hckrnws
"The Pentagon has released a modernization plan for Stars and Stripes that affirms the publication’s independence while expanding Defense Department oversight, introducing new restrictions on content"
Seems like this sentence contains contradictory statements.
I think the sentence just contains very laid back observations of hypocrisy.
"affirms the publication's independence" = Says it's independent.
"expanding Defense Department oversight, introducing new restrictions" = makes it non-independent.
Conclusion: The sentence indicates the policy is hypocritical and built on lies. The sentence is not contradictory, the policy is.
Well put, totally agree! The key word here is “affirms”.
Here, watch; I hereby affirm that I am god incarnate, that I have no flaws, and that every unit test I’ve ever written has passed on the first try. It cannot be denied that I affirmed that!
> Seems like this sentence contains contradictory statements.
"War is peace."
"Freedom is slavery."
"It's not a bug, it's a feature."
> As a demonstration of the principle, consider two contradictory statements—"All lemons are yellow" and "Not all lemons are yellow"—and suppose that both are true.
I am not understanding why we are freely supposing both are true?
It's demonstrating the implications (principle of explosion) of a contradiction being allowed in a system of formal logic. You can change "suppose both are true" to "suppose the rules of a logical system permit stating both are true".
Ah, that last line made it make sense, thank you!
> You can change "suppose both are true" to "suppose the rules of a logical system permit stating both are true".
It's calling out a potential flaw in the system and whether we want to do anything about it.
Because the party has told you so, Winston!
Trump kind of follows it - he declared his war against Iran over about 10 tims already.
The book 1984 was written in 1948 (easy to remember). Kind of interesting to see that it also fits to the lame strategies pursued by Trump. The "flood the zone with shit" is an older copy/paste strategy of the KGB (as explained in the 1980s by Yuri, though he did not compare it to the flood-the-zone part, but it is virtually identical https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9apDnRRSOCk; though perhaps even that strategy is older, the chinese have numerous stratagems that are ancient).
Once, when asked about arming teachers in school, Trump gave a brief answer that went, we should, but we shouldn’t, but we should, but we shouldn’t. Four contradictory answers to a binary question in one sentence.
The guy doesn’t even lie. He’s a reality TV actor working without a script. He says whatever he thinks will get ratings, and if he’s not sure then he’ll try different things and see what sticks.
It will never cease to baffle me that so many people saw this behavior and said, that’s leadership material.
Trump's whole thing is saying things that sound both absolutely horrible and at least kinda sorta defensible, depending on who is hearing it.
A thought that recently came to mind about this was an article about a local homeless camp that was literally trashing the area in which it was set up. Those people have effectively been discarded by society -- so why should they care about the mess they make, after all, nobody cares about them?
So for the average voter who feels disenfranchised and abandoned by society, why should they care about what Trump says when he's famous, rich, and entertaining to watch?
That's the only way I can make any sense of the matter -- it still messes with my head.
Everything makes sense when you get out of your bubble and realise most people don't even own stock options. Do you think ants contemplate how the world looks like from a bird's eye?
[flagged]
Corolla demanded answers to complicated sociological questions. Newsome’s response was weak but I don’t see how that’s deflection. The question doesn’t matter to the topic being discussed. It’s an obvious gotcha question from an interviewer who just wants to make a ruckus. I don’t know why a professional politician can’t handle that, but bad handling of a stupid gotcha question is very different from contradicting yourself four times in ten seconds when asked a straightforward question about your own opinion.
This concept of “TDS” confuses me. Trump is a terrible person and a terrible president. Why wouldn’t I be Deranged about him? Thinking badly of him isn’t a Syndrome, it’s a natural consequence of the fact that he’s awful and he has way too much power over my life.
Right, it’s only a “gotcha” question if you’re not trying to communicate, and instead attempting to score cheap points with your dumber constituents.
You can do the same in reverse by letting a Republican give you their “obvious” definition then forcing them to try to nail jello to the wall by pointing out unintended (even by them) consequences of that, and the people who definitely exist and fall entirely outside their insistence on a binary (even in “biological” terms).
It’s because the actual argument is over who ought to be treated as a woman under which circumstances, not who “is” a woman. But if your audience will allow it it’s much simpler to just pretend the argument is over something else and your opponent is too stupid to define words we use every day.
I was talking about the question of why half of California Latinos do t have a checking account.
