn't bad, so long as it doesn't progress to harassment.
I agree, but remember that in this case, homosexual people are always targeted, and the fact that it's 'the navy' doesn't really make it any better. For that group of people, a helluva lot of this stuff constitutes as harassment.
The military is unfortunately a place where homosexuals are discriminated against already, and this **** doesn't help.
How about this, what if the XO called the crew a bunch of 'n******' instead of 'f******' and bleeding hearts or whatever? Does that make those who take it personally deserving of mockery?
-
just FYI this is a really funny website - stuff white people like (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/)
it's okay for the same reason that making fun of the president is okay but making fun of babies with cleft palates isn't
although that's kind of hilarious too
this is a concept we call 'privilege' and it is used to describe the differential power distribution between groups; groups that lack privilege suffer more harm from 'good fun' in measures that are actually quantifiable in the lab
-
stuff white people like (http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/)
I don't get it. :confused:
-
I think it might be an American thing?
-
I think it might be an American thing?
If so its a specific American thing. I didn't get it either, maybe my Yuppie awareness isn't high enough.
-
If so, then I'm a yuppie.
-
Yeah, I haven't heard of more than half the stuff on the first two pages alone.
-
frankly, if you take it personally or seriously to begin with, you probably deserve to be mocked a bit. It wasn't meant to be hurtful, it was just the subject that was joked about that everyone's pissed about. If it had been about middle class white people, there wouldn't have been as much of a problem. If it was a persistant series of attacks on a specific group, and my understanding is that it was a single video, then it should be stopped. Jokingly targeting a group of people with the intent of comedic effect isn't bad, so long as it doesn't progress to harassment. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals unfortunetly lend themselves to be joked about, which is why they specifically were targetted.
Okay, I'm just going to assume A) you've never served and B) you've never felt uncomfortable talking with your boss at work.
-
Okay, I'm just going to assume A) you've never served and B) you've never felt uncomfortable talking with your boss at work.
On some level the service typically requires you to grow a thicker skin towards whatever it is that pisses you off most, as a deliberate act.
That is however the job of a Chief. Not the XO, where such behavior as this remains unacceptable.
-
What have you done Jean Luc Picard, Riker...DATA??? :))
How did this video get to the news anyway?