It's so cool ππ₯° You missed but it's fine, you'll never realise, I'll work double as hard! Let's be those who intervene instead of blaming and moaning bro!
Humans are animals, which are a part of the environment. The major cause of human and environmental collapse is a bunch of rich pieces of shit upholding a cruel, unsustainable system and leading you to believe that's just 'human nature' & how things are and have always been.
yeah I mean this is essentially what I wanted to express here. Being an ecofascist makes no sense because you'd essentially be killing all the humans to protect the humans.
.. and humans are also needed by a lot of domestic animals and plants. So it seems more comple...
No it's not, it's capitalism. Kill capitalism, not beings
I love this! Here I'm understanding how a minimal mind works π₯°
Thanks for introducing me to the "outskirts" of using the brain, it's great to get stuff!
More importantly, it kills them when they're old and already contributed most of their pollution and the cancer care also wastes lots of plastic and resources.
Cancer care doesn't cause nearly as much waste and resources as elder care does, though. Smokers benefit the system because they die a decade or two early.
It's satire. Original tweet was about an environmentally friendly radar system from Raytheon
The fact that so many people actually fell for it is worrying not just because reality itself has become satire but because this post should be painfully obvious. Ain't nobody marketing missiles to anyone who cares about the carbon footprint.
Not going to lie. I believed it and thought 'wow between this and the knife missile that greatly reduces civilian casualties Rathiyon are probably most morally upstanding war profiteirs of our era'
The knife missile was actually kinda awesome in its own way tbh. Ridiculous precision for super long distance murder with as few casualties as possible.
the knife missile is so emblematic of the entire military industrial complex. can't stop engaging in unnecessary resource wars due to unnecessary casualties. instead, the military industrial complex will develop and sell a product to allow the killing of specific people in public spaces. and the more you think about the idea of being at a produce stand and someone standing next to you turning into a fine red mist, never to exist in physical space again, the more distopian it seems.
it reminds me of the episode of star trek where they encounter a planet that has eliminated war via coordinated computer simulations and voluntary genocides.
Question. Are the knives really needed? I feel like getting hit with what is essentially a 5 foot long, 7 inch wide bullet, travelling at mach 1 would prove to be equally efficient at killing single targets, as strapping knives to it.
it reduces the risk of missing because the target bent over to pick up a quarter, or stepped to the side because they saw something interesting. the knives in question are basically swords that deploy radially from the missile body like an umbrella.
Is it, though? If there's a non-government person who has the means to protect themselves against fucking missile strikes, one of the richest people on the planet seems like a likely candidate.
Bombs from Raytheon are environmentally friendly. Making war environmentally friendly is what Raytheon is all about. Raytheon a green company! ππ½
You're not going to beat the mosquito or rotavirus when it comes to environmentally friendly killers. Lethality, prodigious. Carbon footprint, minimal (small amount of flatulence, don't worry about it). This comment was sponsored by Gnawed VPN.
I heard they're coming out with a new one that does have the seeds but they're all non-natives selected for maximum ecological impact. You win some, you lose some
This reminds me of Jeremy Kauffman's ad, "War is Gay," which advocated for making militarism as gay as possible. The point is that militarism, or zabernism, is considered acceptable and even encouraged as long as DEI quotas are met within the military. https://youtu.be/kdfym6LKpQ0
I would argue against having military, but that'd be pointless. If we're going to have it, it should be as representative of the population as possible. It might save the lives of underrepresented citizens when we're invading.
So you actually believe a military should have quotas based on arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender, tied to the population it is meant to protect? That is, if the population is around 50% women, the military should attempt to have 50% women in all positions? And that any disparate outcome would be evidence of racism or sexism? Would that be your position taken to its extreme, while your actual position has the same essence but is much more sensible in degree? Or what do you think?
