Yayyyyy, we’ve done it!!!

Yayyy, we did it!! Never would’ve thought we got 512 upvotes :)

Let’s see if we hit 512 at some point - I’m rooting for ya!

Yes, exactly - it is the idea of “well, you can gain life experience and serve for the state”. However, it is (rightfully IMO) criticized as just a cheap way of gaining labor forces. I think that German culture is generally more connected with respecting authorities, rules etc., so this attitude of " you need to return something to the community who raised you up" is still prevalent.

Since 2011 the service was not enforced anymore (but not abolished - in German it’s called “ausgesetzt”), but now there is a debate again to reintroduce it in light of the war. I personally am highly skeptical of it, for the exact reasons you outlined. A year ago I have went through the process of refusing to serve in the military in a defense case. We have something here called Kriegsdienstverweigerung: you can refuse to be drafted and serve under arms if it is incompatible with your conscience. I am glad to have went through the process, but I wouldn’t have done so if I were younger; in fact, I probably would’ve been absolutely okay with serving in the military. So instead of training people to shoot, I advocate for providing opportunities for people to learn medicine and science and stuff and leave war to professional soldiers, who aren’t 18- or 19 year old enscripted boys. It is also widely known that lots of guys cheated their way out of serving (e.g. drinking a lot the evening prior, so they make a bad impression on the recruiting officer), so the system was weird anyways. So I think the current debate is between “Russia and China are a threat, we need to get ready to fight, let’s pump up our military production” and “War is no option, our infrastructure is in a state of disrepair, we need to invest into schools and hospitals instead of arms, and drafting teenagers can’t be the solution of the problem”.

I think we have a different view in Europe on it - Germany had a model of national military service until 2011 (with the option of civil service), the Nordic model includes military service etc. So it isn’t completely unimaginable - we just have a different view on the topic.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c988jdxl02vo

Let’s see how long we’ll keep it up!

Great idea by the way, OP :)

Debian_12_bookworm_non-free-firmware.iso

It sounds absolutely and completely overpowered for a phone… … Well, what did I expect ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

That changes my perspective on them a lot. Well, another lesson taken - don’t jump too quickly onto conclusions.

Interesting! I didn’t know this existed, but I can align myself pretty well with this terminus. Thank you :)

Great meme :))

Pixelfed, and occasionally Mastodon. I love the Pixelfed community, it always seems just very chill and focused on making great pictures.

Pure perfection, I love this meme with every bit of my soul

True, hood point. I remember to have read a study according to which a disproportionate amount of people at the top (aka CEOs) display narcissistic behavioral traits - so it can make sense to suspect the same applies to other personality disorders. It just feels ahhh to me - that these people dont utilize their talents and itelligence to improve the world, but to build up ways to monetize every last bit of your time. Like come on :/

Am I the only one who gets the feeling that this is kinda dystopic? Like come on, this just gets crazy. It amazes me that some people think this is an ethically acceptable way to earn money.

Yes, definitely. For me, it is kind of a meditation - while I work out, I can’t really think a lot, and after working out I’m exhausted. It is just a reset for thoughts.

Okay, let me rephrase - for me it sounds that if people work together, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Aka, if I am one of the twenty who sit around and do nothing, stand up, I on my own probably won’t be able to block the policy. But if I stand up, there’s a good chance others will get up as well and do. Or maybe I’ll discover that after I stand up, there are three others of whom I haven’t suspected anything, but who now also oppose the policy. And thus by standing up, you also influence others. If that is successful (aka if you can stop the policy or not), you can only find out afterwards.

Is that right?

Then every single person who takes any action would make a difference in the world and change the situation, which obviousy isn’t true. Lots of people have tried rebelling and fighting against a regime, but failed. So this logic doesn’t apply in every case, does it?

I think the argument is kinda weak, because from my decision to do something (like construct a weapon) the other workers at the factories don’t change their opinion. For these kinds of events to happen, there must either already be a huge grudge in the workforce, so that you’re the “tipping point”, or you have to be as charismatic as a reborn Jesus and convince everyone to follow you. Both of these events seem implausible here. Thus, your decision to make or not make a weapon will not influence others, and the outcome won’t be significant.

However, I’d love to have your input on it. I think the question if for the judgment of an action it is important that it is significant (or not) is a fundamentally important one, so I’d really appreciate your response here :)