He's right in his characterization of my lack of social skills when dealing with public servants who are failing at a critical junction in the nation's history, and who are engaged in the profession of conflict where we blow people into pieces and watch their arms and legs fly in separate directions, set people on fire, and instead of protractors and calculators, we have nuclear warheads that can decimate entire cities. That being the background, Tony is correct that when criticizing my failing peers, doing so in a way that makes them comfortable and feel good about themselves isn't always, shall we say, a priority of mine. Tony also got some other things right about me in his recent LinkedIn article that people may want to check out.
I don't have LinkedIn since resumes are not really my thing, unsurprisingly I'm sure, but somebody I know stopped by to share the comments from his article with me. Depressing as expected. Much too accommodating for fascism masquerading as intellectual debate and absent the kind of responses such views deserve. Even now, even in this context, Tony sets a polite and cordial seat positioned at the table for those who hate our nation to its core, carefully going over the guest list to ensure nobody is uncomfortable while they call for outright tyranny with their tea and crumpets; a polite pseudo-academic center of gravity that has been exploited and that has led us to this day, but much more importantly, is leading us to a nightmare that will finally be undeniable to all.
Tony, now fittingly a long time resident of Europe and a dual citizen, how poetic, of King George's Britain (I sincerely hope we get a law passed outlawing dual citizenship so Tony can choose the United Kingdom where they routinely arrest hundreds of people for non-approved innocuous social media posts and are more suited to his tastes) makes a good host for this infernal dinner party given that he has maintained that no rights in our Constitution are inviolate and he believes any constitutional right can be violated so long as a majority wants to do so. No constitutional amendment required, just mob rule, the very thing our Constitution rejected and restrained. Those are Tony's actual beliefs and, his latest words notwithstanding, he has much more in common with those who issue unlawful orders than he does with those who refuse them. His words may change with the ebb and flow of elections and narratives, but at his core, Tony Carr does not believe Americans have rights; he believes Americans have privileges that can be revoked at majority will. These days he doesn't like the majority's political choice and what has followed from the current mob's fervor (nor do I), so he trots out my name for his thinly-veiled political hackery.
For all Tony's faults cataloged on this blog over the years, providing a place for discussion of important matters when it comes to public service wasn't one of them (even though he banned me from those discussions). And then when one of his audience asked him why he was writing about me over on his JQP Facebook page and yet not allowing me to participate in the discussion, he repeatedly lied that he had not banned me. Tony Carr writes real purty, but he has the key characteristic of all bad actors. Insecurity that leads to dishonesty. And, of course, he projects his character failures on others who hold a mirror up to him and reveal the phony that he is. Like he projected here, ascribing dishonesty to me despite the thrust of his criticism being that I'm too honest, similar to how he has written he doesn't respect me and never could, yet in his latest article he begins by declaring his respect for me. Somehow I become "one of the most dishonest" people he's ever encountered just a few hours after he tells his audience that we're not friends, or pals, but that he respects me. Why would you respect one of the most dishonest people you've ever encountered? Maybe he'll show the receipts for his claim that I'm dishonest, I certainly have a collection of my own, but he won't because his claim is just projection. Dishonesty is not a characteristic of mine. I inspire all kinds of emotional turmoil in poor Tony and he'll say the damndest things, and then the opposite.
Side note, Brian was the guy who sat CQ in my blog post about our Field Training camp experience, the most formative experience of my entire military career.
Tony likes to talk about truth, free speech, debate and having a thick skin, but like any politician those are just talking points for him rather than actual values. He has to control the "debate." Control of information is the first step to ensuring truth doesn't rear its inconvenient head and spill his fine British tea all over his perfectly fashionable white tablecloth. Truth is fine, even useful for tyrants and oligarchs and propagandists, but only when it's controlled, otherwise, well, things get messy and truth has a habit of escaping its cage.
Such control of speech has turned the Internet from its promise of citizens discussing important matters, and using harsh words rather than soft bullets to build consensus and solve problems in our Republic, into the greatest tool of tyranny, propaganda, and mind control known to mankind. Just ask free speech champion Elon Musk about that. When I criticized a sitting member of Congress (who Tony Carr has unsurprisingly lavished praise upon), Elon banned my decade old account that had somehow survived those on the so-called-left operating the platform. Dozens of appeals later didn't matter. Because Elon knows, like any politician or Information Pimp, that most people are morons (and he loves to employ hypocrites who say one thing and do another) and that you can simply claim values you don't have and then take actions that are the opposite with little criticism. Like Tony, he uses words that are useful even when he doesn't actually believe them. Information is just a whore you send out to turn tricks.
