I mean, the Army is on the record in the article as saying that the behavior would not be tolerated and that they are investigating. He’ll probably get UCMJ’d. I think “without repercussion” is strong.

Should there be more protections to detect this stuff early? Maybe. But, like, that doesn’t feel like as flashy a headline I guess.

And idk, should the Armed Forces have people actively monitoring all their personnel’s private lives 24/7? Seems a little much to me.

I’m just having trouble figuring out what the takeaway is. What “repercussions” do you want to see here? He gets punished in some way? Cause odds are good he will, if they can figure out who it is (since the Guardian didn’t share the name with the Army, per the article.) So what’s the story?

I mean, this isn’t good obviously, but it also doesn’t feel like news.

The US military employs almost 3million people. I challenge you to grab a broad swath of 3 million people and not have a few neo-nazis in the bunch.

Which isn’t to say that it’s okay or should be tolerated. Just that, like, it isn’t news. Or, at least, not any more news than “Nazi sypathizer exists on earth” is news.