*edit: please don't downvote mori on this, those are absolutely valid questions and a chance to clarify without angry rebuttal is always welcome
So you actually believe a military should have quotas based on arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender
Not arbitrary at all. I think the makeup should exactly mirror the population distribution as closely as it can. We invade places, it's hoards of guys and it's a lot of rape and pillage and less worry about illegal orders. I think a proper distribution would help that out a lot.
And that any disparate outcome would be evidence of racism or sexism
Nope, don't give a shit about that at all. I just think they should try to have our military not being 99% white men covering each others asses doing shit they shouldn't. DEI isn't just about combating racism/sexism, it's making sure that the staffing matches the population. A team with 20% minorities will be less likely to be overzealous on minorities. A team of 50% women will be less likely to rape or allow the rape of women in action zones.
Would that be your position taken to its extreme, while your actual position has the same essence but is much more sensible in degree? Or what do you think?
Not quite sure I grasp that series of questions. I don't think they should force minorities/women into the military, but they should try hard to be representative and mix everyone together. Nothing beats sexist/racist views in individuals like working closely with people of other races/sexes. Hell it might even drive out people that should have power over other people.
It's obviously not without issue. But we need more mixing of culture/race/sex on the daily basis or we'll be in this while male superiority complex society forever.
Realistically, the American military is likely to be fairly diverse, just not especially gender-diverse. You do not need quotas to achieve a reasonable level of racial diversity, as many men are psychographically drawn to military service regardless. An Estonian military, by contrast, is unlikely to be diverse no matter how aggressively DEI policies are applied; attempting to force diversity would effectively result in a foreign legion.
Women tend to require incentives, often in the form of college funding, to develop an interest in joining the military. They also tend to be less effective in duties involving firefighting and direct combat and can be liabilities in those particular situations. However, they are no different intellectually and are fully capable of performing engineering, technical, and similar roles, & advances in technology may help bridge some of these physical gaps in the future.
Regarding your claim that βa team with 20 percent minorities will be less likely to be overzealous toward minorities,β the reality may be closer to the opposite. White personnel can experience anxiety about appearing prejudiced and may therefore become overly cautious or under-enforcing in certain situations. Some evidence of this can be seen in instances where white police officers avoid proactive enforcement out of fear of being accused of racism, homophobia, or similar biases. Black officers (for example), by contrast, often appear to have greater immunity from these particular concerns.
P.S. Ideally, the U.S. military and other militaries would not be searching for monsters to destroy abroad, such as inventing reasons to attack Venezuela, Iran, etc. possibly for the benefit of Israel, lol.
If I am elected president, anyone who has ever claimed to be "building a better future for our children" will have their mouths smashed off with a rifle butt.
Humans are the major cause of environmental collapse.
To quote Carlin, "The earth doesn't share our prejudice against plastic... The planet is fine. The people are fucked."
As are other, non-human animals.
People are just as much a part of this biosphere as is moss, or you.
Moss probably doesn't like plastic very much, Carlin was talking about the rock, not thin film on the surface
It's so cool ππ₯° You missed but it's fine, you'll never realise, I'll work double as hard! Let's be those who intervene instead of blaming and moaning bro!
Be positive now, okay:)?
humans are the major cause for human collapse. the environment will survive⦠mostly
Humans are animals, which are a part of the environment. The major cause of human and environmental collapse is a bunch of rich pieces of shit upholding a cruel, unsustainable system and leading you to believe that's just 'human nature' & how things are and have always been.
yeah I mean this is essentially what I wanted to express here. Being an ecofascist makes no sense because you'd essentially be killing all the humans to protect the humans.
There's nothing separating us from the enwictonment. You're a human exceptionalist.
Some specific humans
.. and humans are also needed by a lot of domestic animals and plants. So it seems more comple... No it's not, it's capitalism. Kill capitalism, not beings
I love this! Here I'm understanding how a minimal mind works π₯° Thanks for introducing me to the "outskirts" of using the brain, it's great to get stuff!
You don't get it. I mean, you reallyΒ² don't get it.
We're not something outside nature.
Correct, but we also have a disproportionate effect on the rest of nature.