Wise Americans, few that they are, realize words are easy. Action is all that actually matters. But if you can't even get words right, before you do your wrongful action and show yourself a hypocrite, you're a non-starter.
All this is just to say, Tony Carr was claiming to value free speech and debate while banning voices like mine, and showing he doesn't actually hold the values he professes, before it was still not cool.
Despite the highly censored landscape of today, Tony shares some truth in his article that we can all agree on (well, with a few caveats):
Alas, it jaded him. He's viscerally hostile to anyone he estimates to be morally lacking, whether he's ever met them or not. Especially USAF officers, hailing as they do from an obedience culture that adores deference and promotes those who ask the fewest questions.
He flames, trolls, and harasses hapless path-crossers for the sin of having their own opinions, unwittingly commanding mental compliance he knows is wrong. Rick enjoys conflict. He doesn’t observe rhetorical limits. He enjoys helping others acclimate to the discomfort he enjoys.
The first caveat is that I don't care about a public servant's personal morality. They're free to be vegan and think eating meat is bad, put "He/Him" pronouns in their bio like Tony does and think that's a societal good, or believe whatever they wish in their personal lives. However, as a military officer, they must be personally amoral, set aside their personal views, and act in accordance with the law and uphold their oath to support the Constitution. It is the law that matters as a public servant given our law is the distilled collective morality of our nation and is the only thing that should be driving a public servant's actions. As a military officer what you think is right or wrong doesn't matter, you must act as the nation has instructed you based on what it thinks is right and wrong as codified into law. If public service is too much for you, go work for Amazon.
The second caveat is that me not agreeing with somebody and directly telling them as much without asking them if they want one lump or two, is not me commanding mental compliance. I have no such power. However, if that option were available to me, I would most certainly exercise it when it comes to military officers and all other public servants. Get your thoughts correct, this isn't Burger King (no offense to the monarchy where Tony is a citizen), you don't get to have it your way, think and act correctly when you do your job, anything less is unacceptable. While creativity and debate is valuable for how to best execute the mission, the basics of public service and our Constitutional limitations, our primary purpose spelled out in regulation ("to support the Constitution"), our law and our oath, aren't up for debate; it's not an academic circle jerk where you get to play cutesy with words to get the result you personally want (that just coincidentally meshes with your political affiliation), at least not in a sane healthy America, but of course we don't live there.
Last caveat, my refusal of an unlawful order in 2011 did not produce my correct thinking or make me jaded. My correct thinking produced correct action, that's why since at least 2009 on this blog and long before that unlawful mission, I had been beating the drum on the importance of the oath of office and knowing the Constitution in order to fulfill the obligations of public service correctly. Well before the unlawful mission, I was ordered by Lt Col Richard Nesmith, my squadron commander when I was teaching Undergraduate Pilot Training, to stop talking about the Constitution with student pilots (I asked for the order in writing, he refused, so I figured he changed his mind on his order). I knew of the importance of faithful public service and dedicated energy into trying to mentor younger officers to understand the gravity of their executive positions well before I was put into the hot seat myself. If you don't think correctly, you will most certainly not act correctly should you find yourself in a similar situation. Check the tapes.
But all these years later, the fact remains that Tony Carr is nothing more than words he doesn't actually believe and can't quite get right. So of course a guy who exists only in words would continue to be fascinated by me and seek to write about my words-made-action. That's the closest a guy like Tony can get to actually being the ideal he imperfectly pretends to be on paper. It's a love/hate thing I encounter from beta males who read too many books on knights and heroes slaying dragons, who then latch on to me while hating my toxic masculinity or my narcissism or whatever limp-wristed term they apply to me to express how they hate how I make them feel about themselves while frustratingly admiring me. Maybe if Tony can one day get words right, he'll be better suited to actually embody them in deed and won't feel so insecure. Deeds not words.
And, Tony, I had to share the image up top. It's one of my favorites and, after all, I'm a raging prick. But at least I didn't share the one making fun of the fact that, while you were a student at Harvard Law School no less, you thought you zinged me while only demonstrating you didn't know that Thomas Jefferson wasn't an author of the Constitution. Of course, who would expect a British citizen to know our history?
Oh, and for those who want to stop by and share your view that I'm a "total asshole" while collecting a like from Tony, you can do that on his Substack where he posts a similar article.
