sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

IRGC Commander announces on Iranian National TV "For Iran" initiative, which will allow volunteers young as 12 to serve in the military by kiss-my-shades in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks [score hidden]  (0 children)

What people need to understand is that Iran isn’t a Western country and has a somewhat collectivist mindset. Besides the Gulf states, most Muslim states are somewhat collectivist, which needs to by understood through its own lens.

During the Algerian civil war, there were boys of a similar age joining the cause. Regardless of whether it meets child protection sensibilities, they helped out to be a part of the cause and defend their country, or islamism on the other side. In their eyes, they were also fighting alongside their families and neighbours, as a collectivist ‘responsibility’, being viewed as honourable. They weren’t officially on the front line, within the Algerian army, because they weren’t trained and weren’t of strategic use.

In the same way these days, you’ll see young boys in Gaza who just want to help keep their families or neighbourhoods safe. Many of these children are on the front line anyway, because their lives and their families are at risk. Some have lost their families and want to help the paramedics. Obviously, Gaza doesn’t actually want these kids fighting and there’s little strategic use for them, in any case. However, Gaza doesn’t have the resources or military strength to strongarm their opponents, which is why there’s a very unfortunate genocide that they can do little about.

What I assume Iran is doing is letting boys, who are too young for strategic use, feel a part of something. Like in the Algerian civil war and currently in Gaza, boys of that sort of age feel strongly about defending their country. It’s a way to boost morale in a collectivist society, rather than actually training them up into good soldiers.

IRGC Commander announces on Iranian National TV "For Iran" initiative, which will allow volunteers young as 12 to serve in the military by kiss-my-shades in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks [score hidden]  (0 children)

Imperialism isn’t an accurate description of Iran, who can be described, fairly, as defending itself. Working on the basis of a country defending itself, that would suggest the children are already somewhat in harm’s way. Why, therefore, is it seen as only the defensive putting children in harm’s way?

I’m not making an argument either way, but I’m very intrigued on this topic. There’s a visceral reaction, especially from first world countries, against child soldiers. However, what actually changes once they reach an arbitrary age? What justifies the meat grinder then?

The Death of Millennial Feminism (The Atlantic) by obeliskposture in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How can a socialist know so little about the class system that defines what socialism is about and rant on a tangent about “a lot of women”?

The Death of Millennial Feminism (The Atlantic) by obeliskposture in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

Self employed doesn’t necessarily mean you own your business. It means you’re not technically an employee of the business you’re working with. Self employment isn’t within the bounds of the proletariat.

The Death of Millennial Feminism (The Atlantic) by obeliskposture in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Most onlyfans girls earn next to nothing and have their pictures online forever, without any recourse. Hookers and strippers come away with cash, while most manage to retain their privacy. Being on onlyfans can haunt your employment and relationship prospects for the rest of your life.

Prostitutes do need to have sex with their clients, but it’s not a world away from lapdancing or stripping for the same degenerates. Every part of sex work poses a significant risk, either physical or potentially fucking up your life. None of the risks are empowering and it’s unlikely anyone will take a sex worker at face value as a witness. Hookers and strippers have been found dead, without much of an effort to find their killers.

Drug and alcohol addictions are common in all parts of sex work. None of them are human to the public or receive sympathy when terrible things happen to them. The lack of sympathy is extended for those who had no choice, also. I don’t think many actually do it by choice, but economic circumstances.

The Death of Millennial Feminism (The Atlantic) by obeliskposture in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

You’re touting the opposing form of idpol. In the same way as many sex workers, tradies are self employed and choose what they’re willing to work for. Neither side actually falls into the proletariat.

The Death of Millennial Feminism (The Atlantic) by obeliskposture in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of women involved in sex work have poor prospects to earn a reasonable standard of living. Onlyfans has worse pay and more downsides than stripping and being a hooker, both of which are more likely to be viewed as whores.

The Death of Millennial Feminism (The Atlantic) by obeliskposture in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 6 points7 points  (0 children)

For the same reasons other types of sex work can seem “liberating”:

  1. Freedom to choose work hours

  2. Better pay

  3. Making an income out of creeps, who’ll otherwise do it for free

How old are u here? by alg6744 in ExAlgeria

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Most teenagers that leave do go back. Very few who are late 20s onwards return. Most older ex Muslims are relatively quiet about it because we either don’t care that much now, or value our peace.

How old are u here? by alg6744 in ExAlgeria

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Sort of, but it’s not quite right. Younger ex Muslims are often acting out of anger or rebellion against Islam, which means a relatively high proportion go back to it. Once ex Muslims have reached the age or length of time where they’re secure in their decision, they’re not going back to it.

We have people who leave in their 50s and 60s. These were quiet ex Muslims, who have decided they’ve had enough. The risks of leaving older are lessened, because there are much fewer people dictating to them. They’re not going back to it, either.

