|
Bill
I am not disagreeing with you on content. I am not disagreeing with your on conclusion.
I was trying to point out the article has purpose which is why I doubt it is just written by a crank.
As a career Navy man, you can easily debunk it. As most people are without Naval experience, you can just google a few of the facts- look Natalie and Sara were really charged, but these 'facts' are woven into some subtle weasel words and other stereotypes. (hence my reference to the two not speaking to each other. )
The real purpose of the article is to target a certain type of individual- maybe white male anxiety types, maybe not. Even the reference that Navy tried so hard to hide the fact that they were women, so the angry man can draw the conclusion if they had been men, the navy had thrown them to the wolves. Men are so discriminated against.
I think this type of subtle targeting is happening more and more.
At which point, I now sound like the conspiracy crank.
D
|