World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
No. Use WOMEN for all non-combat roles. Heck, use WOMEN as DRONE OPERATORS. Farm out the job to WOMEN to pilot drones from the comfort of their living rooms. WOMEN.
Yeah because they're too dumb and inferior to do those combat roles, that's a man's job! Make them run the mess halls and fix the uniforms!
They already do, just not compulsively.
Also war is a very conservative sphere of human activity. A woman wearing a uniform and being a service member is under worse risks than a man, even if she only did paperwork.
Can women not be in combat roles?
Women can take any role in any NATO military. The reality is that very few women who can pass the entrance qualifications wants to continue service when they can get more money and respect from any other job.
This isn't a 'women get disrespected in the military' note, this is an objective review that anyone who does service in the military is a number and is intentionally approached with minimal appreciation of their human rights and dignity because that can cause problems in the field (not to mention in most militaries, if not all, you sign away your rights as a person for training as a weapon). If the officer says 'take the hill and die' it's expected that you are to take the hill and die. It does NOT matter whether or not you do paperwork, drone work, or are a combat arms trade, your superiors have to keep you at arms length so they can sacrifice you easily should the need arise.
Any woman who can do even remotely well in the military can do any other job for vastly superior pay and far more control of their lives.
Unless you're going to push a neutral requirement for service of both sexes, no amount of bitching or complaining will ever increase the number of women in the military because they don't have to sacrifice their health and welfare for a paycheque anywhere near as hard, it's an option to them and not one they would willingly take when any other job that requires the same performance standard can pay more with better time and more respect than the military.
Pretending otherwise is intellectually dishonest or the position of someone who has never performed military service and likely never will.
It's not a male dominated occupation because men inherently prefer destroying their bodies and minds with overexposure to violence and extreme physical labour with one of the highest rates of injury and death just from the training alone, it's because it's a job easily accessible to middle or lower educated individuals that can provide an effective specialization and education that could be applied in a civilian setting.
A male and female with the same education and physical fitness standard have drastically different occupation opportunities at the mid to low end of the education spectrum, and women tend to have higher level opportunities across the board, specifically ones which do not destroy them.
This is the educated opinion of a woman who's done close to a decade of grunt service in the military and another decade in the military industrial complex.
Let's say there's a pair of new parents, and that they don't have family support. This is already a common reality for many new families.
Let's say that now there's a mandated enlistment because of a war. Which parent will go? Will they play rock paper scissors, or will they have to trust the government to randonly decide for them? Is it ethical for the government to decide who goes? Is it ethical for them to make new parents make that choice?
If they're both going, who will care for the young child? I certainly wouldn't trust strangers to watch babies en masse if the parents would be gone for a very long time at minimum.
Maybe mandated enlistment isn't where it's at, and maybe we should also be making sure that we're giving people a reason to want to fight for their country again. Laws against fleeing will only do so much when we have such a large planet.
Do you do a better job when you're forced to do something, or do you do a better job when you're passionate about something?
You realize that instead of actually addressing anything that mattered in my statement you focused exclusively on an example that would not function from presentation?
Why do you think volunteer armies are superior to conscripted armies?
Can you read through what I wrote please.
If that's sarcasm, can you put a /s please?