I think with blogger the GP meant that he is not a professional journalist; an activist is somebody who is politically engaged, as clearly this person is. Does it appear to you that he is an actual journalist?
He makes money from journalism, does he not? Journalists are by definition politically engaged, so defining "activist" as a separate category like that makes no sense.
I've no idea how he makes his money, and no, journalists are not "by definition" politically engaged.
Secondly, df you read his blog, he pretty clearly is an activist, as he focuses on a single topic, has chosen a side, and also is acting upon it by protesting.
> no, journalists are not "by definition" politically engaged.
Which part of journalism doesn't involve "political engagement"? Selecting which stories are covered, and how prominently? Choosing whom to interview and deciding what questions to ask? Which details are important enough to include, and which to omit? There is no cogent definition of "journalism" by which it is not an intrinsically political activity.
> Secondly, df you read his blog, he pretty clearly is an activist, as he focuses on a single topic, has chosen a side
That is common among journalists; it is called a "beat".
> and also is acting upon it by protesting.
Hundreds of millions of people all over the world protest. 2–4 million did so in the U.S. alone yesterday. Are they all "activists"?
I don't think few if any journalist I've read have taken part in protests.
Also, most journalists just investigate and present stories by assembling what they found. And then they go and investigate another topic. But this person has just one topic.
I'd say people who consistently protest and consistently write about the topic are activists, yes. Do you need an even stronger definition?
Having beliefs and advocating for them does not preclude one from doing journalism, and I would argue that undoubtedly any written account of occurrences on the ground during protests are journalism, regardless of the slant.
You really don't want to get into categorizing speech as protected or not based on content.
I agree the government shouldn't be in the business of gatekeeping what being a "journalist" means, but I think we can all agree there's there's clearly a category difference between a BBC reporter objectively covering the protests, and someone involved with the protests giving a one-sided account.
>Which part of journalism doesn't involve "political engagement"? Selecting which stories are covered, and how prominently? Choosing whom to interview and deciding what questions to ask? Which details are important enough to include, and which to omit? There is no cogent definition of "journalism" by which it is not an intrinsically political activity.
"politically engaged" in this case refers to participating in the protests itself, or even taking a particular side. It's the opposite of being "objective", back when that was an ideal to strive for. Nowadays "objectivity" is being dropped in favor of "moral clarity".
>That is common among journalists; it is called a "beat".
No. Writing about resturants in New York is a "beat". Writing pieces consistently favoring one side is being an activist.
>Hundreds of millions of people all over the world protest. 2–4 million did so in the U.S. alone yesterday. Are they all "activists"?
Yes? Are you going to gatekeep "actvist" to people who are card carrying DSA members or something?
Paying for grad school out of pocket (around 700 USD per month, I'm going slowly). Paying for a large tattoo out of pocket, actually the same price as grad school (700 USD). Member of a few different clubs (BJJ, Muay Thai, local spa gym) which is maybe 300 USD all in.
Those are my regular monthly bills outside of house, food, etc...
Won't say salary but in a high percentile of income in EU country.
If I had no job and unlimited money (and no responsibilities) I'd go to Phuket and train Muay Thai for a year, then go to the Wudang mountains and train Kung Fu at some probably quite Westernised temple for another year. Afterwards I'd start a company in the defence or space sector.
I'd love a remake or a Chromehounds 2 on Xbox/PlayStation. I played it on the 360 but before I had online, so only in single player, but still loved it.
I assume all these "I am 16" type posts are just ways to help market, unless the account exists for some time before the Show HN with clear evidence they are in high school (I have seen many younger people talk about high school internships, for example - if they then have a Show HN I will believe it!)
Even if they are 16 years old it's hard to imagine someone didn't at some point tell them to leverage the fact they are 16 years old. I don't know any teenager that wants to be seen as a teenager. They all want to be seen as an adult.
Right? Most teenagers would go through great lengths to assume an identity in their 20's at least. They spend their entire life thus far with age being a factor robbing them of credibility. Why now would they advertise what throughout life has been a thorn in thorn in their backside? Something they will have associated with a lack of perceived professionalism. Something associated with not being taken seriously.
to me the whole thing reeks of marketing ghouls. This reeks of a group of talentless marketing ghouls trying to launch an unoriginal vibecoded product but absuing our heartstrings.
If you're actually 16, this is really nice and you are way ahead for your age, congrats :) You got a little stick here because some people have used this claim falsely for marketing and are actually not 16.
Do you have any evidence for this at all? That they are automatically awarded? We can discuss the low bar that O's seemingly have for earning some awards, but there is no reason to misrepresent the process. And I know at least one person that was awarded a Bronze Star without the V, even thought the award was for a specific valiant action they took, it's tough to say without reading the award or being there.
While anecdotal, every single O3 and higher in my company received one after our OEF rotation, despite spending their entire time on KAF and not at COPs or FOBs.
Here's an excerpt from the Military Times describing changes to awarding criteria:
"The policy changes also seek to tighten the criteria for awarding the Bronze Star specifically, a combat award that can be presented without a “V,” and often was throughout the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, for “meritorious” performance.
And here's some details about Pete's own awards:
"The first Bronze Star was awarded to Mr. Hegseth for his assignment in Iraq as a rifle platoon leader in Iraq from September 2005 to July 2006. The citation noted his “professionalism and commitment to excellence” while he was with the 101st Airborne Division. He received the second Bronze Star in 2012 after serving as a counterinsurgency instructor in Afghanistan."
I think that's a strawman about my use of the word "automatic"; my point is that it's not indicative of anything special as they were awarded without needing a qualifying event like you'd see with a V device, silver star, LoM, MoH, etc.
Him denigrating fellow soldiers and being grossly unqualified to even communicate properly in his role are also concerns, but somewhat off-topic.
It is not a strawman, you literally said the awards are automatic, which is untrue on it's face. The vast majority of HN users are not veterans, and likely would not know that what you said is untrue.
Typing a comment isn't the same as providing a source; I've provided two that support my claim. You're welcome to try again, but it's too early for bad faith arguments so you won't get any more replies.
You literally misrepresented the truth then provided 2 articles, neither of which backed up you original claim. All because you evidently don't like someone. The only claim I made is that the awards are not automatic, which we both know is true.
Regardless, my source that Bronze Stars are not automatically awarded is AR 600–8–22.
> Prior to 7 January 2016, awards may be made to recognize single acts of merit or meritorious service.
Which corroborates my other claim - including the timing - about the tightening of criteria? Dang. That's wild. Good thing you have a source that you didn't link or apparently read.
What are you talking about? your original statement was that they were awarded automatically, now you are talking about the standards for awarding it, which implies it is not actually automatic. I said In my original response that we could discuss the standards, but your statement that they are automatic for O3-O4 is just plain false. Your sources do nothing to back up your original claim, in fact, they do quite the opposite. No level of snark will make your assertion correct. There is a reason why your original response was flagged, which I had no part in.
My point was that he served in Iraq and has more "real" experience than being a prison guard. This doesn't mean he has enough experience to run the DoD of course, but I wanted to add that because it's misrepresenting a vet who served a deployment.
