The latest anti-liberal rant thread (get your daily dose here)

[Knight of Heaven]

Proven spouting nonsense actually.

[alhoon]

I honestly don't think these people are sane and the other progressives pretending those people are sane and pandering to them is half the reason Trump won in 2016 and why he (or she, Ivanka 2024!!!) may win in 2024.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

I have to lay it out, short of a radical shift in events I really don't see an Ivanka pick. It would be more forced than the DNC's pressing Biden to overrule the other candidates.

[Hobbes]

Transphobia, nice going there alhoon

[enoch]

I honestly don't think these people are sane and the other progressives pretending those people are sane and pandering to them is half the reason Trump won in 2016 and why he (or she, Ivanka 2024!!!) may win in 2024.

I forgot this thread existed. The site is healing. Most people want to punch nazi’s, even the conservatives who by shared beliefs are allies of Nazis, want to punch them. No karzy needed.

[alhoon]

Here's army recruitment Ads from China, Russia and USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfe6...ensoredNewsNow

[Abdülmecid I]

True, the Russian clip looked quite cringe with its fixation on steroids and its homoerotic connotations felt more forced than subtle, but the American video seemed like a normal advertisement. It focuses on women and secondarily homosexuals from well-educated backgrounds, a demographic the US army relies on, thanks to its considerable potential. It also tries to reject the negative popular perception of the military establishment as a chauvinistic establishment, dominated by uneducated and reactionary officers, which again discourages young, well-educated people from joining it. I'm not saying the ad is going to be super effective and convincing, but I doubt the Russian message ("Forget your past, you are nothing but pawns programmed to eliminate everything on their path) is going to motivate anyone beyond the most unskilled and without any alternative prospects men.

[Sir Adrian]

For your sake and mine I am going to pretend you are trolling and don't actually believe all the you just wrote.

[alhoon]

True, the Russian clip looked quite cringe with its fixation on steroids and its homoerotic connotations felt more forced than subtle, but the American video seemed like a normal advertisement. It focuses on women and secondarily homosexuals from well-educated backgrounds, a demographic the US army relies on, thanks to its considerable potential. It also tries to reject the negative popular perception of the military establishment as a chauvinistic establishment, dominated by uneducated and reactionary officers, which again discourages young, well-educated people from joining it. I'm not saying the ad is going to be super effective and convincing, but I doubt the Russian message ("Forget your past, you are nothing but pawns programmed to eliminate everything on their path) is going to motivate anyone beyond the most unskilled and without any alternative prospects men.

Actually, you don't want fuzzy hearted, well educated progressive women in a military that will see fight. You would prefer the otherwise unskilled, not-many-questions asked, not-smart guy. This is not a recruitment to celebrate diversity, this is an ad to invite people to go shoot people of different views with that thinly justified as "for the good of the nation - 3000 miles away".
You want the Russian message and the people it would bring.

For the more educated, there are the officer corps.

[Abdülmecid I]

Actually, you don't want fuzzy hearted, well educated progressive women in a military that will see fight. You would prefer the otherwise unskilled, not-many-questions asked, not-smart guy. This is not a recruitment to celebrate diversity, this is an ad to invite people to go shoot people of different views with that thinly justified as "for the good of the nation - 3000 miles away".
You want the Russian message and the people it would bring.

For the more educated, there are the officer corps.

The stereotype of tough brutes that make super soldiers is Hollywood myth with little basis on reality. The US army is more interested in skilled recruits that can understand, handle and transmit information, as well as administer the increasingly complicated equipment, that in hordes of cannon-fodder conscripts. Education is a very important value that strengthens the efficiency of the soldier. One of the major factors that contributed to the crushing victory of Prussia and her allies against the Second Empire as the much more advanced education system in Germany, which, in contrast to its French counterpart, touched the entirety of the society. Educated and skilled soldiers are more receptive to training, respond better in critical situations and can perform tasks that might seem more complicated to others, like reading a map. The same applies to the superficial contrast between fuzzy hearts and tough muscles. Elite forces are composed of individuals coming from affluent backgrounds, who have lived a comfortable life and looked after by two loving parents. Besides usually having a healthier diet and lifestyle, they are also emotionally stronger and better prepared to sustain the psychological pressure of their training. I can't find the statistics about the special forces, but this article provides a useful summary of the social demographics of the US army.

