It’s being reliant on medication - that’s a problem for any combat role
Like if you are 100% reliant on Adderall in order to function, you cannot be in a combat role.
funny how the ban isn’t about medication but gender instead. weird how things just coincidentally happen
While I’m very angry at the prejudice within the army, this does seem like an interesting aspect to it I hadn’t heard of before.
But yeah, as someone else said, it sounds like it was not just to combat roles.
Yeah for non combat roles excluding trans people is most likely just due to most of the military leadership hating trans people
The problem is that it’s a blanket ban (plus retroactive firing) of all trans people serving in the military, not just an asterisk on serving combat roles.
For non combat roles the exclusion of Trans people is due to military leadership largely hating trans people
Umberto Eco (a survivor of Mussolini’s actual regime) identified this as one of the core traits of Ur-Fascism. Specifically, #8…
The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.… However, the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.
You will note that Republicans check literally every single box of Umberto Eco’s list.
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascism
That was my same thought. The enemy is too strong but also too weak?
I am always glad when people share this because whenever I bring it up IRL it seems like nobody else has read it.
I think of this every time I see some egregiously fascist behavior on display in the Trump admin getting defended by people who think the left is overreacting. I wish more people knew about this and understood that it’s not some left wing looney saying it, it’s a guy who lived through it and can identify it for what it truly is.
We are outnumbered, as usual.
But we also outnumber THEM!
That’s n-
You know yeah okay yes, good point
This is actually how Russians do their propaganda. NATO is weak but also the greatest threat to our nation. Sending Abrams to Ukraine is pointless as they are useless tanks and Ukraine has already lost, but also sending Abrams is crossing a line and a declaration of war.
Gee, wonder where Trump learned it from?
LOL like Russia isn’t depicted the same way by our propaganda? GTFOH…
the followers [of fascism] must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak. Fascist governments are condemned to lose wars because they are constitutionally incapable of objectively evaluating the force of the enemy.
– Umberto Eco, Ur-Fascism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/umberto-eco-ur-fascismThe loser’s flag, the confederate’s is flown today in my neighborhood, and they are determined to make us all losers.
Gee, wonder where Trump learned it from?
It’s Fascism 101.
Zelenskyy is simultaneously a puppet of The West™ and a wizard mind controlling EU and US
You don’t need to learn it from anywhere. Look at the stereotype of cats who love affection when they want it even if you’re busy but who get mad when you initiate when all they’re doing is lying there. All these people have really “done” is not grow out of being whiny, bitch-ass toddlers. They’re just deeply insecure, immature assholes with zero compassion or self-awareness.
While simultaneously having compassion and empathy for billionaire fascist. lol.
You just described my ex. I’ve never known a cat to be that shitty to me though.
The greatest threat to a nation being weak technically isnt a contradiction. If all your enemies are weak, even the most powerful is weak
And how NATO does propaganda against both Russia and China.
Oh? Can you give an example? Because I’ve mostly seen official channels take Russia very seriously
To stealman it, I’d say it’s in how China has a large navy that’s also incapable, or has extensive R&D that copies the west’s homework and only makes cheap parts. Russia is both incapable of taking on Ukraine and justifies the need for much greater EU military expenditure.
There’s some nuance to this. China’s navy is large, but it’s mostly built as a green water navy (close to their shores), and not a blue water navy. Russia can’t take Ukraine, but it’s because both the EU and US have been feeding them, and US support is drying up.
China’s R&D, however, is something I think we should take more seriously. They’ve done most of the practical applications of new battery tech and have spun up an EV industry from scratch.
To stealman it
Is that when you steal your talking points from someone else?
I mean, these arguments really only work if you disregard that NAFO isn’t NATO.
Taken very seriously while it’s economy is in shambles and it’s military is depleted to the point of relying on Soviet era relics?
Why can’t both of those be true? Should Europe ignore Russia until they CAN march into Amsterdam? There are far too many corpses in Ukraine not to take them seriously, regardless of economics.
Is your face okay after walking into the point that hard and not seeing it?
Is Doublethink a more adequate term?
Yes. And no.
Yes
True story. Back in 2008 there were two op-ed pieces on the smae page of the Murdoch owned New York Post.
One said that voting for Obama was a waste of time, because he was a centrist neoliberal who’d only serve up milder versions of GOP programs, so you’d be better off with an actual Republican.
The other screamed that he was a radical Socialist who would destroy America.
