699
Black Medal of Honor recipient removed from US Department of Defense website
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
699 points (99.3% liked)
News
36118 readers
3300 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"The URL was also changed, with the word “medal” changed to “deimedal”." JFC. This is just the most blatant fucking racism. I don't think I'm legally allowed to say what I want to see done to everyone involved with this, but it ain't pretty.
Yep.
And in case something changes.
http://web.archive.org/web/20250317032651/https://search.usa.gov/search?query=Gen+Charles+Calvin+Rogers&affiliate=defensegov&utf8=%26%23x2713%3B
http://web.archive.org/web/20250316221553/https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2824721/deimedal-of-honor-monday-army-maj-gen-charles-calvin-rogers/
That was well done, article gone now.
Both links give me 404 error.
Archive.org 404 errors or the web page it captured is a 404? The second link is supposed to be a 404. The first one had some error and I updated the link but federation can be wonky.
http://web.archive.org/web/20250317032651/https://search.usa.gov/search?query=Gen+Charles+Calvin+Rogers&affiliate=defensegov&utf8=%26%23x2713%3B
Just to make it clear, clicking the below link will redirect you to the deimedal url.
https://www.defense.gov/News/Feature-Stories/Story/Article/2824721/medal-of-honor-monday-army-maj-gen-charles-calvin-rogers/
It does now, yesterday it 404'd.
They’ve changed it in the last 2 hours. When I clicked the link before, it redirected to the DEI link that had a 404. Now you click the link and it works just fine.
So as of now they fixed it, but it’s absolutely crazy that they did this.
Edit: Just worth noting that the DEI url now redirects to the non DEI url. This is just the leftover evidence of what they did. They have to do the redirect so Google SEO will update.
What I will say about them publicly is that if we are afforded another shot at democracy after all this, they and their fellow travelers cannot be permitted to have a voice in the political process. Just about any system of government can work if everybody involved is commited to making it work, but if 1/3+ of voters hold pluralistic, representative democracy in active disdain there is no system that can protect itself against those people engaging with the system in bad faith. This was the fundamental failing of reconstruction, and it's shaping up to be the undoing of freedom in the US now.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that just letting the "marketplace of ideas" play out is tantamount to throwing the gates open to any demagogue with a big enough megaphone. Participation in the political process must be restricted to good-faith actors in some fashion, be that at the "supply side" of media and content creation or at the voting booth. Anything else is akin to a basketball team kicking, biting, and throwing punches on the court and the referees shrugging and insisting they have to be allowed to play anyway.
Yes, and I was one of that generation who believed broad adoption of the Internet would cut out the gatekeepers and lead to a better-informed electorate that would give more radical ideas a shot. And I guess it did, but the problem is that it's primarily allowed the worst of bad actors direct, unfiltered access to a vast swathe of the most credulous, easily-manipulated idiots in the world. Arguably it's massively tilted the field towards authoritarianism because before the Internet, left-wing activists were better-educated, and more capable of organizing and communicating. Now, though, it takes no special knowledge or effort for a right-wing conspiracy theorist or authoritarian demagogue to jump on X or Facebook or whatever other platform you like and immediately blast their message out to vast numbers of their followers -- who are largely passive consumers of this stuff, waiting to given their party line and marching orders. Before the Internet, they had mostly-mainstream ideas because that was what the filter of the mainstream media gave them. Now they're getting sucked into the far right because social media is biased for shareable outrage-bait propaganda and against validated facts and nuanced discussion.
I'd argue the internet was moving things left, while the bar for entry was at least nominal. When the bar for sharing your ideas was at least as high as "learn to code HTML and find a place to put your site up" the Time Cube cranks were few and far between, and most people participating on the web could be assumed to have some modicum of intelligence. However, the defining factor of the Internet as it stands, dominated by social media platforms, is that it's frictionless by design. And yes, the platforms are pushing right-wing content, but to a certain extent that's accidental, or at least was when engagement algorithms first became a part of the experience. Left wing content, reality-based as it tends to be, is generally full of nuance, equivocation, and explanation that takes time and (critically) doesn't reach down into the basal structures of the brain and squeeze the amygdala quite like a right-wing fearmonger shouting "TRANS PEOPLE ARE SNEAKING INTO YOUR DAUGHTER'S SCHOOL RESTROOM TO ASSAULT HER BE AFRAID!"
Could social media be designed to put the brakes on reactionary content and boost thoughtful, well-researched opinions? Yeah, probably. But that requires expensive and time-consuming human intervention in the form of fact-checking, and doesn't boost engagement like content that just pushes all the fight-or-flight buttons way down in the lizard brain. Making the Internet easy and frictionless only turbocharged Terry Pratchett's idea that "A lie can run round the world before the truth has got its boots on," because technology makes the lie spread faster than ever, but the process of getting to the truth never got easier at quite the same rate.
I just wasted my time going into a spiel about this very same thing on YouTube. Comment was immediately removed.
It's always been blatant racism. American media and the Democrats just let them get away with it for some reason? We all know what "woke" means, just like we all knew what "religious rights" meant. All it takes is challenging them on it each and every single time it slips out of their mouth. But for some reason they all just hop along, quite happy to be hobknobbing with racists and homophobes and the like, as if all it takes is just a wee little code word for it to be okay.
This world is fucked.