Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

7

noordinaryspider wrote

Unfortunately, since I am poor and have only my dreams.....

We essentially have one in my area and yes, I did support it with nine months of preganancy, eleven hours of unmedicated labour, five years of full time unpaid 24/7/365 childcare, ten years of full time homeschooling that precluded working for a paycheck, and three years of child support + emotional labour.

I would say that the mandatory military draft is the financial charity to which I have donated the greatest amount of my resources.

Unfortunately, it wasn't enough. I've got to pay for the fucking pine box out of pocket. They'll probably charge me for the goddamnedmotherfuckingcocksucking flag they drape over it too.

Fuck the military. Shoot your kids' kneecaps out instead or dose the fuck out of them with lysergic acid diethelymide tartrate or just don't have kids in the first place.

2

selver wrote (edited )

What? Of course not.

I only support desertion & draft dodging.

Also see: Israel. Military training for everyone means everyone gets indoctrinated to dehumanize the enemy.

2

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Absolutely not. Why the hell would anyone?

1

retiredshared2 wrote

The only possible reason would be to force Americans to stop outsourcing their wars to private contractors and send their own children in to do the killing.

4

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

Ok. Here's why that won't work to stop American aggression and imperialism.

  1. The children of the rich and powerful won't go. They will have ways of getting out of any draft that is imposed, just like they did in Vietnam.

  2. Assuming the US stops private contracting as a part of the draft (they wouldn't, but let's assume), the private contractors who are doing it cuz they're murderous gung-ho reactionaries (which is the vast majority) will enlist and go anyway. They will be in every combat unit, and many of the things they did as contractors they will do as soldiers.

  3. The children of the poor will be the ones on the front lines. Minorities will be heavily over-represented, and their deaths will only anger the general population once they get to an astoundingly high number and the war goes on for a decade or more.

1

ziq wrote

Since the US uses remote drones and missiles and airstrikes and very rarely sends in ground troops, this won't even happen. The US troop causalities are completely dwarfed by the casualties of their victims. Pretty soon they won't even need drone operators because they'll use AI.

3

Green_Mountain_Makhno wrote

I agree, the use of drones and AI make even the eventuality of unpopular war a microscopic probability. There is no fixing it without removing the United States as a global super power, and a nation-state.

3

supernice wrote

Also, proxy armies (ISIS is a good example). There are always mercenaries, for lack of a better term, available. The empire always finds a way.

1

thelemotta wrote

This AI and drone apparatus is going to a point in the future that wars will be played with joystick like those E-Sports streamings. And remind me the idea that Olympics and Worlds Cups and international sports tournaments are supposed to "substitute" wars (in the colonial mentality).

2

GrimWillow wrote

I don't support mandatory anything from the state... The only action I want the state to take is dismantling itself, should be plenty of "jobs" available if that was a project of theirs.

1

libre_dev wrote

No. I encourage anyone in a situation where the state must force them to take up arms, to leave said state.

My country has had conscription for well over a hundred of years (with a short break recently), and the only upshot I can see is that rich kids can't get out of it.

1

ziq wrote

Can an admin clean this thread up of the annoying trolling?

2

GrimWillow wrote

Done. Looks like a little troll brigade popped out for an attack using the shared accounts.

0

retiredshared2 wrote

trolling isn't a violation of the tos, there has to be a vote for this

2

selver wrote

Fuck off, shared accounts don't get to be used for meta discussion.

2

GrimWillow wrote

It's just a group of people coming out to harrass ziq on the shared accounts with useless shit like calling him a liberal for no reason and context. You really want those comments back? Do you think that this kind of harassment was worth keeping in this thread? It's not like they're banned or anything. It was essentially a shitpost that didn't contribute to anything except more animosity and drama...

-2

retiredshared2 wrote (edited )

This kind of enforcement has never been in place before, it's funny that now ziq is the victim it is.

There has to be a vote to remove the comments and action taken in /f/TrollDissection whether this behavior is acceptable or not because that's the process that raddle has always used unless there is blatant tos violations.

3

GrimWillow wrote

Nah, I'm just new at admining, and maybe it's a mis-step on my part. This was literally the first comments I've deleted, and it had nothing to do with the fact that it was aimed at u/ziq (though he does seem to have a little group targeting him). Seemed like an obvious thing to me to remove shitposts made by shared accounts, especially since they can controlled/deleted by anyone. A troll could just come in and edit/delete any of the posts. I guess I always thought of the shared accounts as being a thing until they get taken over by trolls, which I'm expecting at one point.

Next time, I'll just point it out in u/TrollDissection instead of this kind of action if users are feeling like it's controversial.

4

selver wrote

It's not controversial, don't take shit from this random shared account. Feel free to delete trolls.

4

ziq wrote

If they think removing spam is controversial they can use their regular account to say it. Throwaways don't have voting rights.

1

retiredshared2 wrote

That's reasonable

A troll could just come in and edit/delete any of the posts. I guess I always thought of the shared accounts as being a thing until they get taken over by trolls, which I'm expecting at one point.

agreed, this should probably be discussed in detail somewhere

2

ziq wrote

fuck voting to remove spam, that's never how raddle worked.

