- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Eligible men will automatically be registered into the military draft pool by December as part of an effort to streamline the previous process of self-registration and save money.
Eligible men will automatically be registered into the military draft pool by December as part of an effort to streamline the previous process of self-registration and save money.
Why’s that? You’re legally required to register either way, this just takes out the completely pointless process of completing the forms.
In a sane world in sane times, sure. But during a defacto-war with an unhinged Secretary of Defense and Commander-in-Chief controlled by Russia/Israel? Ya, that’s a big no.
I’m noticing a lot more lately that some people are just not capable of more than a surface level comprehension of policy.
I think it’s a form of brain rot from a combination over reliance on AI and the absolutely passive acceptance in the rise of fascism.
It’s basically been 10 years of people’s brains being trained to only think about what a policy says and never think about what a policy will do in the context of our political climate. And liberal and conservative positions are just as guilty of this phenomenon.
I don’t want to start “generation bashing” because it’s not unique to any generation. But I think I’m seeing more of it because the people that went from being 8 years old to 18 years old during the “Trump” period are now adults. And they just have had a heavier dose of the brain rot than those that grew up prior. It feels like a new generation of lead poisoning.
And it’s not something unique to Trump supporters or unique to the current generation of young adults. It’s definitely present in all generations. I just think it’s more impactful if you grew up during this period and why we are seeing so many people incapable of, well, thinking beyond the direct meaning of the words they read. They can’t seem to apply it to the context of the world they live in. And actually seem to be resistant to anyone that tries to get them to. Almost like that part of their brain is stunted. So you get a response that both confused but also hostile. Just repeating themselves and slowly escalating to personal attacks or (in the case of this thread) doomerism. “There is always a tyrannical leader on the rise. Why does this matter”
Which I think is clearly a result of growing up (or just living in) a society that is absolutely uncaring and hopeless. It’s impossible to think of something improving so they use negativity and doomerism as a shield.
Sorry for the long rant. But the conversation you were having just really made me realize how common it is now. I feel like I’m talking to robots. They just keep repeating themselves and anything you do to try to get them to think beyond the surface seems to get filtered out as “irrelevant”. It’s kind of worrying.
It’s why you got “why does any of that matter” as a response to your comment. It’s like they are not capable taking two things and finding the logical intersection. It’s fucking wild how common this is when I talk to people once I realized it.
I appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts. I also appreciate how you approached your position from all sides, thinking of all positions.
True, assigning blame because of someone’s… age, gender, politics, etc… isn’t helpful. But still, in the context of my specific discourse here, I do wonder the age of the person to whom I was talking. If they are young, I would understand the “always a tyrannical leader on the horizon” position, and as someone who grew up in the 80s and 90s, why that position is the opposite how I saw things when I signed the selective service card.
Yeah. The generation thing is just my theory for why it’s becoming more common. I think the AI brain rot and doomerism is happening heavily in all generations. No one is immune to the feelings of (and the material problems of) our society in decline.
It’s just so odd to me that someone can start with a “this just removes unneeded paperwork” to essentially “all leaders are evil and if this makes it so I have to do one less bull shit thing (paperwork) I’m all for it. Don’t make me think about anything beyond that!”
It’s such surface level thinking and entirely centered around individualism.
In the case of this user. I’d guess they are just a millennial that has had their brain rotted by doomerism and too much AI use.
Why does any of that matter?
There’s always a tyrannical leader on the horizon, best not to have a draft at all, but that’s not what we’re discussing.
What?!? Not really.
Sure, ideally there’s no registering for a draft. But in my lifetime there has never been a realistic chance of a draft being called, so any objection has been mostly symbolic. I don’t think that realistic chance is remote any longer. Luckily I’m too old for it anyway, and also have dual citizenship.
Of course it is? Saying otherwise is just ignorance of history.
It is not even remotely symbolic. A draft is a very realistic possibility, and the fact that it even exists should be evidence enough. The last draft wasn’t even that long ago. President Bone Spur dodged it.
Yes, I agree that it is now a realistic possibility. When I signed the selective service card in the 90’s, not really. For that reason, objection to it now is real, whereas objection to a theoretical draft then was more symbolic.
Labeling all of history as always “having a tyrannical leader on the horizon” would literally make the word “tyrant” meaningless.
You’re projecting your doomerism for today and then painting all of history with a definition. Doing this just makes the word you’re using meaningless in describing history.
It’s like a cell phone company that sells three different versions of their “unlimited data” plan. They are making the word “unlimited” meaningless. But the emotional idea of “unlimited” is still heard by their customers in ads.
You’re doing that here with “Tyrannical leader”. Making a broad characterization that is unhelpful in doing anything but appeal to the emotion of doomerism.
You’re not characterizing history correctly. You’re not understanding history correctly. You’re appealing to the idea of class structures and oppression without using any of the tools or definitions developed to actually describe those relationships.
It is not emotional appeal, it’s recognition of reality that underpins the framework of a government. Things that might be totally acceptable under an Obama administration aren’t suddenly disappeared when a Trump inevitably enters office. And you have to account for that when creating new legislation.
The founder of the US didn’t have any intention of infringing rights when they created the Bill of Rights. It was written with the explicit knowledge that somewhere down the line a tyrant would enter office and desire to trample basic human rights.
By that metric, you can’t pass anything, lest the inevitable “tyrant” abuse it. That logic would apply equally to Eisenhower’s freeways (for fear of moving an occupying force around the country) as it does to the draft.
I didn’t have any greater objection to the draft existing on Jan 20 2025 as I did during Trump’s first term or during Obama’s or during Clinton’s (when I signed the selective service card.) Indeed, there could just as well be a theoretical real need for immediate national defense in which a draft might be understandable as there is a tyrant abusing it. To wit, you alluded to Vietnam, a “war” where one of its defining historical contexts is Americans objections to fighting it. Compare that to the draft in World War 2.
The issue here isn’t the draft existing (not really), it’s the optics of an unpopular president appearing to getting ready to use it for an unpopular and aggressive war.
You just restated your position and then just rambled about things you think help support your already unfalsifiable statement.
I am criticizing your phrase “there are always tyrannical leaders on the horizon” as being vague, unfalsifiable, and useless in describing historical struggles. You said this to hand wave away something the other commenter said. And I’m calling you out for it.
You are using an unfalsifiable statement to describe history. Because if I say “well X leader was good” your statement is vague enough to say “well, after X leader there was Z leader and they were a tyrant by my definition”.
Do you understand what I am criticizing now? You aren’t actually saying anything meaningful or useful when you said “there is always a tyrannical leader on the horizon”
I have no idea what your point is.
deleted by creator