Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Fish of Rage (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 21:41:27 JST Fish of Rage

   • Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:
   @admin universities take donations from military contractors to support their engineering departments. Doesn't have to be only military.
   • Embed this notice
     Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader: (nerthos@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 21:42:52 JST Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader:

     in reply to

     • Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:
     @sun @admin Put up with two years of bullshit mandatory ethics classes just for all university staff to tell you you should 100% take the lockheed martin job offer
     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Fish of Rage (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 08-May-2025 21:43:07 JST Fish of Rage

     in reply to

     • Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:
     @admin I'm not really supporting "protesters" smashing equipment, but I am saying that there is a connection here that they are correctly recognizing
   • Embed this notice
     Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader: (nerthos@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 09-May-2025 00:49:31 JST Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader:

     in reply to

     • Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:
     @admin @sun Well, fair enough, my argument is similar to Sun's, that universities are a conscious and willing participant in war and can't pretend to be neutral parties when they actively take funding and encourage their students to participate.
     Fish of Rage likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally: (admin@mastodon.ai8w.ddns.net)'s status on Friday, 09-May-2025 00:49:32 JST Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:

     in reply to

     • Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader:

     @nerthos

     I'm uncertain where you got your impression stated in your last paragraph of your latest reply (regarding the last paragraph in my reply)...

     In essence, I stated your point. Russia is using its military-industrial complex to take territory - exactly in the way you describe. Ukraine's M-I complex isn't/wasn't strong enough to be a deterrent to that attack, so Russia did what it did. The US (and NATO, the EU, and other entities) are using their M-I complexes to help Ukraine defend its citizens. This is, in my view, an honorable use of weapons.

     In short, from my perspective, and given the information I have on the subject, Russia is doing the evil things, Ukraine, the EU, NATO, the US, and others are doing the Honorable things, using these weapons "of war" to do what they're doing.

     If Ukraine has done something to threaten Russia that I don't know about, I blame the news media for not reporting it.

     Israel is defending itself from terrorist attacks coming from Palestine - honorable. The collateral damage from Israel's attacks is devestating to non-combatant Palestinians - not honorable. Both are using the products of the M-I complexes of their (and others) country (countries) to root out a terrorist group which has, unfortunately, nearly fully integrated itself into the population of Palestine.

     Palestine (and Hamas) were trying to retake lands that were taken from them by the UN back in the 1940s after WW2. They were/are attempting to regain what was taken from them by force.

     Both parties' intentions are, in essence, honorable. It's difficult to NOT see that if you take a step back.

     I have no issue with a State using its M-I complex to aid an ally, or a country which is being unjustly oppressed. (Ukraine/Russia situation there).. I do have an issue with States (and yes, I see Palestine as a State in and of itself.. not a US State, mind - no orangeman crap here) using their M-I complexes to defend themselves while ignoring collateral losses (what's going on in Palestine now) or to attack purely civilian targets which have no military or defensive value (Hamas' attack on the music festival, or launching mortars/missiles at civilian neighborhoods in Israel).

     There is no black/white dividing line here. It's all grey. How dark that grey gets determines the morality of the action. attacking military targets embedded in civilian areas requires surgical strikes, not bombs and explosions - Israel is using its M-I complex the wrong way, there. So is Russia, given the news reports I've seen, which, I'll grant, are slanted towards the "Western" viewer here in the U.S.

     So, where do you get that I won't be convinced, when, it seems, we agree on this subject? Or are you just shitposting?

     @sun

   • Embed this notice
     Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally: (admin@mastodon.ai8w.ddns.net)'s status on Friday, 09-May-2025 00:49:33 JST Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:

     in reply to

     • Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader:

     @nerthos

     Is not one of the State's jobs to defend its citizens?

     How is a State (Israel, Iran, Germany, the US, etc, etc, etc) supposed to defend its citizens - one of the jobs its citizens pay taxes for - without the use of weaponry?

     States which do not have a strong (or overwhelming?) military industrial complex end up in situations like Ukraine is in now - under attack by other States (Russia, in this case) simply because a leader wants better ports to launch more attacks from in order to engage in World Domination (my impression, not necessarily fact).

     @sun

   • Embed this notice
     Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader: (nerthos@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 09-May-2025 00:49:33 JST Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader:

     in reply to

     • Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:
     @admin @sun Defend its citizens yes.
     
     I don't see any defense of citizens in getting involved or instigating wars in other continents and sending citizens to die in them. Defense of citizens is what countries like Poland do, deploying their armies within their borders and shooting invaders, not attacking random sand tribes.
     
     That last paragraph made it pretty obvious there's no argument that will convince you of any of this, but it's ok, that's what civilian weapons are for.
   • Embed this notice
     Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader: (nerthos@shitposter.world)'s status on Friday, 09-May-2025 00:49:34 JST Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader:

     in reply to

     • Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:
     @admin @sun It might, however, mean you're working on a piece of equipment that is used to, for example, vaporize a wedding in Yemen.
     
     I do not have any big issues with civilian use of weaponry, because people have the right to conflict and self-defense, as individuals. If lockheed martin was selling missiles and fighter jets to private citizens, I'd be perfectly fine with their business.
     
     I have issues with state use of weaponry, which, with the exception of rare defensive wars, is unjustified killing at an industrial scale through extremely dishounorable means (for example, drone strikes or mines) carried out by organizations that have no real justification to act or usually to even exist in their current form.
   • Embed this notice
     Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally: (admin@mastodon.ai8w.ddns.net)'s status on Friday, 09-May-2025 00:49:35 JST Eh Eye Ate Dub Yah ✡︎ :ally:

     in reply to

     • Qadse Sanur Qut ibn Quaadibz :catsader:

     @nerthos

     Lockheed designs products used in the civilian and commercial sectors as well. In fact, most of their products are used in, or the source of the derivation of products used in, non-military applications.

     Taking a job at Lockheed wouldn't necessarily mean you're designing weapons to, for example, shoot someone named Brian in the back in the wee hours of the morning...

     @sun