Like yes, cancer is human cells, but that doesn't diminish the damage they do to the rest of the human cells.
More importantly, it kills them when they're old and already contributed most of their pollution and the cancer care also wastes lots of plastic and resources.
Cancer care doesn't cause nearly as much waste and resources as elder care does, though. Smokers benefit the system because they die a decade or two early.
Money yes, but they've already reproduced and had most of their carbon emissions by that point. That's a different metric.
Nah, cigarettes kill way too slowly for that. Meth, though ...
Oh cool ecofascism
There won't be any kind of fascism left once the last human is checked off.
The important thing is to point them at the correct aircraft.
But who is going to clean up the trash from the wreckage?
It's satire. Original tweet was about an environmentally friendly radar system from Raytheon
The fact that so many people actually fell for it is worrying not just because reality itself has become satire but because this post should be painfully obvious. Ain't nobody marketing missiles to anyone who cares about the carbon footprint.
Not going to lie. I believed it and thought 'wow between this and the knife missile that greatly reduces civilian casualties Rathiyon are probably most morally upstanding war profiteirs of our era'
now I am just disappointed
The knife missile was actually kinda awesome in its own way tbh. Ridiculous precision for super long distance murder with as few casualties as possible.
It's also frightening that it exists.
the knife missile is so emblematic of the entire military industrial complex. can't stop engaging in unnecessary resource wars due to unnecessary casualties. instead, the military industrial complex will develop and sell a product to allow the killing of specific people in public spaces. and the more you think about the idea of being at a produce stand and someone standing next to you turning into a fine red mist, never to exist in physical space again, the more distopian it seems.
it reminds me of the episode of star trek where they encounter a planet that has eliminated war via coordinated computer simulations and voluntary genocides.
Knife missiles are real things?? Scary stuff. I'm about half way through the Culture series at the moment, never heard of them before..
It's the Hellfire AGM-114R-9X
A while back it was used to kill some dude without the other people in the same house being collateral damage, so it got meme status for a while.
Question. Are the knives really needed? I feel like getting hit with what is essentially a 5 foot long, 7 inch wide bullet, travelling at mach 1 would prove to be equally efficient at killing single targets, as strapping knives to it.
it reduces the risk of missing because the target bent over to pick up a quarter, or stepped to the side because they saw something interesting. the knives in question are basically swords that deploy radially from the missile body like an umbrella.
There have been times it's been used against a whole carful of people, and cars are bigger than seven inches.
If we're going to have missiles, knife missiles are a good thing
A lot of things are pretty normal today that would've been satire 10 years ago
"environmentally friendly radar system"
so weather radar?
probably non-cancerous cooling sytsem or some shit like that, maybe lower RF emissions
I just thought it was funny I didn't think it was real.
Aircraft shot down over shallow waters can even turn into coral reefs! Wow!
And just think about all the thankful sea critters feasting on the bodies!
make a better future for the children of the world by blowing up half of it
What? The green revolution doesn't deserve anti-aircraft capabily?
![email protected]
![email protected]
Killing is good way to reduce your CO2 footprint
Bombs are not environmentally friendly.
Average person's carbon footprint is 7 tons CO2 per year. Killing just one person will make a bomb environmentally friendly.
That's actually a statistical error, Carbon Bezos is an outlier who should not have been counted.
But it's just as easy to blow up with a bomb. So it evens out.
Is it, though? If there's a non-government person who has the means to protect themselves against fucking missile strikes, one of the richest people on the planet seems like a likely candidate.
But what if we made them so? π€
Bombs from Raytheon are environmentally friendly. Making war environmentally friendly is what Raytheon is all about. Raytheon a green company! ππ½
Woke SAMs
Lefty nonsense
Carbon neutralized
You're not going to beat the mosquito or rotavirus when it comes to environmentally friendly killers. Lethality, prodigious. Carbon footprint, minimal (small amount of flatulence, don't worry about it). This comment was sponsored by Gnawed VPN.