1

ergdj5 wrote

spam doesn't include user genuine user comments

2

ziq wrote

Define 'genuine user comments'? All I saw were the anon accounts calling me a liberal and upvoting each other.

3

ziq wrote

Which would be fine if I had actually said something liberal, but I fucking hate 'national service' and was just trying to start a convo.

1

ergdj5 wrote

suggesting national service has "benefits" is pretty liberal

I think it was also a little nod at how you call raddlers liberals for slipping up

0

retiredshared2 wrote

it isn't a brigade either if those people were raddlers

2

GrimWillow wrote

With the shared accounts, you can't even tell. I only deleted 2 things, and they were straight up shit-posts nonsensically dishing out insults based on the fact that the post was started someone they didn't like. It's not like ziq actually supports mandatory military draft, he's just asking a question...

0

retiredshared2 wrote

there's been no formal vote on whether shared accounts come under this rule or not.

There has however been a formal vote on whether it is acceptable for admins to remove comments they think have been made by trolls, which was put down by ziq themself!!

3

ziq wrote

What formal vote? This isn't pretend parliament - We appoint admins we trust to take care of spam like this. I'm not waiting 48 hours for everyone to vote about whether spam is spam when my thread is being hijacked to attack me again.

-1

retiredshared2 wrote (edited )

the votes in /f/meta

It isn't spam though, these are user comments and now you're only calling it spam to avoid the use of the word troll, which isn't mentioned in the tos

If you think trolling should be in the tos then perhaps you could raise that?

3

ziq wrote

This isn't a tos issue. People abusing the anon accounts to engage in petty personal attacks, trolling and malicious disinfo don't get a right to 'democracy'.

Throwaways and anon accounts don't have voting rights in f/meta. If they're misusing the accounts, admins have all the leeway they need to put a stop to it.

The anon accounts are a privilege, not a right.

2

selver wrote

The anon accounts shouldn't even be allowed to talk about meta issues here. Fuckin cowards.

1

ziq wrote

Next time I'll just delete my whole thread and repost it.

0

365degrees wrote

Sounds pretty accelerationist to me. Did you finally figure out you were eating out of the trashcan of ideology recently?

2

GrimWillow wrote

Your comment was fine until "Did you finally figure out you were eating out of the trashcan of ideology recently?"

Enough with the trolling, please... I didn't see you jump to this conclusion in the thread asking about whether or not trump is good for Anarchism. You're obviously just here to shit on ziq...

-1

365degrees wrote

Hey hey, settle down, it's a Zizek joke. He's a pretty horrid accelerationist kinda guy, and that's what he says famously. It's not literal at all.

2

GrimWillow wrote

ok, I definitely missed that reference. But also, I put an emphasis on the word "finally" to point out that that's where you're implying that ziq has always "eaten out of the trashcan of ideology", and that just in this instance, where you think he's supporting an accelerationist idea, you think that it's just another example of it.

I haven't heard much of Zizek, but I get the feeling I wouldn't like his stuff; though I do like the visuals of describing someone "eating out of the trashcan of ideology". I could describe a lot of people who definitely fit that.

1

365degrees wrote

I haven't heard much of Zizek, but I get the feeling I wouldn't like his stuff

Don't you worry, he's quite terrible about everything other than that documentary.

0

ziq wrote (edited )

Starting the debate doesn't mean I support the position, brat.

And for the record there is a mandatory draft here and I'm a draft dodger.

-3

ziq wrote

Benefit:

Forces everyone to be aware of their state's crimes because they're the ones directly committing them on the state's behalf. When people can actually see the blood on their hands, they're forced to stop ignoring it because it's out of sight, and it can lead to social change. People will fight back when their lives are directly impacted by the state's policies.

6

atomkarinca wrote

Being in a country that has mandatory military drafts, this cannot be farther from the truth.

People are lining up to kill people because for them it's not killing people, it's just defending our mainland. If it weren't for our troops the terrorists would kill us all.

This is what mandatory military drafts mostly do.

2

retiredshared2 wrote

The blood doesn't matter when the people are brown; you should be aware of this by now. Nobody cares about the 'opposing' race the state's set us up to fight.

People don't fight back when their lives are directly impacted, and history shows the draft either kills all resistance or births more. Its a risky gamble to support such a thing.

2

GrimWillow wrote (edited )

If the US felt like it needed to draft, it would. They only don't have one because there's enough people lining up to fight for the worldwide rich against the poor overseas. During the drafting for the Vietnam war, the blood on people's hands didn't seem to end anything. It sure did ruin a lot of lives on both sides though. I think if US didn't have all those forced soldiers, they would have killed less Vietnamese.

3

noordinaryspider wrote

Thanks, GrimWillow, that is a less emotional version of what I was trying to say. There is such a thing as an "economically mandatory military draft".

Pigs do the same thing. If I've convinced myself that I can trust you, it would be completely contradictory and shatter my little illusion to think that you weren't already aware of that fact, lol.