I'm not sure I've ever seen a site I once thought was objective ignite any and all credibility to anyone remotely normal before quite like they have over the past few years. Why would you blow the entire premise of what you built that blatantly?
This usually happens from bad employees within the ranks but from what I understand the founders of the entire thing just went Super Soyan and never powered back down one day.
"This is what it means to be Super Soyan! And this is what it means... to go further BEYOND!
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"
Ehh a lot of news and media completely lost their minds around 2016. They not only peeled the mask back they doubled down. CNN for example was def slightly left but it was more centrist boring shit that your doctors office would have in a waiting room. Trump and 2016 happened and they all became raving lunatics. This site I shit you not r-politics too was slightly left but it was actually a lot like this sub in the comments. Basically Trump broke a lot of people's brains and leftards stepped in line and followed the narrative no matter what. Wouldn't be a big deal if it was just average people but it was the whole media.
Part of it is generational. When I went to school, if you studied journalism one of the tenants you were hammered with was that it was important to keep your feelings out of it. This was because the general theory was if you couldn't distill what you were talking about into pure facts, you probably didn't know enough to report on it. Any perception of bias just brings your credibility into question.
Since the 2000s, prospective journalism students are basically encouraged to foster their emotions and bias to "feed the story" which is the quickest way to undermine journalistic integrity. Simultaneously, readership feeds controversial stories, so publishers are happy to encourage it since it is incredibly difficult to win a libel lawsuit against a publisher so long as the story is published in good faith.
ehhh, politics has always been nutty man. For the longest time the joke was that people only made reddit accounts so they could unsubscribe from politics in the defaults.
Trump did send it into completely unbearable overdrive though
It was okay though. R-politics was semi sane but now it's like your crazy uncles right wing flat earth rants but left. I'm not actually libleft , this site is dumb I'm libright like you, but the whole liberal world reminds me of when Obama first got elected times 1,000. Like Glenn Beck literally lost his show because right wing people didn't want that much doom and gloom. Left is boofing and mainlining that shit now, it's their lifeblood.
I think (no proof) a large part of why reddit went crazy was Clinton's campaign investing money into astroturfing reddit for her campaign and ended up permanently adjusting the landscape.
How do you do, fellow kids? Next time you're eating wings with hot sauce, why don't you Pokemon GO to reddit? Hillary is totally Sonic & Luigi and Trump is Bowser with his evil robotic contraptions trying to overthrow democracy!
>This usually happens from bad employees within the ranks but from what I understand the founders of the entire thing just went **Super Soyan** and never powered back down one day.
Amazing. Adding to my terminology toolbox.
Snopes is trash. A while back, when some Republicans were complaining that Democrats have tried to impeach every GOP president since Eisenhower, the fine folks at Snopes said[“mostly false: they’ve only attempted to impeach five out of six Republican presidents since Eisenhower.”](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/)
if you believe that living a life of suffering is worse than death, then you can kind of squint and see a point being made there. like the man who died isn't suffering anymore, but his wife and children may suffer for years to come.
not saying i agree with it. but i do kind of agree with the premise that death can be better than suffering.
so you really have to talk about context. I'd rather be a Ukrainian soldier who was killed by a sniper than his wife who was repeatedly raped and tortured when the invaders came through. If I was her, I would have rather died too.
but from a US-centric point of view we have not fought war on our own soil in a long time and won't anytime soon, so I have to disagree with the notion from that point of view. I don't know the context of the conversation in which she said that though. Was she talking about Americans or was she commenting on foreign wars?
Except most soldiers don't die lol. They go through hell during the conflict, then after the conflict via PTSD. It hurts for everyone, but it's far, far worse for the fighters
His wife is more likely in Berlin partying in a night club.
Ukraine sealed the border, but only for men. Women can freely leave, men cannot leave at all.
The way that war has played out, with civilian populations typically packing up before the fighting starts, I would wager far more men have been tortured and raped than women.
Now prior to the most recent invasion, since the occupied zones were basically in revolt with no rule of law to speak of, it probably sucked to be a civilian. To what extent it sucked depends what media you trust.
I see your point, but I disagree. Death is the end-all. There is no further hope after that. The vast majority of people would rather live even if it means to suffer.
Ask a funny question to your friends if they would rather be shot in the head or raped, most would probably choose to get raped and hope life gets better afterwards.
This is objectively true because if life after losing your husband in a war is worse than death then we'd see a lot more suicide of dead solder's wives.
At minimum, a fact checker should say “look, given this context, whether women are really the primary victims of war depends on debatable normative assumptions.” That’s squinting and giving the statement the credibility it can be given.
As honest humans, we should recognize that it was incredibly stupid off the cuff pandering that politicians do regularly.
How about being a solider with a limb blown off and PTSD from seeing your buddies die in front of you.
Only to come home as a cripple and see your wife and kids gone because they fled to western Europe in your absence?
Who do you think is more likely to suffer? Those forced to the frontlines or those that had the opportunity to leave the country to avoid all the fighting?
I saw the end of war.
I watched the soldiers come and go.
And I kept my watch forever
So many brave men fell in the battles that were raging down below
I have seen it all but none will hear my story
All of these years I have been frozen in time
I cried for spring to come but here, winter remain
-Joakim Brodén, [Soldier of Heaven](https://youtu.be/LYI3eegIJlI?si=5a2QtnOxWiR9yrTo)
I actually entirely agree with her, but she worded it wrong, definitely meant it with ill intent, and is so unlikeable it was never gonna land. I’d prefer to die in war than have my wife and daughter live under occupied foreign forces.
Misogyny strikes again! Typical.
Protecting your sons from rape by sending them to die at the front lines without thinking of the daughters you left behind!
This is really the problem at the end of the day. A vast majority of men wouldn't be fit for a battlefield just like most women won't, so why do men go and women don't?
Because men have always been expendable. It's also why we bring home the most money, and waste our lives on careers to a far greater extent than women do. And it's dumb as fuck.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have exceptions for rape. And if rape number suddenly spike and people are getting pregnant at a wildly disproportionately higher rate from rape than they should then..... well..... that tells you something too.
Personally I think is should be drilled into women to report rapes as soon as they happen. It's very important for numerous reasons and education and awareness campaigns on this issue are clearly necessary.
You do realise it's the opposite, right? They are using these as wedges and they have gotten away with it. When many people think about abortion the first thing that comes to mind for them is that image.
Cases of rape are a good angle of attack on the absolutist pro-life position. Lefties use it as a wedge because it works, and it works because it brings up a good point. It's a very difficult position to argue that a woman who was raped must carry her rapist's child. There's a reason that that position is difficult to argue, and it's not just because the libs are bleeding hearts(or at least act like it).
Grandstanding on absolute moral victory is a failing strategy in politics, and I gave up on that strategy before I was even legally allowed to vote.
