Military leaders are rattled by a list of “woke” senior officers that a conservative group urged Pete Hegseth to dismiss for promoting diversity in the ranks if he is confirmed to lead the Pentagon.
The list compiled by the American Accountability Foundation includes 20 general officers or senior admirals and a disproportionate number of female officers. It has had a chilling effect on the Pentagon’s often frank discussions as leaders try to figure out how to address the potential firings and diversity issues under President-elect Donald Trump.
Those on the list in many cases seem to be targeted for public comments they made either in interviews or at events on diversity, and in some cases for retweeting posts that promote diversity.
Hello House Unamerican Activities Committee my old friend; I’ve come to talk with you again…
Woke scares have replaced Red scares.
Same bullshit, different era. And we even have another drunk ready to push the bullshit. One was a Senator from Wisconsin, this one an asshole from Minnesota.
These are our Union Generals, then?
The list compiled by the American Accountability Foundation
How much you wanna bet they don’t like transparency of their membership?
They are a dark money group, so they hide their donors. The founders are Ted Cruz’s PR guy and a personnel guy from Trump’s presidency. It was created in 2020 specifically to obstruct Biden.
They are a dark money group, so their motives should be presumed nefarious.
No good actor needs to hide their actions.
deleted by creator
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic, but just in case, this is literally the “if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide” argument that authoritarian govts constantly use to ban proper encryption and any form of privacy.
If you cant see the difference between personal privacy and political anonymity, consider the difference in a court of law. Your privacy means not having to take the stand, while piercing anonymnity is necessary to rebut the accusations others make against you.
You can be private if you want to be left alone, but if you want the government to intercede on your behalf you should need to make clear who you are.
Right, which is why your attempt at a generalized statement was not inaccurate. It is not the case that “no good actor needs to hide their actions”.
Context matters. Always, in all things, but especially language. (i can rant about tomatoes if i need to.)
While i can see that you might think i was making a general statement, i feel confident that the context makes it clear that “actor” applies specifically to persons engaging in political persuasion by propogating advertisements or financing lobbyists.
Still, in the interests of clarity, let me re-state the maxim with the context more explicit:
In politics, no good actor needs to hide their actions.
Contextually, it didn’t read like you were saying “only for people holding/affecting public office”, it read like a universal statement of the form: “No X are Y”
I’m glad we agree. And in addition to context, clarity matters in language. Historically, it’s not an absurdly slippery slope to go from “these politicians are corrupt” to “privacy is for terrorists!” Overly simplifying our choice of language can foster undesired radicalization.
Cheers
How much are you willing to bet that a good amount of its money can be traded back to Russia?
Russia may be done for militarily, but their spy businesses are booming
It’s an offshoot of a group Paul Manafort has worked for since the end of the Trump presidency, so I would say that’s a sure bet.
That’s what you get for sitting out the election, you feckless sycophants.
I’m sorry, where do you get your facts? Or are you simply assuming because they are military they did not vote, or did not vote for Harris?
I’m not assuming anything. I’m not sure what you are imagining I am saying.
They think you’re talking about the military leaders mentioned in the article and not the millions of Americans that abstained because they weren’t in love with Harris.
Well given that 36% of US voters didn’t vote (close to 4-in-10) it’s not hard to make that assumption.
You think the military should have gotten involved in the election?
Military as a group, no. But an individual is still allowed to participate in the election even if they’re in the military as that is their right. Regardless of that though, close to 90M people didn’t vote that should have.
These yokels are really trying to Speedrun anger from as many people as possible. People with guns.
People with leadership experience leading thousands of other people in military tactics to advance democracy and freedom.
Although at any other time I would say this with my tongue-in-cheek, this time I’m not.
