this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
197 points (93.8% liked)

AI Generated Images

7237 readers
375 users here now

Community for AI image generation. Any models are allowed. Creativity is valuable! It is recommended to post the model used for reference, but not a rule.

No explicit violence, gore, or nudity.

This is not a NSFW community although exceptions are sometimes made. Any NSFW posts must be marked as NSFW and may be removed at any moderator's discretion. Any suggestive imagery may be removed at any time.

Refer to https://lemmynsfw.com/ for any NSFW imagery.

No misconduct: Harassment, Abuse or assault, Bullying, Illegal activity, Discrimination, Racism, Trolling, Bigotry.

AI Generated Videos are allowed under the same rules. Photosensitivity warning required for any flashing videos.

To embed images type:

“![](put image url in here)”

Follow all sh.itjust.works rules.


Community Challenge Past Entries

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ThePantser 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Why don't presidents fight the war, why do they always send the poor?

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago

War pigs was written more than 50 years ago and is still relevant

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor. Yeah!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

who in the goddamn fuck is downvoting war pigs

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They always send the poor, they always send the poor

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

Why do they always send the poor?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Because we're expendable.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They used to. For millennia they were with thier army. Even Washington was in battles.

[–] Not_mikey 20 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Washington stayed with his troops but kept behind the lines. Western Leaders mostly stopped leading from the front after Gustavas Adolphus got killed doing so.

[–] lunarul 6 points 1 year ago

Also, Washington had military training and was elected because of his military victories. He didn't fight as president, he had already resigned his commission by the time he was elected.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm British and not that well read on the American Revolution but I was under the impression that he was knows for riding out ahead of his troops? The general tactical decision other US generals kept making was stay in the safety of their forts, but that's ineffective against the British who have the resources to win every war of attrition, and one of the things Washington was known for was basically pushing his troops out of forts by riding out himself?

I'm not super well read on it but that's my understanding, although the flip side, George III and basically every other world leader wouldn't have done the same, that was just one of those unique things Washington did.

[–] banneryear1868 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wallenstein still ran like a baby from that battle and was assassinated by his own side over it (allegedly). To think Adolphus would likely have secured Swedish land in mainland Europe...

[–] AngryCommieKender 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

WWI was the last war that the elite fought in. At least in the US, and even then they sent their kids, not the old people that started it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I figured it was one of the world wars, thanks.

[–] loxo 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Mission Accomplished

[–] Jiggle_Physics 16 points 1 year ago

I mean, having them out in platoons is too much. You would basically be punishing the real soldiers by burdening them with some mook. However, forcing them to live in forward operating bases, with no special considerations for safety, or comfort, would be nice.

[–] hark 14 points 1 year ago

Then they wouldn't start wars.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't Putin like two inches shorter?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

He's just in high heels, as usual 👠

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?
Why do they always send the poor?!

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago

Yeah-yeah, some folks inherit star-spangled eyes
Hoo, they send you down to war, Lord
And when you ask 'em, "How much should we give?"
Hoo, they only answer, "More, more, more, more"

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Fuck, that would be a beautiful day.

[–] LazaroFilm 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

The other side doesn’t need Ai to get a visual.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

We need more like Zelenskyy

[–] hark 3 points 1 year ago

Zelenskyy was sent to the front lines? News to me.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Zelensky never saw combat, he's an actor who wore a helmet for pictures.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

"Forward", he cried from the rear
And the front rank died
The general sat and the lines on the map
Moved from side to side

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Not really, because that used to be the only way to get people to war.

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

Except he'd be dead or cowering in an outhouse somewhere.

[–] BackOnMyBS 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

If the war is so important, then they will have no problem dying for it. If their country is so strong, then it'll be fine without them.

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

There would be a lot less wars, and the wars that did happen would be blamed on someone else.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Wouldn't know if he's pissing his pants from fear or old age.

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

He doesn't have any qualms sending old dudes it to die.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

*vacation Islands panicking*

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I could watch this movie

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It seems to me that the traditional way of having leaders going to war directly has slowly diminished and vanished from being how the way of things are supposed to be.


(My speculation)

And I speculate that one of the contributing factors which helped in changing people's mindset and perspective, in normalizing with the cultural and traditions changes, is the fact that people of old time (whom long lived in these similar environment) [Edit: were able to get] used to accepting the benefits and the joys of having appointed such leaders, regardless of the drawbacks that comes with it - and the fact that they are corrupt.

It is a really interesting point to raise up, especially in today's age.

And maybe, then, the more important question becomes: "How/ why did people normalize their perceptions and mindsets towards such leaders, despite their anticipated character changes became worse than their precedents".


(Some justification)

It is really interesting, because historically, we have stories of figures (Such as Al-Shimr, the murderer of Imam Hussain) whom were known to have been cowardly, but were presenting themselves nonetheless, due to the fact that people sought the opposing leader was one with more qualities than theirs; and as such, if one leader becomes of the type that is confrontational and upfront in battles; the opposing leader, due to the pressures of his own people, perceptions, and environment, deems it necessary and more appropriate to come forth to present himself as one with better and more fitting qualities that makes him more qualified to be a leader than the enemy.

(It is certainly an interesting topic to discuss, research, and think about. And one might even write a respectable book about it, were there to be someone who writes a book about it.)


*Edit2:

  • How did the changes in perception happen ?

(How was it that people's perceptions towards the current leader were inherited from people that appointed them long before their ages; i.e their ancestors that sought such leaders with presented qualities are more qualifying than others, whom, at some point, when they casted away the ones of their own that had stepped down into the battlefields with such better leadership qualities presented ?)

  • When did it happen (at what point exactly in history did it specifically happen, that their perceptions changed so much that they normalized with cowardly leaders) ?

  • Why has it not changed ?

  • And what would cause it to change ?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You don't need to increase your text size for us to be able to read your book

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I just realized that it interprets '


' in the text format as headers. I thought that was funny. (I was using them to make the split between lines from other paragraphs more apparent, and therefore more readable).

I apologize for the oversight, let me fix that.