I’m sure plenty of gotcha questions get asked in the other direction. I don’t generally view the sort of media where people ask that kind of question, because it’s incredibly irritating and uninformative no matter who the target is.
My point is that Trump doesn’t even try to give a coherent answer. He’ll contradict himself within the same answer to a straightforward question and not even bat an eye.
[dead]
> This concept of “TDS” confuses me. Trump is a terrible person and a terrible president
The only thing you need to understand "TDS" is knowing that it's the exact same accusation-in-a-mirror technique the fascists use on every other topic. By preemptively asserting that the critics are "deranged", they obscure the depth of their own reality distortion field for their cult leader. And for the casual observer who sees a bunch of drama and instinctively steers clear, the default conclusion is to think that the truth must be somewhere in the middle rather than doing the work to think about who is actually stirring up the chaos.
I hope the flagged comment trying to compare certain tropes of liberal thought to the assault on America, democracy, freedom and the legal system someday learns their comparison is foolish, and stops trying to be contrarian for the sake of feigning intellect.
[flagged]
Comment was deleted :(
I assume it means changing governance policies while letting them continue to make their own decisions within that framework.
Precisely. It’s the same methodology used to suppress speech and thought through social media where the terms of service and social media guidelines are used to create a micromanaged framework of approved speech and thought that just happens to align with what one particulate group or another controls.
The next layer of this control harness is to neutralize the Constitution in America that protects inalienable rights, is the “freedoms of speech (within paternalistic approved boundaries), but not freedom of reach” mentality of, “sure, say all you want, but you won’t even be allowed or able to see that we put you in a digital speech dungeon.”
We are essentially allowing and creating an analog to the very sadistic and evil conditions imposed by the ruling aristocratic class of the past and the hidden hand that ruled your life as non-nobility. You get thrown in digital dungeons with no recourse or rights. You are beaten and abused for you thought and speech. You have no right or ability to defend yourself from the torments and abuses of the ruling psychopaths, etc.
That is why freedom of speech is so important, because the sick and depraved ruling class people cannot stand even the ability of people to talk about the abuses they perpetrate against them. It’s typical abusive patterns of truly awful people that are the enemies of all of the rest of humanity.
Your point of view is nonsensical. Where do you believe that you are entitled to a platform? Can you force a publisher to publish your book?
In which case I'd say you are inexplicably assuming good faith on the part of this government. Are you paying attention at all?
When it comes to “simplest and most likely explanation,” the bad faith assumption is now the leading choice with the current regime.
Your comment, of course, is a paragon of good faith.
"Everything Trump does, even a mundane editorial memo, is evil. Trust me bro".
This is pretty obviously one more step in an effort to make sure that all coverage of U.S. military actions is positive and under the control of the administration.
It's also part of a more recent push to make sure that Iran war coverage is positive. See the head of the FCC threatening to revoke broadcast licenses over Iran war coverage.
Although you're being sarcastic, that is actually is a pretty fair description, on current evidence.
Aloofness is not the intellectual asset that you think it is
The GP comment mentions policy. I think you’re downvoted for trying to grow the scope to include all of Trump’s poems, homilies, and philosophical musings.
This person's ridiculous comment is a fantastic example of bad faith. Whataboutism, putting words in my mouth, and a singularly irritating (willful?) ignorance of current events.
The person who posted this is perhaps not already aware of:
- The FCC chair Brandon Carr threatening broadcasters to cover the war correctly, or else lose their "license"
- Federal judges repeatedly calling out the admin for ignoring court orders, bypassing regulation, and arbitrarily prosecuting political enemies (Jerome Powell being only the latest failed attempt)
- Hegseth saying he can't wait for David Ellison to take over CNN so the coverage improves
If they were aware of these things, I would expect them to recognize a LITTLE significance in the removal of a commitment to 1A principles from a publication owned by the government.
They’re aware but it won’t matter. For all their accusations of TDS everyone on this forum can clearly see how deranged they are.
It’s a cult and you’re seeing the adherents act like cultists here.
Indeed. I was trying set an example of what good faith looks like, but not for their benefit.
[dead]
It doesn’t.
"You're absolutely completely free to write exactly what we tell you to"
Debasing language is the way of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
“Disembowling” was correct. You had it right before. (:
I prefer to use least violent imagery necessary to communicate the point.
