MRFF VICTORY! Army Substantiates Black Female Army Captain MRFF Client’s Complaint — Supervisor Who Made Racist “Tie You to a Tree and Beat You” Remark Punished
justice-is-served
“Today, I can finally say that justice was served.
“After a long and difficult year, I was informed that the investigation into the incident I reported was substantiated for counterproductive leadership and that appropriate action was taken against the individual involved.”
“I want to express my sincere gratitude to Mikey Weinstein and the entire Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) for standing beside me throughout this fight. You listened to me when I needed to be heard. You believed that what happened deserved attention. Most importantly, you were willing to advocate for me when I felt like I was fighting an incredibly difficult battle.”
— MRFF client U.S. Army Captain Tatyana Jordan upon hearing results of Army’s investigation on August 14
Recent Posts
- August 26, 2026 | No comments
- August 26, 2026 | 1 comment
- August 25, 2026 | No comments
Hope she’s got a plan because hogsbreath’s vindictiveness knows no bounds. Her fitness reports are going to be for shit nunc pro tunc. The asshole who said that to her should have a frag rolled into his office or under his ride.
For once the MRFF has done a good thing and I take my hat off. Now I will put it back on and say I still don’t support them.
Black female. black female. black female. black female. black female.Black female. black female. black female. black female. black female.
Just curious how “tie you to a tree and beat you” is racist? You could say that to literally anyone!
Make it make sense!
WindyweinerWeinstein, you asked, what makes “tie you to a tree and beat you” racist. You don’t have to read a lot of American history to understand that white men have often directed this phrase to black people. Moreover, it has been carried out too frequently to ignore. It’s even been used fairly recently.
From your question, I can only conclude that you’re under educated about American history, willfully ignorant, or trolling.
Sounds MEAN, not racist
Lorraine Wilkerson, you’re not wrong about the phrase being mean: it’s a threat of violence, meant to coerce people into the “proper” behavior. What makes it racist is the historical context in which it’s being used. In the present situation, a white officer in a superior position said it to a black woman of inferior status. This invokes the historical use of the phrase: slave owners in the antebellum South and the KKK and other white supremacists in post Civil War America. The threatening, explicitly racist nature of the phrase is clear and immediate to those whose pasts include people making good on such threats.
JP, notice what you did there. I asked a question about how a phrase becomes racist, and your answer was to tell me I’m uneducated, willfully ignorant, or trolling. Three options, all of them me being defective. It didn’t occur to you that a person could hear “tie you to a tree and beat you” and think “that’s an ugly thing to say to a subordinate” without a slideshow of the antebellum South.
Here’s the actual problem with your argument. By your own account, the words aren’t racist. The speaker’s stated meaning isn’t racist. What makes it racist is “historical context” — which in practice means the races of the two people in the room. Same sentence, two white guys: workplace threat. Same sentence, different skin tones: hate incident. You’ve built a standard where the offense is determined entirely by demographics, and then you’ve told anyone who notices that they must not have read enough history.
And it’s unfalsifiable, which is the tell. There’s no evidence that could come out — no explanation, no record, no witness — that you’d accept as showing this was just an ordinary jerk being a jerk. The context always supplies the verdict. That’s not analysis. That’s a template.
I read plenty of history. What I don’t do is treat “I can imagine a worse version of this” as proof of what happened.
WindyWeinerWenisteinLove4Mohammad, once again, you’ve missed the entire point! The words are not, by themselves, racist. It is the combination of the historical AND CURRENT contexts that make this threat racist.
Let’s review the bidding, shall we? We have a white superior telling a black subordinate, he should “. . . tie you to a tree and beat you.” What’s NOT racist about that? Going back to your own explication of the situation, you wrote, “Same sentence, two white guys: workplace threat. Same sentence, different skin tones: hate incident.” In EITHER case, there’s a threat. What makes it RACIST is the historical AND current context of the threat: there seems like there’s little doubt the superior chose this PARTICULAR wording because of the racial aspect of the threat.
Worse yet was the misogynistic aspect of the threat: the male superior threatening a female subordinate. Can you justify THAT? Of course, that aspect doesn’t fall within MRFF’s purview. But the fact that a white Chaplain invoked a threat often made to black people against a black subordinate MADE this racist threat fall within MRFF’s mission!
