4 ms·

"People who have seen the state of the military first hand are saying that we need to fund the military" is not really shocking or sinister.

defrost 4mo ago
It's not the message spoken that is at issue here, it is the lack of disclosure of the connection of "the expert" to those that benefit (or suffer) from the message.
- dgroshev 4mo ago
  Do you expect the same standard to be applied to the NHS? "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago"
  - defrost 4mo ago
    I expect this: > "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago" from any media outlet quoting that "expert", yes. I'd also like the circumstances of their departure to be mentioned, should that be relevant to the claims. I expect it as such things are also expected by the press council of the country I'm in, even though it can be an uphill battle getting such compliance.
  - JdeBP 4mo ago
    A correct analogue would be 'The expert stating that more should be spent on treatment X was employed in the NHS five years ago and currently runs/directs/consults for a business selling supplies for treatment X.'
SturgeonsLaw 4mo ago
It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.
- dgroshev 4mo ago
  This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
  - ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
    It's the UK we're talking about here. To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist. At some point you have to ask, is it really for defense, if you're bombing someone a quarter of a planet away? Are you really protecting your people at home by doing that, and are they happy their money is being spent for that instead of eg. healthcare, education, etc.?
    - dgroshev 4mo ago
      You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point. But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?
      - chadgpt3 4mo ago
        Are you arguing the UK involvement in Bosnia was to defend the UK?
      - ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
        I mean... if you want to go to current times and politicaly sensitive topics, UK is defending the genocide of gazans and the attacks on iran right now by protecting israeli airspace. So yeah, genocide seems to not be a problem for the UK. Again, nothing to do with defending the british people. In a democracy, any military action (except fighting pack when directly attacked) should start with a referendum to see if people actually want to pay for that. (it also makes it less problematic for the other side to destroy the infrastructure when fighting back, since it's not just some smiling Tony choosing to attack then, but the people too).

defrost 4mo ago

It's not the message spoken that is at issue here, it is the lack of disclosure of the connection of "the expert" to those that benefit (or suffer) from the message.

dgroshev 4mo ago
Do you expect the same standard to be applied to the NHS? "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago"
- defrost 4mo ago
  I expect this: > "The expert claiming that cancer is bad was employed by the NHS five years ago" from any media outlet quoting that "expert", yes. I'd also like the circumstances of their departure to be mentioned, should that be relevant to the claims. I expect it as such things are also expected by the press council of the country I'm in, even though it can be an uphill battle getting such compliance.
- JdeBP 4mo ago
  A correct analogue would be 'The expert stating that more should be spent on treatment X was employed in the NHS five years ago and currently runs/directs/consults for a business selling supplies for treatment X.'

SturgeonsLaw 4mo ago

It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.

dgroshev 4mo ago
This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
- ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
  It's the UK we're talking about here. To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist. At some point you have to ask, is it really for defense, if you're bombing someone a quarter of a planet away? Are you really protecting your people at home by doing that, and are they happy their money is being spent for that instead of eg. healthcare, education, etc.?
  - dgroshev 4mo ago
    You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point. But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?
    - chadgpt3 4mo ago
      Are you arguing the UK involvement in Bosnia was to defend the UK?
    - ajsnigrutin 4mo ago
      I mean... if you want to go to current times and politicaly sensitive topics, UK is defending the genocide of gazans and the attacks on iran right now by protecting israeli airspace. So yeah, genocide seems to not be a problem for the UK. Again, nothing to do with defending the british people. In a democracy, any military action (except fighting pack when directly attacked) should start with a referendum to see if people actually want to pay for that. (it also makes it less problematic for the other side to destroy the infrastructure when fighting back, since it's not just some smiling Tony choosing to attack then, but the people too).