The military is using e-girls to recruit Gen Z into service
mronline.org
mronline.org
The military has tried all sorts of things. Current USMC ad.[1]
In fact, I’d be more interested in an example of any military in history that didn’t use some sort of promise of fornication in recruitment.
Ads for the British Forces are a bit more modest and don't present bombing as some kind of heroic action.
https://twitter.com/rordonb/status/1653977289049399296/media...
https://www.mintpressnews.com/simp-to-soldier-e-girls-milita...
Fair game, it’s Creative Commons.
Damn 10/10 shitposting, maybe enlisting is not so bad.
And finally, I think war is equally undesirable for us and China, considering we both have nukes, and direct war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Nuclear wars have no winners.
> And finally, I think war is equally undesirable for us and China, considering we both have nukes, and direct war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Nuclear wars have no winners.
It is a shame that china is taking the route of russia in lingering over its “glorious” past. If it would just settle it’s differences with taiwan and accept that taiwan can be like austria is for germany, allow hong kong a special status, and move on from all this petty posturing and warmongering, it would easily double its gdp and most important it would stand a chance at lifting its citizens out of poverty.
But it all boils down to the “ambitions” of insecure leaders, as in any country that takes that route.
And for me personally that makes china a huge disappointment - i really thought it could do better.
Meanwhile, the only thing that's doubling in Russia is the price of butter.
They're just getting warmed up. The way China's legitimate concerns are just completely washed away in the American press at this point is honestly terrifying. We don't stop for even a second to wonder how we'd feel about Chinese warships cruising 12 miles off the coast of Miami, regardless of the "legality" of it. There are concessions to be made on both sides. But if cable news were to be believed, you'd think that China was actively taking over the world.
I am not simping for the CCP here. But we're starting to look apoplectic in comparison.
Spy balloons in your airspace is in a similar category. They weren’t armed, but could clearly spy.
China was never a member, so wasn't covered under it, but Russia was until they withdrew in 2021.
The only reason the US responded at all was internall politics. Geopolitically, we already assume that anything with line-of-sight to the sky is observable, and that this is probably good for geopolitical stability.
Furthermore, 1. UNCLOS allows coastal states to determine whether foreign ships are allowed to enjoy the right of innocent passage, and 2. the US does not even recognize UNCLOS. So much for "zero room for negotiation" - an unequivocally false statement.
Warships are allowed to transit foreign national waters under the right of innocent passage. They don't conduct any military operations during those transits. So again, that is obviously not aggressive.
Legitimate concerns? How about the concerns of every country around China about China? Do they just not matter to you? Why are you washing away their legitimate concerns?
[0] https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2023/04/19/...
Returning veterans are going to carry military culture back into civilian life. That's just the reality of the situation after so many years in Iraq and Afghanistan.
China is a real threat to American primacy and this time the battle is economic, but there are major military risks and we can't carry a big stick unless we keep the military in shape.
There are a few differences between eminence and extremism. One is measured by its fruits, and the other is detached from its fruits.
TBH, I wonder if it would be worth tossing off a few political flashpoints in the name of greater global stability. Hand over Taiwan on a silver platter in exchange for long-term friendship and economic concessions. Could we get to a place where the relationships between major powers is more of "a loose partnership of equals with broad leeway for dissent" rather than "the US surrounded by imminent threats to US hegemony"?
We're going to need China on our side for the next 50-100-200 years. In fact, the China that's currently being villianized is a more valuable partner than some fantasy "one day they wake up and switch to Western democracy" China, because they expand the tools available to respond to the next grand crisis.
Did I miss where the poster you are responding to called for maintaining an all-volunteer military, a thing that was created to allow the government to engage in military adventurism that the public would not support with the cadre + universal militia model that the US relied on for its first ~200 years?
Why talk about this like it's an end in itself? There's an opportunity cost involved
Other NATO countries combined spend less than the US. At what point is it enough?
You're not wrong, but not right enough. Iraq was an obvious lie, but China is an actual threat. They're quickly teching up to meet the western world and have 3x as many bodies to throw into a conflict if everything else fails.
Besides the recruiting efforts, there's less cutesy factors at play too, like the attack on abortion rights seemingly out of nowhere. Birth rates are down, which does not lend itself well to maintenance and replacement of a functional army should a conflict arise in the next three decades. Undermining abortion establishes a direct-to-military pipeline for young adults to escape desperate situations (yes, it's as ugly as it sounds-- such is war).
