It’s a Washington Times op, not the Washington Post. It is not an “ai slop yahoo article”, but Snopes article aggregated on Yahoo News.
Like you’re trying to attack the credibility of these criticisms while seemingly being completely unaware of who wrote them or who they’re responding to.
The stuff on yahoo, seems like ai slop, it keeps repeating the same thing, maybe that’s how the yahoo aggregate works idk, im not familiar with it. I was not attacking the Washington post op, I said whats linked, the yahoo thing feels like what id expect from an ai generated article and the Washington post opinion piece didn’t seem to read so much about “gays in concentration camp” but that trump seems to (which I agree with) want to change army culture to a more “Masculine strength” (Like China, russia and NK) where its not about the effectiveness or such of the military but the “strength” of its individual soldiers.
It seems more pointed to trump trying to make his own dictator army, like stalin, or hitler, with the emphasis people seemed to give on the image, I expected more commentary on “how the army should be used to control undesirables” or something, which Im sure trump wants,
but what I read was about trump trying to copy the ultra masculine face of armies in NK or Russia but instead of any discussion or that, everyone it talking about the image, like trump was smart enough to be liking this for the image and not him agreeing “Ya ya, I want army to be stronk”
Again, it was a Washington Times article, not Post. The Washington Post was not linked because neither Trump nor Snopes cited them. Likewise, whether or not the “stuff on yahoo” that “seems like ai slop” to you doesn’t change whether it is AI authored (it isn’t, it was written by a human working at Snopes and posted to Snopes) nor whether it is accurate (it is). Trump did post the article with the image in question to his Truth Social account on March 9, 2025.
The discussion raised by people in this thread is not about the content of the linked Washington Times article, it is about the fact that the president of the United States is using iconography developed by the Nazis in the same manner as the Nazis. That said, to take the obvious bait you’ve set up, we’ve seen how ineffective both Russia and North Korea’s army are. They are clearly a poor model for a well run and organised army, regardless of their supposedly “masculine strength”. I also reject your claim that strength is a purely masculine trait. The US has had a (if begrudgingly) diverse military for as long as it has been a global superpower. Gay people, trans people, people of color, and more recently women have been contributing successfully to that strength for longer than you or I have been alive. Many of those groups are typically cast as non masculine, yet clearly display great strength.
I’m not going to be responding to you any further, I don’t really feel like you’re engaging in good faith.
did you read the ai slop yahoo article or the Washington post op?
The original article read more to say trump was trying to make a dictator machine, like russia, NKz or china, not concentration camps,
of course trump would still support and share it if it was.
Im not saying he’s agianst putting us in concentration camps, he already has stsrted, im saying this was not our red flag
It’s a Washington Times op, not the Washington Post. It is not an “ai slop yahoo article”, but Snopes article aggregated on Yahoo News.
Like you’re trying to attack the credibility of these criticisms while seemingly being completely unaware of who wrote them or who they’re responding to.
The stuff on yahoo, seems like ai slop, it keeps repeating the same thing, maybe that’s how the yahoo aggregate works idk, im not familiar with it. I was not attacking the Washington post op, I said whats linked, the yahoo thing feels like what id expect from an ai generated article and the Washington post opinion piece didn’t seem to read so much about “gays in concentration camp” but that trump seems to (which I agree with) want to change army culture to a more “Masculine strength” (Like China, russia and NK) where its not about the effectiveness or such of the military but the “strength” of its individual soldiers.
It seems more pointed to trump trying to make his own dictator army, like stalin, or hitler, with the emphasis people seemed to give on the image, I expected more commentary on “how the army should be used to control undesirables” or something, which Im sure trump wants,
but what I read was about trump trying to copy the ultra masculine face of armies in NK or Russia but instead of any discussion or that, everyone it talking about the image, like trump was smart enough to be liking this for the image and not him agreeing “Ya ya, I want army to be stronk”
Again, it was a Washington Times article, not Post. The Washington Post was not linked because neither Trump nor Snopes cited them. Likewise, whether or not the “stuff on yahoo” that “seems like ai slop” to you doesn’t change whether it is AI authored (it isn’t, it was written by a human working at Snopes and posted to Snopes) nor whether it is accurate (it is). Trump did post the article with the image in question to his Truth Social account on March 9, 2025.
The discussion raised by people in this thread is not about the content of the linked Washington Times article, it is about the fact that the president of the United States is using iconography developed by the Nazis in the same manner as the Nazis. That said, to take the obvious bait you’ve set up, we’ve seen how ineffective both Russia and North Korea’s army are. They are clearly a poor model for a well run and organised army, regardless of their supposedly “masculine strength”. I also reject your claim that strength is a purely masculine trait. The US has had a (if begrudgingly) diverse military for as long as it has been a global superpower. Gay people, trans people, people of color, and more recently women have been contributing successfully to that strength for longer than you or I have been alive. Many of those groups are typically cast as non masculine, yet clearly display great strength.
I’m not going to be responding to you any further, I don’t really feel like you’re engaging in good faith.