Same newspaper, same page, no irony
Isn’t this what the opinion page is for?
Not only is it what Op Eds are for, it’s also extremely common practice to have two contrasting views on the same page to give voice to a variety of different opinions.
Complaining about two Op Eds on the same page with different opinions is like complaining that a dictionary has two definitions of two different words on the same page.
Brace yourself for all the “gotcha!” comments from enlightened centrists that don’t understand the core concept of controlled opposition or propaganda.
People nitpicking on the internet?
Un-possible!
Theres nitpicking, and theres just disingenuous horse shit from centrists telling you that ummm actually both sides are the same.
Don’t get me started…
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of an Op Ed?
So, you read what I wrote and concluded that in life I’d only seen one Op-Ed page?
You funny, in a sad way.
Apparently so. You seem surprised that there were two people who had different opinions on the same page in the Op Eds. That’s what Op Eds are.
Again, I ask, are you familiar with the concept of an Op Ed? Or are you just confused that people might have different opinions?
You get funnier and funnier.
Please keep telling me about how much smarter you are than I am.
I’m just letting you prove it yourself.
So, you got nothing?
Too bad, I could always use another laugh.
The rest of us are laughing at you, so you could try that?
Both opinions agree that you should not vote for Obama, that is the editorial strategy, the different motivations are to capture the whole range of voters.
Nowadays it is even easier to do this, thank to personalized news. They can tell unemployed people that immigrants are stealing all the jobs, while they can tell taxpayers that immigrants are leaving off grants. They can even tell cat lovers that immigrants are eating all the cats.
The idea you are pushing that Op-Eds are a whiteboard for diverse opinions is either innocent or malicious.
Op Eds are obviously influenced by the bias of the newspaper that runs them. But, there’s no need to veer into conspiracy theories just because two of them happen to be anti-Obama for different reasons.
Schrodinger’s energy crisis:
We need to sell public lands for oil extraction since we have an energy crisis!
We need to cancel wind energy and solar facility construction!
Schrödinger’s Election: it’s rigged unless we win.
It was rigged but ALSO we won.
Schrodinger’s immigrant: they’re both lazy moochers and taking all our jobs.
Schrodinger’s immigrant for the Trump era: they’re all criminals and have no criminal records… clearly because they’re such good criminals.
Classic fascist doublethink. Straight out of the book. The enemy is both strong/dangerous enough to be a serious threat, but the fascist is still somehow very superior to them. 🤷
Schrodinger’s tariffs: they’re great, except when they hurt my small business.
That’s just basic cruelty. “Hurting other people is great”
Schrödingers free speech: You can tweet everything unless it’s against Muskrats opinion.
Schrödinger’s Democracy: We The People, unless I disagree with those people.
It’s “We, the people”, not “Them there people”! /s
To be fair, they have a problem with trans women in women’s sports. They don’t have a problem with trans men in men’s sports because they can’t imagine a situation where a trans man could possibly compete with “real” men.
It goes along with their idea that women are weak, so women are weak athletes and women’s sports teams are weak. If you accept that, it’s not a big stretch to think that someone who has gone through puberty as a male will have an automatic huge advantage in every women’s sport because their body has male characteristics.
On the other hand to them, the military is the ultimate in manly activities. Anybody other than a pure, manly man will be at a disadvantage in anything military. That includes trans men, trans women and regular women. Right now the focus is on trans people, but I’m sure they’ll want to kick women out of the military too eventually.
So, if you accept that logic, it makes sense that trans women are too weak for the military, but too strong for women’s sports. There’s no contradiction there.
It also goes along with their mentality that trans men are simply poor, defenseless women who have been brainwashed into wanting to become strong, powerful men. And also how trans women must be mentally ill. Because how could anyone not want to be a man? Women who want to be men are understandable but misguided, and men who want to be women are sick and to be both pitied and hated - but especially hated.
To be fair
Who are you being fair to?
Not to any particular person, just fair to the truth of the situation. You know, not whacking at straw men.
The truth of the situation is that fascists have no consistency of morality or logic. You don’t need to help them.
You also don’t need to lie about their beliefs. When you do that, it just makes people wonder why you’re lying and why you can’t stick to the truth if your point is so strong.
They have no beliefs. That’s the core characteristic of fascism. Their beliefs change after a millisecond if the strongman says so.
Schrodinger’s Canada: we don’t need anything from them, but we’d love to own them anyway.
doublespeak fr