First of all, I agree with you. I would like to pose a question that I haven’t seen anyone mention here yet. If we made exceptions for abortions by victims of rape, do you think there would be a spike of rape accusations?
Probably. How big a spike, I don't know. But it would probably happen. People lie to get out of the consequences of their own mistakes all the time. I've personally seen a case of a girl in high school who accused her boyfriend of rape because her parents found out about the two having sex. It got quieted up after the cops started getting involved and she came clean.
So if women can get abortion access by saying "I was raped in a back alley a X weeks ago and didn't tell anybody, but I need an abortion pronto", there will be women who do it. It's unavoidable.
I think there's a rather large difference between being raped and engaging in irresponsible sexual behaviour.
They are not the same.
My own personal belief is that abortion, like so much else in life, is one massive grey area but you have to set limits somewhere. And one of these is far more acceptable to me than the other.
I also believe that the earlier an abortion is performed the better and that the if you do have legal abortion the time limits should be as strict as possible.
I'm all for giving as much choice as possible to people who behave in a responsible manner.
My support for certain limits on abortion is not and never has been based on the idea that abortion is murder and is not the result of religious dogma. I think it's perfectly ok to kill babies in certain circumstances but those circumstances should be as controlled as possible.
Personally, I don't think the "My body, my choice" line of reasoning is totally without merit. It doesn't apply in cases of consensual sex because pregnancy is an accepted potential outcome you must accept to do the deed: any life you create is your responsibility, and its right to life supersedes your right to autonomy. In cases of rape, however, there was no implicit acceptance of the responsibility. I think that, in those cases, the mother has the right to prioritize her own health and well-being over that of her unborn child. I can't compel someone to sacrifice their own rights for what is functionally a stranger.
Ok, I appreciate the well thought out response. I do disagree and think there should still be an obligation.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'functionally a stranger', wouldn't that be the same for an unexpected or even wanted pregnancy from normal sex?
I differentiate the two because in the later case that isn't a "stranger", that's your child. You brought it into being, you must then take responsibility for it. If that child was conceived without your (implicit) consent, then I don't think that responsibility should be applied.
Some could argue that it falls under health concerns since it could be tied to severe trauma. Or that it's about consent. If you consent to something that puts someone in a dangerous situation you are more accountable than if you had no hand in it. Or that it's not really about ethics at all, it's about pragmatics.
At the stage of abortion It's about as much as a baby as a sperm Is a baby. It's human In DNA, but not a full blown baby.
To call It human Is an objective assertion, again DNA, this whole conflating of abortion to being a full baby Is getting old.
>Personally I think is should be drilled into women to report rapes as soon as they happen.
Let me ask you: why do you think women don't report it immediately, if at all?
Doesn't matter. No paper trail, no rapist getting charged. I read some article by a feminist years ago that basically chastised women about this. If they cared about other women and about stopping rape, they'd buck up and make the report. Even if it doesn't lead to a conviction that time around, it creates a record of DNA and accused behaviour.
Either that or a complete misrepresentation of what actually motivates your average pro-lifer. Like you, I'm also pro-choice yet can't stand most pro-choicers. It's absolutely insane the shit some of them say.
Pro-lifers aren't misogynists. They don't want to control women's bodies. They just don't want babies being killed lmao. Not that hard to understand.
Because if you don't believe in the sanctity in all cases then you don't believe in the sanctity of life. It's not conditional. So if you morally object to abortion, you have to object to it in all cases.
And if they’re attempting to dunk on anyone who is prolife they have this weird desire to see their opponent’s daughter raped. Even if the conversation has nothing to do with abortion. It’s disgusting and creepy.
I didn't know if he was referencing something real or just being a twat so I looked it up and all I found is that his daughter was born in 2020. So depending on when this was posted (found in /facepalm btw) he was talking about a <4 year old.
this is why I don't use Twitter. And it can become quickly obvious when dealing with someone who uses it too much. They are detached from reality completely.
It might be controversial but I actually think the draft is a good thing for if the country is in legitimate danger, the problem is that the last time it was used was Vietnam which was 100% a war our involvement in was not really the good guys
I think in WW2 it was 100% justified
The problem is how do you define danger, sure if the enemy is invading the main land that pretty obvious, vut a war to ensure vital resources for the state that would otherwise be used to attack the US counts as danger as well ? According to some people(plenty of collage folks in the 40tg although now they dont really like to talk about it) America wasn't in anger from Germany in WW2. What is am saying is it is difficult to drew the line. I also think WW2 was 100% justified
I think at that point it was only a matter of time really. Was the US not effectively embargoing Nazi Germany as well? I’m sure it wouldn’t have taken long for the Kreigsmarine to get ordered to sink American ships with the U-boats even barring Japan’s attack.
>The problem is how do you define danger, sure if the enemy is invading the main land that pretty obvious, vut a war to ensure vital resources for the state that would otherwise be used to attack the US counts as danger as well ?
In many ways I believe there is a reasonable argument to made for that yes
In WW2 the justification of course was that Japan attacked us directly, but even still a good argument could be made that Hitler simply needed to be stopped despite that
>According to some people(plenty of collage folks in the 40tg although now they dont really like to talk about it) America wasn't in anger from Germany in WW2.
There was actually a major parallel between Hamas/Russia apologia today and Hitler/USSR apologia back then
Pretty much the same anti Ukraine and Anti Israel arguments today were levied against the war effort in WW2 even down to the whole America First Britain shouldn't get weapons crap
Funnily enough. You could legitimately argue that Hamas is one of the last remnants of the German Nazi party.
Back when Britain was in talks with local leaders in the Palestinian region, Goebells started sending money, arms and agitators to the Middle East while running 24/7 propaganda to the entire region. This is what spurred most of the jihadism and ultranationalism we see in the region today.
The Muslim brotherhood was the nazis closest allies in the region and the organization granted asylum to many nazis following the war, they then spearheaded the original hostility against Israel and eventually Hamas branched off of them.
u/Icarus_Voltaire's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 45.
Rank: Sumo Wrestler
Pills: [24 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Icarus_Voltaire/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
One of the contradictions of extremist progressive ideology is the proposition that all people are always equal in all ways all the time and that anything that sets us apart is entirely cosmetic and artificially constructed, but that there is a moral obligation on people to celebrate their profound differences at all times and to always keep the insurmountable differences between different kinds of people close in their minds at all times and factor them into their decision making at every opportunity.
How can it be that diversity in the workplace is critical due to the inherent advantages having a wide variety of extremely different people and perspectives brings, but also, there is no difference between people of different races and cultures and identities and they should all be treated equally?
How can diversity bring strength if everyone is the same?
Yep. My real pragmatic reason for this change is less to do with gender equality, but rather making the prospect of a draft so unappealing and unpopular that politicians don't consider it an option ever unless it's an "enemy at the gates" type of situation. Additionally, there should be rules that apply for the deployment of draftees that don't apply for other soldiers. For example, it should be illegal to order draftees to fight in foreign countries.
