this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
135 points (97.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3736 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nougat@fedia.io 36 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Miller believes a standardized test at the high school level, called the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, should be administered to all students to help funnel potential recruits into positions within the military, based on their skills and intellect levels.

Let me take a wild guess which people would get "funneled into positions" as officers, and who would end up as ~~fodder~~ infantry.

[–] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago (1 children)

People going officer usually already know they're going officer either because they're in ROTC/JROTC or already have a plan for college. The poors are generally the ones that end up enlisted because they have fewer options. This is already the case.

So your wild guess would have probably been spot on. Required service just means they'll have extra poors.

I was in the nuclear power program in the Navy. They're some of the smartest people I've ever worked with. It was the first time I was the dumbest guy in the room and, let me tell you, that'll humble you very quickly. So they're definitely not trying to make the smartest people officers because, while the officers there were fine, they had nothing on some of these guys.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 3 points 5 months ago

Oh, sure - I knew I was going to get that technically wrong. I was trying to use the least number of words to express that it would be quite simple to use this kind of thing to put the "right" people in charge of decision-making, and the "wrong" people into deadly combat situations, or at the very least, into positions lowly enough that they can be systematically conditioned to stifle their own political will.

"Right" and "wrong" above can certainly mean stupid shit like "skin color" or "ethnicity," but I was actually thinking about it in terms of political ideology. Dead people can't vote.

[–] son_named_bort@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Everyone in my school had to take the ASVAB. It was a complete waste of time. Hell, I just filled in bubbles at random because I had no interest in dying in Iraq and didn't care if I passed the test. Unfortunately, I passed the test and got so many calls from recruiters for years.