NY Post article on Army diversity training

Officers: Keep Politics Off Social Media

Members of the profession of arms have a responsibility to think through the signals sent by their political behavior to those both within and outside of the military.
www.usni.org www.usni.org

www.theredstonerocket.com

Political activities on social media governed by Hatch Act

With 2020 being an election year, Soldiers and Department of the Army Civilians must remember laws and directives outlining what can and can’t be done when it comes to political
www.theredstonerocket.com www.theredstonerocket.com

www.army.mil

You posted what on Facebook?

With the 2012 Presidential election less than 90 days away, there are a number of things Soldiers and government employees need to keep in mind when it comes to being in military or government service and being involved in political activity.
www.army.mil www.army.mil

"Active-duty members may not post or comment on pages or send "tweets" to political parties or partisan candidates, as such activity is engaging in partisan political activity through a medium sponsored or controlled by political entities.

Active-duty members should not engage in activities that suggest others "like," "friend," or "follow" the political party, partisan political candidate, group or cause, or forward an invitation or solicitation from those political causes."

I'm not going to comment on the organization itself, but BLM is a political organization.
 

Attachments

  • limits.jpg
    limits.jpg
    300.9 KB · Views: 15
Last edited:
I only mention this as I see Cadets/Midshipmen getting publicly “involved” in these issues. Discussing it privately among peers is one thing. Using social media to promote them is something entirely different and crosses a line.
 
UHBlackhawk said:
Active-duty members may not post or comment on pages or send "tweets" to political parties or partisan candidates, as such activity is engaging in partisan political activity through a medium sponsored or controlled by political entities.
Click to expand...
This only applies to the little guy. It’s perfectly okay if you’re the Chief of Staff or the Senior enlisted leader for your branch of service. In fact, if you’re one of those folks, it’s even okay to support political/social movements and to do so using your rank/uniform, especially when your views fall in line with whatever the latest social movement is (ex. BLM).
 
The military has often been a harbinger if social change. Ex. The Navy was one of the first if not the first organizations to end segregation. As well as the military being receptive of LGBTQ rights. It may not be a political stand for them but opening a door to conversations about race that people don’t want to have in America.
 
Granted it was the New York Post - but based on the responses here - I don't think anyone read that link in the OP.

Here's the gist:

"But apparently, someone in the US Army’s Equity and Inclusion Agency has forgotten the rules. With a course titled “Operation Inclusion,” the agency is promoting the line that if you support enforcing immigration law, or say things like “all lives matter,” then you’re a white supremacist."

and there's also this:

Indeed, according to the graphic, you are a racist if you discuss any of these ideas or use any of the following phrases:
  • All Lives Matter
  • Denial of White Privilege
  • Inequitable Health Care
  • Anti-Immigration Policies
  • English-Only Initiatives
  • Celebration of Columbus Day
  • American Exceptionalism
  • Claiming Reverse Racism
  • There is Only One Human Race
The "graphic" to which they refer is apparently supposed to be a "pyramid graphic" presented (by the Army) at the Restone Arsenal, but the link is to a distorted inflammatory (and childish) World map presented at a Red Bull meeting. They are completely unrelated. If they can't even get a simple hyperlink right, I think the entire article could be suspect.

It reads like one of those articles meant to just stir things up.
 
Last edited:
This is getting very silly. The media often goes out of its way to stir things up. Unbiased reporting of the news doesn’t exist any more.

One of my acquaintances recently referenced an article with a headline ‘Our education system is failing Black Americans’. However when you you read the article those failures had absolutely nothing to do with Race and everything to do with affluence.

Our press and political leaders could help us greatly by stopping their attempts to promote division and actually tackle to root cause of issues so in the example I have given ‘how poverty impacts education’ rather than ‘how race impacts education’.
 
THParent said:
Granted it was the New York Post
Click to expand...
THParent said:
It reads like one of those articles meant to just stir things up.
Click to expand...

Do they run any other kinds of articles?