Mosquitoes be fartin?
If you listen carefully you can hear them squeak one out occasionally.
Maybe the next iteration can have some seeds mixed in the payload to sprout little trees and plants over the wreckage.
I heard they're coming out with a new one that does have the seeds but they're all non-natives selected for maximum ecological impact. You win some, you lose some
Greenwashing final boss?
Nothing will ever top "clean coal".
Excuse me??
Is it blue?
Competition for Veridian Dynamics
Veridian Dynamics. We can. But we won't. Yet.
NonCredibleDefense is leaking again...
Frutiger Anti-Aero
This reminds me of Jeremy Kauffman's ad, "War is Gay," which advocated for making militarism as gay as possible. The point is that militarism, or zabernism, is considered acceptable and even encouraged as long as DEI quotas are met within the military. https://youtu.be/kdfym6LKpQ0
I would argue against having military, but that'd be pointless. If we're going to have it, it should be as representative of the population as possible. It might save the lives of underrepresented citizens when we're invading.
So you actually believe a military should have quotas based on arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender, tied to the population it is meant to protect? That is, if the population is around 50% women, the military should attempt to have 50% women in all positions? And that any disparate outcome would be evidence of racism or sexism? Would that be your position taken to its extreme, while your actual position has the same essence but is much more sensible in degree? Or what do you think?
*edit: please don't downvote mori on this, those are absolutely valid questions and a chance to clarify without angry rebuttal is always welcome
Not arbitrary at all. I think the makeup should exactly mirror the population distribution as closely as it can. We invade places, it's hoards of guys and it's a lot of rape and pillage and less worry about illegal orders. I think a proper distribution would help that out a lot.
Nope, don't give a shit about that at all. I just think they should try to have our military not being 99% white men covering each others asses doing shit they shouldn't. DEI isn't just about combating racism/sexism, it's making sure that the staffing matches the population. A team with 20% minorities will be less likely to be overzealous on minorities. A team of 50% women will be less likely to rape or allow the rape of women in action zones.
Not quite sure I grasp that series of questions. I don't think they should force minorities/women into the military, but they should try hard to be representative and mix everyone together. Nothing beats sexist/racist views in individuals like working closely with people of other races/sexes. Hell it might even drive out people that should have power over other people.
It's obviously not without issue. But we need more mixing of culture/race/sex on the daily basis or we'll be in this while male superiority complex society forever.
Realistically, the American military is likely to be fairly diverse, just not especially gender-diverse. You do not need quotas to achieve a reasonable level of racial diversity, as many men are psychographically drawn to military service regardless. An Estonian military, by contrast, is unlikely to be diverse no matter how aggressively DEI policies are applied; attempting to force diversity would effectively result in a foreign legion.
Women tend to require incentives, often in the form of college funding, to develop an interest in joining the military. They also tend to be less effective in duties involving firefighting and direct combat and can be liabilities in those particular situations. However, they are no different intellectually and are fully capable of performing engineering, technical, and similar roles, & advances in technology may help bridge some of these physical gaps in the future.
Regarding your claim that βa team with 20 percent minorities will be less likely to be overzealous toward minorities,β the reality may be closer to the opposite. White personnel can experience anxiety about appearing prejudiced and may therefore become overly cautious or under-enforcing in certain situations. Some evidence of this can be seen in instances where white police officers avoid proactive enforcement out of fear of being accused of racism, homophobia, or similar biases. Black officers (for example), by contrast, often appear to have greater immunity from these particular concerns.
P.S. Ideally, the U.S. military and other militaries would not be searching for monsters to destroy abroad, such as inventing reasons to attack Venezuela, Iran, etc. possibly for the benefit of Israel, lol.
this should be in not the onion if real
If I am elected president, anyone who has ever claimed to be "building a better future for our children" will have their mouths smashed off with a rifle butt.
Looks mostly grey to me
Is this fucking real?
Yes, but is it using recycled plastics?
*recycled plastic explosives
Thank the gods for that!