Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Public Documents Reveal How the Branches of the US Military Are Instructed To Harness Internet Culture To Advance Their Own Messaging (theoutline.com)

Posted by msmash on from the messaging-in-21st-century dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: It's common practice for brands or government agencies to use social media marketing tactics -- such as recognizing internet holidays like #WorldEmojiDay, #NationalDogDay, or #HumpDay using emojis, or generally speaking in a more conversational, down-to-earth tone -- in order to spread their messaging and communicate with the public. However, the stakes behind military Twitter accounts are fundamentally different than that of, say, the Department of the Interior. These accounts aren't just encouraging people to go to national parks; they're propagandizing and idealizing military valor in order to normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members. The report adds that the government organizations maintain social media handbooks to encourage curators to "create a voice and be authentic." In the recent months, many branches of the military have been criticized for insensitive tweets.

92 of 162 comments (clear)

  1. Marketing by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So does every Marketing department on the planet. Welcome to Earth.

    1. Re:Marketing by Dread_ed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly my binary friend. This blurb reads like a hit piece on a product that some people feel would be better put out of the market, like cigarettes or Coke. Going to a second meta-level you can see the writer took particular care in choosing words that are intended to incite anger, fear, resentment, and mistrust while alluding to nefarious intentions and predatory motivation on the part of the military.

      Sure, the US military has issues, but that's no reason to bash the shit out of them for advertising.

      One thing to always remember, especially on Hiroshima day, or as I like to call it "Don't fuck with US day": if we didn't have the US military we would certainly have another country's military.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    2. Re:Marketing by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I would rather have them protecting the interests of US corporations than having the Chinese military marching down my street.

    3. Re:Marketing by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Interesting copy that military types write in military view points. One cannot help but wonder how amazed the poster will be of medical services providers communicating in medical view points.

    4. Re:Marketing by djembe2k · · Score: 3, Funny

      Only because he was addressing his binary friend.

    5. Re: Marketing by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Back to pealing potatoes Pvt.

      You want him to yell at potatoes?

      Seriously tho, WAR should not be allowed to advertise its self.

      Seriously tho, why? Like, when WW2 was in full swing, everyone involved should have just kept mum and pretended nothing was going on? What tortured chain of logic did you follow to reach that conclusion?

    6. Re:Marketing by penandpaper · · Score: 2

      I would rather the military have marketing like this than the draft.

      It's a volunteer army. Why is it a problem to sell themselves like any other group looking to increase recruitment?

      If you don't like war then don't enlist. Simple. Others are free to make that decision for themselves.

    7. Re:Marketing by lgw · · Score: 1

      Exactly my binary friend. This blurb reads like a hit piece on a product that some people feel would be better put out of the market, like cigarettes or Coke.

      Begun, the meme war has.

      Well, ok, the 3rd meme war, but this is the first one with actual troops.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Marketing by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Well, ok, the 3rd meme war, but this is the first one with actual troops.

      As far as we know.

      (At least so far. Government had lots of secrets that only leaked out decades later, and no doubt many that don't leak at all until the info is lost.)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    9. Re:Marketing by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > Sure, the US military has issues, but that's no reason to bash the shit out of them for advertising.

      Even when they get the Department of Agriculture to do their marketing for them in 1942? :-)

      Hemp For Victory (1942)

      --
      Stupid Juvenile Whiners Rule #2:
      Have a tantrum (Juvenile)

    10. Re:Marketing by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2

      So does every Marketing department on the planet. Welcome to Earth.

      Agreed.

      Governments, especially their subdivisions, have been doing propaganda since the historical record started. The archeological record suggests they have been doing it since there were governments - and before that, tribes, and before that, hunting and gathering bands, probably back as far as people have been able to talk, or apes to make signaling sounds and gestures.

      Whats's special about the US is that everybody can play.

      Or at least they could, before the consolidation of the media into a handful of corporate owners (most with a consistent agenda) and the recent suppression of some political opinons - on large social media (again with a handful of corporate owners with a consistent agenda), campuses (by "antifacist" masked thugs and others equating unpopular speech with violence), and now even in the streets.

      Hint: Suppression of political opinion leads to further division (because it can't be talked out and defused), and civil war (as it did once before in the US, where it was one significant step.) Further: Like war itself, it only takes one side to start it.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    11. Re:Marketing by jm007 · · Score: 1

      lol, nice

    12. Re:Marketing by swillden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if we didn't have the US military we would certainly have another country's military.

      I don't think this is as true as you think it is. Consider the apocryphal quote attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While it's unlikely that Yamamoto ever said it, it was also very true in the middle of the 20th century (modulo the hyperbole, obviously). The notion that a heavily-armed populace was the best deterrent to invasion was the Founders' primary strategy for national defense.

