• Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    209
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    Here’s a possibly-controversial take, but joining the army isn’t really even close to the best analogy for a male-dominated industry where you “sell your body”.

    Being a labourer is. Working in industries like construction, but not as a skilled tradesman. It doesn’t carry the same moral weight riley was going for though.

  • ydieb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    86
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    8 months ago

    What I hate with this is that is defines that the army itself is good or bad. But in reality it is what it is used for. If its actually used for defence, then it’s very honorable. When it’s used as a tool to exploit resources to the rich, (aka generally being the aggressor), it’s not.

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                8 months ago

                Many would rate the USSR as an imperial core country, while I guess you and I maybe won’t. Stop assuming privilege of those you talk to and demean them with willful ignorance. There is always something more that may be learned about an issue and people should not be vilified if their attempts to learn more are genuine (and I think you can not determine it was not from this interaction, comrade).

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Can you explain why some of the nordic countries, i.e. Norway, Sweden, Denmark are part of the imperial core while Finland, Iceland, Greenland are not? I can put color on a white map too, doesn’t mean it portrays a real issue adequately. Also wtf, why is Portugal not part of the imperial core?

            • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              The map is a reference to the one you see whenever just about any international issue comes up and the same crew are all in agreement, I’m not actually positive what specific issue this map was taken from.

              The website has a more serious explainer (with a couple versions of the map) but I’m with you, Iceland and Portugal and Finland are core countries probably. The real answer is that it’s fluid and historically contingent, not set in stone. It’s a question of how your economy develops and how it relates to ‘peripheral’ countries that are primarily extracted from, not a literal list pulled off an emoji.

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                I looked through that article and found it somewhat problematic. Especially the description of core countries as:

                They have strong state institutions, a powerful military and powerful global political alliances.

                For example, Iceland does not even have a military, but can still be part of capitalist neo-colonialism as part of the “imperial core”. Even so, one should also keep in mind that Iceland historically had been under Denmark’s dominion and it is wrong to say that it has been a primary benefactor of classic colonialism leading to the rise of western powers in modern history. On the other hand, Portugal has been a strong colonial power historically. Still, the development index of Iceland is way higher and I would argue there are lots of factors in play as to why, and one cannot say that there is a direct equivalence between development index and imperialism. Both Norway, Iceland and Finland gained independence in the 20th century, never had proper colonies and are part of the economic elite. Norway is still in large an economy based around export of natural resources, which is atypical for being an imperial core member. I often feel that many facts like these are overlooked in discussions of imperial cores in favor of simplistic ideas such as equivocating HDI and imperialism. Can we not have better discussions around the mechanics of modern imperialism than throwing around a map and calling out people for not being intimate with the idea of an imperial core, an idea whose simplicity makes itself highly flawed?

                • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I agree that I gave a simplistic answer, you can read literal books about it. But Iceland, as an example, does actually have a history of being closely tied to the military of the US and the UK voluntarily, I think Greenland is actually a better candidate for peripheral than Iceland. And realistically it’s going to be more of a spectrum than a binary, you’re usually going to fall somewhere in the middle rather than being on the extreme end like the US and Israel.

                  And even then you might have internal dynamics that complicate it. Parts of the US (Appalachia, “Indian Country”) are clearly peripheral within the US economy and subject to exploitation that other areas are not. So agreed, it’s complicated.

                  Dialectics as a method warns us against assumptions that “the state of things” is static, these things are always changing. But I think there’s value in the basic observation that world economic systems work in tension, where opposed interests are not equally met in a mutually beneficial exchange a la neoliberal dogma. Even if you have to acknowledge that it is much more complicated than “it’s the same map every time” I think the concept is useful.

                  What would you say is a better way of talking about this sort of thing?

            • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Unironically yes. The development in the imperial core came at the expense of the rest of the world, that’s what the term is referring to, the part of the world economy that is accumulating through imperialism the wealth and resources of the whole planet.

