223
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
223 points (100.0% liked)
News
37724 readers
418 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Alright lefties, I'm conflicted. Where are y'all on this one? Is it:
Edit: It was C, definitely C.
It's A, and very strongly C because you're not asking honestly, fuckhead.
Nobody has a problem with the coast guard, they're way more professional than crayon eating marines and other hired US corporate muscle.
Also B doesn't even make any fucking sense. Lowering recruitment doesn't reduce spending in any meaningful way. Lockheed Martin is getting that cash whether or not little Jimmy gets tricked signing up for a pull up contest in the cafeteria with some meathead. We're not hurting for bodies. Even IF this made people less likely to join, it doesn't move the needle AT ALL on defense spending.
The entire premise is absurd.
I really like this answer because it implies that it's not the military nor the people who serve, but the corporate capture of our military that is the problem. And I can very much so get on board with that sentiment.
Also, y'all really show some love for our coast guard.🫡
Lowering recruitment is still good though; fewer soldiers for America to use on other countries (and domestically)
Or there maybe there should be appropriate repercussions for being here illegally, and not jump straight to imprisonment unless there’s violent crime involved. Also, the path to legal citizenship should be reasonable and equal for all. As an aside, maybe stop deporting legal citizens too, but now I’m really talking crazy!
Married to a citizen is all the justification she needs to reside in the USA, this is racist ethnic clensing and it will cost the US billions as we keep paying for resources to force depopulation. You need people to be white so bad you're OK living in a fascist hellscape that will never get is world standing back? Wow that's stupid!
Not a leftie, but D) Spouse of a citizen should be a citizen. How is this even a fucking question.
RIP my sides at you feeling the need to make an edit explaining what the downvotes already fucking show us. Your head’s so far up your own ass that I’d bet solid money it’s on its way for a third fucking pass.
Edit: get fucked for even asking the question.
Whoever told you B was an actual opinion of anyone lied to you. You should take everything else they say with a huge grain of salt.
C.
Fuck off troll.
My dad was a Coastie. He signed up during the Vietnam war. He liked to say 'we SAVE lives'.
I volunteered with the Auxiliary for 10 years and met a lot of active duty & reserve coasties during that time. Also have two uncles that went to the USCG Academy. I have the utmost respect for the organization as a whole given they have members who will willingly jump out of helicopters in the middle of a hurricane to try to rescue complete strangers, no matter who they are.
Imagine restraining your replies to a complex question into a binary like a complete fucking dipshit lmao
Come on, let's get real. That's not a binary, it a trinary/ternary. Totally different!! /s
Sending people to concentration camps is obviously bad.
Less people being recruited is good in that those people won't be exploited by the military.
Is it worth it? How the fuck do I even measure that? Even if I could why would I want to?
Trying to compare the value of human suffering like that seems pretty fucking ghoulish to me.
🤣
That means, "Help I can't take any criticism! 😥"
Does it though? I think what screams "help I can't take any criticism" is when people delete their posts/comments. Integrity matters to me - and I stand behind my words and actions, even if something changes my mind on a subject later.
Also, my original comment received a flurry of activity and a level of patriotism that I don't always see on Lemmy. Maybe the latest migration has more users...or now I'm thinking maybe I should post controversial questions more often 😉
It wasn't controversial, you're just stupid lol
I am curious, where are you on this? Do you think this is ok?
Very Strong A.
I think borders in an interconnected world are practically meaningless. When you can travel from NYC to Istanbul to Beijing in a weekend, what's the point? I think the city-state model serves us better than the nation state model. I think, the whole reason for our current border rationale is either A) that certain people are afraid of people who don't look like them B) to keep out "the clods" - which is a stupid concept since people are the economy and/or C) certain people can profit off of it.
I only see borders as useful for taxation purposes and societal control - and in both use cases there are better options.
I do think, if we are to maintain the nation-state model, then we do need military, as there are other nations that do threaten our way of life. Safety in shipping lanes is also essential for a global society.
As I'm more center-left, I was conflicted as to which the left perceived as the higher priority - immigration or the reduction in the power of the military. While not a perfect poll, since not everyone on the Fediverse is a lefty, I think we can glean that most are. And it appears that the overwhelming majority consider that immigration is the much higher priority. A few years back, I would have confidently considered the latter.
Thanks for the thorough reply. I might share some of your views on borders, but so far more as a thought experiment. I have heard similar takes on borders before, but am not convinced from a practical standpoint. More from an idealistic one.
I am also very strongly on A.
Are these the only possible options?