      It's debatable whether a purely volunteer militia-based defense (plus a navy) would be sufficient to prevent invasion. But even if it isn't (and I think it isn't), the US military is clearly not a defensive force. The goal and focus of the modern US armed forces is force projection, not defense. In fact, the primary US military doctrine for decades has been that the US military should be capable of conducting two full-scale foreign wars simultaneously.

      So while it's probably true that without any US federal armed forces the US might be or have been at risk of invasion, it's clearly not true that the current US military is actually necessary to prevent invasion. Something much smaller would also do that job.

      Of course, you can argue that America actually wants to be able to project its military power around the globe. There are, in fact, lots of good arguments for that. Many -- even outside of the US -- argue that US military power has been a tremendously beneficial stabilizing force in the world that contributed to our current unprecedented global peace and prosperity. But that's not the argument you made.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    13. Re:Marketing by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      I agree that in world war II the character of the citizenry and their access to armament would have been sufficient to repel any invasive force, especially considering the munitions available to the enemy, the cohesiveness of the society, etc.

      If we were invaded today I believe a majority of the American populace that would be completely combat ineffective. In addition, there would be a large percentage of the population that would attempt to join the invaders. There would be another group that would surrender immediately, spewing tactical and strategic information to the enemy like a caught cokehead looking at 20 years.

      There would be additional groups that would take the opportunity to attack and interdict our own government's buildings and assets, like in Oregon right now, only way worse. There would be race riots, rape gangs, attacks on corporations, banks, churches, food stores, and public facilities, all done by dissatisfied and self justified Americans. Ex military Americans would be attacked in their sleep by their neighbors, their hides, supplies, and armaments traded to the enemy in hopes of favorable treatment.

      Toss in "just in time" inventories and people living paycheck to paycheck...well lets just say that you filthy humans would start acting like the animals I know you to be a lot sooner than you think you would.

      So yeah, that famous assessment of America is not only apocryphal, its 80 years out of date and long expired. You can't expect Texas to pick up the slack for the rest of the country and I don't expect the forces of the populace straining to repeal the second amendment to understand what war is, especially one on their own soil. They would be the worst kind of citizens in a crisis like that: unregimented, hysterical, self destructive, lawless, easily panicked, lacking any kind of self sufficiency and therefore completely incapable of being anything better than a burden.

      For if they do these things in the green tree...

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    14. Re:Marketing by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1

      "Valor" and honor are central values in the military. And, fundamentally, in police, firefighters... people who risk their lives for a larger cause.

      --
      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    15. Re:Marketing by youngone · · Score: 1

      One of the lessons the US military learned from Vietnam was that a volunteer army works better than a bunch of draftees.
      Another lesson they learned is that they need to control the message, which is why reporters were "imbedded" with units during the invasion of Iraq.
      There is no way the military were going to let independent reporters report on what was actually going on. (At least while it was happening).
      They have also allied themselves with the most effective propaganda machine the world has ever known, and going by most of the comments here, they have been very successful.
      Have you ever watched the NFL "Salute to Service" round? Have you ever wondered how much the military pay the NFL to stage those Nuremberg rallies? It's quite a lot.
      Neither the NFL, nor the military want to talk about paid patriotism, because it goes against the idea they're trying to sell you.
      As a non-American, I enjoy your type of football, but that particular kind of ra-ra militarism looks a bit threatening.
      For a country that sees itself as the good guy, you start an awful lot of wars. I wonder who benefits?

    16. Re:Marketing by swillden · · Score: 1

      You need to read the rest of my post.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:Marketing by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Never was in the military. I just studied history, military history, and the fate of humans who forget the lessons of both.

      Besides, advertising is how anything and everything is done in the US these days, don't cha know?

      That said, cigarettes and alcohol have killed way more people than war, and yet we let those fuckers advertise.

      What I hear you saying most of all is "The ends justify the means." In essence, you agree with the writer's intentions and goals, so his writing style, no matter how disingenuous and manipulative, is acceptable. I get it. You like lies and deception as a way of getting what you want and will look for opportunities to make something so important that you can freely violate social norms and your own integrity to accomplish it. It makes you feel good to be a defender of such a defensible position, so much so that you will do indefensible things to show your dedication.

      FYI, that's called being a piece of shit and is what leads to wars, among other things.

      Priorities and perspective, please.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    18. Re:Marketing by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I did. It is irrelevant to my comment or the facts. We have a military. It is what it is because it is what it is. You can argue all you want for it being different, or that a smaller force would be perfectly sufficient for defense, or that if we shove celery up our asses we will live forever. It doesn't mean it is relevant to what IS, or what I said.