For your sake and mine I am going to pretend you are trolling and don't actually believe all the you just wrote.

Nope, totally serious. Feel free to point where I'm wrong.

[Cope]

Actually, you don't want fuzzy hearted, well educated progressive women in a military that will see fight. You would prefer the otherwise unskilled, not-many-questions asked, not-smart guy. This is not a recruitment to celebrate diversity, this is an ad to invite people to go shoot people of different views with that thinly justified as "for the good of the nation - 3000 miles away".
You want the Russian message and the people it would bring.

For the more educated, there are the officer corps.

The advertisement is a reflection of the army's belief that educated youngsters (i.e. the target demographic) prioritize virtue-signalling about civil rights, narcissistic fussing over "privilege" and worshiping at the alter of "diversity and inclusion" above a sense of duty or national service. And the message is explicit on one point in particular: it isn't about what the protagonist can do for the army; it's about what the army can do for her.

In toto, I agree with Abby that the advert does a reasonable job of appealing to college graduates with mediocre, non-vocational degrees.

[alhoon]

The stereotype of tough brutes that make super soldiers is Hollywood myth with little basis on reality. The US army is more interested in skilled recruits that can understand, handle and transmit information, as well as administer the increasingly complicated equipment, that in hordes of cannon-fodder conscripts. Education is a very important value that strengthens the efficiency of the soldier. One of the major factors that contributed to the crushing victory of Prussia and her allies against the Second Empire as the much more advanced education system in Germany, which, in contrast to its French counterpart, touched the entirety of the society. Educated and skilled soldiers are more receptive to training, respond better in critical situations and can perform tasks that might seem more complicated to others, like reading a map. The same applies to the superficial contrast between fuzzy hearts and tough muscles. Elite forces are composed of individuals coming from affluent backgrounds, who have lived a comfortable life and looked after by two loving parents. Besides usually having a healthier diet and lifestyle, they are also emotionally stronger and better prepared to sustain the psychological pressure of their training. I can't find the statistics about the special forces, but this article provides a useful summary of the social demographics of the US army.

The Elite forces from the comfortable life, also came with a crushing indifference to killing plebeians and as you said they were "emotionally stronger and better prepared to sustain the psychological pressure of their training" than a bunch of thin-skinned snowflakes that require trigger-warnings before they go to class so that their sensitive souls won't be affected.
We are talking about people that required "Cry ins" with school staff providing tissues and hot chocolate and therapy dogs to cope with the election loss of Hillary in 2016. Are these the emotionally stronger people that would sustain the pressure of their training?

Not to mention the disruption of the military that progressives would and are bringing.

NOTE: I have no issues with the American soldier in the ad, fighting for what she thinks is right and the inclusion of her two mothers in the society and I applaud her sense of duty that would serve her well on the field. My issues are with the ad itself.

[Hobbes]

True, the Russian clip looked quite cringe with its fixation on steroids and its homoerotic connotations felt more forced than subtle, but the American video seemed like a normal advertisement. It focuses on women and secondarily homosexuals from well-educated backgrounds, a demographic the US army relies on, thanks to its considerable potential. It also tries to reject the negative popular perception of the military establishment as a chauvinistic establishment, dominated by uneducated and reactionary officers, which again discourages young, well-educated people from joining it. I'm not saying the ad is going to be super effective and convincing, but I doubt the Russian message ("Forget your past, you are nothing but pawns programmed to eliminate everything on their path) is going to motivate anyone beyond the most unskilled and without any alternative prospects men.

Obviously agreed that the USA one is a lot better, but it's still sugarcoating an army which is pretty gross.

For your sake and mine I am going to pretend you are trolling and don't actually believe all the you just wrote.

There are people who are not bigoted against minorities. Shocking.

The Elite forces from the comfortable life, also came with a crushing indifference to killing plebeians and as you said they were "emotionally stronger and better prepared to sustain the psychological pressure of their training" than a bunch of thin-skinned snowflakes that require trigger-warnings before they go to class so that their sensitive souls won't be affected.

