@TheAntipopulist's banner p

TheAntipopulist

Voltaire's Viceroy

0 followers   follows 1 user  
joined 2022 September 05 02:32:36 UTC

				

User ID: 373

TheAntipopulist

Voltaire's Viceroy

0 followers   follows 1 user   joined 2022 September 05 02:32:36 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 373

Sure, women were a small percentage of the armed forces of some of the countries that fought in WW2. But they were overwhelmingly not on the frontline, and most were entirely noncombat. As I said in my first comment you responded to, I don't see noncombat roles as being anywhere close to as awful as frontline combat duty where the risk of being killed is far higher. If people wanted to subject women to the draft out of a sense of equality, but then the women ended up mostly just getting noncombat roles, I would call that performative equality.

Amusingly, @No_one went back and deleted all of their posts

Well that is indeed amusing! I was looking forward to Mr. "Majestic Capeshit Arc" having to come up with excuses when his theories almost certainly failed to pan out. Unfortunately it seems his disappearance has more to do with getting modded by Amadan and deleting his posts out of spite or not wanting anyone to follow him to wherever he goes next or whatever. Amadan does a lot of uncontroversially decent modding, but also blatantly violates at least the spirit of the rules often himself, especially that "be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary" bit. I've been more than a little skeptical of at least some of his modding decisions, so it's unfortunate to see No_one who should be here eating humble pie instead get taken out by something unrelated. Alas...

Ukraine is seeing a bit of a PR boom going their way right now, and as someone who's pro-Western I've been enjoying that a bit. But as anyone who's followed this war for long knows, that type of thing tends to happen in cycles. We're in a good cycle for Ukraine right now, but I wouldn't herald it as anything more than a temporary upswing. As always, Perun has probably the best take in that there's indeed some reasons for genuine optimism, but it's simultaneously not worth getting ahead of ourselves.

The military is physically grueling beyond simply swinging a sword. There's a reason the Nazis and Soviets didn't bother drafting a large amount of their women into frontline combat despite both sides believing they were in an existential conflict and that the loser could very well be on the receiving end of genocide. From a trite view a women should be about as good as a man when it comes to shooting a gun or piloting a tank. Marching long distances under load, digging trenches, enduring cold and wetness, dragging wounded men -- all of these are things frontline soldiers had to and have to be able to deal with. And that's not even getting into the reflexes advantage men have as evidenced by esports competitions that others have cited below.

Maybe one day manpower will be fully replaceable with metal, but as of now that's not the case. Men are indispensable to manning frontlines even as (man-controlled) drones do most of the killing.

I guess? But having a bunch of people die in pointless wars would be bad in and of itself.

And I would guess those few examples like trans operas were an unrepresentative sample the Trump admin threw out to try to justify their action on an otherwise mostly uncontroversial program. I haven't seen other commenters present more than a few other anecdotal examples. I'm willing to change my mind on this though if someone has a more rigorous look.

ah, there's always some reason. Can we just admit it's partisanship?

No, my issue was specifically with corruption against Trump. This is getting into the issue where people redefine corruption as "anything the outgroup does that I don't like". Trump selling off pardons, Biden pardoning his son, and improper Medicaid disbursements are all bad, but only the first two are corruption.

And I'm saying again that the realities of being drafted mean men are already subjected to violation of the body as a temple. Sure, having the government inseminate women would be gross and weird and terrible. But it's also terrible to have the government say that men have to go to the frontline where enemies can shoot them full of holes.

As to the draft specifically my preference is that we abolish it entirely or, in the alternative, draft men and women equally.

If we abolish the draft entirely then authoritarian states with less scruples would eventually overpower and dominate all the countries that tried to do so. Then they'd do things like what Russia did with the Donbass and use their subjugated lands to go after their next round of conquests.

If we instead drafted men and women equally, this would almost certainly devolve into mere performative equality where women are mostly given noncombat roles.

