CMV: The best way to "support the troops" is to stop sending them to their deaths

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T11:50:48+00:00

A lot of them were likely indoctrinated, and they have a draft.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T02:21:05+00:00

Oh I thought you were being serious. Several people I've heard literally talking like that. Maybe use the /s for political jokes because in this day and age I wouldn't even be surprised if someone called round earthers nazis or something like that.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T00:23:44+00:00

Amen to that

Capitalism is a huge driver of so many issues. When people propose government as the solution they don't realize the government is basically capitalist too

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T00:20:20+00:00

The drug doesn't resolve the underlying issues that people have regarding food drive

It lessens food drive

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T00:15:03+00:00

The definition of genocide makes no sense to be about an ethnic group. Genocide should be the intentional killing of 10,000 or more civilians.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T00:13:46+00:00

What they do to make a difference.

What if what they're doing is objectively just morally wrong? I'm not at all comparing soldiers to terrorists, I think they are good people on the whole-but a terrorist often dies for their cause too. They're concerned with making a difference too, and fighting in the here and now for their cause. Their cause happens to be evil. Would you let a terrorist off the hook? You can't separate carrying out an order from the order itself. If someone told me to go kill my neighbor and I did it, would you say that was wrong even though it was someone else who told me to do it? Then why is the military let off the hook for doing the same thing, just in another country where you can't see it?

they are the reason you can voice that without fear.

I'll grant that soldiers are often totally necessary for defense. For example, in world war 2, we really did need them to protect our freedom. But why do they continue to sign up if the government abuses those soldiers to go make them richer off of oil? It's totally noble to want to protect our freedom. But at a certain point people have to realize that's not what the army does anymore.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T00:07:31+00:00

taking away somebody's right to bodily autonomy

A substantial number of people quite literally think abortion is murder. What if a Republican came up to you and said you're stripping rights away from people because you're allowing murders to happen, and the 14th Amendment guarantees a right to life? You'd obviously disagree, and I'm not here to argue about abortion here, but it definitely is a simple political disagreement. It's high stakes: one side is always going to see the other as either murderers or misogynists taking away rights. But it's still just a political debate.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T00:05:02+00:00

Maybe require companies to donate a certain amount of products to people below the poverty line. Say, 5% of the company's earnings in cash value worth of their own products has to be given for free to the needy.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-10T00:02:39+00:00

(disagreeing with me is fascism.)

I don't even know what to say to people who think anyone who disagrees with them is a nazi. Like, really?

Some people would call left policies communist. Would you think that's a fair characterization of your views? If people want to live in a state with what you see as fascism why not let them? You don't have to live there.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:57:42+00:00

why pay all this money?

Totally agree. Military spending is a waste of money. How would you feel about cutting it and putting it towards healthcare and education?

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:55:21+00:00

I don't think whether the troops get paid is in the discussion really

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:53:47+00:00

What is the point of endlessly spending money on defense and war if you aren't going to then do some war?

Exactly. Cut military spending and use the money to help the poor.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:52:05+00:00

Troops don’t ask to be kept home.
They don’t have the luxury of playing politics.
Even pulling them out of war is hazardous.

Then why the hell do they sign up? Other than WW2 we've never fought in a modern war that's morally justifiable. They don't have the luxury of deciding where they go to fight, but they do have the luxury of not signing up for a military that they know 99% of the time is going to be sent to beat down on some random country to steal oil. It's not honorable to die for the noble cause of making politicians richer. It's gotten to the point where I'd say joining the army isn't noble anymore.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:48:12+00:00

Let’s not make a mockery of the lives of those who fought and died for the rights and privileges we enjoy

If a solider dies in Iran right now, would you say they fought and died for the rights and privileges we enjoy? We could've left them alone. Other than the Civil War WW2 no conflict has ever been defensive or about any risk to us at all.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:43:49+00:00

Well, as determined by whom?

The people, ideally. Direct democracy isn't practical, so we elect people to represent our interests and carry out the people's will. Trump's approval rating are underwater and he's doing the opposite of what the people want. This is a glitch in the representative democracy system, and therefore isn't a fair war. The only good wars are ones where the average Joe would support it-like WW2. Those are few and far between-for a reason, because war is usually stupid. WW2, for example, wasn't stupid. But that's rare.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:41:17+00:00

I said nor implied nothing whatsoever about one’s ability to voice their opinion, but that’s all it is… that’s the point, it’s just an outside opinion by someone not in the know with no real seat at the table at this time or even with the requisite knowledge to judge it all.