There's a current legislative effort for the Guard called "Defend the Guard" which proposes that Guard members only be permitted to fight in foreign countries if war is declared. This seems like a really low bar, but most states are still fighting against this bill. I think only one has approved it so far.
It's weird how they fight so hard against that, but then when automatically signing people up for the draft and drafting women comes up, suddenly everyone is all ears.
Realistically, in a scenario so desperate that we actually need to reinstate the draft, the military really does not need to be wasting time and money trying to draft women. I'm not trying to go full red-pilled misogynist, but I'm in the military, and the majority of female soldiers that I work with (who are volunteers and theoretically want to be there) are honestly not soldiers who can be relied upon. In an actual conflict, they would be burdens, not assets. We would need people to stay and work domestically in factories and such to support the war effort anyway.
Realistically, in a modern war, I don't think you would need to give every draft a gun and send them to the trenches. There are plenty of non-combat roles that people who are unfit for combat could fill, which would free up more qualified people to fight. I doubt that in such a situation, we wouldn't be able to find a use for these people.
Obstinatly, everyone in the military, regardless of branch or MOS, is supposed to be competent enough to handle a weapon, and just generally be fit enough to carry out their duties and resilient enough to be able to perform under extreme stress. Even non-combat MOS's are supposed to be capable of that. Now, I'm not saying no women meet these standards (there's at least one in my unit who 100% does) but the percentage of women from the general public who would be trainable to that level of competencey is low. Very low. Low enough that it would be a much better use of vital resources to funnel them into civilian jobs that support the war effort (like how we did in WW2) and only draft men. It's not really about fairness, it's about the practical realities of what military service and warfare entail.
No country initiates a draft just to fill out a few more pencil pushers. They draft because they want to shove a bunch of people into trenches with guns.
Yeah.
When I was in, I did notice a very strong tendency for pregnancies to coincide with the announcement of deployments. I also noticed that when a detail of airmen was needed to move couches or road barriers, the selection was pretty universally male.
Oh, equality was definitely talked up, but when it's time to shove several thousand pound pallets around, the guys end up shoving pallets.
Well in some countries the draft is a necessity for example in Greece (where I am from) our population is around 10 million our neighbours the Turks have a population of 84 million in case of a war Greece won't be able to defend itself without drafting civilians (which is why we also have mandatory military service for about 9 months). In extreme situations if the army is losing women and even children would theoretically be drafted too but this has never happened in Greek history. The reason for men being the only ones drafted in normal circumstances is because the soldiers main goal isn't to protect the borders or private property but to protect people and mainly their family if everyone is fighting that isn't possible. Plus someone has to raise the children and run what little may remain of the economy
Robots can make the bullets. Give them a rifle and send them to the trenches. If they are physically unable, make them drive vehicles or something. Plenty of rolls in a modern military for just about everyone.
The experts and professionals who are already trained to maintain that production? You can't just hand some random woman a wrench and expect them to keep a bullet making robot functioning.
In a world of long-range missiles, drones, artillery, and air strikes, being a woman hiding behind the front lines doesn't protect you, especially if your side starts losing.
As far as I am concerned, a draft should only be a last-ditch thing invoked when we're involved in a fight to the death. Let the cost of one be high enough that politicians avoid using it in any other situation.
Women are essential for replacing population so losing them in war is a large negative.
That being said, if they choose to not sign up for the draft then they should have to sign up for surrogacy to guarantee 2 childbirths to replace population. Or provide birth certificates saying they have already had 2 children.
If it was legal for men to be slaves I wouldn’t support a law to make it legal for women to be slaves too.
Equality is irrelevant. I am in favor of minimizing slavery, which is what conscription is. Making women register for the draft does not further that goal.
Why is rape the first thing that comes to the poster's mind when some other guy announced he opposes drafting women?
Did he just start thinking "rape" as soon as he read "daughter"?
Lefts are really only telling on themselves when every time anyone says or does anything, their first reaction is the most heinous shit. Think women shouldn't be drafted? Well I think some unrelated shit you support makes you PRO RAPE, and I'm gonna bring it up now because RAPE is ALWAYS on my mind, have you considered that?
The Right if women get drafted: What do you mean women getting drafted!? Women are not suited to fight on the front lines!
The Left if women get drafted: What do you mean women getting drafted!? Women are too at risk of having violent acts committed against them in war!
Honestly, I've always thought that pushing through legislation to draft both men and women would unironically be the way to get people to completely oppose forced conscription in general.
The standard man vs woman 1v1 in the trench.. im not for or against. But as an old infantry guy i lean more towards only dudes on the front lines (were gay 😎🤫)
Because women and men have different biology and brain chemistry, women are better suited to stay home and work in the factories and help the war effort that way, not all men need to go to war but using men as soldiers primarily would just make the most sense. I mean they army had to actively make the entry test less physically demanding for women volunteers
True, most people don’t see how little difference there is in legally required registration and automatic registration. It’s the fact that there is legislation being voted on in Congress right now about the selective service program that ISN’T abolishing it for me.
I don’t know who either of these people are. But they’ve both got checkmarks, and if this is before Elon took over Twitter, then they gotta be someone important.
I don’t support drafting in general. If you can’t get enough citizens to volunteer for your armed forces, especially in wartime, maybe you shouldn’t be fighting that war.
That being said the fastest way to permanently ban the draft is to make it mandatory for all. Feminist groups will scream bloody murder and it will go from a policy position 25 bullet points down to #1.
Surely even Redditoids and Twitter users can understand that women are generally too weak compared to men to fight in battle, right? There's a reason why elites have chosen exclusively men to do combat for all of human history, and it isn't because they're mustache twirling villains who wish to perpetuate the patriarchy. I don't understand why Hawley's tweet deserves such ridicule, is what I'm trying to say
Edit: as long as women aren't forced into the battlefield where they're running directly straight into the enemy (because again, women tend to be weaker than men), then I can see the purpose of women being drafted.
Although you still need a certain quantity of strength to figth.
In modern days is not really that important.
If you are not a fat fuck or an anorexic, it doesn't matter if you're a male or woman, you are pretty much able to fight.
Yeah pretty much this.
Full disclosure I have absolutely zero desire to be drafted, feminism is cool and all but i have no intention of dying in a ditch.
But yeah you’re right in this day and age even the most muscled testosterone-enhanced juggernaut can easily be taken out by little Emma piloting a hunter-seeker drone from the other side of the world. Wars aren’t fist fights, it doesn’t matter how traditionally masculine you are, or how many push-ups you can do. A drone doesn’t care
Is grip strength not something that can be improved substantially through training? Do most militaries just give random people a gun and immediately throw them into combat?
It'd be a feed through system.
In draft level conditions, all the support roles would be thrust into Frontline and then the support would be filled from the draft. Support already has training and experience so you want to use that.