      "Something much smaller," as you say, would certainly still be called "The US military" provided it was sufficient for our defense. If it was not sufficient for our defense it would be called "the former US Military of the now defunct United States of America."

      Plainly, what I said stands. I'll reiterate if you like: If we did not have it, we would have need of it...and it would be too late.

      That said, here's my response to your specific line of reasoning:

      The American people of today, in my opinion, are not sufficient to the task of defending this country. A military force based in the US, dedicated to defending our borders (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!! Oh fuck that's hilarious!!!!) would have to be much larger than what you think. They would need to be able to mount a defense against invasion while simultaneously defending against internal forces that would splinter and opportunistically attack their own country during an invasion. They would have to provide shelter, food, and logistical support for the majority of the population that would be nothing more than cannon fodder on a good day, and which would overrun and destroy domestic emplacements on a bad day. They would have to be capable of keeping order in the face of more than 150 million helpless, spoiled and screaming idiot children in adult bodies, and this doesn't even begin to mount a defense against the enemy.

      Housing such a force with such capabilities within the US would be a vast temptation for all sorts of political fuckery and I cannot begin to enumerate the problems inherent in doing it. Haven't you seen the writing on the wall? Three letter agencies cannibalizing the American body politic, whistle-blowers painted as traitors, victimized Americans screaming for the head of someone who put their life on the line to help us...you want to make those problems worse? Let's just go ahead and form a secret police force now, erect some gallows and jump straight to the public hangings why don't we?

      In short, I think you underestimate the manpower necessary to run a domestic defense force, in addition to underestimating the propensity for a domestic defense force to be opportunistically used against the populace.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    19. Re:Marketing by swillden · · Score: 1

      You're trying to claim that it takes more manpower to protect the country than it does to project power around the world? Really?

      in addition to underestimating the propensity for a domestic defense force to be opportunistically used against the populace.

      Why would a smaller defense force be easier to turn against the populace than the larger and more powerful force that we have?

      I don't think you've thought this stuff through.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Marketing by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Nope. Never said that. You did.

      The forces around the world are just that...around the world. They aren't here.

      That being said, a force large enough to successfully protect the American public, housed on American soil, might be bigger than you imagine and carries inherent risks that you are inured from seeing.

      I would rather see universal military training of the citizens.

      Did you really just ask me why a domestically located defense force would be easier to turn against a population they cohabitate and intermingle with, as compared to a larger force which is nowhere near the population and which is spread out over the whole globe? You think size has anything to do with it?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    21. Re:Marketing by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Apparently you haven't seen Joe Rogan's bit on Texans.

      Have some levity: https://youtu.be/FeYbuFQ9rqQ

      Enjoy.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  2. So... marketing, advertising, recruiting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What's your point?

    Any organization the has a social media presence beyond "CEO tweets BS" should have a set of guidelines written down for consistent usage.

  3. Outraged! by Kohath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Organizations that interact with people try to be appealing in public, so it's easier to succeed in interacting with people. Mind blowing, I know.

    1. Re:Outraged! by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

      It i*s* outrageous that a branch of the US govt is allowed to spend tax money to alter the public's opinion of themselves.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    2. Re:Outraged! by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Allow me to distract you from your opinions with a link to the U.S. Department of the Interior Instagram page.

      In all seriousness, they post some amazing pictures. If that's what government propaganda looks like, I want to see more of it.

    3. Re:Outraged! by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      God help this kid if he ever figures out who published the wildly popular PC game America's Army.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    4. Re:Outraged! by hey! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not so surprising that they tried. What's surprising is that they failed so miserably. Maybe it's not such a good idea to market the defense of the nation like it was soda pop. Maybe it's not such a great idea to position the Army in the public consciousness as "edgy".

      If you look at successful social media campaigns, they don't look alike, because the organizations behind them have different needs; it's not enough to get attention, it's what you *do* with that attention that matters. You wouldn't use the same campaign for a financial management firm that you would for Mountain Dew; or promote the Make-a-wish foundation the way would Kentucky Fried Chicken.

      The military needs to inspire confidence, trust, and respect. This kind of thing is great for them when it is genuinely viral, but it's stupid to push it from an official channel.

      "Edginess" is just a kind of disguised condescension. People behind "edgy" media don't really respect the people they're pitching to. So who are they trying to connect with? Potential recruits? For decades now the military's biggest recruiting problem isn't warm bodies, it's getting volunteers with the brains needed to do the demanding things that will be asked of them. This kind of thing would appeal to kids who are too dumb to realize they're being disrespected.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  4. This is new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I remember laughing at the "Army of One" commercials in the 2000s. It was patently ridiculous that one person could be an army. Armies are about a team, not an individual. But it didn't matter, it was a popular commercial for a long while.

