this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
87 points (95.8% liked)

politics

19118 readers
4021 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Carmakazi 6 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I sometimes wonder if this is a mass psychosis of sorts that happens when you have a surplus of military age men. In history how many of these impotents would just be given a spear or a rifle and told to go die for the Emperor/King/Fatherland on some pointless military adventurism? Then they wouldn't have the time to ruminate and make up their own cause to lash out for. "Women are against you, academia is against you, society itself is against you."

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Look, I'll be honest with you, I just don't want to misunderstand you, but the implication made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Did you just say that young men need to be killed off periodically because you think they are otherwise a burden to society?

[–] Carmakazi -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No. I'm saying that's how the issue has been handled historically, possibly deliberately in some cases, but more likely just coincidentally. Not that we need to go back to it in some exercise in eugenics. "The issue" being something to do with an outmoded view of masculinity that was never substantially replaced as the world got less violent and dire. I would rather fix that. How? I don't know.

That said, your disgust with the phenomenon does not necessarily make it wholly untrue. Right now we have a bunch of maldeveloped, entitled sex pests with violent ideation who just helped vote in a thousand-year Reich. "Burden" is not the right word for them. Rejected by polite society, they have had no outward outlet for their chauvinism and rage, and so they have turned it inward on the rest of us.

How many American military age men do you think are going to be killed in the next 5-10 years?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago

Just because your politics has managed to alienate young men the most, so they are the most likely to be voting for anything but establishment, does not mean military age men in general are "maldeveloped, entitled sex pests". In fact, I would bet more military age men just didn't vote than vote Trump, because they felt Harris doesn't represent them, and not because she's a woman. This is a wholly US culture war driven phenomenon. Fun fact, Orbán's voters are majority female, most men vote for the opposition, especially among military age men.

Military age men historically have been the driving force behind the greatest examples of rapid societal progress. Military age men coming back from the hell of WWI have been the ones to destroy the divine right of kings and the feudal world order. Military age men fought in the revolutions against the authoritarian communist world.

Of course, a lot of governments did things to get rid of military aged men, but it was almost always because they were the primary threat to outmoded world views, not the ones to preserve it.