Like in Old Dominiom Jihadist incident, after had stabbed a professor in a classroom full of highly-trained cadet students, got himself stabbed 22 times, broke 9 of his ribs, breath withheld, turned his head 180-degrees and broke his neck before committing suicide?
The most-crippling part of this is removing their ability to use wire services (AP, Reuters, et c).
It means they can only cover news if they send a correspondent. They cannot cover much at all that way. It basically means it’s just a company newsletter now. They don’t even have any correspondents covering the war.
That's the real loss.
The original idea behind Stars and Stripes was that it was a general newspaper for US troops. Reading it gave general world awareness. DoD's own output is very narrow. Here are DoD's current press releases.[1] They're written in a very evasive style now. Here's the one on de-emphasizing the Havana Syndrome research office, titled "War Department Announces Realignment of Anomalous Health Incidents Cross-Functional Team to the Office of Research and Engineering "[2] Unless you know the background, that's totally meaningless. Much DoD PR today seems to be at that level - too defensive and obfuscated. Either that, or it's just administrative announcements. There's almost nothing about the current wars.
DoD used to have something called "The Early Bird", discontinued in 2013. This was a reprint of press clippings for Pentagon-area staff.[4] It was supposedly restricted to DoD personnel to avoid copyright issues. It was politically neutral, but prioritized DoD issues, such as command changes and procurement, that would be very minor stories in the public media.
Worth noting is that this war does not seem to have war correspondents embedded with US troops. There's not much info coming in from ground level on the US side. Al Jazeera has coverage from the Arab world. CNN has some people in Tehran who were based there before the war and are still sending.
[1] https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/
[2] https://www.war.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/4411182/wa...
[3] https://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/Messages-Display/Artic...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Early_Bird_(newsletter)
"Defense Department intended to “refocus” the news organization... it “should” republish content created by the Defense Department public affairs offices with a label describing its origin"
Article makes it clear that they're banning the publication of wire services with the goal to make this publication more like a DoD PR team and less like a news source.
Wait, they can't even internally remember that they're the DoW (Department of War) and not DoD?
I suspect that was deliberate. DoW is the preferred nomenclature but DoD is still technically correct.
The article is phrased in a way to imply that the author would rather the publication maintain independence. It is probably the last time she will be permitted to say "department of defense".
They're not. That's executive fiat. The actual name of the department changes if Congress says it does.
The Department of War is an “alternate title”. Department of Defense continues to be correct
> The Department of War is an “alternate title”.
Like "alternative facts"?
About a week ago Stars and Stripes had an article that strongly implied that the war with Iran had already had far more casualties than the (at the time) three KIA.
I think it was about increased blood donations in Germany.
Was it about closing the labor delivery?
Social media forums abounded Tuesday with requests for advice stemming from a screenshot of a memo saying that Landstuhl Regional Medical Center’s services for labor and delivery were suspended until further notice.
The closure is “due to the hospital’s primary objective,” according to the memo, which was signed by Lt. Col. Elizabeth Gelner, a doctor with the OB/GYN clinic at Landstuhl.
Although the primary objective is not specified, Landstuhl serves as a critical hub and evacuation point for U.S. service members wounded in training or combat operations in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. [0]
Whatever it was, I noticed it was Stripes, and respected their honesty despite being a military paper. Stripes has always been anove average in its honesty.
Point is, this war is a shitshow.
I saw this message spread like a wild fire in the osint sphere 2 week ago.
Already told me war with Iran is going bad. Hell to the point that even John "we need to attack Iran now" Bolton couldn't get it hard anymore at the thought of attacking Iran.
I think that was Armed Services Blood Program messaging at Kaiserslautern. I read services like labor and delivery are still replaced with trauma.
Carpet bombing does not win wars everyone knows that but a ground invasion is off-limits.
This is wrong and rhymes with all the sabre-rattling towards news orgs from the white house over the last couple days.
It will also make the US armed forces _actively worse_ at their jobs. It won't even take very long. If you can't effectively reflect on your errors and consider non-politically-aligned points of view, your strategists are going to be running in the dark.
The strategists are hopefully not relying on voluntary journalism for their decision making
Ah, the cool newspaper that fought the American propaganda of war before.
https://www.stripes.com/news/military-terminates-rendon-cont...
It was a fun story.
> The memo also bars reporters from requesting public records through the Freedom of Information Act in an official capacity and prohibits the organization from publishing “controlled unclassified information.”
