Additional context for those out of the loop. It sounds like it’s more likely he was doing glorified security guard work than full on merc shit. I’m a bit ambivalent on this, on one hand I don’t think a “mortal sins” approach is productive. If someone becomes radicalized, we owe them the benefit of the doubt that they’re not permanently stained by their work history.

On the other hand, the campaign emphasizing his military service rubs me the wrong way. It stinks of treating the military with kiddie gloves.

[–] plinky@hexbear.net 29 points 4 months ago

i mean, he did do 4 tours before that. And radicalization is that: somebody is making too much money out of this, not, you know, we shouldn't be invading other countries so that someone could make money out of this. Where are mentions of iraqis/afghanis working people? or their role is to suffer quietly?

[–] Evilsandwichman@hexbear.net 27 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I hear what you're saying, but if I read a candidate had 'Former wehrmacht veteran' in his bio and he was pushing that angle, then literally the only context acceptable in that regard is that he means he's a veteran of hunting down wehrmacht members, otherwise he's guilty himself of staining himself by his work history; like, we're not the ones pushing the 'FORMER WEHRMACHT' label in people's faces, the former wehrmacht member is doing it himself.

EDIT: Actually you know what, this is probably more apropos than I first thought; he IS definitely a progressive but like....more nationalist progressive; A Nazpro if you will.

[–] Cat_Daddy@hexbear.net 22 points 4 months ago

"How do you do, fellow socialists" said the national socialist

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 16 points 4 months ago

That’s what I was getting at with the “rub the wrong way” comment. It’s always a problem with American social democrats, they’ll be fine on domestic issues, centering the working class, but then that goes away the moment the issue crosses the border.

[–] came_apart_at_Kmart@hexbear.net 5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

i tend to agree. people have a tendency to not see or consider things that would undermine their beliefs and self-understanding, like ideological blinders.

its easier to tell someone the institutions they fight for are corrupt and stupidly managed than it is to tell them the institutions are working as intended, developed to slaughter the world and ensure cheap, soothing treats could be distributed and placate any internal revolt against the charnal house they salute.

people can accept they were sold something defective, but they bristle and turn away from learning they were massively duped.

[–] PKMKII@hexbear.net 3 points 4 months ago

Especially with Americans, the ideological assumption of the US being removed from the “troubles” of the rest of the world that’s been around for centuries drives that hard. If a country somewhere else is having problems, that’s no fault or problem of the US, and thus doesn’t affect the US. I think that’s part of the reason the Russiagate brainworms have such a grip on libs, the idea of outsiders affecting US elections is so beyond the pale of the natural order for them.