The Stupid Selective Service System Sucks

[DuranDuranfan]

8 hours ago, brbdogsonfire said:

Even when I disagree with you, which I do not here, you are always extremely consistent and stand for what you believe in. Over the years I have developed a deep respect for you that has helped me see situations that would be normally difficult for me to understand in a much more positive light and has changed my outlook. I wish more people overall had the courage and conviction to defend their beliefs as you do.

 

Thank you for being such a bad ass woman! For legal purposes and because I'm old A "bad ass" typically means a strong and skilled person who takes no crap from anyone.

 

In WW1 a brave woman who wouldn't take no for an answer from Serbia lied and claimed to be her brother to serve. She was one of the most decorated soldiers who fought for Serbia. MiIunka Savić proved how meaningless gender is in modern warfare. 

 

 

I even heard that during the Civil War era, there were women who wore disguises and took on male pseudonyms in order to serve alongside their brothers in arms. Only their true identity would be discovered upon death. 
 

And I think you meant badass person. I’m non binary. 🙂

[Alaska Native Manitou]

http://www.pbs.org/mercy-street/blogs/mercy-street-revealed/i-wanted-to-do-my-part-women-as-soldiers-in-civil-war-america/

[daveb]

Yep, not just the US Civil War either, but many wars before, during, and since.  

(although in some wars women could fight openly as women)

[brbdogsonfire]

10 hours ago, DuranDuranfan said:

I even heard that during the Civil War era, there were women who wore disguises and took on male pseudonyms in order to serve alongside their brothers in arms. Only their true identity would be discovered upon death. 
 

And I think you meant badass person. I’m non binary. 🙂

I'm sorry I was not aware you were non binary. I would not have called you a woman if I knew.

 

I think it's realistically something that has happened far more frequently than we will ever know. I hope one day our society gets over the idea that only men belong in the armed forces or anywhere for that matter. I understand some physical jobs are likely to remain mostly male dominated due to strength differences but I have know plenty of physically strong women who could do anything a man can on a construction site for instance.

 

I am old enough not to really understand how to describe non binary people in situations like this. If anyone can educate me on it here or through a pm I'd appreciate it. What should I refer to as a group of non binary people?

Edited May 12, 2022 by brbdogsonfire
Because I am bad at grammar and finishing my thoughts

[brbdogsonfire]

On 3/14/2022 at 9:35 PM, RoseGoesToYale said:

It's sexist, pure and simple. Either everyone should have to register for selective service regardless of sex, or no one should have to. I vote for the latter.

I wish for a world in which no one is forced to serve in the military, I also wish for a world were we didn't need a military.  

 

Unfortunately it seems like war is an inevitable part of humanity and we must ask ourselves if people can not be forced to fight what happens when a nation is invaded by a powerful neighbor.

 

Is it more wrong to force young men and women to fight, to force only young men to fight, or to allow a hostile army intent on raping and pillaging the nation to do as they please. No option here is a good option unfortunately. 

 

I do not like conscription but unfortunately there are situations where it's a necessity. How do we as a society deal with this?

[brbdogsonfire]

On 3/16/2022 at 4:35 PM, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I can't blame women for not wanting to give up the few protections they have that men don't, so I do support sexist policies that work in their favor for the time 

People have been telling me this community doesn't support sexism recently. I wonder why I could feel that way.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2022 by brbdogsonfire
This person did not say what I thought

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

40 minutes ago, brbdogsonfire said:

People have been telling me this community doesn't support sexism recently. I wonder why I could feel that way.

 

 

I don't support sexism within the system in a vacuum, but to an extent I do support it here because it acts to equalize somewhat against sexism that already occurred. It's the same line of thinking that leads me to support certain limited applications of affirmative action measures to combat racism, despite the fact that affirmative action is in and of itself racist. Sexism is bad, as is racism. However, some level of corrective sexism or racism can be justified (in my opinion, and in the opinion of a fair numberof people) to counter the effects of preexisting sexism or racism in the other direction.

[brbdogsonfire]

27 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

However, some level of corrective sexism or racism can be justified (in my opinion, and in the opinion of a fair numberof people).

That's call the "appeal to popularity" logical fallacy.