JP, look at what you just did. You quoted my own line back at me — “same sentence, two white guys: workplace threat; different skin tones: hate incident” — as though it were evidence for your position. That was my objection to your position. You restated it in capitals and took a victory lap. Nothing about the speaker’s conduct changes between those two scenarios. The only variable that moves is who’s standing in the room. You agree with me, and you think agreeing is a rebuttal.
Then the sentence your whole case rests on: “there SEEMS like there’s LITTLE DOUBT he chose this PARTICULAR wording because of the racial aspect.” Read it back slowly. Two hedges wrapped around a claim about the contents of another man’s skull, treated as settled fact by the end of the paragraph. If you had a witness, a pattern, a prior complaint, one other thing he’d ever said — you’d have led with it instead of the capitalization.
But the misogyny charge is where the method comes apart in public. Your entire argument for it is: a man said it to a woman. That’s the whole reasoning. With race you at least attempted a structure — you named a practice, you pointed at a period. For sex you went straight from the two identities to the verdict, skipped the history entirely, and then labeled it “worse yet” — an escalation you made no case for at all.
And the history you did invoke doesn’t cooperate. Men were tied to trees and beaten. Women were tied to trees and beaten. The practice you’re citing was never sex-specific, so it cannot be the thing that makes a sex-based charge stick. You reached for the same shelf a second time and it was empty, so you took the label anyway.
Now run your own test across the cases. Same words to a Black man: racist. To a white woman: misogynistic. To a Black woman: both, and “worse yet.” To a white man — the one case you exempt — just a threat. Your framework returns a hate incident for nearly every possible target, and it does so without ever acquiring one new fact about the speaker. A test that comes back positive no matter what you feed it isn’t detecting anything. It’s a mirror with a label on it.
Then you dropped it. You called it the worse offense and abandoned it one sentence later because it’s outside MRFF’s purview. If you actually believed it, you’d be arguing it. You raised it to make the pile look taller.
Four comments in, you are still capitalizing CURRENT CONTEXT without once saying what it consists of. You’ve told me a great deal about the 1850s. You’ve told me nothing about this man except his race and his rank — which, by your own framework, is all you ever needed.
Wow. I take some time off to do some mental health healing and I miss this – the longest comment of actual words from the WindyHotdog!
While I was off line I did check in (of course I did – who else here checked their emails at work when on vacation besides me?) and I tried to read Whineys comment but it made my head hurt. OK, I thought to myself, I just need to heal more. Nope – came back and tried again but all I hear is a little whiny child spouting the same apologetics I’ve found from other commentators on other blogs. It sounds all officially logical until you start to unpack it all wherein the house of cards blows away.
All the variations, all the exercises to reverse the power dynamic, change out the players. It means nothing because what the superior officer said separate from the surrounding players wasn’t “racist” in and of itself, when all the moving parts were added back in, yeah, it was racist and misogynistic and all kinds of inappropriate language to be using towards a subordinate.
The superior officer didn’t think of WHAT to say, he said what he said casually, like Paula Deen letting loose with her own racist faux pas. It’s who they are.
It takes conscious thought to change the phrases we all grew up with back in the day. How do I know? Because I’ve been saying some things that have racist origins and after being called out I had work to do. I’m not perfect, never claim to be. What I am is a person who sees patterns and our troll here is doing their dead level best to excuse the use of racist language towards others. Not cool, ever.
Hmmm the amount of words they used almost fits the “every accusation is a confession” pattern but not exactly. Suffice it to say if there was no there there then the superior officer wouldn’t have faced punishment.
The rest is just fluff on the cutting room floor.
And scene!!!!
(While I was away I might have watched the entire Warehouse 13 series more than once- if you know, you know)
JP, excellent explanations. I understood what you said but I’m reminded that it’s impossible to convince a human of a fact when it’s in their best interests to feign ignorance.
Missed you my friend. I’m back. Didn’t realize I needed the time off until I was in the middle of no online stuff for more than a day. Lesson learned. Pace myself, take breaks, and remember to hydrate!
:)
Grey One — welcome back. Now, sincerely: how did you reach a verdict on a comment you twice told us you couldn’t finish?
You wrote that you tried to read it, it made your head hurt, you went away, came back, tried again, and what you came away with was “a little whiny child.” That isn’t a description of the argument. It’s a description of your reaction to it. Then, having told us you didn’t get through it, you announced it was a house of cards that “blows away” once you “start to unpack it all” — and proceeded to unpack nothing. Not one line quoted. Not one step named and broken. You wrote “house of cards” and treated the phrase itself as the demolition.