If you need any evidence to refute the claim that the Pentagon's plan "affirms the publication’s independence", this is it. Talk is cheap.
I'll say something positive here as a european: the amount of diverse places that I'd assume would be broadly culturally aligned with Trump that have shown some form of resistance or pretty vehement disagreement with this administration this last year, suggests to me that there is a degree of widespread (kinda bipartisan) idealism in the US that's pretty unique in the west.
Americans individually are probably the most optimistic people in the world. The optimism might be myopically fixed on getting a promotion or winning the lottery or breaking the plate spinning world record. But if you don’t have some big project or self improvement scheme then many people (and most traditionally successful people) will give you a wide berth. People without big dreams might as well have already kicked the bucket.
Regardless of the government this culture is infectious. I think of Nikes famous tagline “Just do it” probably describes America better than any anthem or crusty document.
> "We will modernize its operations, refocus its content away from woke distractions that syphon morale, and adapt it to serve a new generation of service members," chief Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell
https://www.npr.org/2026/03/14/nx-s1-5748020/pentagon-tighte...
Did anyone seriously think that S&S was ever independant? It is the military newsletter for the US armed forces. It isnt the NYT and never will be.
I grew up reading the Stars and Stripes (before the www existed). A few decades back it was a decent summary of news, at least. It ran a page of headlines from across the US with state-local news. It carried a range of opinion writers. And did its own reporting in addition to syndicating AP and other news streams. Had the requisite comics and satirists. It was like a smaller version of the old USA Today papers. Kinda like the current The Week publication, but daily.
"Independent" is not a binary achievement. It's a continuous, multi-dimensional scale.
This article is about a move in one direction (away from independence) on that scale.
I'm surprised they even bothered to announce this, I just assumed military propaganda would psyop.
It seems as if the current administration is among the total Hall of Fame of lowest IQ.
At the least they have big hands ... right?
We elected them. A lot of us are vociferously defending them.
What does that say about us?
Well, I'll grant you that the folks defending them are certainly making statements worth judging harshly.
I am not sure if I buy the idea that "We" elected them.
I'd be really stoked to know what I personally could have done (or encouraged my cadre / comrades to have done) to prevent this outcome, because I don't recall even being given a choice about who I thought should run against the current regime and I live in a state where I am a political minority (a left anarchist organizing against specific local actions like ICE "enforcement" and flock camera usage, among far less contested actions).
This is an actual question, because I am curious and have read your comments enough to recognize your username in the pile of folks writing thoughtful-ish comments:
is it the case that you identify enough with this government to count yourself among the (presumably judgement-worthy) "we" or is it the case that you count everyone counted by the US government as a citizen as "we"? Or would you state it in some other way? What do you mean when you write "we" in this case?
When I say "we" I mean about 1/3 of us who voted for this, and about 1/3 who decided that either way was good for them. That includes a bunch of people who are diametrically opposed but for whom the main alternative wasn't quite good enough.
That's roughly two-thirds of us. Those of us who took even the trivial effort to oppose this are a distinct minority.
I don't think there's any that minority could have done differently. We are merely complicit in the suicide pact that is the Constitution, whereby we go with the majority and hope the majority would let us try again in a few years. That's an increasingly dubious proposition, and now we have to decide if this social contract hasn't already been broken.
You could have voted against Trump.
You did have a choice as the democrats held primaries that year and Biden won the primaries. Unfortunately he withdrew afterwards and there was a scramble to find a replacement, but you don’t get to rewrite history that the primaries didn’t occur.
If you didn’t vote for Harris then you were fine with Trump as a possibility. Own your decision.
How about this: if you voted, you signed up in a system that says you're okay with the outcome of the situation.
How is that not true? "I did what I could"... sure. So did I.
But I wouldn't have been okay with either outcome, so I didn't sign up saying that after an election we'd all just be like "whelp, good game guess I should go back to brunch".
So here I am, having to go organize against ICE because of the shitty political system that you reify. Thanks, asshole. If you voted, then you're okay with the outcome- that's what it means to vote.
No it’s not what it means. Voting is using your small bit of political power to try and enact change.
Not voting means you’re fine with the status quo or others making decisions for you, you don’t get to just pretend you have no say in the matter.
Avalanche doesn’t feel responsible for the snowflake and all that
[dead]
Are they going to start inserting theocratic content too? Like when Hegseth bullied the Boy Scouts to become an organization in support of god once again?