 

27 minutes ago, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

I don't support sexism within the system in a vacuum, but to an extent I do support it here because it acts to equalize somewhat against sexism that already occurred. It's the same line of thinking that leads me to support certain limited applications of affirmative action measures to combat racism, despite the fact that affirmative action is in and of itself racist. Sexism is bad, as is racism. However, some level of corrective sexism or racism can be justified (in my opinion, and in the opinion of a fair numberof people) to counter the effects of preexisting sexism or racism in the other direction.

To counter the effects of preexisting sexism in the other direction? How much sexism is overcome by the government forcing men to go into battle to either get slaughtered or to slaughter other men, and if you refuse to you will be executed by your own government? Can you draw me a diagram of what this cancels out or how it helps the situation? If not can you explain how much sexism this cancels out? If not can you explain how much sexism is required against men to stop sexism against women?

 

Oddly enough I don't think you can stop a fire with fire. You cannot end hate with hate. You cannot end sexism with sexism.

 

 

 

 

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

6 minutes ago, brbdogsonfire said:

That's call the "appeal to popularity" logical fallacy.

 

To counter the effects of preexisting sexism in the other direction? How much sexism is overcome by the government forcing men to go into battle to either get slaughtered or to slaughter other men, and if you refuse to you will be executed by your own government? Can you draw me a diagram of what this cancels out or how it helps the situation? If not can you explain how much sexism this cancels out? If not can you explain how much sexism is required against men to stop sexism against women?

 

Oddly enough I don't think you can stop a fire with fire. You cannot end hate with hate. You cannot end sexism with sexism.

 

 

 

 

 

For example...

 

Men will have better social and economic prospects in our current patriarchal system. If the economic mechanisms of the nation favor men, which they do...it seems only just and proper that men shoulder more of the burden to defend it. "From each according to their contribution, to each according to their contribution". If men get more, then they need to give more. Unless you convince all people to suddenly treat both sexes as equals, that means it makes sense to shift both additional privilege and responsibility simultaneously to the same side. 

 

You should reap what you sow. Men presently reap more. Therefore, men should sow more. Alternatively, men should reap less. 

[brbdogsonfire]

Just now, Lysandre, the Star-Crossed said:

 

For example...

 

Men will have better social and economic prospects in our current patriarchal system. If the economic mechanisms of the nation favor men, which they do...it seems only just and proper that men shoulder more of the burden to defend it. "From each according to their contribution, to each according to their contribution". If men get more, then they need to give more. Unless you convince all people to suddenly treat both sexes as equals, that means it makes sense to shift both additional privilege and responsibility simultaneously to the same side. 

 

You should reap what you sow. Men presently reap more. Therefore, men should sow more. Alternatively, men should reap less. 

So you did not at all respond to what I said. Can you describe how much sexism against women is removed by forcing men to slaughter each other or to be executed if they refuse? 

[LeChat]

(Below is an official, green, mod message.)

 

Hi, everyone.

 

I'm locking this for a cooldown and for Admod review.

 

In the meantime, I thought I'd give a helpful reminder that everyone has the option to step away from a thread, put a member on "ignore," etc., if a discussion has become heated.

 

Thank you, for your patience.

 

LeChat,

Welcome Lounge and Alternate Language moderator

[LeChat]

(Below is an official, green, mod message.)

 

Unlocking.

 

Just a helpful reminder about the TOS, regarding not engaging in personal insults, vigilante modding, etc. Instead, please report posts to Admods.

 

Thanks.

 

LeChat,

Welcome Lounge and Alternate Language moderator

[Guest]

 

.