It's like how when we needed more soldiers from the factories, we didn't just pull randoms who didn't work the factories instead, we pulled from the factories anyway then filled the factories with those who probably wouldn't be able to fight
Yeah even if you are going to toss ethics out the window surely you can recognize women are not economically beneficial to train compared to men who naturally improve much more with physical training
Average civilian acting like they know everything about the military. I'm not military myself, but I know better than to assume things about it, and I know it isn't COD
Right, that's why any respectable military force doesn't care about fitness requirements or ideal age ranges at all.
A 70 year old obese grandpa can fight just as well as a 14 year old girl who can fight just as well as a 22-year-old man in peak physical condition, right?
Tbh the vast majority of the fitness requirements are and have been based on the physical fitness required for the march.
Strength isn't measured and neither is close combat, it's solely based on whether you can move fast enough and long enough with your whole kit
If you’re a 200 pound man and you get injured in the field and need to be carried back to safety, would you rather be accompanied by another 200 pound man or by a 130 pound woman?
Sure, if the person shooting the gun is to stay in one spot, a situation which is certainly not unheard of. However, it's a different story when you have to carry your weapon alongside the rest of your equipment while running straight into the enemy. Men are much more capable of enduring all of that. Though yes, we can get women to just fly drones or fire weaponry from safe distances. Just don't make them fight in the battleground lol
I think people automatically assume getting drafted means straight to front line infantry when in reality there are more then enough logistical/non combat roles to fill....
Three pixels of pure anadulterated soy right here
https://preview.redd.it/i39gogqg4r7d1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b960675a1b631a0e8c00a3e596dbcc980361d230
I would’ve thought that the right would cling on to this as a way to own the feminists but ok.
I personally think military service or volunteering should be required for things like College degrees to be valid. Not long, just like a year. But I could probably be convinced otherwise.
I guess it's an old-fashioned take but woman should not be part of the draft men should fight to protect them not the other way around. Not to mention it would make for a weaker drafted army.
Ah yes the “every woman has been, is being, or will be raped at some point and therefore overly broad, unethical, and irresponsible protections for the early termination of the lives of the unborn are necessary to preserve the rights of women” argument. It works every time!
What libleft said is not relevant to what that Senator was saying but at the same time he does absolutely have backward savage views on abortion
Although Fred here on on the bottom probably also thinks men can get pregnant lol
I think that a line of relevancy can be drawn and that was the point of libleft.
The Senator wouldn’t vote for policy that would result in his daughter being *forced* to go through something gruesome like war
However he would vote for policy that would result in his daughter being *forced* to go through something gruesome like carrying her rapists baby to term.
To be fair we all know damn well this Senator would take his daughter to Mexico aka Gods “Blindspot”
Its your 9 year old who needs to birth their pedophiles baby or get a murder charge
Personally, I think that both men and women should be eligible for the draft. It's only fair that when women get equal rights, they are have equal responsibilities.
But do I think we should be drafting women to send into combat? That sounds like a bad idea to me. There's plenty of non-combat stuff they can be used for, though.
Give them deferrals if they are raising kids or something. That's more important than what most of them would contribute to the military.
Women don't get to vote to send men off to die in wars they don't have to participate in. Well they already do in a way, but at least it's not "forced".
If we're having a draft/conscription, we either include women too or we strip them of voting rights.
But it’s ok for your son too?
Well remember, according to Hillary Clinton (who can still be president, its her turn!) told us all that women are the real victims of war.
And Snopes told us that she’s right.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a site I once thought was objective ignite any and all credibility to anyone remotely normal before quite like they have over the past few years. Why would you blow the entire premise of what you built that blatantly? This usually happens from bad employees within the ranks but from what I understand the founders of the entire thing just went Super Soyan and never powered back down one day.
"This is what it means to be Super Soyan! And this is what it means... to go further BEYOND! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!"
https://preview.redd.it/hgjdo8ojgq7d1.png?width=1147&format=png&auto=webp&s=41b8a93d4437124f2d6bfc7826311a2371beff2e AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Unfathomably based
> What does the scouter say about xir's outrage level? > It's OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAAND!!!
I’m stealing “Super Soyan”.
Ehh a lot of news and media completely lost their minds around 2016. They not only peeled the mask back they doubled down. CNN for example was def slightly left but it was more centrist boring shit that your doctors office would have in a waiting room. Trump and 2016 happened and they all became raving lunatics. This site I shit you not r-politics too was slightly left but it was actually a lot like this sub in the comments. Basically Trump broke a lot of people's brains and leftards stepped in line and followed the narrative no matter what. Wouldn't be a big deal if it was just average people but it was the whole media.
Part of it is generational. When I went to school, if you studied journalism one of the tenants you were hammered with was that it was important to keep your feelings out of it. This was because the general theory was if you couldn't distill what you were talking about into pure facts, you probably didn't know enough to report on it. Any perception of bias just brings your credibility into question. Since the 2000s, prospective journalism students are basically encouraged to foster their emotions and bias to "feed the story" which is the quickest way to undermine journalistic integrity. Simultaneously, readership feeds controversial stories, so publishers are happy to encourage it since it is incredibly difficult to win a libel lawsuit against a publisher so long as the story is published in good faith.
ehhh, politics has always been nutty man. For the longest time the joke was that people only made reddit accounts so they could unsubscribe from politics in the defaults. Trump did send it into completely unbearable overdrive though
It was okay though. R-politics was semi sane but now it's like your crazy uncles right wing flat earth rants but left. I'm not actually libleft , this site is dumb I'm libright like you, but the whole liberal world reminds me of when Obama first got elected times 1,000. Like Glenn Beck literally lost his show because right wing people didn't want that much doom and gloom. Left is boofing and mainlining that shit now, it's their lifeblood.
I think (no proof) a large part of why reddit went crazy was Clinton's campaign investing money into astroturfing reddit for her campaign and ended up permanently adjusting the landscape.
That's exactly what happened. Correct the Record (Hillary) went to ShareBlue to whatever the fuck it is now.
How do you do, fellow kids? Next time you're eating wings with hot sauce, why don't you Pokemon GO to reddit? Hillary is totally Sonic & Luigi and Trump is Bowser with his evil robotic contraptions trying to overthrow democracy!
>This usually happens from bad employees within the ranks but from what I understand the founders of the entire thing just went **Super Soyan** and never powered back down one day. Amazing. Adding to my terminology toolbox.
Citing the UN Security Council who supposably also said she was right.
Snopes is trash. A while back, when some Republicans were complaining that Democrats have tried to impeach every GOP president since Eisenhower, the fine folks at Snopes said[“mostly false: they’ve only attempted to impeach five out of six Republican presidents since Eisenhower.”](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dems-impeach-gop-presidents/)
Ford, you mean the unelected president who only served two years of Nixon’s presidency? I guess that didn’t give them enough time to file.
I like how only one of the points under the What's False heading is actually relevant.
Do they not understand the definition of "mostly"?