If we were really committed to equality then we'd run up against the reality that women don't make great frontline soldiers, and would face even greater risk of abuse if they were ever captured.

Evolution has made men into warriors and women into childbearers. You can try to push against that but you'll always come up against biological realities.

What?

I think you're underselling the "invasive" point.

Compared to the reality of being drafted where a man might at any point have their leg blown off?

that there are actions so vile that if it's a choice between death and performing them, death is the nobler choice

I don't see why you're claiming that pregnancy is so much vastly worse than warfare. I don't think your sentiment is uncommon, but I'd think it comes from 1) this hasn't been done before, so the Overton window still sees it as beyond the pale, and 2) it would be done against women, and humans naturally want to protect women from everything.

These are not particularly compelling reasons.

It was very much a worry in the Cold War era. It was less of a worry during the Liberal Peace of the 90s, 2000s, and 2010s, but that was a mere few-decade aberration.

The principle is "help your country in times of need, whether you want to or not." Warfare, which is men's duty, is a perennial issue. Birthrates, which are women's duty, is probably the same.

No? That would presumably lead to an absurd amount of unnecessary wars and would flip the underpopulation problem into an overpopulation problem.

Are 6000 grants a petty amount?

But are all 6000 grants funding things as contemptible as Columbian trans operas?

Is the total of Medicare fraud, home health fraud, home child care fraud, disability fraud a "petty amount"?

Fraud is an obvious problem and isn't something most politicians would defend. It's categorically different than the type of corruption that Trump is showing.

The 2 I'd cite for a list that Trump is going above and beyond are:

  • Giving pardons to people who have helped him in one way or the other, like the Binance founder as well as Trevor Milton
  • Hosting multiple private events for holders of the Trump meme coin, essentially doing what Republicans accused Hunter --> Joe Biden of doing, but doing it far more directly and at greater scale. Also enacting crypto-friendly legislation that Trump would personally benefit from.
  • Refusing to divest from his businesses while President, which has been common practice for Presidents for a while now, and which causes conflict-of-interest issues to pop up constantly.

But then a lot of it comes from the laundry list of other things he's doing. Other politicians might skirt around things that are similar, but I can't name any other single politician that has as many as Trump. Things like:

  • Accepting a luxury jumbo jet from Qatar, after signing favorable deals with them including billions/trillions in economic commitments and giving them an unusually strong security guarantee.
  • Many of the deals his sons are doing, trying to implicitly profit from the fact that their father is the POTUS.
  • Using pardons to assist political allies like the J6 rioters, Roger Stone, Charles Kushner, and Paul Manafort
  • Charging the Secret Service at Trump properties well above normal government rates, meaning taxpayer money flowed into the President's business because of his official protection needs.

You're not wrong. I also think wokists are vile.

The only solution is to keep demanding each side do better without regard to what the other side is doing, even though each side would really prefer to use their outgroup's sins as a blank check to be as terrible as they want.

I honestly think this is a pretty reasonable take. A lot of people are attacking the claim that drafting people isn't controversial. It obviously is, but the majority of society still sees it as a necessary evil, as without it the nation could be overrun by other states that are less scrupulous. This is less of an issue for the USA that only has two relatively weak neighbors, but the principle is sound in general. Ukraine would have collapsed to Russian aggression long ago if it didn't draft its population to fight, and yes it's very controversial in that country with there being many examples of draft dodging enforcement actions that look more like kidnappings, but again it's still necessary.

Childbirth is extremely invasive for women of course, but it's also very invasive to be enslaved by the military and potentially shot to death. While death in childbirth can happen, it's fairly rare with modern medicine. Death in war on the other hand is an expected outcome for thousands or millions of men. If women were told that raising the children was optional after birth, then they'd only need to go through the pregnancy for 9 months, give birth, and then they'd be done which compares to the years-long requirements for many draftees, with unclear end dates. If I was behind the veil of ignorance and told I either had to be either a man reborn to be drafted in Ukraine's war, or a woman forced to bear a child for the state, I'd choose the latter pretty easily.