[Lysandre, the Star-Crossed]

3 hours ago, fuzzybear said:

 

Apologies for the necro I think what @Lysandre, the Star-Crossed is trying to say is that since most mechanisms are in favor of men then men should be the ones boycotting against the sexist selective system, yes the selective system is sexist, for both men and women because the same old sexist trope of women are supposed to stay at home and cook and men are “supposed” to be all though, we shouldn’t force men or women to do it period. But it’s  was  also sexist to not allow women to vote or to work, etc. but guess what women did they fought back against sexism and did not rest until they got the same rights as men. Men should be doing this too with their own issues and honestly their issues might resolved much quicker if our (current) society “favors men” but alas most choose to blindly ignore what  women/lgbtq+ have been doing (and are still doing) to fight back against the oppressiveness in our society. Men shouldn’t expect women to do it for them, MEN have to be the one to take the first step. We shouldn’t just expect people to treat sexes as equal it takes both parties to do so and apparently 90% men don’t care and wants to ruin it for the rest of us. Sorry for the rant and apologies if I mis understood your question, I tired my best

My point was that society has two (if we're reducing it for simplicity) sexes that are not treated equally. Due to the nature of patriarchy it treats men better than women. If men glean more of the benefits and rewards of society (they do) then they need to be actually earnings that. There are only a few places women don't get the short end of the stick, the draft and divorces being the two examples that come to mind.

 

My argument is that one of two things needs to happen, both ultimately stemming from the ideas of "to each according to their contribution" and "equal pay for equal work". Men are given better pay for the same work, and rewarded more for their contributions compared to women. Therefore, the logical adjustment in my opinion is to do one of the following, depending on the specific facet of the issue at hand...

 

Either we demand more of the advantaged sex, for example my suggestion that the male-only draft may be fair since men would be shouldering the burden to defend the nation that they are the privileged group within and reaping the benefits of...

 

Or we simply reward women more for their present contributions and raise expectations for them to treat them as we do men now. 

 

I believe that we must either forcibly equalize the sexes in the short term or make inequality of outcome a more direct function of inequality of input to solve the problem, and I believe more strongly in the latter than the former. That is to say that men getting better treatment should only occur when, if, and proportionally to them contributing more than women. I'd believe the same if the roles were reversed.

[brbdogsonfire]

On 7/28/2022 at 4:11 AM, fuzzybear said:

 

Apologies for the necro I think what @Lysandre, the Star-Crossed is trying to say is that since most mechanisms are in favor of men then men should be the ones boycotting against the sexist selective system, yes the selective system is sexist, for both men and women because the same old sexist trope of women are supposed to stay at home and cook and men are “supposed” to be all though, we shouldn’t force men or women to do it period. But it’s  was  also sexist to not allow women to vote or to work, etc. but guess what women did they fought back against sexism and did not rest until they got the same rights as men. Men should be doing this too with their own issues and honestly their issues might resolved much quicker if our (current) society “favors men” but alas most choose to blindly ignore what  women/lgbtq+ have been doing (and are still doing) to fight back against the oppressiveness in our society. Men shouldn’t expect women to do it for them, MEN have to be the one to take the first step. We shouldn’t just expect people to treat sexes as equal it takes both parties to do so and apparently 90% men don’t care and wants to ruin it for the rest of us. Sorry for the rant and apologies if I mis understood your question, I tired my best

Boycotting the selective service system? You know you can be shot for refusing to fight if conscripted right and although that's rare  there are long prison terms that are very regular at least in the United States when men refuse to fight. Do men inherit some sort of generational guilt from perceived wrongs of the past? If not then how can 18 year old boys owe their lives simply because they were born men? Do 18 year old boys benefit from making more at their minimum wage jobs in which they make minimum wage? Do almost any 18 year old boys own homes in which they force their women to stay in and cook? Do most 18 year old boys vote? Most conscripted boys would never have benefited from a single part of your list of reasons s so why do they deserve to be forced to kill or die?

 

Edited July 29, 2022 by brbdogsonfire
Be less aggressive

[Guest]

Its easy to say "men should do this and that" when you clearly leave out class considerations. Unless you say that wealthy white men, those who benefit from the system the most, should shoulder most of the burden then you haven't really said anything remotely constructive (using we, you, us...in the royal sense). 

[Guest]

On 7/29/2022 at 10:51 AM, brbdogsonfire said:

Boycotting the selective service system? You know you can be shot for refusing to fight if conscripted right and although that's rare  there are long prison terms that are very regular at least in the United States when men refuse to fight. Do men inherit some sort of generational guilt from perceived wrongs of the past? If not then how can 18 year old boys owe their lives simply because they were born men? Do 18 year old boys benefit from making more at their minimum wage jobs in which they make minimum wage? Do almost any 18 year old boys own homes in which they force their women to stay in and cook? Do most 18 year old boys vote? Most conscripted boys would never have benefited from a single part of your list of reasons s so why do they deserve to be forced to kill or die?