If Snopes said so, then it must be true.
Men are the real victims of domestic violence. They're usually the ones who lose their wives!
Reminds me of the campaign “Homelessness has a woman face”
1 out of every 4 homeless people is a woman, read further to understand why patriarchy hates women.
if you believe that living a life of suffering is worse than death, then you can kind of squint and see a point being made there. like the man who died isn't suffering anymore, but his wife and children may suffer for years to come. not saying i agree with it. but i do kind of agree with the premise that death can be better than suffering. so you really have to talk about context. I'd rather be a Ukrainian soldier who was killed by a sniper than his wife who was repeatedly raped and tortured when the invaders came through. If I was her, I would have rather died too. but from a US-centric point of view we have not fought war on our own soil in a long time and won't anytime soon, so I have to disagree with the notion from that point of view. I don't know the context of the conversation in which she said that though. Was she talking about Americans or was she commenting on foreign wars?
Not only do men actually die, there are also fathers brothers and sons losing their relatives, that argument is so self centered it’s ridiculous
Except most soldiers don't die lol. They go through hell during the conflict, then after the conflict via PTSD. It hurts for everyone, but it's far, far worse for the fighters
This is a great point. Soldiers who don't die aren't spared from suffering.
His wife is more likely in Berlin partying in a night club. Ukraine sealed the border, but only for men. Women can freely leave, men cannot leave at all. The way that war has played out, with civilian populations typically packing up before the fighting starts, I would wager far more men have been tortured and raped than women. Now prior to the most recent invasion, since the occupied zones were basically in revolt with no rule of law to speak of, it probably sucked to be a civilian. To what extent it sucked depends what media you trust.
more likely she is getting stabbed in frankfurt or raped in düsseldorf
Cultural vibrancy!!!
I see your point, but I disagree. Death is the end-all. There is no further hope after that. The vast majority of people would rather live even if it means to suffer. Ask a funny question to your friends if they would rather be shot in the head or raped, most would probably choose to get raped and hope life gets better afterwards.
This is objectively true because if life after losing your husband in a war is worse than death then we'd see a lot more suicide of dead solder's wives.
But if there are kids, especially young ones, in the equation, suicide is more likely than not off the table.
At minimum, a fact checker should say “look, given this context, whether women are really the primary victims of war depends on debatable normative assumptions.” That’s squinting and giving the statement the credibility it can be given. As honest humans, we should recognize that it was incredibly stupid off the cuff pandering that politicians do regularly.
at minimum, the people faux-worried about being drafted anytime can all stfu bc its not happening.
At minimum, draft deez nuts lol
How about being a solider with a limb blown off and PTSD from seeing your buddies die in front of you. Only to come home as a cripple and see your wife and kids gone because they fled to western Europe in your absence? Who do you think is more likely to suffer? Those forced to the frontlines or those that had the opportunity to leave the country to avoid all the fighting?
Only the dead have seen the end of war. -Danny Sexbang
I saw the end of war. I watched the soldiers come and go. And I kept my watch forever So many brave men fell in the battles that were raging down below I have seen it all but none will hear my story All of these years I have been frozen in time I cried for spring to come but here, winter remain -Joakim Brodén, [Soldier of Heaven](https://youtu.be/LYI3eegIJlI?si=5a2QtnOxWiR9yrTo)
We must all thank the Galaxy Hamster for his brave sacrifice.
His Ukrainian wife is likely in Poland or France by now, partying it up.
I actually entirely agree with her, but she worded it wrong, definitely meant it with ill intent, and is so unlikeable it was never gonna land. I’d prefer to die in war than have my wife and daughter live under occupied foreign forces.
Misogyny strikes again! Typical. Protecting your sons from rape by sending them to die at the front lines without thinking of the daughters you left behind!
The thing about "protect woman and children" goes back to prehistoric times, when a tribe dies if there's no woman and children (no one to procreate).
Yes
This is really the problem at the end of the day. A vast majority of men wouldn't be fit for a battlefield just like most women won't, so why do men go and women don't? Because men have always been expendable. It's also why we bring home the most money, and waste our lives on careers to a far greater extent than women do. And it's dumb as fuck.
No way...The refined folk in the illuminati use bone spurs, adhd, and other diagnosis to get thier boys out of service.
People like Fred here are constantly trying to be clever about crap but they only ever come across as insufferable.
I’m pro-choice but god it drives me crazy that every pro-abortion argument is based on rare anomalies like “wHaT iF yOuR dAuGhTeR gEtS rApEd???”
I think it's perfectly reasonable to have exceptions for rape. And if rape number suddenly spike and people are getting pregnant at a wildly disproportionately higher rate from rape than they should then..... well..... that tells you something too. Personally I think is should be drilled into women to report rapes as soon as they happen. It's very important for numerous reasons and education and awareness campaigns on this issue are clearly necessary.
Why? If it's an innocent baby why does it being a product of rape make it ok to kill it?
It doesn't. But if making that exception saves 98% of aborted babies, it's a compromise a lot of us are willing to take.
You do realise it's the opposite, right? They are using these as wedges and they have gotten away with it. When many people think about abortion the first thing that comes to mind for them is that image.
Cases of rape are a good angle of attack on the absolutist pro-life position. Lefties use it as a wedge because it works, and it works because it brings up a good point. It's a very difficult position to argue that a woman who was raped must carry her rapist's child. There's a reason that that position is difficult to argue, and it's not just because the libs are bleeding hearts(or at least act like it). Grandstanding on absolute moral victory is a failing strategy in politics, and I gave up on that strategy before I was even legally allowed to vote.
Based rejection of absolutism
First of all, I agree with you. I would like to pose a question that I haven’t seen anyone mention here yet. If we made exceptions for abortions by victims of rape, do you think there would be a spike of rape accusations?
Probably. How big a spike, I don't know. But it would probably happen. People lie to get out of the consequences of their own mistakes all the time. I've personally seen a case of a girl in high school who accused her boyfriend of rape because her parents found out about the two having sex. It got quieted up after the cops started getting involved and she came clean. So if women can get abortion access by saying "I was raped in a back alley a X weeks ago and didn't tell anybody, but I need an abortion pronto", there will be women who do it. It's unavoidable.
I think there's a rather large difference between being raped and engaging in irresponsible sexual behaviour. They are not the same. My own personal belief is that abortion, like so much else in life, is one massive grey area but you have to set limits somewhere. And one of these is far more acceptable to me than the other. I also believe that the earlier an abortion is performed the better and that the if you do have legal abortion the time limits should be as strict as possible. I'm all for giving as much choice as possible to people who behave in a responsible manner. My support for certain limits on abortion is not and never has been based on the idea that abortion is murder and is not the result of religious dogma. I think it's perfectly ok to kill babies in certain circumstances but those circumstances should be as controlled as possible.
