‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks • Hacker News Board

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#21

Post by LeanderK » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #13

LeanderK wrote: post #10

As someone from europe, I am baffled by the ability to just fire everyone on the spot. Are there no job-protections for federal employees? This makes agencies really dependent on the political climate, right? Can he really just fire everyone? Isn't there even a 3 months notice or something? A separate, connected thought is that I wonder why you would choose being a federal employee then. Here, the government promises…

There are protections, but not for 'probationary' employees (anyone who's been hired or transferred within the past X months). As for the rest, they're not 'being fired', they're 'being placed on administrative leave', which is a paper-thin excuse but one that will have to wind its way through the court system like all the other bullshit the administration is pulling.

ah ok, thanks for the clarification! But there shouldn't be too many probationary employees, right?

So what's administrate leave exactly? Just relieved from your responsibilities? I guess you still get paid.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#22

Post by brickfaced » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

Strikes me as odd how one flavor of commenters who've long called for the "end of the American Empire," reductions in our "overseas military imperialism," and closure of the VoA "propaganda outlet" now stand by the institutions of said Empire to the death.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#23

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

leptons wrote: post #14

grandempire wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

America provides copious amounts of aid all over the world. That's soft power. It's not "propaganda", it actually helps people survive.

[deleted]

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#24

Post by krapp » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:14 PM UTC

grandempire wrote: post #8

hermitcrab wrote: post #2

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. The BBC is also cutting jobs in the BBC World Service, which seems similarly short sighted. But I don't think the cuts are as far reaching as the US ones: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

Propaganda is a form of soft power, as is foreign aid, as is trade and cultural exchange. These things are "good" in the sense that they allow a nation to further its interests and strengthen its influence, and thus maintain stable and peaceful relationships with other nations, as opposed to furthering those interests through the direct use of violence.

Also what on earth does Nietzsche have to do with anything?

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#25

Post by snovv_crash » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:15 PM UTC

lkrubner wrote: post #7

Here in the USA we currently have a regime that is focused on destroying all forms of American power: they are destroying our economic power, they are destroying our cultural power, they are destroying our military power. They are destroying the idea called "America." They have gone to war against each of our traditions and values. Some critics ascribe this to rational motives, such critics claim that the goal here i…

Don't attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#26

Post by reaperducer » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:17 PM UTC

grandempire wrote: post #15

reaperducer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why try to divert the discussion into an off topic quagmire?

He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.

This is a basic high school question. It serves no purpose other than to deflect the discussion.

If you genuinely don't understand soft power, Google is your friend.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#27

Post by addicted » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:17 PM UTC

grandempire wrote: post #8

hermitcrab wrote: post #2

The USA appears to be destroying much of the 'soft power' that it spent decades building. And it cost a tiny amount compared to the 'hard power' of the military. As an outsider, it seems very short sighted. The BBC is also cutting jobs in the BBC World Service, which seems similarly short sighted. But I don't think the cuts are as far reaching as the US ones: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpql1vvdn58o

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

Soft power is simply the capability to persuade others without coercion. So it’s usually a much less destructive tool to achieve the same goal when the alternative is “hard” power.

Whether you build the soft power ethically or unethically (and false propaganda could be one of the many unethical ways to build soft power) is upto the country in question.

And whether that soft power is deployed for “good” or “bad” purposes is also dependent on the actions and goals of the nation.

So it’s kind of as meaningless to ask whether soft power is “good” or “bad” as it is to ask whether a hammer is good or bad, except generally “soft” power tends to be a better way to achieve the goals of a country than the alternative (which involves the threat and/or actual dropping of bombs) and the methods of developing soft power tend to generally be better than the alternative (distributing medicines for Thberculosis, cultural exchanges, etc instead of building a bigger and more dangerous military).

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#28

Post by Aloisius » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:17 PM UTC

grandempire wrote: post #15

reaperducer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why try to divert the discussion into an off topic quagmire?

He’s saying this is bad because it reduces soft power. I’m asking why that’s a bad thing.

Because getting what you want through persuasion is cheaper and less bloody than through coercion.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#29

Post by kcplate » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:18 PM UTC

leptons wrote: post #14

grandempire wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What characteristics distinguish “soft power” from propaganda and why is it good? Is it just good in a Niestczhean kind of way in that serves American interests?

America provides copious amounts of aid all over the world. That's soft power. It's not "propaganda", it actually helps people survive.

It’s only power if the recipients view the US positively, or if other countries view the US positively for that aid.

Unfortunately I think it backfires when US power of all sorts (both hard and soft) is viewed as meddling.

At that point is the altruism worth the negative optics? I wonder.

Re: ‘Bloody Saturday’ at Voice of America and other U.S.-funded networks

#30

Post by WarOnPrivacy » Sun, Mar 16, 2025, 8:18 PM UTC

LeanderK wrote: post #10

As someone from europe, I am baffled by the ability to just fire everyone on the spot. Are there no job-protections for federal employees? This makes agencies really dependent on the political climate, right? Can he really just fire everyone? Isn't there even a 3 months notice or something? A separate, connected thought is that I wonder why you would choose being a federal employee then. Here, the government promises…

> I am baffled by the ability to just fire everyone on the spot.

It often isn't about ability. Many of these are being challenged and courts are ordering reinstatements.

It's about leveraging sensitive, protected processes to generate so many constitutional crisis and other chaos knowing that Congress won't exercise it's safeguarding duties.

That leaves the public to engage a limited number of courts to issue orders against individual whitehouse actions - and the whitehouse undermining or outright ignoring those orders because the white house controls federal law enforcement.