Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

stripes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#81

Post by ewoodrich »

apsurd wrote: post #79
rdevilla wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's not a bug, it's a feature." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion

> 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".

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#82

Post by dctoedt »

derektank wrote: post #36
kurthr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, they can't even internally remember that they're the DoW (Department of War) and not DoD?

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"?

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#83

Post by apsurd »

ewoodrich wrote: post #81
apsurd wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#84

Post by rngfnby »

PyWoody wrote: post #66
rngfnby wrote: post #4

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…

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.

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#85

Post by lovich »

mpalmer wrote: post #59
kjksf wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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 o…

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.

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#86

Post by lovich »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #46
jfengel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#87

Post by scarecrowbob »

lovich wrote: post #86
scarecrowbob wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#88

Post by lovich »

scarecrowbob wrote: post #87
lovich wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#89

Post by mpalmer »

lovich wrote: post #85
mpalmer wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

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.

Re: Pentagon expands oversight of Stars and Stripes, limits content

#90

Post by philistine »

roysting wrote: post #10
rogerkirkness wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?
Post reply on HN