this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2026
907 points (97.6% liked)
196
6437 readers
2046 users here now
Community Rules
You must post before you leave
Be nice. Assume others have good intent (within reason).
Block or ignore posts, comments, and users that irritate you in some way rather than engaging. Report if they are actually breaking community rules.
Use content warnings and/or mark as NSFW when appropriate. Most posts with content warnings likely need to be marked NSFW.
Most 196 posts are memes, shitposts, cute images, or even just recent things that happened, etc. There is no real theme, but try to avoid posts that are very inflammatory, offensive, very low quality, or very "off topic".
Bigotry is not allowed, this includes (but is not limited to): Homophobia, Transphobia, Racism, Sexism, Abelism, Classism, or discrimination based on things like Ethnicity, Nationality, Language, or Religion.
Avoid shilling for corporations, posting advertisements, or promoting exploitation of workers.
Proselytization, support, or defense of authoritarianism is not welcome. This includes but is not limited to: imperialism, nationalism, genocide denial, ethnic or racial supremacy, fascism, Nazism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism, etc.
Avoid AI generated content.
Avoid misinformation.
Avoid incomprehensible posts.
No threats or personal attacks.
No spam.
Moderator Guidelines
Moderator Guidelines
- Don’t be mean to users. Be gentle or neutral.
- Most moderator actions which have a modlog message should include your username.
- When in doubt about whether or not a user is problematic, send them a DM.
- Don’t waste time debating/arguing with problematic users.
- Assume the best, but don’t tolerate sealioning/just asking questions/concern trolling.
- Ask another mod to take over cases you struggle with, if you get tired, or when things get personal.
- Ask the other mods for advice when things get complicated.
- Share everything you do in the mod matrix, both so several mods aren't unknowingly handling the same issues, but also so you can receive feedback on what you intend to do.
- Don't rush mod actions. If a case doesn't need to be handled right away, consider taking a short break before getting to it. This is to say, cool down and make room for feedback.
- Don’t perform too much moderation in the comments, except if you want a verdict to be public or to ask people to dial a convo down/stop. Single comment warnings are okay.
- Send users concise DMs about verdicts about them, such as bans etc, except in cases where it is clear we don’t want them at all, such as obvious transphobes. No need to notify someone they haven’t been banned of course.
- Explain to a user why their behavior is problematic and how it is distressing others rather than engage with whatever they are saying. Ask them to avoid this in the future and send them packing if they do not comply.
- First warn users, then temp ban them, then finally perma ban them when they break the rules or act inappropriately. Skip steps if necessary.
- Use neutral statements like “this statement can be considered transphobic” rather than “you are being transphobic”.
- No large decisions or actions without community input (polls or meta posts f.ex.).
- Large internal decisions (such as ousting a mod) might require a vote, needing more than 50% of the votes to pass. Also consider asking the community for feedback.
- Remember you are a voluntary moderator. You don’t get paid. Take a break when you need one. Perhaps ask another moderator to step in if necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But... It's not?
You seem to have developed an understanding of the military based entirely around a small slice of WW2 movies and video games, and then assumed that has any bearing on the real world.
The way you actually learn to deal with a machine gun (and this was true even in WW2) is find cover, set up suppressing fires, use smoke and terrain for concealment as you advance, and eventually get someone into a position where they can flank and take out the machine gun nest, probably with a grenade so they don't expose themselves. Most importantly, everything I just described above involves teamwork. You protect each other, you trust each other, you rely on each other.
Safety is paramount. No one is teaching you to run screaming at a machine gun nest with no regard for your own life. That shit barely even happens in movies anymore.
A huge amount of what you learn as a soldier is basically how to keep yourself safe in extremely dangerous situations. Yes, you still have to have a willingness to put yourself in extremely dangerous situations in the first place, but the whole point of learning to do this stuff well is learning how to be the person who can survive those extremely dangerous situations.
I think you are missing the forest for the trees here.
You're claiming "forests" ("militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars") exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.
Yeah, you're right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.
Read my comment again. You are reading things that are not there.
Sorry for the uncalled advice but it's usually a waste of time to discuss with people who go out of their way to treat a figure of speech as literal, and vomit a huge "ackshyually" about it. Or that lie / assume / bullshit about your emotional state. (Cue to "what is it that disturbs you?")
Because, like, it's plain obvious your "run toward a firing machine gun" is a figure of speech.
I'm curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn't there. You're saying it's not literal and they're saying it's not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.
It's about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That's why they say "it scares me".
It doesn't need to be machine gun firing (part for the whole; "dangers in general"); or literally running towards it (hyperbole; "risking to get harmed").
You might agree with their point, or disagree with it. However, "le ackshyually to le narwhal bacon's knee, you're instructed to take cover lol EDIT WOW THANKS FOR THE GOLD KIND STRANGER!!!" doesn't address what they said at all. And, like, people get rubbed off the wrong way when others use those "ackshyually".
Perfectly valid to fear being compelled to move toward danger.
But can we agree that: 1) saying "teaching you to run into machine fire" is negative tonally, and 2) you could make the quoted point illustratively, without phrasing it so reductively?
The most obvious read of the original line is "jarheads being sent to their deaths," -- they told me to, so I'm going to run into machine gun fire -- which would obviously receive pushback.
And that's saying nothing about the actual philosophies of how to deal with danger, vis a vis fleeing it or neutralizing it.
You say it's "the most obvious read" and yet the other poster still missed it. They weren't pushing that point back; they were pouring random trivia, as if it was pushing it back.
That's why I mocked the "ackshyually". Could I rephrase the quoted point another way? Yes. Will I? No. I think this behaviour should be ridiculed, it adds no relevant content to a discussion. Ackshyuallies, sealions, why do we [social media users] even entertain this sort of thing?
And tone won't change content in this case. "Teaching you to run into machine fire" has a negative tone but there's nothing wrong with it. Call it "brave souls laughing at the face of death" (positive tone), or "suicidal butchers going Lemming style, WAH-HOO!" (way more negative), the point still stands: an institution is able to train people to disregard one of their most basic instincts to do its [the institution's] bidding, that is bloody scary.
EDIT: plus the "what is it that disturbs you". It shows willingness to make shit up about things one cannot reasonably know; it's a waste of time to discuss with people like this, because once you brush off their assumption they'll pour another, and another, and another.
Sorry, I was trying to think of a more reasonable alternative than your literal statement that didn't make sense.
Can you please explain what you meant by
Such that you think someone who explained that the statement is false is missing the forest?
Read back your comment. Does it sound like an honest, good faith effort at dialog?
I’m blocking you now and I’m not going to think twice about this exchange.
This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn't randomly deleted).
I think my reading of your comment's anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been "Then what is the forest?"
OK. So elaborate. What is it that disturbs you?