Then you restated the disputed claim as though restating it were arguing it: the words weren’t racist in themselves, but “when all the moving parts were added back in, yeah, it was racist.” The moving parts are the two people’s races. That is the objection. You’re the second person in this thread to repeat my own point back to me slowly, under the impression that volume is a syllogism.
Now, Paula Deen. Consider why that comparison fails. Deen admitted, under oath, in a deposition, to using a specific racial slur. The evidence there was her own sworn statement naming the word. You reached for the one example where the proof was explicit and documented, and offered it as a parallel to a case where no slur was used and no admission exists. You didn’t reinforce your side. You showed everyone precisely what your side is missing.
And then the part I don’t think you noticed. You offered your own history as proof: you’d been using phrases with racist origins, you got called out, you had work to do. Grey One — that’s the counterexample. By your own account you used loaded language without the intent, without knowing, and needed someone to tell you. Your own testimony establishes that a person can say something with an ugly history and not be what you’ve already decided this officer is. You walked in carrying the exhibit that undercuts you and set it on the table yourself.
“If there was no there there, the officer wouldn’t have faced punishment.” The finding is the thing we’re discussing. It can’t be its own proof. Superiors are disciplined for saying vile things to subordinates constantly, and it tells you nothing about which charge was the true one.
You said you’re a person who sees patterns. Here’s one: four comments in, nobody has produced a single fact about this man beyond his race and his rank.
Windy, I checked. Your comments historically have been no more than a few lines, maybe a paragraph when you are really on a roll.
You had help. I’ll respond in full when I’m back home. And for the record I didn’t say I failed to comprehend what you wrote only that your writing hurt my head. Yep, you didn’t write all that on your own some.
k
It always starts with “just asking a question”. The WindyHotdog’s first comment was simple:
“Just curious how “tie you to a tree and beat you” is racist? You could say that to literally anyone!
Make it make sense!”
Sounds simple, right?
No – there are layers upon layers in this field tested comment. How do I know? Because this isn’t my first rodeo and I’ve been gaining some skills to see through such simple opening gambits.
Windy asks each of us with their comment to question why specific words on their ownsome are racist and they are correct. Words without context are just that, words. Add in history, power dynamics, and the underlying biases of humans and words are no longer just words, their use paints pictures with emotions.
When I said reading their comments made my head hurt I meant it. There is just enough fact in what they say to appeal to the readers brain. That’s the hook, the bait if you will to lure in the unsuspecting mind. All the rest is designed to be a logic knot – too hard to unravel so the reader just swallows the whole bunch where it festers in the brain.
Tie you to a tree and beat you.
Y’all do know that was a favored method of discipline back in the day? Oh, for slaves only of course… White folks were too “civilized” to do such things to each other – well other men for sure.
The rest of their arguments and discourse takes one further and further away from the point (which they reveal in the last comment to me) when they said “You said you’re a person who sees patterns. Here’s one: four comments in, nobody has produced a single fact about this man beyond his race and his rank.”
Here are the bare facts:
The offender is/was an officer in the military charged with supervision of personnel.
That White male officer casually used historically racist language against their subordinate who is Black and female.
The military would have loved to have this all go away but because the MRFF was involved they had to make some sort of effort to pretend they are following their own rules and regulations.
Our trolls reveal their bigotry without knowing it with every comment they make. And for our trolls since they like the fact words have meaning (from Merriam Webster):
racism – the prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior
bigotry – obstinate or narrow-minded adherence to one’s own opinions and prejudices
I could easily rebut every point Windyhotdog makes but they will only dance around my response while chanting missed me, missed me.
Windy, honey, there are better ways to ask me to kiss you. As a pickup method I think you need to go back to your tutor to get a refund.
“I could easily rebut every point Windyhotdog makes.”
Grey One, that’s twice now. Last comment it was a house of cards that blows away the moment you unpack it — and then no unpacking. This time you could easily rebut every point, and then no rebuttal, plus a pre-written excuse for the response I haven’t made yet. At some point the announcement of the demolition has to be followed by a demolition. You keep sending the invitation and cancelling the party.
But let’s take what you did give me, because it’s generous.