When you read the story of the beginning of our nation, it wasn't birthed because the founding principles we espoused suddenly appeared on a document as world's most perfect form of government. It was arduously deliberated and skillfully negotiated. It required creativity, concession, communication, and cooperation. The same skills it took to imagine and create our nation are the same skills required to defend those concepts. You appear to not exhibit any of those traits. You've merely adopted the result of that cooperation between other men and attempt to defend it by playing the role of, as the screenshot above says... the "asshole"... the opposite of how the Constitution was written. Your method makes little sense and it can never work. You cannot belittle your ideological adversaries into submission. I admire your dedication to the ideals, but your effectiveness is near zero because you don't know how to interact with people... at least online. I'm sure you're a great guy to have a drink with, but if you intend to influence the masses, you will never be successful. Paradoxically, it seems as if your thirst for interpersonal conflict subconsciously exceeds your desire to protect the well being of our country, which as a system of government, is partly intended to enhance civility and minimize conflict. You could be a dangerous man if you ever learned the art of persuasion.
ReplyDeleteI presume this is Tony posting anonymously given the message, but also the timing and me suddenly being unable to continue the civil discussion on your LinkedIn page to respond to the individual who claimed I was "wrong on the merits" when I refused the unlawful order.
DeleteFor your own psychological reasons, you must believe that your shortcomings are balanced or erased by what you think is your ability to be liked. To be polite, to build consensus. In your mind, the fact that I'm an "asshole" gives you some kind of moral parity, or superiority, and is key to your self value. You delude yourself into thinking the Founders were like you and you are carrying on their stately and refined work. There are a great many problems with your line of thinking.
The Founders were building consensus and coming to an agreement on a new government and a new set of laws, so the diplomacy that Franklin made famous was necessary and made sense. That is not the same as government not obeying those laws once created and abandoning all interest in the rights of the citizenry. When the Founders faced a government that was lawless and did not respect their rights, you might remember, they took up arms against that nation, your nation, of Great Britain. Diplomacy was reluctantly abandoned for violence and the colonists were declared to be assholes (or an unruly mob that must be put in its place -- King George surely would have banned Americans from commenting on his LinkedIn page).
And, of course, even post ratification the debate between the Founders and early Americans was not so civil and polite as you pretend. Yellow Journalism, salacious pamphlets (what we call blog posts today) and even debate turned into deadly duels was all too common with the incivility between Jefferson and Adams being a famous example. I might add that your impulse, I am sure, to read what I just wrote and to imagine our conversations as somehow equating you with being Jefferson or Adams, is inappropriate. You are neither of those two men.
As is often the case with those who are wrong in what they say, you turn the discussion to form. It's not what is said, it's how you say it. It's a tired trope and its inaccurate. You are correct that I am limited when it comes to persuasion but that is more because character cannot be taught to adults than it is my inability to form logical trails to be followed by others, and the root of what ails my nation is a moral failing, not a matter of ignorance. You may think yourself a great persuader or statesman (despite a mountain of evidence of you not measuring up to the myth of politeness you offer -- banning people, demanding they apologize for their political views to continue a discussion, as you did recently with O'Connell) but any persuasion you might achieve will be only as valuable as Bernie Madoff convincing people to invest. Being a fraud at your core is not improved by learning the art of the deal. I think there is a certain politician today who embodies that fact.
You'd do well to take some time to reflect on yourself rather than on me. Perhaps ask why it is that I continue to allow you to post on my small section of the Internet at the same time I am unable to post on yours, and why it is that you are so drawn to do so. Some real meditation might serve you well.
If you cannot teach character to adults, what is it you are hoping to achieve? How much time have you spent writing and declaring your moral superiority? You have a singular method of human interaction: Rolling up the Constitution into a tight scroll and whacking people over the head with it. How long has this failed to produce results? Why have people not flocked in droves to your obviously correct assessment about the state of our country? Why are you constantly banned for posting information is, in actuality, correct? It's because everyone else is either stupid, or evil, right? You do not want to admit it, but you have a conceptual black hole in your mind that denies you the ability to meaningfully ask these questions or have any critical self-reflection. We are a nation of millions of people you can't have a civil conversation with. You may have the correct information, but you cannot deliver it. In fact, the way you attempt to deliver it results in self-sabotage... over and over again. Let's face facts, when we skip to the part where violence is the only choice to achieve your desired aims, you still won't be happy until you're the only person left in a new country that strictly adheres to the Constitution.
DeleteTony, if you ever develop to the point where you start writing the correct things, and if you eventually gain the security to not ban others from correcting the wrong things you so persuasively share with your audience, I'll consider answering your questions about my motivations. Baby steps.
DeleteIt should also be pointed out that after asking me what is I hope to achieve, you then pretend to know a) that I have a desire to achieve anything, and b) what it is you think I hope to achieve. If you know my desired aims, then why ask me what they are?
DeleteYou write, "Let's face facts, when we skip to the part where violence is the only choice to achieve your desired aims..."
If we're facing facts, let's acknowledge you don't know anything about any desired aims I might have. And let's also admit that violence is no way to achieve any aims of mine. Violence will not bring about constitutional ecstasy.