    In the 90s it was all about how you were going to launch some great career with the skills you learned in the Military. I'm sure that's true for a few, but for the grunts? I've known people in the military, and believe me, they didn't get some great job out of it.

    The only thing that's new is that they're trying to do this themselves (and badly) instead of sending it off to an advertiser, who normally filters out the REALLY bad ideas, and settles on the lies you can get away with. Even Joe Sixpack thinks helicopters shooting out shamrocks is either pretty weeny, or completely insensitive.

    1. Re:This is new? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

      >> I've known people in the military, and believe me, they didn't get some great job out of it.

      Four exceptions for you: IT work (seen a lot of security folks come from the military lately), medical work, pilots/ground crew and anyone who uses the "free college" programs to pick up their bachelors and/or masters. I also had a relative who picked up their law degree for free prosecuting or defending base hellraisers. Maybe we run in different crowds...or maybe your friends self-select for potato-peeling (KP).

    2. Re:This is new? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I think the point OP was trying to make is that it only works if you already have talent. It's not some magical way to gain skills or potential you don't already have to some extent.

    3. Re:This is new? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Talent only gets you so far. Gumption is a much more valued trait and makes up for lack of talent in a lot of cases. Don't train you kids in a skill without training them to have that grit that gets shit done. Not everyone has it, but you can learn it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:This is new? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      just have a high school degree; that is not someone with a talent.

      That's not how talent works. You have to apply it to either earn an advanced degree or undergo training. I'm using talent to mean aptitude if that's a better word for you.

    5. Re:This is new? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not some magical way to gain skills or potential you don't already have to some extent.

      Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

      For many young Americans, the military is a very good deal. It was for me. Semper fi.

    6. Re:This is new? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 1

      the grunts were the ones getting most of the college money. $40,000 in the 90's and more today. and a lot of them ended up going to school for law or something else very lucrative.

      On ex-grunt I know is in real estate now and looks like he makes a lot of money

    7. Re:This is new? by Miser · · Score: 1

      A serious question for you. Back when I was 18, I talked with an Army recruiter. I wanted to do "tech" in the Army, plain and simple.

      However, the recruiter could not guarantee that I would "get" what I "picked", so I declined any further engagement and did not sign up for the Army. This was the only stumbling block I had. Is what the below posters are saying accurate? How does it work when you want to a particular "job" (I think they call it MOS?).

      For the record, I've been doing various types of information technology, from Unix to telecom for 20 years now .... obviously back when I was 18 I had less experience.

      -Miser

    8. Re: This is new? by c6gunner · · Score: 3

      How many aircraft mechanics are there compared to grunts trained to shoot people, or drive a truck? I'm sure it was great for you, but for the majority it's not a great career path.

      I started off as a "grunt trained to shoot people" because it seemed like the most interesting thing when I was 18. After a number of years I got tired of it and switched trades. There's always mobility within the military for those with talent and interest. During my career in the military I ended up doing three completely different types of jobs, two of them technical and with direct applicability in the civilian sector. But even just being a grunt taught me important values, and all sorts of useful skills.

      It may not be a great career path for some, but those people are likely the type who, absent a military career, would end up running a deep-fryer their whole lives.

    9. Re: This is new? by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      However, the recruiter could not guarantee that I would "get" what I "picked", so I declined any further engagement and did not sign up for the Army. This was the only stumbling block I had. Is what the below posters are saying accurate? How does it work when you want to a particular "job" (I think they call it MOS?).

      Jobs are offered based on availability and aptitude. You should have at least tried; what he was saying was that you could try for a specific job, but if your testing showed you didn't have the aptitude for it you wouldn't get it, or if there weren't any positions open then they wouldn't be able to offer you a spot. That doesn't mean you would be stuck having to do something else though; if you go through the selection process and they're unable to offer you the position you want, you can always decline.

      It's different when there is a draft on - typically draftees are all put through basic training first and then assigned an MOS later. But during peacetime you're offered a specific MOS before you sign on the dotted line.

    10. Re: This is new? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      There's a few to be sure. How many people in the military learn IT, medical, or are pilots? Very few (and that's the few I was referring to). The rest are infantry grunts.

      You have no clue what you're talking about. ALL of the "combat arms" put together (infantry, armoured, artillery, etc) make up only about 20% of the US military. The other 80% are your "very few".

    11. Re:This is new? by lgw · · Score: 1

      In the 90s it was all about how you were going to launch some great career with the skills you learned in the Military. I'm sure that's true for a few, but for the grunts? I've known people in the military, and believe me, they didn't get some great job out of it.