 

On 7/29/2022 at 11:38 AM, FailsafeEngineer said:

Its easy to say "men should do this and that" when you clearly leave out class considerations. Unless you say that wealthy white men, those who benefit from the system the most, should shoulder most of the burden then you haven't really said anything remotely constructive (using we, you, us...in the royal sense). 

.

[Guest]

@fuzzybear all I said was if you want to say men get preferential treatment, you have to.acknowledge that some are treated better than others. Otherwise you have individuals who are ignored by the system fighting for those who get the most benefit. 

[Guest]

On 7/29/2022 at 10:51 AM, brbdogsonfire said:

Boycotting the selective service system? You know you can be shot for refusing to fight if conscripted right and although that's rare  there are long prison terms that are very regular at least in the United States when men refuse to fight. Do men inherit some sort of generational guilt from perceived wrongs of the past? If not then how can 18 year old boys owe their lives simply because they were born men? Do 18 year old boys benefit from making more at their minimum wage jobs in which they make minimum wage? Do almost any 18 year old boys own homes in which they force their women to stay in and cook? Do most 18 year old boys vote? Most conscripted boys would never have benefited from a single part of your list of reasons s so why do they deserve to be forced to kill or die?

.

[nanogretchen4]

If you have not already done so, I recommend going ahead and registering. Five years in prison and $250,000 is no joke, but if you act innocent and say you didn't realize until now that you needed to do that it probably won't be enforced. Since you are already in violation of the law and hoping for clemency, this is not the moment to argue or protest unless the gesture is worth five years in prison and $250,000 to you. Once they have accepted your registration and waived any penalties, then you can march in protest but preferably not near the same courthouse you went to to clear this up.

 

There probably will not be a draft. A draft is politically unpopular, largely because it threatens the lives of rich white people's children on an equal basis with everyone else's children. The current all volunteer military disproportionately endangers the lives of poor people and people of color.

 

If there is a draft I am pretty sure not having registered for Selective Service will not exempt you from it.

 

 

[brbdogsonfire]

3 hours ago, nanogretchen4 said:

There probably will not be a draft. A draft is politically unpopular, largely because it threatens the lives of rich white people's children on an equal basis with everyone else's children. The current all volunteer military disproportionately endangers the lives of poor people and people of color.

 

 

The draft was unpopular in both France, England, and America before Ww1 and 2. It was considered politically suicide in america to promote the draft after ww1, and magically when america entered the war the draft becomes ok. When a country needs manpower and when a war breaks out war fervor takes over a country and the draft all of a sudden becomes socially acceptable. It always happens, always with no exceptions. A country will throw all of their able body men into a grinder to win a war and history has proven it time after time. A country's leadership only considers itself during war. A draft also does not effect rich people at any were near a similar rate. There are always draft deferment of some type and rich people always have the resources to get them.

 

Look at bone spur Trump for example.

 

 

[nanogretchen4]

A few very rich people's children may get a draft deferment even in a world war, but not the children of the middle class who are spared in an all volunteer military system. At any rate, as the OP points out, the government already has all the information necessary to know who is eligible for the draft and to find them if the draft is ever reinstated. Not registering for Selective Services does nothing except risk very significant legal consequences. Most people who choose to go to jail as an act of political resistance are not up for a five year prison sentence, nor for a fine that will bankrupt them.

[Guest]

On 8/1/2022 at 6:53 AM, nanogretchen4 said:

There probably will not be a draft

.

[Rosalien]

5 hours ago, fuzzybear said:

I predict there will be cyperwar (in the US) first before any physical war (if any)

I wonder if it'd be our tech presence being drafted then!!🤣🤣

Who knows? The next draft may look more like Cryptomining malware than enforced military servitude.

 

It'd butt heads with the third amendment, but so does civil asset forfeiture when they seize money/resources and use it for their own gain 

 

Either way I hope we'll never live to see war and especially not forcing people into one