Violence (which I have no doubt is coming in spades) will mark the end of America and the end of liberty in my nation's grand experiment. 1776 cannot succeed in today's world with today's technology. You would do well to dismiss the false notion that violence is any kind of solution.
You seem to be able to write volumes about the issues you care about except when challenged. You lament others writing what you believe are wrong things and not being able to correct them when you have a completely unrestricted space here to correct them, but refuse to do so.
Deletea) If you do not have a desire to achieve something, then you wouldn't be going to the trouble. It's silly to suggest that you might not have aims.
b) I ask you your desired results because it's always been so very confusing how someone with a keen grasp of the issues has seemingly zero grasp of his own inability in furthering his objectives. You're akin to an instructor that knows the regs verbatim, but cannot instruct a student to save his life.
I submit that you truly do not care about the people at large. Your ideological virtue-signalling is merely to set an impossibly high standard for all of society so that you can claim moral superiority and complain how terrible the world is. You consistently select people who share many of your values, then proceed to pick apart their position or aspect of their lives that falls short of a ideal you pretend to embody, and demonize them for it. It smacks of selfishness and jealousy. You earlier mention that you didn't want to bring a child into a world as this. That's a perfectly acceptable choice, but let's not pretend that's the reason. The world today has produced the highest standard of living and lowest levels of suffering in the history of humanity. Someone as self-assured as you could easily raise a strong, well-adjusted child capable of dealing with problems that come with modern life should you choose to. Many do. But you're unwilling to give anyone else in your life the position of MVP just as you are unwilling to concede anyone else has a point.
In retrospect, perhaps what you desire to achieve is simply to affirm daily, in your own mind, that you are better than the best. Maybe that's why you don't care what I or anyone else thinks and why you don't care if you convince anyone of anything. Your objectives involve only you. You only want to respond so you can catalogue it and congratulate yourself.
I can't dismiss violence as a solution because we haven't identified the problem. Death is only a problem if you cannot create life. Violence is an unfortunate but inextricable part of human civilization. Yes, it will occur, and we will deal with it just as you did when serving abroad. It may even give you the chance to tout yourself as the reluctant warrior. America is (was) a beautiful and ephemeral period of history. I happen to love it because I was born into it. But we must accept that it is fleeting. I will grieve it as I do a parent that has passed, but that grief will be superseded by joy like that I experienced with the unlimited potential in the birth of my children and grandchildren.
Tony, while I continue to let you post your idiotic ramblings here pretending to be wisdom, at the same time you ban me from discussions on your media posts about me, that doesn't mean I owe you a free therapy session. But in all honesty you really should seek some and ask them about your obsession with me, before you beam somebody in the head with pickles. Cheers.
DeleteI would be interested to see a comprehensive list of all the social media platforms and websites you've been banned from. I think the number is higher than even you can keep track of. Do you believe everyone is in cahoots to remove your damaging exposés from the public eye? No. In each and every of those innumerable instances, you have been removed for your extremely toxic method of communicating, not because of your values. Thomas Jefferson himself would most likely have banned you from his Facebook profile.
DeleteCool story bro.
DeleteEven if you don’t agree with the accuracy, you must admit that last line was pretty good 😁 Cheers!
Delete"Anonymous," if you happen to run into Tony could you ask him why he presented a loyalty test or Struggle Session to his buddy for his differing political views and using a common term "TDS" (and a criticism of Tony for hypocrisy) given that Tony is such a stickler for free speech? I believe Tony posted to Brian O'Connell, a former C-17 stan eval pilot that Tony worked with:
Delete"Brian O'Connell...I'm done here and so are you. No more comments unless they are apologizing for saying TDS or admitting this is a fucked comment. Anything else I will delete so don't waste your time."
I know Tony censored and banned me (and was almost certainly behind getting posts of mine on my own media taken down, through reporting it, because they criticized him) but to require a political Struggle Session for conversation from a friend and former colleague seems a new low.
When we discuss "free speech", we must remember that the 1st Amendment was designed to restrict government power. I think both of us 100% support that. It is not a license to say anything to anyone at anytime. A private individual or company cannot be compelled to tolerate whatever it is you have to say. That is simply beyond the intended scope of 1A. Any suggestion by you that one should be required to allow a free-for-all in the comments is actually an infringement of the rights of others to curate their audience. Just as I have the right to walk away from a conversation, I can determine what is allowed in a private space I create. You have created a private space here and have unlimited freedom to respond however you wish. You could block me and be entirely entitled to do so. When you use the phrase "free speech" outside of the context of the Constitution, you are voluntarily borrowing those principles and applying them to circumstances they were not originally intended for. No one else is bound to abide by the choices you make. We are hosts, not referees.