      If you have talent, but no money and no family support, service can bootstrap that - if nothing else, by paying for college. Even if you don't, there's a lot of room below "some great career". Working as, say, and auto mechanic is a big step up from any sort of unskilled labor.

      It's been the military's peacetime mission for at least a century to move recruits up one step on the socioeconomic ladder, and the lower you start, the more that "one step" matters.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:This is new? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be great if the government offered that training and support, just without the obligation to go fight in whatever random wars happen in that 4 years.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    13. Re:This is new? by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

      I don't know about you, but as a private employer I would gladly hire a ton of 18 year old kids for this deal, provided you also include the all important and the kid cannot quit until your 4 year term is up or else you will go to prison. Even with free food, housing and vacation, this is still an absolutely excellent deal for the employer, since training costs ebb out after 12-18 months (or, more likely, if you can't be even sort of useful after 18 months of training, it's not gonna happen). More generally, it's a well-known coordination/defection problem with employers in a free market offering training programs -- which is that there is no credible way to guarantee that the trainee will not quit and join a competitor before the investment is repaid. There are a number of workarounds and other bad solutions to this problem:

      1. ** Make the trainee pay for the training up front (perhaps with loans) so the employer isn't in the red. Instead, pay increased wages to those with the training to compensate. This is most colleges, but also the civilian aviation industry, food industry and lots of other places where an employer-run-training program would just lead to poaching. Of course, this leads to massive advantages for family wealth and the profusion of expensive student loans. Also, there is a weaker feedback link, since students are getting loans to study what they think employers want, but often there is a mismatch. Certainly far more kids study video game design than could possibly be employed in that field.
      2. ** Make the trainee join an apprenticeship program as a condition for some kind of exclusionary credential. It's understood that the program is longer than educationally necessary and during the latter part of the apprenticeship, the trainee is already generating a surplus which pays back the training put into in the beginning. The trainee cannot leave halfway because they cannot practice the trade without the credential. Common in some technical European fields and in US medicine. This solves some problems, but often leaves an exclusionary cartel in charge of the credential and tends to under-produce it to extract higher rents. It can also lead to 'good-ole-boy' networks in which limited apprenticeship slots are allocated subjectively to those with political connections.
      3. ** Make the trainee sign a contract to fork over X% of wages for Y years up to $Z. This is a variant of the loan concept where repayment is scaled to success, newly popular in the Bay Area. It does lead to higher accessibility of the training at lower economic scales, but is quite expensive (there is an implicit interest rate here and it's high, very high). It's also questionable how enforceable these contracts are, and whether they are dischargeable in bankruptcy.
      4. ** The government directly pays for the training, not expecting an immediate return through labor but rather through lifetime taxes. This can work well, but often doesn't pay for itself. It also suffers the mismatch problem and cost inflation problem (public universities have ballooning per-student costs for no appreciable gain in output).

      All in all, it's a gnarly problem without any clear and good solutions. More likely, we'll muddle along with some combination of mandatory-apprenticeship in areas where it makes sense and trainee-pays for the rest. Better solutions always welcome, but do keep the constraints in mind :-P

    14. Re:This is new? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Your test scores may not have been high enough, or just as likely, your timing was wrong and you enquired when the quota for your target MOS (Military Occupational Specialty) was already filled.

      If you tried again a few months later, you may have gotten a different answer. Or if the Army couldn't give you what you want, then you should have talked to the Air Force and Navy.

    15. Re:This is new? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I was a grunt. I joined for adventure rather than tech. I wanted to travel the world and jump out of helicopters. The Marines turned out to be a good choice. In the Army and Air Force you can spend your entire enlistment sitting on one base. But Marines deploy. I traveled to nearly a dozen countries, although some just for a 4 day port call.

      I got a global perspective, and realized that people are basically the same wherever you go. I also learned to speak basic Japanese and Tagalog (Filipino), and started learning Chinese. I grew up in a small town in Tennessee, and I don't know what I would have done if I had stayed there. My military experience put my life on a completely different track.

      As a grunt, you learn people skills, how to talk with confidence, and how to organize, train, and motivate people. Those are valuable skills. When co-workers talk about the "stress" of dealing with a software deadline, I just smile. They have obviously never done a night insertion off an LHA in heavy seas and driving rain. If you don't have to worry about people dying, then it is not "stressful".

    16. Re:This is new? by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

      The irony of your post is that no government that could actually pay for this type of education can exist at all without *first* having a military -- either their own or the protection of someone else's. Sure you can argue about whether or not military funding levels or spending on certain projects is excessive or even stupid / corrupt etc., but no country can ever contemplate matters like funding education if they're not militarily secure. It's right up there with access to food and water.