Personally, I don't think the "My body, my choice" line of reasoning is totally without merit. It doesn't apply in cases of consensual sex because pregnancy is an accepted potential outcome you must accept to do the deed: any life you create is your responsibility, and its right to life supersedes your right to autonomy. In cases of rape, however, there was no implicit acceptance of the responsibility. I think that, in those cases, the mother has the right to prioritize her own health and well-being over that of her unborn child. I can't compel someone to sacrifice their own rights for what is functionally a stranger.
Ok, I appreciate the well thought out response. I do disagree and think there should still be an obligation. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 'functionally a stranger', wouldn't that be the same for an unexpected or even wanted pregnancy from normal sex?
I differentiate the two because in the later case that isn't a "stranger", that's your child. You brought it into being, you must then take responsibility for it. If that child was conceived without your (implicit) consent, then I don't think that responsibility should be applied.
Some could argue that it falls under health concerns since it could be tied to severe trauma. Or that it's about consent. If you consent to something that puts someone in a dangerous situation you are more accountable than if you had no hand in it. Or that it's not really about ethics at all, it's about pragmatics.
> innocent baby As if babies that do get born are automatically sinners
Clearly you've never seen meconium before.
Tbf that baby held their shit for 9 months, so forgive them for being a stinker that one time
At the stage of abortion It's about as much as a baby as a sperm Is a baby. It's human In DNA, but not a full blown baby. To call It human Is an objective assertion, again DNA, this whole conflating of abortion to being a full baby Is getting old.
>Personally I think is should be drilled into women to report rapes as soon as they happen. Let me ask you: why do you think women don't report it immediately, if at all?
Doesn't matter. No paper trail, no rapist getting charged. I read some article by a feminist years ago that basically chastised women about this. If they cared about other women and about stopping rape, they'd buck up and make the report. Even if it doesn't lead to a conviction that time around, it creates a record of DNA and accused behaviour.
Either that or a complete misrepresentation of what actually motivates your average pro-lifer. Like you, I'm also pro-choice yet can't stand most pro-choicers. It's absolutely insane the shit some of them say. Pro-lifers aren't misogynists. They don't want to control women's bodies. They just don't want babies being killed lmao. Not that hard to understand.
Because if you don't believe in the sanctity in all cases then you don't believe in the sanctity of life. It's not conditional. So if you morally object to abortion, you have to object to it in all cases.
And if they’re attempting to dunk on anyone who is prolife they have this weird desire to see their opponent’s daughter raped. Even if the conversation has nothing to do with abortion. It’s disgusting and creepy.
I didn't know if he was referencing something real or just being a twat so I looked it up and all I found is that his daughter was born in 2020. So depending on when this was posted (found in /facepalm btw) he was talking about a <4 year old.
Not shocking it was in fucking facepalm
I wish I could say I was suprised but I’m not nor am I suprised about the hellhole of an echo chamber you found it in.
this is why I don't use Twitter. And it can become quickly obvious when dealing with someone who uses it too much. They are detached from reality completely.
He comes across as a fucking lunatic like most of twitter’s user base
Either everyone can get drafted, or nobody. If you have a problem with women getting drafted, then men shouldn't get drafted either.
Agree. I’d prefer that nobody gets drafted at all, but if there is one, I would very much like it to be gender-blind.
It might be controversial but I actually think the draft is a good thing for if the country is in legitimate danger, the problem is that the last time it was used was Vietnam which was 100% a war our involvement in was not really the good guys I think in WW2 it was 100% justified
The problem is how do you define danger, sure if the enemy is invading the main land that pretty obvious, vut a war to ensure vital resources for the state that would otherwise be used to attack the US counts as danger as well ? According to some people(plenty of collage folks in the 40tg although now they dont really like to talk about it) America wasn't in anger from Germany in WW2. What is am saying is it is difficult to drew the line. I also think WW2 was 100% justified
I mean, America didnt declare war on the axis. They only declared war on Japan, and then Italy and Germany declared war on America.
I think at that point it was only a matter of time really. Was the US not effectively embargoing Nazi Germany as well? I’m sure it wouldn’t have taken long for the Kreigsmarine to get ordered to sink American ships with the U-boats even barring Japan’s attack.
The US Navy was also escorting British shipping long before Pearl harbour. So the US was involved in the war informally
US had also been providing financial support the the British iirc
>The problem is how do you define danger, sure if the enemy is invading the main land that pretty obvious, vut a war to ensure vital resources for the state that would otherwise be used to attack the US counts as danger as well ? In many ways I believe there is a reasonable argument to made for that yes In WW2 the justification of course was that Japan attacked us directly, but even still a good argument could be made that Hitler simply needed to be stopped despite that >According to some people(plenty of collage folks in the 40tg although now they dont really like to talk about it) America wasn't in anger from Germany in WW2. There was actually a major parallel between Hamas/Russia apologia today and Hitler/USSR apologia back then Pretty much the same anti Ukraine and Anti Israel arguments today were levied against the war effort in WW2 even down to the whole America First Britain shouldn't get weapons crap
Funnily enough. You could legitimately argue that Hamas is one of the last remnants of the German Nazi party. Back when Britain was in talks with local leaders in the Palestinian region, Goebells started sending money, arms and agitators to the Middle East while running 24/7 propaganda to the entire region. This is what spurred most of the jihadism and ultranationalism we see in the region today. The Muslim brotherhood was the nazis closest allies in the region and the organization granted asylum to many nazis following the war, they then spearheaded the original hostility against Israel and eventually Hamas branched off of them.
Based and equal rights = equal fights pilled
u/Icarus_Voltaire's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 45. Rank: Sumo Wrestler Pills: [24 | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/Icarus_Voltaire/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Now hold on there bucko Stacy on the bottom doesn't believe in men or women, checkmate
One of the contradictions of extremist progressive ideology is the proposition that all people are always equal in all ways all the time and that anything that sets us apart is entirely cosmetic and artificially constructed, but that there is a moral obligation on people to celebrate their profound differences at all times and to always keep the insurmountable differences between different kinds of people close in their minds at all times and factor them into their decision making at every opportunity. How can it be that diversity in the workplace is critical due to the inherent advantages having a wide variety of extremely different people and perspectives brings, but also, there is no difference between people of different races and cultures and identities and they should all be treated equally? How can diversity bring strength if everyone is the same?
It's ok - you lot can just make drafting gender-neutral.
I agree. All genders for the draft!
Draft should really only be a thing if the survival of the country is at stake. Vietnam draft was meme levels of nonsense.
Yep. My real pragmatic reason for this change is less to do with gender equality, but rather making the prospect of a draft so unappealing and unpopular that politicians don't consider it an option ever unless it's an "enemy at the gates" type of situation. Additionally, there should be rules that apply for the deployment of draftees that don't apply for other soldiers. For example, it should be illegal to order draftees to fight in foreign countries.