DeleteAgreed. When I bring up free speech in. this discussion, I reference a value that Tony has claimed to have (but doesn't actually have), not the legal requirement that applies only to government.
DeleteYou have no evidence that he claims to value the latter in addition to the former. I can tell you this: He does not value unrestricted free speech for anyone, anywhere, at any time outside the context of restricting government abuse of power. Of course, dialogue is good when it is constructive, but when you have an unusually large amount of time to devote in denigrating the character, via keyboard, of people whose interests and pursuits in life are more dynamic than your own, it simply isn't constructive. No one need tolerate it and shouldn't. Speak freely, but elsewhere.
DeleteNot only has Tony published plenty of comments about the importance of debate and dialog and heralding the value of free speech, he has also, in action, called peoples chains of command in response to their speech, issued empty threats to sue people criticizing him and was more than likely behind reports and complaints to get criticism about him taken down on other people's media. He also lied to his audience and said he didn't ban me from discussion because he knows it looks bad to champion a thick skin and free debate and the contest of ideas and then write about an individual while not allowing that individual to participate in the discussion. But that's what he does. And even now, in a political discussion on his FB page, he tells a friend of his that he can't comment anymore until he apologizes for using the term "Trump Derangement Syndrome?" My Lord. Doesn't seem Tony is great at being that persuasive, artful wordsmith who also shepherd's feelings (you know, as opposed to me, that huge asshole who only uses words like Sherman burning a southern city, in other words, honestly).
DeleteTony Carr really sets an example!
I can tell you this, were Tony offered the opportunity for actual free debate, no censoring, to go back and forth on our differences and let our words and argument produce their own results (rather than censoring and tailoring and reporting content and manicuring and controlling a discussion), he would most certainly not agree to it. Tony knows in any discussion with me, armed only with his words and arguments against mine, he loses. Tony knows that.
I just can't get over, after all this time, how Tony Carr would require a Struggle Session be attended by his friend, his former colleague, simply because he used the three letter acronym "TDS" in a political discussion. That's staggering. That, plus the massive canon of his similar past behavior, demonstrates that Tony Carr wasn't just being a prick in the moment, but it has become a core identity for him.
DeleteAlong with projection, of course.
I had to create a LinkedIn account to reply to some of the comments on Tony's page. I was able to respond to several but suddenly it says my comments cannot be created at this time. Kenneth Katz continues to ignore Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution and states:
ReplyDelete"There were American citizens who fought in the Wehrmacht in World War II. We didn’t arrest and try them. We treated them as enemy soldiers.
American citizens who fight for a wartime enemy might be committing treason but they are certainly enemies who can be targeted no differently than non-American citizens who fight for a wartime enemy."
Of course we are not discussing Wehrmacht, uniformed soldiers or an active battlefield against a nation we are at war with. We are discussing execution of an American citizen for the suspected crime of treason. Wehrmacht is as inapplicable as it would be in a discussion of FDR having American military forces round up American citizens in California to send to concentration camps for being suspected of making war on the United States.
We are talking instead about the legality of executing American citizens suspected of treason. And to discuss the legality of doing so, we cannot simply ignore Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution. We must start there and demonstrate why it does not apply. Katz has not done so, he has ignored that section of our supreme law wholesale for the same reason David Barron did in his memo, because that section explicitly makes it unlawful to simply execute Americans suspected of treason.
It would appear I am unable to share that fact with Mr. Katz on Tony's LinkedIn page for some reason though.
Whether it was a glitch or Tony changing his mind about allowing me to comment to his LinkedIn followers, for the moment my ability to engage in the discussion about me and my conduct has been restored.
DeleteAnd now I am again unable to respond to Katz for whatever reason. My response:
Delete"You fail to confront the law in a discussion of legality.
Please tell me what Article Three, Section Three of the Constitution means and why it does not apply in this instance.
If you cannot, we can conclude that you are not interested in whether or not I was 'wrong on the merits' as you erroneously claimed, but rather that your critique of my action is not actually concerned with whether or not I was correct legally. Here is what that section of our highest law (which means anything else you have heard, any law you think you know, that conflicts is null and void if it says otherwise) states verbatim, and I look forward to you explaining how it relates to our discussion:
'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.'"
I'm not sure how amused I should be that you've held an entire conversation with me, in full view of your massive audience, without me even being here.
ReplyDeleteI decided to swing by and take a look at your article about me after some folks let me know it existed. While I respect your commitment to principle, you haven't grown a millimeter in your ability to connect and dialogue with others. You remain the miserable curmudgeon you've always been. And just as misguided. You're assuming comments are mine that I didn't make. The self-importance is staggering, but it's overshadowed by the sheer idiocy.