    17. Re:This is new? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Sure you need a military, but do you need such an incredibly powerful and expensive one?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:This is new? by jm007 · · Score: 1

      yessir, well said

      it's one of the most important things I teach my son

    19. Re:This is new? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      It's not some magical way to gain skills or potential you don't already have to some extent.

      Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

      For many young Americans, the military is a very good deal. It was for me. Semper fi.

      Yep, exactly. Same for me.

      Now, it isn't a way to magically gain aptitude that you didn't have already. Nothing is.

      ASVAB and various qualification tests are nifty surrogates for IQ tests ...

    20. Re:This is new? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      It's not just quitting that can land you in prison, you get to live under the UCMJ. You aren't entitled to a jury of your peers either. During the first few years you are often expected to live in on base dormitories which are inspectable at any time, and have wages garnished to pay for a chow hall whether or not you choose to use it. Required to maintain specific standards both for fitness and dress/grooming, and I would add that at least for the AF the PT standards are weighted heavily to punish people that aren't slim regardless of physical capability. They can demand over time whenever without offering compensation of any kind, they will tell you that they straight up own you 24/7/365. And of course change your place of duty to riding shotgun on a convoy through a war zone or any other place they feel like it with a week or two for RR every few months where you might get to see your family. Then there is the ability to declare a stop loss order when you near the end of your contract and keep you in until they decide they're done with you. Even once you're out they can call you back to active duty at anytime for a few years.

    21. Re:This is new? by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      You can label it however you like. It's money that you would otherwise be paid in your paycheck, except that instead it is being used to subsidize a chow hall. You could also view it as them not paying you enough to feed yourself and instead providing an upscale soup kitchen. Same goes for housing, although some of the housing I saw was very nice, much of it was very sub standard. My particular accommodations were what amounted to a concrete shoe box stacked among a hundred others heated and cooled with a radiator that you could tweak by a few degrees. More senior people let us know we were spoiled because in their day the same room would house 4 bodies. When the base turned over an older housing area to the city they bulldozed everything because none of the buildings were good enough to try and keep repair/retrofit.

      Those pay pools not being taxed is nice, but almost negligible given the low tax brackets involved anyways. And it feeds into part of the conniving that recruiters do. They would tell you how much you could be earning and talk about retiring before your 40's and collecting 50% pay. They would fail to point out that the retirement pay was based solely on basic pay, excluding allowances and anything else you might get.

  5. Fall guy by Camarillo+Brillo · · Score: 1

    If you are fool enough and gullible then advertising and government propaganda may affect you. Dont forget to think for yourself people.This message will self destruct in Novembet 2022.

  6. Tempest in a teapot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Based on the article, the writer seems to be uncomfortable with the US military existence, and is just irritated that sometimes they remind her that it exists by showing up in his/her twitter feed. That the military has a social media policy seems only surprising to someone who has never worked at a big organization before. Not sure how this is any more of a gaff than anything posted by Arby's.

  7. So the military uses the internet and social media by technomom · · Score: 1

    This is news?

  8. HumpDay? by pots · · Score: 1

    Okay, apparently if you search for #HumpDay you get (unsurprisingly) lots of pictures of boobs and butts. So naturally no respectable person should search for this. (It's a hashtag, so that's always true.)

    However, apparently it's really supposed to be referring to Wednesday - that being the "hump" of the work week that you need to get over, before the downhill slide to the weekend.

    1. Re:HumpDay? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      In American military lingo "humping" means carrying a heavy pack on a long route march, often across rough terrain and in a sleep deprived state.

      The British call it yomping.

    2. Re:HumpDay? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The Brits have an advantage: they can just think of a long, brutal march as standing in a particularly long queue, and let their genetic predisposition take over.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  9. Selective outrage by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    According to TFA, it's disturbing and outrageous that the military makes "dark jokes." This coming from the same "woke" camp that has had a spate of people making jokes about raping and murdering children. In the case of Rick and Morty, the creators are beyond sick to the point where their side projects should get them locked up on obscenity charges for a very long time.

    But if you follow the outrage logic of the woke it makes sense:

    * US military = white male patriarchy.
    * Most of our wars are against countries full of People of Color.

    Ergo, it's racist white men killing aspiring People of Color thus evil on its face.

    But when we make "jokes" about raping little boys or carving their faces off, then murdering them... that's just "dark humor."

    This sort of hypocrisy will not be sustainable for long going forward. You want to know why the center-right increasingly takes a reflexive "fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on" attitude toward the left? This is why. Even most of the mainstream liberals I know refuse to call this out and try to suck the oxygen out of the room rather than admit most of the people to their left are grade A assholes.

