sex work is work - eviltoast
  • Zagorath@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s a possibly-controversial take, but joining the army isn’t really even close to the best analogy for a male-dominated industry where you “sell your body”.

    Being a labourer is. Working in industries like construction, but not as a skilled tradesman. It doesn’t carry the same moral weight riley was going for though.

    • ikiru@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      True, but it’s not just about labor.

      To join the US military you have to literally sign over your bodily autonomy to join. Once you do then they can pump you full of experimental drugs, or run whatever other ungodly experiments, all they want. I know someone who considered joining then backed out when this allegedly happened.

      Anyway, never heard of Riley before but seems nice. Hope she supports our troops and offers military discount for her OnlyFans.

      • 7bicycles [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        To join the US military you have to literally sign over your bodily autonomy to join. Once you do then they can pump you full of experimental drugs, or run whatever other ungodly experiments, all they want.

        Doesn’t that just come with being a US citizen. Or being any other citizen

    • usernamesaredifficul [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any form of physical labour is selling your body sex work is selling your right to refuse sexual consent. I think that makes it a worse situation for the person doing the sex work than other work

      • Zagorath@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wasn’t interested in making any value judgments. Simply in coming up with what job is the purest expression of “selling your body”.

  • ydieb@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    What I hate with this is that is defines that the army itself is good or bad. But in reality it is what it is used for. If its actually used for defence, then it’s very honorable. When it’s used as a tool to exploit resources to the rich, (aka generally being the aggressor), it’s not.

    • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Lol can’t think of a single western country that’s had an “honorable” war post 1945. The US army is unequivocally bad

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Many would rate the USSR as an imperial core country, while I guess you and I maybe won’t. Stop assuming privilege of those you talk to and demean them with willful ignorance. There is always something more that may be learned about an issue and people should not be vilified if their attempts to learn more are genuine (and I think you can not determine it was not from this interaction, comrade).

          • Urist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Can you explain why some of the nordic countries, i.e. Norway, Sweden, Denmark are part of the imperial core while Finland, Iceland, Greenland are not? I can put color on a white map too, doesn’t mean it portrays a real issue adequately. Also wtf, why is Portugal not part of the imperial core?

            • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The map is a reference to the one you see whenever just about any international issue comes up and the same crew are all in agreement, I’m not actually positive what specific issue this map was taken from.

              The website has a more serious explainer (with a couple versions of the map) but I’m with you, Iceland and Portugal and Finland are core countries probably. The real answer is that it’s fluid and historically contingent, not set in stone. It’s a question of how your economy develops and how it relates to ‘peripheral’ countries that are primarily extracted from, not a literal list pulled off an emoji.

              • Urist@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I looked through that article and found it somewhat problematic. Especially the description of core countries as:

                They have strong state institutions, a powerful military and powerful global political alliances.

                For example, Iceland does not even have a military, but can still be part of capitalist neo-colonialism as part of the “imperial core”. Even so, one should also keep in mind that Iceland historically had been under Denmark’s dominion and it is wrong to say that it has been a primary benefactor of classic colonialism leading to the rise of western powers in modern history. On the other hand, Portugal has been a strong colonial power historically. Still, the development index of Iceland is way higher and I would argue there are lots of factors in play as to why, and one cannot say that there is a direct equivalence between development index and imperialism. Both Norway, Iceland and Finland gained independence in the 20th century, never had proper colonies and are part of the economic elite. Norway is still in large an economy based around export of natural resources, which is atypical for being an imperial core member. I often feel that many facts like these are overlooked in discussions of imperial cores in favor of simplistic ideas such as equivocating HDI and imperialism. Can we not have better discussions around the mechanics of modern imperialism than throwing around a map and calling out people for not being intimate with the idea of an imperial core, an idea whose simplicity makes itself highly flawed?

                • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I agree that I gave a simplistic answer, you can read literal books about it. But Iceland, as an example, does actually have a history of being closely tied to the military of the US and the UK voluntarily, I think Greenland is actually a better candidate for peripheral than Iceland. And realistically it’s going to be more of a spectrum than a binary, you’re usually going to fall somewhere in the middle rather than being on the extreme end like the US and Israel.

                  And even then you might have internal dynamics that complicate it. Parts of the US (Appalachia, “Indian Country”) are clearly peripheral within the US economy and subject to exploitation that other areas are not. So agreed, it’s complicated.

                  Dialectics as a method warns us against assumptions that “the state of things” is static, these things are always changing. But I think there’s value in the basic observation that world economic systems work in tension, where opposed interests are not equally met in a mutually beneficial exchange a la neoliberal dogma. Even if you have to acknowledge that it is much more complicated than “it’s the same map every time” I think the concept is useful.

                  What would you say is a better way of talking about this sort of thing?

    • ShimmeringKoi [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hey, im not trying to be rude or anything I just wanna quickly say that honor is a fiction typically used by the rich and powerful to manipulate the young and well-meaning into becoming fucked up stormtroopers for capital.

    • Bassword [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah peaceful militaries like Korea’s or China’s or Cuba’s are ok. Anyone joining the US military though if just in it for the war crimes.

      • Azzu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t call North Korea firing missiles over other sovereign countries very peaceful. As well as China doing troop exercises that obviously prepare for the invasion of Taiwan. I’m sure there are more examples.

        • Bassword [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The DPRK had literally never been to war outside its territory; it’s not a dove but at least it hasn’t invaded multiple sovereign countries like its southern cousin.

          China does troop exercises like every single other country in the world.

          • Azzu@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean as long as you consider South Korea part of their territory, sure. There was though the Korean War, where North Korea invaded South Korea. Of course it’s not on the same level as South Korea, but I would imagine that’s more because they literally can’t, they have no resources for it, not because they’re amazingly peaceful people.

            • Doubledee [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The north didn’t invade the south though, no Koreans agreed that the US supported parallel was a permanent division of the country, both North and South fully intended to create a united Korea. Tens of thousands of Koreans were already dead from purges and suppression of uprisings in the south when the operation started. It was literally an ongoing civil war that had momentarily frozen.

  • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    How much Kool aid do you need to drink to think a soldiers job is “saving people”? Except for medics that’s pretty much the opposite of the point.

  • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You fucked hearted the guy saying ‘fighting for your country’ equals saving people?! If you’re killing people for profit, you are just a murderer. Even if it’s someone else’s profit.