You said I was right. Out loud: “Windy asks each of us to question why specific words on their ownsome are racist and they are correct. Words without context are just that, words.” Thank you. That was the question. Four comments and a fortnight to get there.
Your framework can’t lose, which is how I know it isn’t one. If my argument is clear, that’s “just enough fact to appeal to the reader’s brain” — the bait. If it’s long, it’s a “logic knot” designed to be too hard to unravel. If it gives you a headache, that’s proof of its cunning rather than proof of anything else. Simple: gambit. Complex: trap. Accurate: bait. There is no comment I could write that your system would score as an honest disagreement. You’ve built a detector with the needle glued to the red.
Now the good part. Last comment, your closing evidence: “if there was no there there then the superior officer wouldn’t have faced punishment.” The discipline proved the charge. This comment: “The military would have loved to have this all go away… they had to make some sort of effort to pretend they are following their own rules.” So the discipline is theater. Grey One — pick one. Either the finding is real evidence, in which case the military wasn’t pretending, or it was a face-saving gesture under pressure, in which case you have just demolished the only piece of evidence you ever put on the table. You can’t hold it up as proof on Thursday and call it a performance on Saturday.
Your “bare facts,” itemized. One: he was an officer who supervised people. Two: a “White male officer casually used historically racist language” — which is the entire disputed conclusion wearing a lab coat, plus “casually,” an adverb about a manner you were not present for. Three: a claim about what the Pentagon secretly wanted. I asked for one fact about this man beyond his race and his rank, and you returned his rank, his race, and a mind-reading of the Department of Defense.
And you brought me a dictionary. Read your own entry again: racism is prejudice “based on the belief that one’s own race is superior.” That’s your definition, your source, your choice. It requires establishing what this man believes. You have just raised your own burden of proof and cheerfully handed me the receipt.
As for the tree — you wrote that white folks were too civilized to do it to each other, then added “well, other men for sure” in the same breath, which is you conceding it mid-sentence. The Navy didn’t abolish flogging until 1850. Delaware had a whipping post for white offenders until 1952. It was a brutal age’s default punishment, applied with hideous racial disproportion — which is an argument you could have made, and didn’t, because you’d already announced you weren’t going to make any.
And then you closed by suggesting I want a kiss. Out of rebuttals, straight to the pass. Honey, if flirting is what happens when the argument runs dry, this thread has been very romantic indeed.
I said what I said and you churned out what you think I said leading me to conclude the best way to defeat an ego is to not engage in the fight at all.
PS – for any thoughts of romance consent needs to be present and I do not consent.
Something was sticking at me, disturbing my nap and I found it
Windy said ” I asked a question about how a phrase becomes racist..”
No, you didn’t.
You said this “Just curious how “tie you to a tree and beat you” is racist? You could say that to literally anyone!”
You asked how the statement was racist not how it became racist.
I know humans like you, I’ve watched the podcasts of folks who sound just like you WindyHotdog. You pretend to be dumb to get us libs chasing our own tail all the while you are laughing at your computer at the ‘tricks’ you can make us do.
You aren’t conducting a conversation with the intent to learn something. You are arguing in bad faith and your compatriots who sound like you revealed it all on the YouTubes; so confident they are that they laughed about how even if a lib did stumble into their salon of male dominant intelligence that they wouldn’t understand what the paragons of manliness were saying.
Humans make phrases racist by their use. That you refuse to admit such a fact says everything about you and what you hold to be important.
I tried to make a point about how casually racist language is embedded into our vocabulary and you dismissed it out of hand. Should have been a red flag for me but nope, I’m a stubborn cuss and will not let a topic go if I think there is a lesson in it somewhere.
Guess this lesson isn’t for the Windy one but perhaps for another reader who comes across someone who talks or writes like the Windy one. They are a legion, I will say that about them. A gathering of petulant pseudo intellectuals convinced of their own superiority and very disgruntled due to the fact that high value wimmenz aren’t throwing themselves at their peak of manliness feet.
I think the kids are describing the group as the Male Loneliness epidemic. I knew them as the Mens Rights era, the Men Going Their Own Way (hint – they never did) movement, and some other iterations I don’t remember anymore. Suffice it to say they are male children in adult bodies who have never been held accountable for their own selves, ever. Consequences are for the weaklings!!!!! or some such rhetoric.
