Do you find it ironic that so many people are complaining about the military becoming "wokist"?

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

When we glorify the role marginalized groups played in the military in the past and look at the rejection that they faced with those who were supposed to be their comrades with disdain? Well, you know what they say, hindsight's 20/20.

[Snakeyes7]

No one cares if women or other races join the military. What got the anti-woke mad is that the standards are different for women to join which makes our force overall weaker than it should be. The spots a woman who passed their version of the exam but couldn't the original will take up a spot where someone who passed the original could have taken up.

Another is the talk about what to do if women get pregnant. Previously, the woman would be suspended from deployment until the child is born so I would imagine it's often used as an excuse to get out of fighting. Now, there are rumors of maternal flight suits being made so that pregnant women can fly which sounds really stupid to me. There's a reason why pregnant women aren't allowed on roller coasters so why would flying at speeds multiple times faster be any better.

Also I hear that gunshot sounds can deafen the fetus so there's that too if that's true.

[hellionthesagereborn]

You are not very bright. Our military is weak because of these games and because of wokism. This idea that we should focus on gender, color, and all the immutable characteristics of a person instead of WHETHER OR FUCKIGN NOT THEY CAN FUNCTION AS A SOLDIER AND DO THEIR MOTHER FUCKING JOB SO THEY AND OTHERS DON'T END UP DEAD, is insane. But I hope you have to undergo surgery one day and choose the wokist doctor their instead of the best, then we will see who's world view is correct.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Our military is not as strong as you would expect given the amount of money spent on it because of foreign interventions meant to benefit American capitalism.

[hellionthesagereborn]

First off, lets not throw around words like capitalism if you don't actually know what they mean (and you obviously don't by the way you used it). Two, that is unrelated to the statement and a pathetic attempt at a straw man. Three, our military is not as strong because we are pushing wokism in our military, lowering standards, and encouraging people to be in the military who have no place their. Four, they are so fixated on all of the wokism they forgot that they are a military and have a fucking job to do.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

The word capitalism has been thrown around in the American Zeitgeist as if it's synonymous with free trade; it's not. What it's about is the accumulation of wealth into the hands of the few at the expense of the many. And no that is not an unrelated statement, we sunk trillions of dollars into a foreign war and lost 1000s of lives and that is going to discourage people from enlisting in the service. Three, we are realizing that there is more to winning a war than the effectiveness of a soldier on the battlefield (like military intelligence, cyber warfare, etc...). Fourth, part of winning conflicts is alliances and having good public relations is part of that.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Yeah like I said, don't use words that you don't know what they mean. Capitalism is by definition the belief that wealth can be generated (it can), that you should not have to buy or sell what you don't want or to whom you don't want, the government has no right to tell you what you can and cannot buy or sell, and that if you specialize you can increase productivity and wealth while decreasing costs. That is capitalism.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

No it isn't and you're spewing cold war propaganda intended to white wash capitalism and a vain attempt to make it synonymous with freedom (capitalism is antithetical to freedom). What you described is a system of free trade and that can happen when the means of production is controlled in an autocratic (capitalistic) manner or democratic (socialistic) manner.

Government control ≠ socialist.

[hellionthesagereborn]

"Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets, a price system, private property and the recognition of property rights, voluntary exchange and wage labor. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investments are determined by every owner of wealth, property or production ability in capital and financial markets whereas prices and the distribution of goods and services are mainly determined by competition in goods and services markets." definitions, read them before using the term (or keep looking like a fucktard, I really don't care (your not particularly smart and I doubt that will ever change).

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Oh because Wikipedia says it, it's true LMAO. Well if you read the article about Market Socialism, you would know that the free trade aspects you mentioned would also exist in a market socialist economy.

en.wikipedia.org/.../Market_socialism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiMvcpRPUNE&t=490s

[hellionthesagereborn]

No, thats just the literal definition. What is with you leftist rejecting definitions and then pointing to what a far leftist says and saying that is reality? You people are insane (ly stupid). So I get it I'm trying to speak rationaly to some one who cannot grasp rationality so this is going to be a losing battle (because your too stupid to understand and too indoctrinated into your cult to ever allow for facts to dissuade you from your fictions). That said here, listen to actual experts on what capitalism is. Here is a nobel prize winning economist and an economist organization to explain it to you.

https://youtu.be/_I-qKWoEiro
https://youtu.be/vUxlv3u0My8
fee.org/articles/what-is-capitalism-anyway/

[hellionthesagereborn]

https://youtu.be/27Tf8RN3uiM

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Again, you're conflating capitalism with a market system. If a series of firms trade with each other on the basis of market principals but are run democratically by the workers (versus autocratically) then you have a system of free trade with a socialist means of production (i. e. market socialism).