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Hey, im not trying to be rude or anything I just wanna quickly say that honor is a fiction typically used by the rich and powerful to manipulate the young and well-meaning into becoming fucked up stormtroopers for capital.

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        In modern context, sure. In a wider anthropological historic context, no. My understanding of honor as a social concept, though I do not have proper academic sources to back this, is that it works in lieu of a central force of government enforcing laws and common rule. I.e. non centralized governance such as that of say the Norse people of old, had very strong etiquette of honor, the lack of which implied social status that would be worse to the one living than them dying. That meant weird things like a story of a man who robbed a house, realized they were doing something dishonorable (read illegal), went back and challenged the man who owned the house, killed them in combat and then stole their stuff. Just like laws it imposes rules on people, in this weird case murder in combat is better than theft, but still a rule. I would argue this notion of honor has existed across different societies for a long time, due to general absence of centralized governance, and has in modern times, relatively speaking on an anthropological timeline, been adopted and exploited by centralized powers to further control the populace, in the very real way you talk about.

    • Coasting0942@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Even simpler than that. People trying to slot sex work/army/any job into “good/bad” columns aren’t worth your attention.

      Except for health insurance CEOs, those definitely bad.

    • telllos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      I mean, even for defence. Your settling, an argument, the rich and powerful people above you are having. You’re settling it with your life.

      • cannache@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you think your side is right and you’re ready to die fighting then who is anyone else to say that you, the tool, is wrong?

    • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Lol can’t think of a single western country that’s had an “honorable” war post 1945. The US army is unequivocally bad

      • Urist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        In general I think you are right, but I was also under the impression that the NATO intervention in Bosnia helped prevent ethnic cleansing, which if true is a honorable thing.

    • uphillbothways@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      See, that’s an easy question to answer: Did you, or whoever, join the military while the US, or your country, was being attacked?

      • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        If you wait til you are attacked, you may not be trained or ready enough to actually defend your country from the attack. You can still join in times of peace with intentions of defense for the future, helping with disaster relief, and providing international aid.

  • scubbo@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    74
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I would never compare, being a sex worker is obviously incredibly more honorable

    But…saying that something is more honorable than something else is comparing them?

    EDIT: to be clear, her point is absolutely valid. This isn’t (to misquote a replier) “But I must find way for sex lady be dumb”. Her actual point is spot-on. This particular linguistic evolution just feels weird to me - feels like the new “literally”.

  • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    How much Kool aid do you need to drink to think a soldiers job is “saving people”? Except for medics that’s pretty much the opposite of the point.

  • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    You fucked hearted the guy saying ‘fighting for your country’ equals saving people?! If you’re killing people for profit, you are just a murderer. Even if it’s someone else’s profit.

  • _NoName_@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Found out my work is getting a new chemical. The chemical is so volatile that if it splashes on you, it will potentially burn you into nothing.

    I am fodder for the machines of industry.

  • mateomaui@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    saw this one recently, old school shamers have no chance these days, just pack it up bro

  • masquenox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 months ago

    If you work for a living, you’re a prostitute - you’re selling your physical and mental health just to survive no different than sex workers.

    The term prostitute literally translates to “to offer up for sale” - and, guess what, that pretty much describes the entire working class.

    • Karyoplasma@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      According to my ex, who prides herself to be a social worker and a conflict solver, relationships are built solely on sex, not on interpersonal connections. But then again, she also thinks that you shouldn’t ever apologize because it shows a lack of self-esteem, called the police on her best friend because she was jealous of her hooking up while she didn’t and regularly posts “memes” about how terrible everyone else is on Facebook. Maybe she’s just a nutcase.

      • fossilesque@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        That may just be her, and I kinda feel bad for her. That sounds like a lot of maladjustment and projection. My friends say they had some regulars who’d start the sessions telling them about their lives and showing them pictures of their kids. Touch and validation can be a form of medicine. Everyone needs to feel wanted. We are social creatures. Incels are one example of those starved from such things.

  • Rambi@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    That guy looks exactly like what you would expect someone saying that to look like