At least it's properly labelled "Opinion".

sanman said:
Unbiased reporting of the news doesn’t exist any more.
Click to expand...
It'll cost you, but the straight reporting in The Wall Street Journal is IMHO is the best in the business. The Opinion section is decidedly right of center, but generally principled.

It's interesting that the Post and the WSJ are both News Corp properties.
 
THParent said:
Indeed, according to the graphic, you are a racist if you discuss any of these ideas or use any of the following phrases:
  • All Lives Matter
  • Denial of White Privilege
  • Inequitable Health Care
  • Anti-Immigration Policies
  • English-Only Initiatives
  • Celebration of Columbus Day
  • American Exceptionalism
  • Claiming Reverse Racism
  • There is Only One Human Race
The "graphic" to which they refer is apparently supposed to be a "pyramid graphic" presented (by the Army) at the Restone Arsenal, but the link is to a distorted inflammatory (and childish) World map presented at a Red Bull meeting. They are completely unrelated. If they can't even get a simple hyperlink right, I think the entire article could be suspect.

It reads like one of those articles meant to just stir things up.
Click to expand...
The media (on both sides of the political aisle) is extremely biased and feeds off of sensationalism.

That said, there is a movement going on right now to discredit (and in some cases destroy) those who bring those topics up, especially if your views don’t fall in line with the flavor of the week. And I can tell you from personal experience that it is permeating military culture as well.
 
Last edited:
sanman said:
This is getting very silly. The media often goes out of its way to stir things up. Unbiased reporting of the news doesn’t exist any more.

One of my acquaintances recently referenced an article with a headline ‘Our education system is failing Black Americans’. However when you you read the article those failures had absolutely nothing to do with Race and everything to do with affluence.

Our press and political leaders could help us greatly by stopping their attempts to promote division and actually tackle to root cause of issues so in the example I have given ‘how poverty impacts education’ rather than ‘how race impacts education’.
Click to expand...
You’re exactly right. Socio-economic status affects student success more than race. There are state boards of education that set achievement standards based on race. The soft bias of low expectations.

Somebody on TV a few days ago said, “Poor kids are just as smart as white kids.”

Really? Either there are no poor white kids or there are no smart black kids. Either way...I’m glad I didn’t say something like that.
 
Devil Doc said:
Somebody on TV a few days ago said, “Poor kids are just as smart as white kids.”

Really? Either there are no poor white kids or there are no smart black kids. Either way...I’m glad I didn’t say something like that
Click to expand...
Give the man a break, he’s in his 70’s, has dementia, and can’t remember what state he’s in. :D
 
“You got more questions. If you have a problem figuring out if you’re for me or Trump, then you ain’t black.”
 
cb7893 said:
Do they run any other kinds of articles?

At least it's properly labelled "Opinion".


It'll cost you, but the straight reporting in The Wall Street Journal is IMHO is the best in the business. The Opinion section is decidedly right of center, but generally principled.

It's interesting that the Post and the WSJ are both News Corp properties.
Click to expand...
The Wall Street Journal is one the last remaining sources of credible news. Even those who do not wish to pay for the full content, should go online regularly and review the free content.

Here is their response today to those who tried to "cancel" them:

A Note to Readers
These pages won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure.

We’ve been gratified this week by the outpouring of support from readers after some 280 of our Wall Street Journal colleagues signed (and someone leaked) a letter to our publisher criticizing the opinion pages. But the support has often been mixed with concern that perhaps the letter will cause us to change our principles and content. On that point, reassurance is in order.

In the spirit of collegiality, we won’t respond in kind to the letter signers. Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility in any case. The signers report to the News editors or other parts of the business, and the News and Opinion departments operate with separate staffs and editors. Both report to Publisher Almar Latour. This separation allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment.

It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution. But we are not the New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media.

As long as our proprietors allow us the privilege to do so, the opinion pages will continue to publish contributors who speak their minds within the tradition of vigorous, reasoned discourse. And these columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets, which are more important than ever in what is a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top