    1. Re:Selective outrage by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      their side projects should get them locked up on obscenity charges for a very long time

      It's funny how you didn't give us a single example of someone complaining about a joke made by the military so that we could verify and judge their complaint for ourselves, yet you did prove unambiguously that you feel tasteless jokes should result in them being locked up.

      Criticising jokes is rather more tolerant than calling for the people making them to be locked up. One is exercising free speech to express an opinion and create a dialogue, the other is suggesting that their speech is so offensive that force should be used to restrain and censor it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Selective outrage by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I don't like their jokes, they are pretty sick if you ask me. But for me the only reason to censor someone's work is if it's doing actual harm, and even then there has to be a balance.

      I haven't seen the cartoons, or Rick and Morty, so I can't really give you a considered opinion on this specific case. I was more interested in the difference between criticising a joke and calling for people to be locked up over one, with an outraged moral justification to back it up.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Selective outrage by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      While I get that there might be too much thought police going on with with criticism of "dark humor" -- your excuse regarding; "We shouldn't be held responsible for something because the Liberals have Rick and Morty." If it weren't Rick and Morty -- which is hilarious -- then was your backup excuse for why the military can never be held responsible going to be "Family Guy"? I mean, there are more cartoons. It could take thousands of years to clean all this Liberal stuff up.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  10. Disturbed reaction by Kohath · · Score: 1

    If you’re really outraged at normal, everyday expressions of basic humanity then ... maybe it's you that has the problem. Maybe the rest of us should be worrying about what you might do next.

    Basic social expressions don't raise red flags for normal people. If #HumpDay seems sinister to you, consider getting some counseling.

  11. Why is this here by oldgraybeard · · Score: 4, Informative

    Gotta love this
    "anonymous reader shares"

    So who is theoutline.com
    The Outline is a New York-based digital media company focused on power, culture and the future. It was founded by Joshua Topolsky in 2016 who raised $5 million from several venture capitalists to start the company. wikipedia
    Who is Joshua Topolsky
    The Verge Co-Founder Calls Ben Shapiro "The Jew Who Helps Other Jews Onto the Train" says a lot about who Joshua Topolsky is. But that might just be me.

    Just click bait don't waste your time.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:Why is this here by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      Sorry forgot the second link
      Verge Co-Founder Calls Ben Shapiro The Jew Who Helps Other Jews Onto the Train

  12. Seems fine by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Corporations and governments are allowed to use memes.

    It is how we can tell when they have died.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  13. Re:Too bad they missed the new emoji train by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

    (US Flag)(airplane)(airplane)(airplane) -> (enemy flag)(mushroom)(mushroom)

    I feel like there is a missing snake and a few badgers in there.

    --
    Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  14. Many? by tsqr · · Score: 1

    In the recent months, many branches of the military have been criticized for insensitive tweets.

    many
    —adjective
    constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people.

    Let's see now. . . Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines. Oh yeah, and Coast Guard. If you want hyperbole, why not go for "innumerable", "myriad", or "countless"?

    1. Re: Many? by CaffeinatedBacon · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Space Force!

    2. Re: Many? by tsqr · · Score: 1

      Don't forget Space Force!

      LOL. I don't think that one's up and running quite yet.

  15. Re:Too bad they missed the new emoji train by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    There is a cloud emoji. Gotta pair that one with the mushroom.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  16. Re:If you like your freedom you can keep your free by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

    Daddy, what does false dichotomy mean?

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  17. They've also invaded schools! by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

    They'll even sit down and make small talk with high school students eating lunch! Quick, hand me some pearls so I can clutch them!

  18. Re:But muh emotions! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    lets be truthful, seriousness frightens you. follow me.

  19. Re:Can't tell if Joking by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

    Not joking. Why would you I was joking?

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  20. YVAN ETH NIOJ by karlandtanya · · Score: 1

    The folks I don't agree with are making convincing arguments--they're getting other folks to think they way they want those folks to think!
    That's not fair!

    --
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
  21. Your Selective outrage by skam240 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "This coming from the same "woke" camp that..."

    This coming from the same camp that constantly complains that the world has gotten too PC and that no one can take a joke anymore,

    But if you follow the outrage logic of this group it makes sense:

    * Outrage over conservatives making bigoted comments = "SJW are repressing us!"
    * Outrage over a couple of professional comedians making tasteless jokes = "Oh the horror, think of the children!"

    Ergo, it's evil social justice warriors taking away our rights!

    But when we make bigoted comments about Muslims, minorities, or anybody else not just like us... that's just us joking or engaging in "legitimate political discourse".

    This sort of hypocrisy will not be sustainable for long going forward. You want to know why the center-left increasingly takes a reflexive "fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on" attitude toward the right? This is why. Even most of the mainstream conservatives I know refuse to call this out and try to suck the oxygen out of the room rather than admit most of the people to their right are grade A assholes.

