3 ms·

> And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance. If you don't want to hire me because of this fact, I am perfectly fine with tha

> And if I were hiring, I'd certainly think less of you for taking that stance. If you don't want to hire me because of this fact, I am perfectly fine with that. In fact, that is exactly what I and the OP would want. I do not blame you for working on military projects. You are free to do that, and I think no less of you for it. But by the same token, the OP and I are free to not wanting to work on military projects. If you want to judge people for their personal preferences, that is your choice to make. They might reciprocate, though.

tomohawk 8y ago
Consider the case of herd immunity. Most people do the right thing and get themselves and their children vaccinated. This keeps us all safe. Others go their own way and refuse vaccination. They are mostly safe because of the actions of others. They're freeloaders, and if you get enough of them, they make us all less safe. If you want to be a freeloader, then go ahead. Just know that the rest of us are pretty disgusted by your ignorance and refusal to educate yourself.
- gambiting 8y ago
  Yes, I guess in the same way the people who fought for democracy in 1980s Poland were just freeloaders, instead of embracing communism and contributing to the cause they wanted to change something. They potentially even benefited from communist policies while actively fighting against them! What a hypocrisy! If you couldn't guess, my point is - if you want to change the system(in this case - the US military hegemony) you need to start by...not participating in it, even if people call you a freeloader for it.
  - tomohawk 8y ago
    As if there is some sort of moral equivalence between a communist regime and the US. Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe, or just keeping itself in power? Give me a break. Hegemony is essentially a zero sum game. If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with?
    - gambiting 8y ago
      No, I'm saying you are denying people who want to change the current status quo the right to do so by calling them freeloaders. Like, I don't think it's difficult to see that pretty much any political change would be impossible in the world if everyone had your approach. >>Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe, or just keeping itself in power That just demonstrates a lack of political knowledge on your behalf, but I'll give you a break on that, like you requested. Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others. Just like US succeeds in certain areas(freedom of speech) but fails completely at others(making sure everyone has access to healthcare and education). It's not as far fetched comparison as you'd imagine. >>If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with? Hopefully someone who doesn't get us into random wars we have no interest in. Like, EU could finally go for the full unity, get a proper army and stand on its own without US interventionism.
      - naasking 8y ago
        > No, I'm saying you are denying people who want to change the current status quo the right to do so by calling them freeloaders Changing the status quo is a political action. The military largely isn't political, they are a tool of the politicians, a loaded gun that the politicians point and sometimes shoot. The focus on the military is simply incorrect. > Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others Very debatable, but your argument is simply invalid. Many also yearn for "the good old days of racial segregation", but that doesn't somehow imply racial segregation succeeded at some things that we ought to admire.
    - ionised 8y ago
      > Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe Interesting that you think the US military's operations over the last 100 years have been about protecting its citizens instead of protecting the financial interests of the 0.1% ruling class.

tomohawk 8y ago

Consider the case of herd immunity. Most people do the right thing and get themselves and their children vaccinated. This keeps us all safe. Others go their own way and refuse vaccination. They are mostly safe because of the actions of others. They're freeloaders, and if you get enough of them, they make us all less safe. If you want to be a freeloader, then go ahead. Just know that the rest of us are pretty disgusted by your ignorance and refusal to educate yourself.

gambiting 8y ago
Yes, I guess in the same way the people who fought for democracy in 1980s Poland were just freeloaders, instead of embracing communism and contributing to the cause they wanted to change something. They potentially even benefited from communist policies while actively fighting against them! What a hypocrisy! If you couldn't guess, my point is - if you want to change the system(in this case - the US military hegemony) you need to start by...not participating in it, even if people call you a freeloader for it.
- tomohawk 8y ago
  As if there is some sort of moral equivalence between a communist regime and the US. Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe, or just keeping itself in power? Give me a break. Hegemony is essentially a zero sum game. If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with?
  - gambiting 8y ago
    No, I'm saying you are denying people who want to change the current status quo the right to do so by calling them freeloaders. Like, I don't think it's difficult to see that pretty much any political change would be impossible in the world if everyone had your approach. >>Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe, or just keeping itself in power That just demonstrates a lack of political knowledge on your behalf, but I'll give you a break on that, like you requested. Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others. Just like US succeeds in certain areas(freedom of speech) but fails completely at others(making sure everyone has access to healthcare and education). It's not as far fetched comparison as you'd imagine. >>If your goal is to displace the US from that position, then who do you think you'll be left with? Hopefully someone who doesn't get us into random wars we have no interest in. Like, EU could finally go for the full unity, get a proper army and stand on its own without US interventionism.
    - naasking 8y ago
      > No, I'm saying you are denying people who want to change the current status quo the right to do so by calling them freeloaders Changing the status quo is a political action. The military largely isn't political, they are a tool of the politicians, a loaded gun that the politicians point and sometimes shoot. The focus on the military is simply incorrect. > Communist government wasn't all bad, there's a reason why plenty of people yearn for return of the "good old days" - it has succeeded in many of the "for the people" goals, but failed spectacularly at others Very debatable, but your argument is simply invalid. Many also yearn for "the good old days of racial segregation", but that doesn't somehow imply racial segregation succeeded at some things that we ought to admire.
  - ionised 8y ago
    > Was that regime interested in keeping the people safe Interesting that you think the US military's operations over the last 100 years have been about protecting its citizens instead of protecting the financial interests of the 0.1% ruling class.