Well, now I can nap. And while the topic may be addressed in other threads I am done here.
Grey One — you’ve announced you’re done, so this one’s for whoever scrolls past later.
Let’s inventory what disturbed your nap.
Not the fact that you offered the officer’s punishment as proof he was guilty, then said the military was only pretending to follow its rules — the same evidence doing opposite jobs two comments apart. Not the dictionary you brought me, whose definition of racism requires establishing a belief in racial superiority you have no access to. Not the “bare facts” that turned out to be his rank, his race, and your reading of the Pentagon’s private wishes.
What woke you was that I wrote “how a phrase becomes racist” when I’d originally typed “how is this racist.”
And here’s the part I hope you appreciate as much as I do. Your own position — stated in this very comment — is “humans make phrases racist by their use.” Become. Through use. So you rose from your nap to catch me adopting your framing, and filed it as a gotcha. You busted me for agreeing with you.
Then the evidence portion. Your case that I am arguing in bad faith consists, in full, of podcasts you’ve watched featuring other men you believe sound like me. Not a line of mine. Not a claim of mine. A resemblance to strangers on YouTube, from which the contents of my head are derived.
Do you see it? That is the identical move you’ve made all thread. You know the officer’s intent because of the category he belongs to. You know mine because of the category you’ve assigned me. In both cases the individual is skipped entirely and the demographic supplies the verdict. Five comments spent lecturing me that context and identity determine meaning, and you finish by determining my meaning from my presumed identity, sight unseen, based on video essays about other people. You didn’t rebut the argument. You performed it.
“You dismissed it out of hand,” you say, about your point on embedded language. Anyone can scroll up. I took your Paula Deen comparison and explained precisely why it fails — she admitted the word under oath; there’s no such admission here. I took your own account of using phrases with racist origins without knowing it, and pointed out that it’s the counterexample to your conclusion, not support for it. You may not have liked the engagement. You cannot say it didn’t happen in a thread where it’s still sitting there in writing.
And then, the finale: I’m a lonely man whom “high value wimmenz” won’t throw themselves at. Last comment I wanted to kiss you; this one I can’t get a date. You’ve constructed a psychosexual profile of a person you’ve never met, from nothing, in a thread you entered to explain the harm of assuming things about people based on what group you’ve decided they’re in.
Three comments in a row you told us you could demolish this easily. House of cards, remember. I could easily rebut every point. And each time the demolition was postponed, and now the building’s still standing and you’re going for a nap.
Sleep well. The question’s still on the table for anyone who wants it: what do we actually know about this man, other than his race and his rank?
A point of clarification:
I am done speaking to the Windy one. I am not done with this topic nor this thread as I have some talking to do with the other readers of this page.
Folks, I’m at a loss right now. I think I answered the Windy one correctly but there is this feeling in the back of my neck and head that won’t go away. If I’ve learned anything about myself in the past few decades is to never ignore that feeling, that gut twitching thing because when I do… yeah, you too?
So my fellow travelers, how you doing? I know I’ve been laid flat for a couple of months. Would love to do more but life isn’t cooperating here/now so while my physical is craptastic my mental has never been clearer. Guess I learned a few things about surviving illnesses that lay one low from the old Marine.
So, I need your help – please, where did I go wrong in responding to the Windy one? Well, other than engaging with him. I mean, I knew he wasn’t debating in good faith. Dude is who they are and their history speaks for itself.
Finding those racist phrases in my vocabulary wasn’t very pleasant. I despise being the bad guy. UGH!!!! That said, when we know better we do better (at least that’s the hope) so I went surfing.
I found so many BIPOC content creators on Instagram and FB that I just started following those who resonated with my energy levels and whose voices appealed and started to learn. I am humbled as my ego was quite certain that I couldn’t be racist. And while in theory I am not my culture and country are and that makes me racist by default.
I want better. I need better. But when the humans who echo the Windy one question the meanings of words in the dictionary (do we really know if the offender believes this way? paraphrased) where is the common ground? And yeah, they are not alone. I’ve encountered dozens of DudeBros (current label being used on the socials) and it’s zombie scary how you could align them up on millions of screens and they’d all be saying the same thing. Creepy!!!!
Anywho, please if you see a place where I lost the plot let me know. I can’t see what I can’t see and don’t know what I don’t know.
Sending loves to all of you because that’s just what I do.