[hellionthesagereborn]

No, no I am not. What is with you and being just totally brain dead? I gave you the definition of capitalism and you scoffed and argued it didn't count because it didn't say what you wanted it to say. I then present you multiple videos from a NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST explaining it to you and your trying to argue that he is wrong and your right. At some point I'm going to have to accept that your just to fucking stupid to ever understand anything and stop trying to argue with some one who just doesn't have the IQ to comprehend basic facts. Hopefully I will learn my lesson soon.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Oh, it's a "definition"? Well definitions change dumbass so lets put it this way, you can have a market system when the means of production are controlled autocratically by a few shareholders and executives or democratically by a the workers if you want to play semantics.

[hellionthesagereborn]

No, no they do not. God your stupid. Capitalism doesn't stop being capitalism because you say so. Up does not become down because you have decided it does. Reality doesn't cease being reality simply because you demand it. So fucking unbelievably stupid yet so self assured, its mind boggling. You are the poster child for the dunning-krueger effect.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

It stops being capitalism when it's no longer about the accumulation of capital.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Except that is literally unrelated to the definition so again, your saying its about accumulation of capital, I pointed out its not as did the NOBEL PRIZE WINNING ECONOMIST WHO SPENT HIS ENTIRE LIFE STUDYING THE SUBJECT, and your argument is to reassert your initial claim? Come on, are you even trying at this point? I mean I expect you to be a moron, you haven't thought for yourself your entire life, but this is a new low, even for you. At least put in a little effort.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NngfZJmx5ow

[hellionthesagereborn]

Yeah do you have an argument? No, no you don't. Their is not rebuttal here, your the guy who soundly lost and won't shut the fuck up about how you really won. I honestly don't understand how some one could be so stupid yet so insistent in their own so called "superior" intellect. You still haven't provided an argument, still ignore the definitions of words because you don't like them and they show that you have no fucking idea what your talking about, and your video doesn't actually relate to the argument and ignores everything stated. You say its greed, he says its greed to demand that every one else but you pay more money, to take what others have earned for yourself then claim YOUR the good guy. That is greed and that was Friedmans argument. As for the guys argument about "toeing the line", the Nobel Prize has been proven to go to people who toe the line, namely the leftist one. Also its a straw man argument. He also doesn't refute his argument about humans being self interested by nature as biologically we are and that is a proven fact. He claims we are contradictions, provides no argument to support that, and doesn't explain how that statement disproves that humans are largely self interested by nature (again, something that we know to be definitively true (even our DNA is proven to be self interested, so their is no arguing against this point)).

The grand irony in this is that he is actively arguing FOR Milton Friedmans argument by stating that we are not self interested and the only reason why Milton Friedman is saying that is because Milton Friedman is Self interested. He also inadvertantly is proving that he is also self interested by trying to dismiss Milton Friedmans argument that we are not self interested but doesn't provide any reason for it and then pushes his own personal self interested agenda. You people don't get irony OR critical thinking. The only one spewing drivil is this guy and you. Try harder.

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

He didn't elaborate on that point because it's self evident that humans aren't cogs in an economic machine and you can't pretend that people pursuing self interest will produce the best possible outcome.

hbr.org/.../people-dont-need-a-profit-motive-to-innovate

Is getting past the false conflation between capitalism (an inherently authoritarian system) and freedom really so hard for you?

[hellionthesagereborn]

He didn't argue against his statement because its so obviously wrong that he couldn't be bothered to explain why? Thats your argument? Are you really that fucking stupid? Yes, yes you are, its sad but its true. Your such a useful idiot that you'll never be out of business because the power hungry can always rely on you to be their patsy. What a fucking idiot. I'm sorry you lost all credibility (I mean you lost that a long time ago, but this takes the cake.).

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

You're the one advocating a system built around the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. That's what capitalism's about; not freedom in any sense of the word. And don't give me that "that's corporatism, not capitalism" bullshit. It's like those people who say that what happened in the USSR wasn't "real communism".

And FYI, I don't deny that what happened in the USSR was "real socialism" just like the system that occurred under the Russian Empire and the US was/is "real capitalism" even though one was under an autocratic and the other a democratic political system. However, whether or not you have an authoritarian or democratic political system, capitalism (unlike socialism) is an inherently authoritarian system of production.

[The_Maphio]

Oh that's only in the US, as many other braindeadnesses of the new millennium.
We'll see how well those ideas will turn out in due time. There will be no shortage of conflicts with Biden at the helm. Best of luck.

[madgoat]

I might ask in a large well funded military like that of the Americans, replete with all its tech and a vast number of people, I wonder how important the strength of an individual soldier is.
Is there anyone on here with a valid view on this?

[Rangers]

Not at all, we don't want mentally ill people and people with lower testosterone than the average 12 year old girl to be the ones standing between China and us. Luckily, we have guns of our own

[Ad_Quid_Orator]

Yes because all of warfare is won solely on the battlefield. Alan Turing never set foot on a battlefield but how big was his contribution?

[grega239]

No because it's the military. Infusing it with woke politics makes no sense because the purpose of the military is war, not to promote bullshit

[anylolone]

Turing would spit in your face and offer baron a fifty for a blowjob.

[princeofromance]

Yes!