Did you find this passage from the alt-right handbook before or after the one that teaches you how to post transphobic comments on the internet, alhoon?

[alhoon]

No, I found it from common sense. Rome wouldn't have conquered the world with flowers, I can tell you that. Also, I take your complete failure to rebuke the comment and turning to just labeling it alt-right as confirmation that I am correct. Of course, I knew I am correct so it doesn't matter much.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

True, the Russian clip looked quite cringe with its fixation on steroids and its homoerotic connotations felt more forced than subtle, but the American video seemed like a normal advertisement. It focuses on women and secondarily homosexuals from well-educated backgrounds, a demographic the US army relies on, thanks to its considerable potential. It also tries to reject the negative popular perception of the military establishment as a chauvinistic establishment, dominated by uneducated and reactionary officers, which again discourages young, well-educated people from joining it. I'm not saying the ad is going to be super effective and convincing, but I doubt the Russian message ("Forget your past, you are nothing but pawns programmed to eliminate everything on their path) is going to motivate anyone beyond the most unskilled and without any alternative prospects men.

I'd argue that the Chinese ad was more pawnographic than the Russian one, what with the emphasis on China's military size and canonfodderyness. The Russian add says "We are strong. we are the best. You be more than a pawn blindly charging forward into battle. You will also learn how to attack diagonally!"

Ok. On second thought. The Russian one was pretty pawny.

[PointOfViewGun]

Its interesting that people think in a modern professional army like USA's all they do is push-ups and firing M16s into the air. The army requires more and more capable individuals that can operate complex systems, and often remotely. Incidentally, very few muscles are required to do much of it. What the army needs more and more with each year is people with technical skills to install, operate, maintain and fix complex electronic systems. For these, the Armed Forces compete with the private sector. The portrayal they went with is spot on. It merely exposes the biases people so naturally interiorized that they're not aware of it.

[Hobbes]

No, I found it from common sense. Rome wouldn't have conquered the world with flowers, I can tell you that. Also, I take your complete failure to rebuke the comment and turning to just labeling it alt-right as confirmation that I am correct. Of course, I knew I am correct so it doesn't matter much.

Ah yes your well thought out comment in which you perpetuate a stupid stereotype so loved among right wing troglodytes.

Its interesting that people think in a modern professional army like USA's all they do is push-ups and firing M16s into the air. The army requires more and more capable individuals that can operate complex systems, and often remotely. Incidentally, very few muscles are required to do much of it. What the army needs more and more with each year is people with technical skills to install, operate, maintain and fix complex electronic systems. For these, the Armed Forces compete with the private sector. The portrayal they went with is spot on. It merely exposes the biases people so naturally interiorized that they're not aware of it.

big arms means computer goes faster. Weak arms + the gay means computer gets virus. everyone knows that. Rome didn't conquer everyone by being gay.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Even aside from the “muh look how many far fetched intersectional identities we can cram into one ad” angle, the USM ad was cringe af. Sure, the .002% of households who can relate to that story at some point in their lives might be pursuaded to look further - as if that’s the rationale to begin with - but who cares. It’s not like we don’t know how to make inspiring advertisements that showcase a range of career opportunities without making me wonder what real live person the ad is supposed to pander to:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ads like that second one sent me to the recruiting office at 18. I wanted to join the Marines because it seemed like the most challenging option, but the officer wouldn’t give me a straight answer to any of my questions, and made an obviously fake phone call “to check” when I asked what jobs were available, so I didn’t sign. Good decision in hindsight, but sometimes, whenever I see someone in uniform, I still feel guilty seeing some of my friends and family go fight when I didn’t have the guts.

[PointOfViewGun]

Educated young women, which is the actual focus of that ad, makes up 0.002% of the households in USA now? What flips people to see her mom marrying an other woman? If one's primary take away from that ad is that her mom married an other woman its definitely flipping that person.

[Lord Thesaurian]

If one has to minimize unique aspect(s) of the protagonist’s identity and backstory in order to dismiss it for the sake of argument, that person is definitely flipping flips to hedge his flippery rhetoric.