The individual commenting above has your number and articulates it better than I ever managed to.
Your example of disobedience of unlawful orders is powerful. I genuinely admire it, more so with the benefit of the time that has passed and the tumbles down the slippery slope we have witnessed.
But as Anonymous points out, your vibe isn't debate or disagreement. Your vibe is hate. You are loose with serious words, which undercuts your whole shtick as a guy who is all about the seriousness of words. You slap labels on people cheaply, you reason inductively, and you disrespect and trash others by default.
This limits your impact.
I shared your example because it is something people should know about. I expected you might figure out a way to hate me for it, and that's fine. I don't care. What's right is right. The power of the example is more important than the fact it was set by a raging jackass.
But if you'e gonna post comments like the ones I see here, you need to be less stupid. Look at an IP address. Use AI to take an educated guess whether it was my syntax. Or, I don't know, ask fucking questions instead of entitling yourself to unwarranted certainty.
Because when you mistakenly assert I left all these comments, it just makes you look like a fool. At least to the half dozen people bearing witness.
Take 'er easy, Dude.
I note for the record you screen comments and publish after approval. Also a bit weird for such a devout zealot of libertarian principle.
ReplyDeleteChatGPT is filled with hallucinations, but it frequently finds some truth. This response was kind of fascinating as it mentioned the "contentious nature of his rhetoric" and yet I have it under good authority that Tony is not an asshole or a prick and is the standard bearer for refined, erudite, consensus-building, academic insight served with heaping spoonful of wisdom:
ReplyDelete## Criticisms of Retired Lt Col Tony Carr
Retired Lt. Col. Tony Carr has faced some criticisms, particularly related to his outspoken views on military culture and leadership. Here are the primary areas of critique:
### **1. Accusations of Hypocrisy**
Carr has been accused of **hypocrisy** for using terms like "fascism" to describe the U.S. Air Force while also exhibiting behavior that some perceive as intimidating or threatening towards those who criticize him. In a blog post, he highlighted concerns over suppressing free speech within the military, yet some critics mentioned that he had previously threatened individuals who challenged his viewpoints.
### **2. Focus on Fear Tactics**
In his writings, Carr has critiqued the tendency of military leadership to leverage the fear of future conflicts, particularly with China, as a way to justify increased funding and modernization efforts. Critics have pointed out that his focus on this argument without adequately addressing the **need for personnel and training budgets** may reflect a narrow understanding of the complexities involved in military readiness.
### **3. Leadership Philosophy**
Carr has expressed disdain for what he perceives as a focus on superficial standards within the Air Force, such as dress code issues, while neglecting significant operational challenges. Some argue that his rhetoric may detract from discussions about more pressing matters within military strategy and readiness, arguing that his style prioritizes **gimmicks over substantive change**.
### **4. Political Ties and Open Critique**
As a public figure, Carr has also been criticized for his **political statements and associations**. His perception of increasingly political behavior within the military leadership has led some to question his motivations and whether he's capitalizing on current issues for his own agenda rather than pursuing the best interests of military personnel.
While Carr has certainly made contributions to discussions on military culture and policy, these criticisms reflect the contentious nature of his rhetoric and the polarized environment surrounding military discourse. His direct approach to expressing dissent has evoked mixed reactions, illustrating the challenges faced by service members in balancing outspoken advocacy with established norms.
Anyway, hopefully Tony doesn't call ChatGPT's chain of command for calling his rhetoric "contentious." Tony is by all accounts a Zen Master of harmonious wisdom delivered by a bluebird on a soft pillow which is why it's okay when what he posts is wrong, because it's packaged so well. Like one of those restaurant meals made to look amazing that tastes like shit. Wrong? Sure. Stupid? Yeah, but he writes for applause rather than for truth. Hey, at least he's not one of those inflexible assholes who is only concerned with truth!
DeleteOf course Tony has always tried to make money off his words. Selling JQP, monetizing this and that. Novelist, lol. So making an audience like and pay him is his primary concern, rather than the way assholes only interested in truth approach things.
Poor Brian O'Connell was easy to let go ("repent or do not post here, I Tony Carr am the Lord!!!") since he wasn't a paying member. Tony knows that truth don't pay no bills and shit gets expensive in Britain. Can't even afford real roofs, still using grass over there!
Rick, have you stopped to actually think about what you're doing? Earlier, you had written that you "just can't get over" an interaction between two other grown men that has nothing to do with you. Next, you're prompting ChatGPT to give you criticisms of someone so that you can levy them yourself? It's truly bizarre behavior. GPT can be prompted to give you any result you desire. It's all seeming a little desperate.