Huh. I just watched Full Metal Jacket last night for the first time in a few years.
Comment was deleted :(
Remember that Hegseth recently celebrated that CNN is being taken over by a friend of the administration who will eagerly parrot their propaganda in the service of keeping the idiocracy controlled. FCC commissioner Carr threatened media licenses for firms that aren't positive enough about the Iran war (or is it a war? Special military operation?)
The US is in a bizarre place right now. The actions of this administration are positively communist (in the most cynical, fear-mongered notion about communism), from enlisting tech execs in the military, to demanding complete control over all commerce (including demanding ownership stakes), to absolute chilling control over speech. Bizarre how the same people who have been using communism as their boogieman for decades are the biggest cheerleaders.
Trump is a pathetic, demented, halfwit diddler Temu-version of Xi, and it's comical irony. It's why he's surrounded by garbage people, like the drunk tough-guy-speech-from-ChatGPT joke of a Department of SortofWar, Hegseth, the clown who only ever achieve major and is a massive embarrassment to the men and women of the armed forces. Pathetic.
Though note that the communism is only in regards to government control, corruption and self-dealing. Zero benefits for Americans, unless you're a billionaire. Americans knowingly voted for this. They willingly lined themselves up to be future Soylent Green for their plutocrat class. Biggest self-destruction in the history of mankind.
Percy Shelley's poem Ozymandias plays in my head every time I see another short-sighted action by this administration that will cause long-term damage to our Republic:
> And on the pedestal, these words appear:
> "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
> Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
>
> Nothing beside remains.
It is mind boggling how so many people in the US are STILL supporting Trump. Like, do you not have eyes? All those movies about evil people gaining power with nonsensical support from the population were actually just telling the truth. Humans in aggregate are not capable of managing themselves.
They do indeed have eyes. This is what they voted for and they are getting what they want.
Honestly, as little respect as I have for them, I have even less for those who used to support him and no longer do. They had bad judgement then and I don't think their skills have improved. They're temporarily leaning away from the direct consequences of their bad choices but remain incapable of learning why that choice was bad, and will make more bad choices in the future.
> All those movies about evil people gaining power with nonsensical support from the population were actually just telling the truth. Humans in aggregate are not capable of managing themselves.
But it's their guy that is gaining power. Which is (perceived as) good for them because he's doing what they want.
* https://archive.is/https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive...
> It is mind boggling how so many people in the US are STILL supporting Trump.
Welcome to the Fox News propaganda bubble. There’s also talk radio and podcasts that will continue to ignore the issues. You also have to remember that most voters are low information voters. They are busy living their lives, so unless something directly impacts them, like the economy, they simply won’t think too much about it.
They’re excited that all those blue-haired liberals will finally get what’s coming to them.
> The actions of this administration are positively communist (in the most cynical, fear-mongered notion about communism), from enlisting tech execs in the military, to demanding complete control over all commerce (including demanding ownership stakes), to absolute chilling control over speech.
It is more fascist than communist. The communist way would have been to make the state take control of companies and then put apparatchiks at the top. This is the other way around, with companies taking over the state instead. But yeah, it’s nitpicking at this point.
And, when the Dems get in...it's all good.
> The actions of this administration are positively communist (in the most cynical, fear-mongered notion about communism)
I understand from which cultural context this “communist” label comes, but in political science it’s called “authoritarian”. Small but important correction.
Doubly important when we're discussing explicit US propaganda efforts, I'd think, which certainly have cast "capitalism" and "communism" as weird and float-y signifiers.
What did they expect if it was Pentagon sponsored rather than independent?
They can always post to r/WarsAndGripes.
They probably expected it to be independent when it was created and funded to be independent…
A free press is one of the core tenets of a democracy. The government supporting that was not just unremarkable, before the current regime it was expected. This is not normal. Nobody in this administration is normal, and none of then seem to actually want to live in a democratic society.
All that is true, but dependence on the Pentagon is a vulnerability anyway. Tomorrow they could impose publishing outright lies. Free press is meant to be independent, not state sponsored.
I don't disagree with your point; I'm just seeing it for what it is.
Stars and Stripes has existed for 165 years and has been run independently (despite DoD funding) for all of that time.
Is it shocking that this is changing under Trump? I guess not, but that isn't because this is a normal state of affairs, it is because the US is rapidly sliding into full blown authoritarianism.
Crafted by Rajat
Source Code