Military leaders are rattled by a list of “woke” senior officers that a conservative group urged Pete Hegseth to dismiss for promoting diversity in the ranks if he is confirmed to lead the Pentagon.
The list compiled by the American Accountability Foundation includes 20 general officers or senior admirals and a disproportionate number of female officers. It has had a chilling effect on the Pentagon’s often frank discussions as leaders try to figure out how to address the potential firings and diversity issues under President-elect Donald Trump.
Those on the list in many cases seem to be targeted for public comments they made either in interviews or at events on diversity, and in some cases for retweeting posts that promote diversity.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic, but just in case, this is literally the “if you’re not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to hide” argument that authoritarian govts constantly use to ban proper encryption and any form of privacy.
If you cant see the difference between personal privacy and political anonymity, consider the difference in a court of law. Your privacy means not having to take the stand, while piercing anonymnity is necessary to rebut the accusations others make against you.
You can be private if you want to be left alone, but if you want the government to intercede on your behalf you should need to make clear who you are.
Right, which is why your attempt at a generalized statement was not inaccurate. It is not the case that “no good actor needs to hide their actions”.
Context matters. Always, in all things, but especially language. (i can rant about tomatoes if i need to.)
While i can see that you might think i was making a general statement, i feel confident that the context makes it clear that “actor” applies specifically to persons engaging in political persuasion by propogating advertisements or financing lobbyists.
Still, in the interests of clarity, let me re-state the maxim with the context more explicit:
In politics, no good actor needs to hide their actions.
Contextually, it didn’t read like you were saying “only for people holding/affecting public office”, it read like a universal statement of the form: “No X are Y”
I’m glad we agree. And in addition to context, clarity matters in language. Historically, it’s not an absurdly slippery slope to go from “these politicians are corrupt” to “privacy is for terrorists!” Overly simplifying our choice of language can foster undesired radicalization.
Cheers