politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Most of the people I know that signed up for the military did so because they didn't have any other options out of high school. Their grades weren't good enough for college, their families were too poor to keep supporting them, and the job market (especially when I graduated high school in 2009) was so shit that the military was the only viable option for a lot of people. We have slim to none in the way of social safety nets in this country, and for the people who want to try to get some semblance of stability and self-sufficiency after high school, the military is often the best and/or only option.
Your stance here is woefully narrow-minded and completely ignores the reality faced by many young Americans who are just trying to make their way in the world. It's hideous and abhorrent that our systems are set up like this to the point that the military is a lifeline for many young adults, but I'm not going to blame them for believing the ubiquitous propaganda or making a calculated choice to try to survive in this capitalist hellscape.
This exactly, if you believe the military only serves the interests of billionaires, instead of attacking those who enlist look at the systemic reasons why people join the military. It's usually poverty.
I'm not attacking people that join. I'm critizing people that have joined, served, and still advocate for it because it "pays for college". Like, serving a military that causes the deaths countless innocents and disrupts the stability of entire nations is somehow ok because of that?
No. I respect those that served, learned, and advocate against it wholeheartedly.
You are seriously underestimating cyclical poverty. It's not just about "paying for college". There are a lot of places in this country where you'll struggle your whole life and will then statistically die much younger than your better off peers.
We as a society have generally failed to provide solutions to this kind of poverty. For many the military is the only choice. For many it's not even about college, it's about having a meal tomorrow.
You speak as someone that's never expirenced the worst of poverty.
I can agree it's not the best solution, but people will take it because our society offers little else. I won't critize them for taking it.
We should focus on the systematic issues that lead to this type of poverty and maybe adress all the other problems surrounding the military industrial complex before we critize poor kids
I guess the only people in poverty are in the west. I guess all the people in the poorest countries in the world are ok with getting bombed for decades so we can have a jobs program.
We can have a jobs program without bombing poor and impoverished countries mate.
The irony of saying I'm disconnected from poverty. I'm literally advocating to stop murdering the poorest countries and people on our planet.
It's amazing how you get so close to the issue and then push the blame down to the impoverished.
The reason not to address poverty is to make people desperate so they then join the military. Therefore they are now volunteers and "chose" this path. So "we" don't have to feel bad for them, instead the American people are generally thankful for their service or in your case angry with them. This is all intentional. Their deaths now becomes acceptable.
If the US government addressed cyclical poverty they would lose military recruitment. Then they could turn to conscription, but that would make their conflicts less tolerable to the general public.
So they dont address these issues. It's intentional, and by pushing blame down instead if up where it belongs you're just playing into their plan
Do you have reading comprehension problems? I don't disagree with that. I put the blame on the ruling class of our country. That's literally what my original comment was explaining. Doesn't mean I'm not going to point out the class traitors along the way. Police and military are welcome when they step down from their positions of violence on the working class of this world. Until then. They actively work to hurt the most impoverished people in the world and I will always call them out for it.
The vast vast majority of poor people in this world do not make a conscious decision to hurt others even if it would benefit them. But you seem to be focused on defending the police and military of the US that actively cause harm to those in poverty.
You're advocating for the continuing of the very systems of violence that keep people in poverty in the first place.
Tell me which part of this makes what I said incorrect? You're just describing the material conditions that lead to working class people joining the military. Which I don't disagree with. They are parasitic in nature. I don't blame anyone that was fooled or forced into it by default.
I'm talking about the material outcomes and purpose our military serves. The military being a government jobs program doesn't somehow change its purpose and who it serves.
You could have a Orphan Baby Murdering Factory that provided jobs and benefits. It could even sometimes build infrastructure or help it's community outside of its main purpose. But it would still have a purpose to murder orphan babies.
Our militarys main purpose is to uphold and defend American imperialism. It is the world's largest terrorist organization.
I'll back that up with receipts too if you want. But I really am just trying to get you to understand that this isn't an attack on individuals in the military. But more of an attack on their delusions of what purpose they think it serves.
I respect wholeheartedly those that joined, served, and are now outspoken against it. But I cannot respect for a second someone that served in the military and also advocates for others to do so. Because all they are saying is "well, it's ok to bomb innocent people and disrupt entire countries because otherwise I couldn't have afforded college". It's inherently selfish and quite frankly it's disgusting.
Most of the military members I know are well aware of what the end result is, and the ones that are sticking it out for a prolonged career are doing so in order to try to change things from the inside. Most of the ones that did the minimum amount of time and got out are aware as well.
And for this part: > But I cannot respect for a second someone that served in the military and also advocates for others to do so. Because all they are saying is “well, it’s ok to bomb innocent people and disrupt entire countries because otherwise I couldn’t have afforded college”.
There are shades of gray here and you are stubbornly ignoring any nuance that might exist. For a lot of people, it's not just a matter of being able to go to college, it's a matter of being able to eat regularly and keep a roof over their head. There are plenty of veterans that fully acknowledge that being in the service comes with many problems and ethical quagmires, but they still recommend it for people in the position of having to choose between destitution or military service.
Yeah, you're just justifying serving a terrorist organization. These same things could be said of people that join ISIS if you wanted to make excuses. And those people have much more dire circumstances than anyone that lives in the US ever could.
I'm sure you'd have this same moral gray area discussion when ISIS kills innocent people. /s
Just because someone can click a button on a controller or do paper pushing for a terrorist organization doesn't mean they are any less of terrorist.
I'm sure you'd make the same moral gray argument for the person that booked the tickets for flight 93. They were clearly just doing paperwork.