    Just holding a mirror up to your post. There are assholes who are just looking for something to be outraged about on both the Right and the Left. In this case though, you're it.

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    1. Re:Your Selective outrage by lgw · · Score: 1

      Holding up the mirror didn't work - it reads like a madlib that didn't turn out funny. We all know who the outrage brigade on the right is: the fire-and-brimstone religious nutters. They still exist, to be sure, but don't show up much on social media. Meanwhile, 90% of Twitter is progressive outrage.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Your Selective outrage by skam240 · · Score: 1

      In terms of comedic structure, I just slapped that together real quick. It's not great.

      in regards to the right's outrage brigade it's not just the religious nuts anymore. I see far more people complaining about SJWs nowadays then I see the things that they are actually complaining about.

      Also, I don't use twitter because it's stupid but I seriously doubt it's 90% progressive outrage. If it's anything like I see everywhere else in life it would be 5% progressive outrage, 25% conservative outrage over said progressive outrage, and 70% crap.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  22. Re: Can't tell if Joking by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Because your words sound kinda nutty.

  23. Re:If you like your freedom you can keep your free by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

    Daddy, what does false dichotomy mean?

    See TFA.

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  24. Re:Too bad they missed the new emoji train by lgw · · Score: 1

    Don't forget the snakes on the planes.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  25. The Military haters will be out in force on this by pgmrdlm · · Score: 1

    Nothing the military does, even protect their sorry asses is correct. They would rather be over run by terrorist or bombed by a foreign nation then support their nations military.

    --
    Anonymous comments are as pathetic as the anonymous "sources" that contaminate gutless journalism from the New York Time
  26. Re: Can't tell if Joking by jm007 · · Score: 1

    well, he DID ask.... glad you came right out and said it straight up

  27. Re:If you like your freedom you can keep your free by gweihir · · Score: 1

    There is no "valor" in modern warfare. That is long past. But it is no surprise that people like you have not gotten that message...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  28. Re: Waste of time, resources and people. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    That's silly. The reason you don't have "free" education is the same as the reason you don't have "free" healthcare. As for the "affordable" part ... that's complicated, but it also has absolutely nothing to do with the military.

  29. Re:The Military haters will be out in force on thi by gweihir · · Score: 1

    The military fights terrorism? News to me. Unless you mean they plan to shoot the FBI "agents" that create fake terrorists?

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  30. Er by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    These accounts aren't just encouraging people to go to national parks; they're propagandizing and idealizing military valor in order to normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members.

    Er, so ... recruiting?

    (BTW, re "normalizing", it's normal to have a military. No, really, check it out, it's true!)

  31. Re:So the military uses the internet and social me by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    This is news?

    But ... but ... to " normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members." Eek!!

  32. Re:If you like your freedom you can keep your free by frozencesium · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is no "valor" in modern warfare. That is long past. But it is no surprise that people like you have not gotten that message...

    Says the person who's never been in combat. Only those who haven't served and/or haven't been in combat make comments like that. Is it your lack of first hand experience in matter, or a lack of comprehension of the English language?

    Right out of the Google machine:

    valor
    noun: valour; noun: valor
    great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle.
    "the medals are awarded for acts of valor"
    synonyms: bravery, courage, pluck, nerve, daring, fearlessness, audacity, boldness, dauntlessness, stout-heartedness, heroism, backbone, spirit; More
    antonyms: cowardice


    I'm sorry I don't see anything about whether or not you feel a particular military action was justified or any kind moral acceptance. Acts of bravery happen in combat whether or not you agree with the justification for military action or what side you are on.

    Yeah, yeah...I know, don't feed the trolls. Sometimes I can't help myself.

    --
    I'm not always the brightest pixel in the stream
  33. Requirement in democracies by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    In democracies, the military ability to perform any operation is constrained by public acceptance: Whoever politicians and generals decided to fight, if voters disagree, leaders will be shown the way out.

  34. Re:If you like your freedom you can keep your free by gweihir · · Score: 1

    You are delusional. Modern warfare is the very embodiment of cowardice, for multiple reasons. It is a logical optimization when losing troops becomes costly.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  35. Valor isn't an ideal? Service isn't normal? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    I'm astonished by the arrogant ignorance on display by the author. Clearly someone with no understanding of what a nation is, what it means to serve one, or be a member of one. There's no historical context or understanding, just another dolt attacking that which makes their existence and ability to talk nonsense possible.

  36. Re: Waste of time, resources and people. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    That's assuming the freed up funds would be put into "free education", which is such a ridiculous assumption that it's not really worth discussing.