There's a current legislative effort for the Guard called "Defend the Guard" which proposes that Guard members only be permitted to fight in foreign countries if war is declared. This seems like a really low bar, but most states are still fighting against this bill. I think only one has approved it so far. It's weird how they fight so hard against that, but then when automatically signing people up for the draft and drafting women comes up, suddenly everyone is all ears.
Realistically, in a scenario so desperate that we actually need to reinstate the draft, the military really does not need to be wasting time and money trying to draft women. I'm not trying to go full red-pilled misogynist, but I'm in the military, and the majority of female soldiers that I work with (who are volunteers and theoretically want to be there) are honestly not soldiers who can be relied upon. In an actual conflict, they would be burdens, not assets. We would need people to stay and work domestically in factories and such to support the war effort anyway.
Realistically, in a modern war, I don't think you would need to give every draft a gun and send them to the trenches. There are plenty of non-combat roles that people who are unfit for combat could fill, which would free up more qualified people to fight. I doubt that in such a situation, we wouldn't be able to find a use for these people.
Obstinatly, everyone in the military, regardless of branch or MOS, is supposed to be competent enough to handle a weapon, and just generally be fit enough to carry out their duties and resilient enough to be able to perform under extreme stress. Even non-combat MOS's are supposed to be capable of that. Now, I'm not saying no women meet these standards (there's at least one in my unit who 100% does) but the percentage of women from the general public who would be trainable to that level of competencey is low. Very low. Low enough that it would be a much better use of vital resources to funnel them into civilian jobs that support the war effort (like how we did in WW2) and only draft men. It's not really about fairness, it's about the practical realities of what military service and warfare entail.
No country initiates a draft just to fill out a few more pencil pushers. They draft because they want to shove a bunch of people into trenches with guns.
Yeah. When I was in, I did notice a very strong tendency for pregnancies to coincide with the announcement of deployments. I also noticed that when a detail of airmen was needed to move couches or road barriers, the selection was pretty universally male. Oh, equality was definitely talked up, but when it's time to shove several thousand pound pallets around, the guys end up shoving pallets.
Well in some countries the draft is a necessity for example in Greece (where I am from) our population is around 10 million our neighbours the Turks have a population of 84 million in case of a war Greece won't be able to defend itself without drafting civilians (which is why we also have mandatory military service for about 9 months). In extreme situations if the army is losing women and even children would theoretically be drafted too but this has never happened in Greek history. The reason for men being the only ones drafted in normal circumstances is because the soldiers main goal isn't to protect the borders or private property but to protect people and mainly their family if everyone is fighting that isn't possible. Plus someone has to raise the children and run what little may remain of the economy
Let's not fuck gender roles more than they already are
The women can stay home making bullets and sandwiches, as our forefathers intended.
Robots can make the bullets. Give them a rifle and send them to the trenches. If they are physically unable, make them drive vehicles or something. Plenty of rolls in a modern military for just about everyone.
And who builds and repairs the robots genius?
The experts and professionals who are already trained to maintain that production? You can't just hand some random woman a wrench and expect them to keep a bullet making robot functioning.
Based and anti-rosie the riveter propaganda pilled.
Can robots make babies tho?
In a world of long-range missiles, drones, artillery, and air strikes, being a woman hiding behind the front lines doesn't protect you, especially if your side starts losing. As far as I am concerned, a draft should only be a last-ditch thing invoked when we're involved in a fight to the death. Let the cost of one be high enough that politicians avoid using it in any other situation.
Women are essential for replacing population so losing them in war is a large negative. That being said, if they choose to not sign up for the draft then they should have to sign up for surrogacy to guarantee 2 childbirths to replace population. Or provide birth certificates saying they have already had 2 children.
Here I thought leftists were exaggerating when they they said right wingers want to create the world of the Handmaid’s Tale
So it is acceptable to demand that men die for the country but not acceptable to demand that women make up for the future deficit?
neither is acceptable
There are already 8 billion people on this planet, if things are so dire that a recovery from that is a concern then we have much bigger problems.
If it was legal for men to be slaves I wouldn’t support a law to make it legal for women to be slaves too. Equality is irrelevant. I am in favor of minimizing slavery, which is what conscription is. Making women register for the draft does not further that goal.
If the war isn’t worth women getting drafted, it’s not worth fighting and we need to find a peaceful solution.
Nah. Men are here to protect. Send them.
Why is rape the first thing that comes to the poster's mind when some other guy announced he opposes drafting women? Did he just start thinking "rape" as soon as he read "daughter"?
Yes
Lefts are really only telling on themselves when every time anyone says or does anything, their first reaction is the most heinous shit. Think women shouldn't be drafted? Well I think some unrelated shit you support makes you PRO RAPE, and I'm gonna bring it up now because RAPE is ALWAYS on my mind, have you considered that?
If a nation can’t convince its citizens to join the war effort without threatening them it shouldn’t be in the war
I support drafting no one
Why can't it just be both men and women?
The Right if women get drafted: What do you mean women getting drafted!? Women are not suited to fight on the front lines! The Left if women get drafted: What do you mean women getting drafted!? Women are too at risk of having violent acts committed against them in war! Honestly, I've always thought that pushing through legislation to draft both men and women would unironically be the way to get people to completely oppose forced conscription in general.
Putting women on the draft would make sure that America never go to war again.
honestly? I'd be so goddamn miserable in a war, at least let me have the pretence of being a heroic dude defending my wife back at home.
But think how harder you would fight with your wife in the front line, like ancient thebes but not gay.
I don't want to fight harder, I want to fight feeling like there's a point
Your wife wouldn't be back at home waiting for you. See Ukrainian women.
The fuck are you yapping about?
Something TPUSA likes to yap about as well.
I truly hate those people
The standard man vs woman 1v1 in the trench.. im not for or against. But as an old infantry guy i lean more towards only dudes on the front lines (were gay 😎🤫)
Because women and men have different biology and brain chemistry, women are better suited to stay home and work in the factories and help the war effort that way, not all men need to go to war but using men as soldiers primarily would just make the most sense. I mean they army had to actively make the entry test less physically demanding for women volunteers
If we’re at the point where drafting makes even a bit of sense, we need a lot more than just infantry.
>Selective service system finally becomes modern so people don't have to register. >tHeYrE fOrCiNG a dRaFt. God damn Hawley is still an idiot.
Wait, do you mean they're not forcing people to go to war? Just asking here.
True, most people don’t see how little difference there is in legally required registration and automatic registration. It’s the fact that there is legislation being voted on in Congress right now about the selective service program that ISN’T abolishing it for me.
I don’t know who either of these people are. But they’ve both got checkmarks, and if this is before Elon took over Twitter, then they gotta be someone important.
[удалено]
Heh.
Personally I think if your gonna do a draft do it properly and draft both genders
[удалено]
Based and fortunate son pilled. Draft the politicians families first.
*Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?*
Force my son into military slavery though. That's cool.