The main 2 differences I can see between drafting and forced childbirth are the following:

  1. Forced childbirth hasn't been seen as necessary historically since natural birthrates had been sufficient.
  2. The idea of forcing women to bear a large share of societal costs is seen as far more heinous than asking men to do the same.

Neither of these is very compelling in our current situation.

Sure, that stuff looks like nonsense. Practically anything that goes to fund art or "culture" more broadly probably has a chance to end up funding some woke nonsense. That stuff is bad and it's good that Trump canned it.

In terms of comparison though, $47K is quite small.

I wouldn't be surprised. The fact that Texas is lapping California when it comes to clean energy initiatives is a dire indictment of leftist governance at the state/local level.

But I'll go on the record and say that generally, offering pardons to people who have made you personal money is Bad.

Thanks, I genuinely appreciate that. That’s the kind of thing I wish were more common.

MAGA can think Democrats are worse. They can think Republicans are the lesser evil. But at some point, if your own side does something bad, you have to be able to say so without immediately changing the subject.

Anyone who complained about Hunter Biden's exploits should also be complaining about the multiple private events Trump has held for coin holders. Instead, MAGA shows volcanic rage at the former while the latter is shunted to the realm of "hard for me to care".

Also, Trump is using the coin as a conduit to basically sell off pardons.

The Inflation Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill. Both shoveled out insane amounts of money

These shoveled money everywhere. Sure, woke leftists ended up getting some amount of it I'm sure. But Texas also got a crapton of money for being the model state in rolling out renewable energy.

If the state government instructs the agencies to devise "regulations" that siphon money away

I don't know of many, if any examples of this happening. What usually occurs is the regulations have a decent reason to exist but which probably fail a cost-benefit analysis on net, with the reasoning that the optimal number of people dying to environmental hazards is not necessarily zero. And then a lot of them get abused by NIMBYs grasping for any veto-points they can find.

Memecoin, by contrast, is piker shit that only hurts the people involved.

Trump used the memecoin to effectively sell pardons off to people.

My personal bugbear is the $Trump meme coin which is exceptional for the scale x blatantness.

One of the big issues surrounding talks of corruption is that people have excessively expansive views of what is considered "corruption" when it comes to their outgroup, often devolving to little more than "they're doing something (anything) I disagree with". But I can't recall anything that comes close to what Trump did with the memcoin.

multiple trillion dollar bills passed under Biden that did nothing but siphon money to leftists.

What bills are you referring to? I'm sure somewhere in the appropriations there might have been a few dozen million that got directed to progressive NGOs -- and I'd consider that a bad thing, mind you -- but nothing to the level of "multiple trillion dollar bills that did nothing but siphon money to leftists".

Why does it cost $150 billion to NOT build a rail line?

This is an issue of excessive regulation, not corruption. It's still a big problem and is a stain on California's reputation (and by extension all left-wing governance), but it's different then something like Trump's memecoin.

ficticious X millions for gay condom art to zanzibar

No clue what this is in reference to.

MAGA is the most corrupt political movement in my lifetime in the US. It might be the most corrupt movement in US history, though I'm not sure how it would compare to some of the stuff in the Gilded Age. Republicans deflect the open corruption of Trump by presuming (mostly without evidence) that "all politicians do it, Trump is just honest about it!!!" Then they go off on something like Hunter Biden or Congressional stock trades, which involve like 1/100th of the value of what Trump is doing.

And Dems don't care that much either, as they'd rather focus on hallucinations like Trump raping children with Epstein. The corruption might appear in the laundry lists of grievances they throw out against Trump, but it's hardly a motivating factor for most.

Reactionary predictions on elections like these have had a terrible track record in 2016, to some degree in 2020, and then very much in 2024. The US public has swapped the party in the White House with near metronomic frequency. If anything, the populist age has only made that tendency even more pronounced. The only thing that would stop this is the end of democracy in the US.