We’re talking about someone who thinks all of that was justified because of their material standard of living.
That's bad, yes, but I don't see the troop discourse on here making excuses for that.
I don’t, and I don’t think most people here, want to create this impossible standard where if you were ever in the military you’re gone.
I think this is exactly the point people are trying to bring out when they express concern over this sort of comic alienating potential comrades. No one here is arguing that killing people for the U.S. is cool and good if you do it to pay for college. I see the argument as purely "don't write off all troops en masse, because some can be really helpful."
Doesn’t this heavily depend on what you did in the military?
edit: I’m not saying it’s good to work for or with the US military in any capacity, but surely there’s some difference between different roles
That's not making excuses, that's pointing out how culpability works in virtually any context. Your distance from a crime is part of what determines how guilty you are, just like your distance from a botched project is part of what determines how much blame you should get. At some point someone working high up at a civilian military contractor is more responsible for the imperial machine than an enlisted person sweeping floors at a base in Alaska.
I don’t see a reason to criticize an accurate description of how responsibility varies based on one's proximity to an act.
And really all my point is that in an attempt to "not write off troops en masse", so many people here overcorrect and overlook why people joined and how someone who thinks their material conditions justify imperialism is probably not someone we should be eager to recruit without correcting their mindset
someone who thinks their material conditions justify imperialism
What 17- to 18-year-old kid thinks in these terms, though? I'm sure you have some hardcore chuds who are all about American empire, but for the rest there's a well-oiled propaganda machine designed specifically to make the military seem like service to your country, defending freedom, only going after the bad guys, etc. There's a Navy commercial that calls it "a global force for good!"
A lot of kids who join the military see all that, see the money attached to enlistment, see their older siblings stuck in a low-wage job somewhere, and decide to join based on that. Ascribing to these kids not only an awareness of imperialism, but a willingness to commit imperialist atrocities for college tuition, doesn't remotely reflect how most people who join up view the world.
Does this make soldiers free of blame? Of course not. But someone who kills people after getting swindled by a billion-dollar propaganda machine is less culpable than someone who gleefully kills knowing full well what they're getting into. We can't acknowledge that propaganda works and then ignore the logical effects of that. We can't acknowledge in a criminal justice context that human brains aren't fully developed until ~25 and then set that aside when talking about kids deciding to enlist. It's murder vs. manslaughter.
That's bad, yes, but I don't see the troop discourse on here making excuses for that.
I think this is exactly the point people are trying to bring out when they express concern over this sort of comic alienating potential comrades. No one here is arguing that killing people for the U.S. is cool and good if you do it to pay for college. I see the argument as purely "don't write off all troops en masse, because some can be really helpful."
deleted by creator
If the comment you're referring to is this:
That's not making excuses, that's pointing out how culpability works in virtually any context. Your distance from a crime is part of what determines how guilty you are, just like your distance from a botched project is part of what determines how much blame you should get. At some point someone working high up at a civilian military contractor is more responsible for the imperial machine than an enlisted person sweeping floors at a base in Alaska.
I don’t see a reason to criticize an accurate description of how responsibility varies based on one's proximity to an act.
And really all my point is that in an attempt to "not write off troops en masse", so many people here overcorrect and overlook why people joined and how someone who thinks their material conditions justify imperialism is probably not someone we should be eager to recruit without correcting their mindset
What 17- to 18-year-old kid thinks in these terms, though? I'm sure you have some hardcore chuds who are all about American empire, but for the rest there's a well-oiled propaganda machine designed specifically to make the military seem like service to your country, defending freedom, only going after the bad guys, etc. There's a Navy commercial that calls it "a global force for good!"
A lot of kids who join the military see all that, see the money attached to enlistment, see their older siblings stuck in a low-wage job somewhere, and decide to join based on that. Ascribing to these kids not only an awareness of imperialism, but a willingness to commit imperialist atrocities for college tuition, doesn't remotely reflect how most people who join up view the world.
Does this make soldiers free of blame? Of course not. But someone who kills people after getting swindled by a billion-dollar propaganda machine is less culpable than someone who gleefully kills knowing full well what they're getting into. We can't acknowledge that propaganda works and then ignore the logical effects of that. We can't acknowledge in a criminal justice context that human brains aren't fully developed until ~25 and then set that aside when talking about kids deciding to enlist. It's murder vs. manslaughter.