ReplyDeleteClear your mind and consider this: You're just not that important. Read it again: You're just not that important. There is nothing to be gained by having a debate with you. Maybe others have busy lives, relationships, and interests that don't involve you. All of those things would have a higher priority than having some sort of formal public back and forth. And as you have just demonstrated, the probability is high that you would just ChatGPT your entire argument, collect the points, and pat yourself on the back.
You do have a couple feathers in your cap. Myself and others have given you enough credit for it, but outside of those, you simply make yourself undesirable to have any association with. Again, it's not just LinkedIn that you've been restricted from, it's countless websites and discussion groups. How many personal endeavors and real world relationships have you poisoned? Your community, other organizations you've joined. What have they amounted to? No one other than yourself is longing to engage in or witness a debate that you are a part of. It's just off-putting for 99.9%.
In a way I sort of being to have empathy as I would liken you to the character of Scrooge. Hostile, solitary, and unapproachable. But then I realize the story is purely fiction, and there is likely no possibility for you to finally come around and demonstrate humility, charity, and good-heartedness. That's why everyone eventually comes to realize any expression of goodwill is ultimately wasted on RR.
ChatGPT definitely gets it wrong from time to time, but sometimes it comes up with a gem like this:
ReplyDeleteIt is plausible that retired Lt. Col. Tony Carr's decision to become a citizen of the United Kingdom could be interpreted as a reflection of his views on constitutional rights, particularly the concept of inviolate rights. His assertion that no constitutional rights are absolute suggests a critique of rigid interpretations of the U.S. Constitution, which may have influenced his decision to engage with a different system of governance.
Contextual Analysis
Philosophical Shift: Choosing citizenship in another country might indicate a broader philosophical shift away from the foundational principles of American constitutionalism, where certain rights are often viewed as fundamental and unassailable.
Cultural Influences: The U.K. operates under a different legal framework, which might align more closely with Carr's views on the flexibility of rights and governance. This transition could reflect a desire for a different political or cultural environment.
Continued Advocacy: Despite any such changes, it's noteworthy that Carr continues to be an advocate within the military and national security contexts, suggesting his commitment to defense issues regardless of his nationality.
As I said, you'll likely form your entire argument from ChatGPT from now on. You can literally get Chat GPT to say anything. You may not realize it, but you will most definitely devolve into a parrot for AI generated content. You don't want truth, you want ammunition.
DeleteHere's the part I find amusing and and a take that you most definitely won't approve to appear on your webpage: Most of this exchange is you being butthurt by someone making the decision to not have your words appear below a LinkedIn post and what a terrible person that person must be. Well, the threshold for you to engage in the exact type of censoring is quite low. I've just demonstrated it. When you decided that you simply weren't pleased with what I had to say and wanted no one else to see it, you became a hypocrite. You had to make a deliberate and conscious choice to disapprove my replies.
That choice was to either remain consistent in your beliefs and values and allow unrestricted public discourse on this website, (in a discussion about free speech no less), or allow someone to show up to a place you created and poke holes in your argument. You folded like a wet Amazon box in a few short posts and began choosing what content you want others to see on your page. Yet you still will not understand. Unlike you, I don't care if my replies are visible. There's no one here except you and I. I know you read them, and the only place I care if they appear is on your retinas and I'm quite satisfied knowing that they have.
One must ask, if Rick Rynearson's value of free speech collapses so quickly when faced minor discomfort, what other values are equally as flimsy? I've given you credit for correct decisions. But lots of people make correct decisions of similar weight. The difference being they don't retire and write about themselves incessantly hoping the story gets picked up by others so they can wallow in adoration that never seems to materialize. One has to wonder if your decisions are influenced by their potential to be used in creating the false image of a persecuted man of righteousness.
You want others to see you as you see you, intellectually and morally superior. But when I effectively hold up a mirror, your principles evaporate. You become like everyone else you seek to destroy online. There are some out there that may think your behaviour is that of a fraud and a hypocrite. Cheers mate
I wonder if ChatGPT was trained on some of Tony Carr's operative values rather than the professed ones he dreams into existence through writing?
DeleteWriting about a person in social media, banning that person to prevent them from responding in the discussion about themselves, then lying about doing so. Why lie about such a thing? If you think you have a defensible position to censor the target of your writing, and you imagine yourself a gifted thinker, why not simply explain your decision to censor others rather than lying to your readership and claiming you haven't done so?
Beyond censoring a tiny little voice with a non-commercial blog from participating in his media empire, carefully and meticulously grown and crafted into a corporate powerhouse to be exchange for cold hard cash, Tony also censors personal friends on his personal social media. In a political thread Tony shut down Brian O'Connell until he apologized for using the term 'TDS' *gasp!* and told him his future responses would be deleted if he did not apologize. Not even a week after accusing another of wrongfully "demanding mental compliance" from others, Tony does the very thing he projected onto another.
