Pentagon Introduces New “Diversity Rules” Allowing “Scalp Tattoos” and Beards… What’s Next, Crossdressing? MEANWHILE, 13 U.S. Troops Dead, More Injured In Suicide Attacks Near Kabul Airport!

• 13 U.S. Troops Dead, More Injured In Suicide Attacks Near Kabul Airport

   

REVOLVER NEWS | August 26, 2021

The Air Force said Tuesday it will allow airmen to wear morale patches on certain days, put hands in their pockets, and to tattoo their scalps as part of an upcoming revision to dress and appearance standards.

The changes, as well as several others, are expected to take effect in early October when the service plans to release an update to Instruction 36-2903, Dress and Appearance of Air Force Personnel.

The Air Force said in a press release that it made the changes — more than 30 recommendations in all — based on feedback from airmen as part of the 2020 Uniform Board, as well as testing and reviews.

…

Female airmen will have the option of not wearing hosiery with their dress uniforms, in any combination. Currently, women must wear hosiery when wearing a dress uniform with a skirt, though they are allowed to instead wear plain black socks with slacks.

And the upcoming relaxation to dress rules will remove language prohibiting airmen in uniform from putting their hands in their pockets while walking or standing, or using a cell phone or drinking water while walking.

…

The relaxed dress rules also will increase the length of hair allowed for men from the current 2 inches to 2.5 inches, and will allow women to wear 2-inch hair accessories, instead of the maximum 1-inch accessories now allowed.

And the updated AFI will allow airmen with piercings to wear transparent spacers, so their piercings don’t close up.

The Air Force has made several changes to dress and appearance rules since last summer as part of a broader effort to improve diversity and inclusion. Previous changes have allowed women more flexibility in how they style their hair, such as by wearing braids or ponytails. The service also started approving longer shaving waivers for men who suffer from a medical condition — typically experienced by Black men — that causes painful ingrown facial hairs when they shave. [Military.com]

It goes without saying that these reforms are painfully embarrassing and ridiculous, and indistinguishable from something you would read in the Babylon Bee. But take a quick trip down memory lane to really realize how much has been lost. We were once a great nation that took pride in high standards and clean aesthetics, and the discipline it takes to maintain them:

When President Trump came down the escalator and proclaimed that he would “Make America Great Again,” the clean-cut family man and ace in the sky is a perfect example of what millions of patriotic Americans envisioned.

Technically, the Air Force still requires a clean shave (to complement the clean look one typically associates with people who don’t have tattoos on their scalp). Shaving waivers can only be issued on certain medical or religious grounds. But back in June of last year and under intense pressure from the howling Social Justice mob, the Air Force Surgeon General increased the one-year waivers to last five years and implemented a speedier approval process. But of course, these measures were still not enough to satisfy the forces of “diversity and inclusion.”

The lack of significant interaction between shaving waiver status and race/ethnicity indicated that shaving waivers are associated with an equivalent negative impact for members of all races. Black/African-Americans members, despite being only 12.85% of the study cohort, constituted 64.18% of the shaving waiver group; a difference that is likely due to the high prevalence of PFB which often can only be managed with a shaving waiver. This uneven racial distribution of shaving waivers caused a disproportionately negative effect on Black/African-American members. [Military Medicine]

To put it bluntly and charitably, Top Gun would simply not work with the main character Maverick possessing a Michael Fanone jailhouse Spiderman neck tattoo. If such a slovenly and criminal-looking slob was selected to play Maverick, America simply wouldn’t be casting their best:

Disparate impact is the legal theory that a policy or practice can be illegal under civil rights law even if nobody is actually treated differently on account of their race. That is, even if a policy is totally race-neutral and meritocratic on its face and in its execution, it can still “perpetuate” a “racist outcome” which our brutally unjust clown regime labels discrimination, or as they call it, “disparate treatment”.

It might not be racist in and of itself to require shaving in the military. But if such a requirement “disparately impacts” certain protected classes like race, gender, or religion, then the policy is in effect racist and ought to be revised or abolished entirely.

With the disparate impact doctrine you can absurdly have “racism without racists.” Today, in light of the insidious creep of critical theory into every facet of our society, “systemic” racism is the default assumption of how our economy, society, culture, and government really work. In other words, our overlords have decreed that there is an invisible racist hand manipulating everyone in the land, and every aspect of our society.

Despite its fundamental impact on the functioning of our country, no one actually agreed to or voted on the doctrine of “disparate impact” when it became the law of the land.

It was not baked into the 1964 Civil Rights Act or the 1965 Voting Rights Act or the 1968 Fair Housing Act.

Shockingly, the legal doctrine that would eventually bring this entire nation to its knees was invented, whole-cloth, by a 1971 Supreme Court decision called Griggs v. Duke Power.

In Griggs, an employer required employees seeking promotion into middle management to have a high school diploma. Technically, the policy also required passing two aptitude tests, but this ultimately wouldn’t matter. When a black employee sued under a brand new legal theory tantamount to what today critical race theory (CRT) activists call systemic racism, the Supreme Court took the CRT argument’s side, and ruled that even the high school diploma requirement created an illegal “disparate impact.”

To recap: because white folks tended on average to have high school diplomas more often than black folks, the Supreme Court actually decreed that no employer can require high school diplomas.

Technically, with disparate impact, there are certain limited defenses like the doctrine of “compelling business necessity.” Inevitably, the Supreme Court had to invent even more legal fictions to prevent the country from collapsing under the absurdity of its new pet legal doctrine. But we don’t need to get into that for the purposes of this piece.

Today, not even the most well-thought-out defenses can stop activists from filing multibillion-dollar lawsuits, and most legitimate defenses are ill-equipped to stop lawsuits before the discovery stage, at which point every institution gets held at financial and existential gunpoint.

Unsurprisingly, standards of merit and law and order have collapsed across the country. But until this point, most who oppose this unwelcome development and its ill effects have been virtually clueless about the cause of their woes. They ask: Why can’t we have nice things?

Why can’t Oregon make reading or math a condition of graduating high school?
Why can’t San Francisco arrest people for shoplifting?
Why can’t high schools discipline disruptive students anymore?
Why can’t major universities use standardized testing anymore?
Why can’t people show an ID to prove who they are before they vote?

Every single time, the answer is the same: disparate impact, the doctrine that destroyed America.

There is no bottom to disparate impact. Look to South Africa, where there are whole classes of stock in corporations that white people are barred from owning, purchasing or trading. In the name of ending disparities, of course.

Such broad-based economic empowerment proposals are inevitable in America. Indeed, the American domestic diversity industry mafia is tightly connected to the foreign policy blob that helped shape South Africa’s BBEEE doctrine.

With disparate impact being a rogue creation of the Supreme Court, it is perhaps worth noting that the Globalist American Empire’s favorite modern Supreme Court Justice, who LARPing liberals gave the embarrassing moniker “Notorious R.B.G.”, pined openly for our nation’s shared fate with South Africa: