you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 46 points 6 days ago (14 children)

From my understanding, it's to keep black people from serving. They have to be clean shaven and unfortunately black people tend to get really bad razor bumps which isn't accepted.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (5 children)

    It's also about gas masks, can't from a seal with a beard.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 days ago (4 children)

    That's the excuse, and the logic appears to make sense, but I think I recall it being tested and not really being much of a factor. That's what makes it a good dog whistle though. People will rush to say "it makes them unfit for duty because the equipment won't function" without looking further, so then the racist policies get protected and they don't have to actually justify the racism.

    https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago (2 children)

    Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence, just because a study hasn't been conducted does not mean beards don't interfere with wearing a gas mask.

    Not having a jaw would probabry affect it too but there's no studies on that, yet nobody would claim it wouldn't

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago (1 child)

    I've seen it tested, and it doesn't really. I have no idea if there's studies on that but, like you said, there isn't evidence, so why would we have this restriction? If they actually cared about this reasoning, they'd put money into testing it. However, disproving it would remove their ability to use it to justify exclusion, if this is the reason instead of functionality.

    Just think about it. If you put enough force on beard hairs they are pretty firmly against the skin. They don't push the gas mask away. There aren't really going to be any gaps. It just doesn't logically make sense if you consider it for more than a second.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 days ago*

    I have a beard and it affected the seal and operation of a GP5 gas mask when I had to wear one, which is quite a feat if you've seen a GP5 mask

    I'm not familiar with what the US is doing but politicians make retarded changes all the time knowing anything about what they are doing or how things work in the real world

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -24 points 6 days ago (5 children)

    it's to keep black people from serving

    Sounds fake

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] 29 points 6 days ago (3 children)
  • [+] -19 points 6 days ago (2 children)

    This impacts at most 16300 troops, and there are 162000 black men in service. They're going to need a much better strategy to get the blacks out if it's racially motivated... Not to mention the 60000 black women unaffected by this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 6 days ago (1 child)

    ~10%? That’s a pretty solid fraction, certainly not bad when you still need to maintain plausible deniability.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] -6 points 6 days ago*

    That figure includes whites and you're comparing it to black men only. Blacks in service represent 60% of the diagnosis so only 60% of that figure can be expected ot be black men.

    I.e. closer to 4%

  • source
  • parent