With such a persistent pattern of needing to control the speech of others, and of blatant dishonesty and the lack of respect that comes from lying to his readership, what can be said about Tony Carr's motivations for writing? He seems to wield words to create fiction, like a politician, to manipulate others into giving him something that he wants. Perhaps commercial gain, popular support toward some end, but the irony is that through his dishonest use of words, Tony manages to let some truth leak out. His words pile up and show him to be a fraud, a liar, and an insecure individual who knows his words are weak and easily toppled and therefore must be hedged (the British love them some hedges by the way) as they will not survive outside of a controlled environment.
While Tony periodically writes something flattering about a General elevated to a position, or some politician or another, is he putting out a signal, like lighting a fire on a beach, hoping somebody will see him and rescue him from the life he has created for himself? Hoping somebody will pull the man, retired from a lackluster military career, who then went on to master mediocrity as a general manager who now faces obscurity and an Internet connection, and cries out to others in the hope they will elevate him to the grand position that Tony knows he is destined for? Didn't they see what he wrote about them? Why do the rescue boats simply pass by the island, can't they see Tony's blazing words feverishly typed onto the shore? Why do they ignore his SOS signal?
In his old age, Tony may be realizing his mountain of untruthful words have simply erected a prison he can't escape. A hall of mirrors he can't outrun, that extends even to another nation through fiber optic runs. Every day another lie. Every day another failed opportunity to issue the apology for his actions that he projects onto others who innocently use an acronym. Another day he fails to measure up, no matter his penned attempts, to those who exhibit the character or position he thirsts for but can't simply write into existence for himself.
I'll go ahead and let you off the hook because I've had my fun with this. I've achieved three things:
ReplyDeleteFirst, I've gotten you to do the very thing you're bemoaning about someone else: censor comments. It was simple. I type some things you can't adequately respond to, so you hide my response from the comments. You're no less hypocritical than anyone else.
Second, by hiding my response while still responding with your own, you're creating a series of consecutive comments thrashing Tony Carr for the past few days, multiple times a day, with no rebuttals in between. You are making yourself appear, to anyone else, like an obsessed crazy person.
Third, and this is plot twist I think is particularly amusing, and I can't help but smile as I type: I'm not Tony Carr. LOL. In the beginning, you suspected that I was. I not once confirmed nor denied it just to see how far you'd go with it and the results have been highly entertaining. Granted, I intentionally did few small things like misspell "behaviour" and put a "Cheers, mate" in there just to keep it fun, but I never said I was Tony Carr. Again, I am not Tony Carr, never said that I was, nor do I have any association with him. I've read a handful of things he's written lately, but that's it. I know next to nothing about his career, his life, that he was in the UK, etc. Maybe some of the things you (or ChatGPT :D) said about him are accurate. I neither know, nor care.
Tony Carr has likely not even thought about you since he's written that LinkedIn post. He definitely hasn't visited here. So all of your vitriol for him has been misdirected. You've been shouting all this Tony Carr nonsense to someone who has no skin in the game and the actual Tony Carr isn't even aware. I can only imagine the disappointment and frustration you must be feeling, and it tickles me pink.
Happy Typing! LOL
"He definitely hasn't visited here."
DeleteRight as usual. If you scroll up you'll see that Lord Carr was awoken from on high and informed of this lowly response to his lofty LinkedIn article about me. Graciously yet reluctantly he walked through the cobblestone alley of commoners as if in Dickens novel, which he references, as it's a requirement for British subjects of the Crown and any great British novelist. Meanwhile, my civil responses to those on his LinkedIn who remain ignorant of the law (not a surprise for his audience) are still no longer allowed. Tony cares so much about discourse that he will not allow informing his readers and especially when not done civilly to civilians, rather than fire and brimstone delivered to officer holders. It doesn't fit his narrative so it can't be permitted.
But you'll note I've allowed your anonymous and devious little fun, along with Tony's lofty professions, to be published here. It's good that we can both get a laugh out of this exchange.
Oh, my apologies, the reference to "Scrooge" was from an anonymous source. It is so hard to keep you all sorted. Bah Humbug.
DeleteWell, I was wrong and I've never enjoyed it more. That was.a plot twist that I didn't expect.
DeleteCheers to you, Tony Carr. It was a sincere pleasure to be mistaken for you. :D
Well you see above he complimented you as well. You have contributed to this discussion better than even he could do, he says. Amazing how an esteemed British novelist and an oh-just-some-anoymous-random-guy-who-doesn't-know-Tony can practically speak for each other without being the same person.
DeleteDon't misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting you are the same person. Just the same type of person.
Cheers to you both.