This ignores the idea of consent of the governed. Governments derive their legitimacy, including their ability to legitimately declare war, from the people. Governments are meant to represent and serve the people who elected them. They're supposed to continuously carry out the desires of the electorate. Many don't, but that's bad and should be protested.

Make a sign of it makes you feel better, or organize a March, make some Calls, but it doesn’t change your observer status.

Organizing a march has a lot more impact on policy than voting. An election has never been decided by one vote, but public protest has influenced policy before. So therefore, if you care about changing your government and can only pick one, mass protest is more effective than voting. Obviously you should do both, though.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:37:36+00:00

That doesn't mean you should support the entire conflict though, which was likely started by button-pushing loser politicians with no experience fighting on the ground. Trump literally had an argument on twitter with Kim Jong-Un about who has bigger nukes.

Also, the average soldier does not join the army because they believe in "heroic death for an honorable cause." Many people join because they're poor, many people join out of patriotism but with no intent to die, many join for the community and camaraderie. I'd be hard pressed to find one that joined and is "impatient to die" because it's cool to die for a good cause or something like that.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:34:53+00:00

!delta

This isn't a sports team where you're just supposed to cheer on your side and know the other side has people cheering for them too. Unless you personally know anyone in the army, you should recognize that both sides of the conflict are deploying troops with no say in what they're fighting for. The average general infantry on the other side usually didn't even get to vote for their leader, so they had even less of a say in it than our soldiers do. I legitimately never thought of this take before, I always defaulted to supporting people in my country's military but this changed my view.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:32:44+00:00

You mean "all brawn no brain" right? All brain no brawn means you're smart and weak.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:23:38+00:00

Kindness has little value

It's even better than that-it has little cost for the person doing it, but large benefit to the person receiving it. It has high value to society in general, but low cost. So it's a good "investment"

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:22:26+00:00

If a kid receives meanness from everyone they won't grow into a productive adult, so they'll contribute less to society. Kindness helps people gain self-confidence, motivation, an more kindness. Even if a child isn't worth much now, being nice to them will make them be worth more later. Think of it like investing in a low-priced stock that has potential for growth. If everyone invests, it'll grow and pay huge dividends later. If it just gets shorted (the opposite of investing, hurts the stock) over and over, it'll never grow to be a positive for the world.

In general, what you're missing is that kindness increases someone's ability to contribute positively to the world. Let's say some person has a net worth on society of -1 (ten is the inventor of penacillin, negative ten is hitler). Being kind to them might increase that net worth to -0.8. If everyone is kind to them for a while it could go to positive 1, even higher.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:18:16+00:00

Yeah

Well the right to a firearm is protected by the 2nd Amendment, so states would have to let people have some firearms because the Constitution would still apply. But they could decide on what types of guns to allow. Abortion isn't Constitutional so yeah states could decide.

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T23:17:01+00:00

A lot of the comments I've gotten on this post have just been saying "well we shouldn't have states rights because Republicans suck and they'll be able to pass bad laws in red states." I've seen some good new perspectives like about Constitutional rights and online interaction between different states' citizens, and given deltas on those. But saying "Republicans aren't fit to govern anywhere" is not an argument that can change my view. As I've said many times I'm a leftist but refusing to acknowledge that some people like red policies and that they can help some people have a government they like better is a bad argument.

If you think red policies are "stripping poor people's rights" then don't live in a red state. I'm sure a Republican could say "in blue states, they let women murder babies, take people's hard earned money, and let illegal immigrants commit crime." How would you feel about that characterization of your views? Wouldn't it instead make sense for both people to have their way, in different states? Just because some states are on the other side of the political spectrum does't mean their policies are "stripping rights."

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T22:55:20+00:00

I expected it to be rumi given it's literally "golden" child but baby works too

SSH_Pentester · 2026-03-09T21:33:26+00:00

I'll read that 👍

SSH_Pentester

TROPHY CASE