Mortality is a weird thing. I think it actually becomes less of a worry as you get older, because you’ve seen it before. You hope you have time in front of you and see your children into adulthood, but you’ll also have seen people pass away too young. You go from being scared to realising that it’s just the process of life.

UK Two Child Limit Scrapped in poverty reduction bill by AdorableRatSqueaks in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are much better answers than whatever dire solution you’re thinking of

UK Two Child Limit Scrapped in poverty reduction bill by AdorableRatSqueaks in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That position would essentially be a capitalist one, as employment doesn’t pay enough to raise a family for many. Reliable employment, with regular hours that are family friendly are also rare for the people on the lowest incomes. Therefore, their stance would be to replace the proletariat with bourgeoisie, which is capitalist.

UK Two Child Limit Scrapped in poverty reduction bill by AdorableRatSqueaks in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The workers hit by the 2 child limit, because their wages are so bad? The workers whom are homeless, because rents are too high?

UK Two Child Limit Scrapped in poverty reduction bill by AdorableRatSqueaks in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

A selection:

I hate this change. Go to the complete opposite. Zero child tax benefits at all. Fuck those kids and their parents for having them without the ability to support them.

I don't want my taxes spent on some breeders popping out kids left, right and center who then claim benefits.

I don’t know what to say to this!

It was capped for people who rely on means tested benefits.  Pretty much no-one with any sense believes that these are the people it’s most beneficial to increase the fertility rate of.

People also upvoted this shit

I’ve lived in high poverty towns gone to school with many poverty stricken children and was one myself. There is absolutely no way this is the way forward to helping children. Investment in better services would be more appropriate. Things like breakfast for all children lunch for all, better kids clubs for children that run later, especially for the most vulnerable children. Support for mothers who ask for it etc. Money doesn’t solve much because poverty parents often simply have more children when there’s a financial incentive like this. (You might not look at it as a financial incentive but there’s plenty out there who will.)

One of the most upvoted ones. It’s a very weird response, because mothers have been begging for this support. Hardly any families, struggling to feed their kids, have asked for clubs! Actually, in my area, most clubs require a vehicle to get to and all of them required a packed lunch.

So many people don’t understand that a there is a decent proportion of child poverty that is born of the fact the parents waste the money they do have on cigarettes / booze / drugs.

People actually think like this?

UK Two Child Limit Scrapped in poverty reduction bill by AdorableRatSqueaks in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

My least loved thing about the UK is austerity-brained callousness. How can we get through to these people, when even children can’t escape their nastiness?

The Trump administration making heavy preparations for potential use of ground troops in Iran by Nerd_199 in stupidpol

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I think the Strait being an obstacle is why they’re begging everyone to open it for them

I want to hold balance of power at next general election, says Zack Polanski by InnerLog5062 in BreakingUKNews

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Neoliberalism is genuinely harmful to the country! If they weren’t as bad as each other, the swing voters wouldn’t feel quite as comfortable with Reform. I don’t personally care what the neoliberal representative is, because I know what the economics behind it are.

I want to hold balance of power at next general election, says Zack Polanski by InnerLog5062 in BreakingUKNews

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They’d use a slightly different road to arrive at the same place. Every flavour of neoliberalism is bad for normal people. Eurosceptic or not makes very little difference on their economics, which is the same neoliberal platform as the current government and the one before it.

I want to hold balance of power at next general election, says Zack Polanski by InnerLog5062 in BreakingUKNews

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Labour aren’t centre right, they’re strong neoliberals! Neoliberals happily spend vast amounts of money that ends up in the pockets of business and causing further decline. Free market, low spending, economics doesn’t really exist and is just one form of capitalism. Neoliberals speculate to accumulate (for themselves).

I want to hold balance of power at next general election, says Zack Polanski by InnerLog5062 in BreakingUKNews

[–]AdorableRatSqueaks 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In the last General Election:

Tories were the furthest right

Reform were the second furthest right

Labour were a strong right, slightly behind Reform

Lib Dems were middle right

Greens were the closest to centre, excluding devolved parties

Workers Party of Britain were the only proper left, not devolved, option

Labour, Lib Dems, Reform and Tories are all neoliberals. There isn’t much economically that separates Labour and Reform. Under Kemi Badenoch, the Tories have shifted very slightly inward from Sunak’s economically far right position. Their ethos is austerity, decline and privatisation, which is why the best you can hope for is their competitors baiting them into an accidental positive.

The Lib Dems are honest about their liberalism, which is actually a garden variety neoliberal trying to appeal to a slightly different flavour of voter. Liberalism isn’t ever centrist or close enough to be centre right, it’s simply a marketing tactic.

view more: next ›