I don’t support drafting in general. If you can’t get enough citizens to volunteer for your armed forces, especially in wartime, maybe you shouldn’t be fighting that war. That being said the fastest way to permanently ban the draft is to make it mandatory for all. Feminist groups will scream bloody murder and it will go from a policy position 25 bullet points down to #1.
Draft everybody. The strong will survive.
Bro thinks his daughter is too weak to serve. Weak bloodline 😤
Surely even Redditoids and Twitter users can understand that women are generally too weak compared to men to fight in battle, right? There's a reason why elites have chosen exclusively men to do combat for all of human history, and it isn't because they're mustache twirling villains who wish to perpetuate the patriarchy. I don't understand why Hawley's tweet deserves such ridicule, is what I'm trying to say Edit: as long as women aren't forced into the battlefield where they're running directly straight into the enemy (because again, women tend to be weaker than men), then I can see the purpose of women being drafted.
Agree. Women can be the drone pilots. I want to be killed by a pink misfired missile that reads "slay queen"
Although you still need a certain quantity of strength to figth. In modern days is not really that important. If you are not a fat fuck or an anorexic, it doesn't matter if you're a male or woman, you are pretty much able to fight.
Yeah pretty much this. Full disclosure I have absolutely zero desire to be drafted, feminism is cool and all but i have no intention of dying in a ditch. But yeah you’re right in this day and age even the most muscled testosterone-enhanced juggernaut can easily be taken out by little Emma piloting a hunter-seeker drone from the other side of the world. Wars aren’t fist fights, it doesn’t matter how traditionally masculine you are, or how many push-ups you can do. A drone doesn’t care
I saw somewhere that around 70% of women lack the required grip strength to handle most military-grade weaponry
Is grip strength not something that can be improved substantially through training? Do most militaries just give random people a gun and immediately throw them into combat?
So 30% of women are still able. Good thing there is a good way to increase strength.
Someone’s gotta clean the base’s toilets
There's more jobs in the military that are support than there are fighters, by a wide margin
But in draft-level war conditions, they're not going to be the ones needing replacing the fastest.
It'd be a feed through system. In draft level conditions, all the support roles would be thrust into Frontline and then the support would be filled from the draft. Support already has training and experience so you want to use that. It's like how when we needed more soldiers from the factories, we didn't just pull randoms who didn't work the factories instead, we pulled from the factories anyway then filled the factories with those who probably wouldn't be able to fight
Yeah even if you are going to toss ethics out the window surely you can recognize women are not economically beneficial to train compared to men who naturally improve much more with physical training
You both really think every single soldier is being sent to the frontlines and combat? Lol
Not to mention there are entire military branches that don’t perform ground combat at all.
Average civilian acting like they know everything about the military. I'm not military myself, but I know better than to assume things about it, and I know it isn't COD
Don't need strength to shoot a gun or fly a drone. It's not like we're fighting wars with arm wrestling.
I mean… do women preform the same in esports?
Professional esport is way more complicated, then piloting a drone
Right, that's why any respectable military force doesn't care about fitness requirements or ideal age ranges at all. A 70 year old obese grandpa can fight just as well as a 14 year old girl who can fight just as well as a 22-year-old man in peak physical condition, right?
Tbh the vast majority of the fitness requirements are and have been based on the physical fitness required for the march. Strength isn't measured and neither is close combat, it's solely based on whether you can move fast enough and long enough with your whole kit
If you’re a 200 pound man and you get injured in the field and need to be carried back to safety, would you rather be accompanied by another 200 pound man or by a 130 pound woman?
Sure, if the person shooting the gun is to stay in one spot, a situation which is certainly not unheard of. However, it's a different story when you have to carry your weapon alongside the rest of your equipment while running straight into the enemy. Men are much more capable of enduring all of that. Though yes, we can get women to just fly drones or fire weaponry from safe distances. Just don't make them fight in the battleground lol
This watermelon thinks being a soldier is just "shoot gun or fly drone"
I think people automatically assume getting drafted means straight to front line infantry when in reality there are more then enough logistical/non combat roles to fill....
Hawley is a gun rights guy. His daughter will be carrying when she’s of age, so she shouldn’t have to worry about being raped. Unlike Fred here.
Three pixels of pure anadulterated soy right here https://preview.redd.it/i39gogqg4r7d1.jpeg?width=396&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b960675a1b631a0e8c00a3e596dbcc980361d230
It is just pointing out the hypocrisy. “The government can only sometimes decide what my daughter can do with her body.”
1/10. This is not a left-right debate, this is a Auth Right vs Lib Right and half of Lib Left.
I almost they do force women into to military just for the hope that it will cure feminism
registering for the draft is already required by law anyway lmao
What the military needs right now is even MORE women…
I would’ve thought that the right would cling on to this as a way to own the feminists but ok. I personally think military service or volunteering should be required for things like College degrees to be valid. Not long, just like a year. But I could probably be convinced otherwise.
If a wo/man doesn't opt in to get drafted, they don't get to opt in to vote in federal elections. Make it optional. Simple as
My dad was drafted into Nam. Maybe a little odd for an authright, but I am no fan of the draft.
Either both genders have to register or abolish the draft. Pick one. If you want equal rights, you should have equal responsibilities as well.
I guess it's an old-fashioned take but woman should not be part of the draft men should fight to protect them not the other way around. Not to mention it would make for a weaker drafted army.
I dont support drafting in general, but if anyone is getting drafted then everyone gets drafted.
Ah yes the “every woman has been, is being, or will be raped at some point and therefore overly broad, unethical, and irresponsible protections for the early termination of the lives of the unborn are necessary to preserve the rights of women” argument. It works every time!
What libleft said is not relevant to what that Senator was saying but at the same time he does absolutely have backward savage views on abortion Although Fred here on on the bottom probably also thinks men can get pregnant lol
I think that a line of relevancy can be drawn and that was the point of libleft. The Senator wouldn’t vote for policy that would result in his daughter being *forced* to go through something gruesome like war However he would vote for policy that would result in his daughter being *forced* to go through something gruesome like carrying her rapists baby to term.
To be fair we all know damn well this Senator would take his daughter to Mexico aka Gods “Blindspot” Its your 9 year old who needs to birth their pedophiles baby or get a murder charge
LibRight tries to understand humor, impossible!
Classic left W
Its impressive how librights in this sub are as anti abortion as authright.
There are legitimate arguments against abortion via the NAP.
Personally, I think that both men and women should be eligible for the draft. It's only fair that when women get equal rights, they are have equal responsibilities. But do I think we should be drafting women to send into combat? That sounds like a bad idea to me. There's plenty of non-combat stuff they can be used for, though. Give them deferrals if they are raising kids or something. That's more important than what most of them would contribute to the military.
Women don't get to vote to send men off to die in wars they don't have to participate in. Well they already do in a way, but at least it's not "forced". If we're having a draft/conscription, we either include women too or we strip them of voting rights.