Nobody's going to do anything about ongoing job displacement so we'll have a lot of desperate men of fighting age with nothing else to do. We're ramping up production capability again, but those jobs will go to robots and women after we hand the men rifles and ship them out to some atoll in the middle of the Pacific. The rest of us will eventually be conscripted out of necessity since this won't be some pointless skirmish in the Falklands, which will solve the retirement and housing crises.
Gen Z will dodge the draft, embrace the Communist invaders they romanticize and experience life as subjugated citizens under occupation. Ironically, they don't really have anything to fight for. They've been conditioned to resent their ancestors, each other, and the idea of meritocracy. Let your parents die in war/childbirth and you'll net an early inheritance.
Start learning Mandarin. It'll either help you get a job on a red team/intelligence unit or help you assimilate once it's all over.
Tl;dr they're trying to pressure high schoolers into JROTC with stuff like automatic enrollment
These people are being manipulated because of their loneliness and you’re OK with reducing the situation to: “stupid sex starved simp got what they deserve”.
Wanting sex or being lonely isn’t wrong, it’s a human need.
E-girls are visually stimulating to the point of uncontrollable ejaculation.
These men can’t possibly think they have a shot at having sex or even a genuine conversation with these carefully engineered influencers. They are like moths drawn to a flame. They worship these girls and fantasize about them and show their devotion by doing stupid irrational shit. Simp activities.
It's just that now, we have a sick society where most men don't have some girl in their town they'd go to war to impress. Their dream girl isn't in their math class, she's on twitch and she's made of plastic and digital filters.
As men we need to stop this. If every man simply decided tomorrow no woman’s beauty warranted us doing anything that we didn’t already want to do, women would become powerless and we would once again take control as the masters of this world.
I don’t think this comment will be very popular, but I’m not here to say popular things, I’m here to speak truth.
What's sick about that? Feelings are temporary, death is permanent. Your definition of a "not sick" society is a sick one by my book
I mean, yeah, but you're sort of just taking one mental image and assuming that's the rule and not the exception
This give them a couple years of (mostly) internet detox before getting sent back into it.
But sure, if they don’t lose a limb, die or become traumatized and kill themselves it’s not a bad life course.
- being sent to war should probably not be the result of being young and gullible
- if we need to send anyone to war, should we send the dumbest people we can find?We should be more judicious about using military forces as part of foreign policy, and provide better support to the combat troops who are deployed into impossible situations. But the majority of personnel are in low risk support jobs that aren't much different from typical civilian jobs. Lose the hyperbole.
In some countries, working for a criminal organization, will land you in jail.
Good luck bombing anything without mechanics or gasoline, and medical staff helps lower the perceived stakes of war (however slightly).
I rendered humanitarian assistance that saved lives in the wake of the Sumatra earthquakes. My friends have done the same after the Japanese Tsunami.
We don't have to take the (rather overwhelming) bad with the slivers of good.
Either way, you did something good. Unlike many of your comrades. You got the lucky ticket that was the thing you were ordered to do (or offered to volunteer).
What do you mean by that?
Neither of those things is necessarily morally questionable.
If you don't understand how it's more morally questionable than helping victims of natural disasters you are a way worse person than op who naturally chose to say "I saved people from natural disaster", not "I went to hot countries to kill some brown folk and destroy some of their stuff because my commander said they were bad".
It's pretty hard to execute this job with dubious morality.
It's more about if you are a teenager deciding to join military because you believe the things a psyops egirl on TikTok told you, it's very likely that a series of disappointments is awaiting for you there on top of the opportunity cost of your wrong choice.
I don't see how it could possibly backfire in the decades to come when those guys come out to start their actual lives. /s
Worst case scenario they can live out some gundam fantasy while having a sense of real purpose and duty.
We should expect more from others. And it should be okay for people to disagree, but their options should be rich enough they naturally make a better decision.
Maybe consider minding your own business? We're doing fine.
Oh yeah, Internet jokes and whatever. Calling a 22 year-old a “Boomer” is different from unironically yelling about how kids-these-days are too soft (see the start of this thread).
That's not even necessarily a bad thing. WWII? Solid war, the Nazi's needed killing. And I like having people willing to do that on my behalf, so that I don't have to. But pretending the military is some lollipop guild that goes around spreading happiness and cheer is extremely disingenuous.
I'm serious. On the surface it seems like I would have hated it myself, but I can't help but agree that I might have learned discipline and having a clear path through college would have been so much simpler.
(Before anyone argues that sending all youth to fight is bad (tm), other countries with compulsory service typically do not deploy people during that period. They usually get the same training but only clerical or local work).