this post was submitted on 22 Apr 2025
1176 points (96.0% liked)

memes

14387 readers
2579 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

With the amount of classified information that goes into weapons manufacturing, where your just making doo-dad#1, it's understandable some people wouldn't even know their doing something wrong.

Makes me think of the, "when does life begin" debate. When do random parts become a weapon of mass destruction?

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 day ago

I'm unable to get any info on what my grandpa did after leaving active duty and going to work for LM on government contracts. I have paperwork mentioning him, and it's alllllllll still sharpied out almost 70 years later. Dude was a logistics engineer, he basically organized warehouses, yet apparently was so important to the nuclear sub program (Mare Island in the 50s & 60s tells me that much) apparently that I'm not allowed any further info

It's entirely possible he didn't know what he was working on, I only have guesses because of other shit we know from decades after his death

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 35 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (27 children)

Why?

Of all the tools for oppression and murder, advanced weaponry is pretty low on the list for what actually makes the murdering happen. If you work for a company that does any kind of business with any repressive regime (ie most companies above a certain size), the simple fact that you're working for a cog in enabling the economy of the repressive regime to pay its cops, its soldiers, its secret police and informants and massive bureaucracy, is as much as a contribution as "I was .1% of designing a multirole jet that's 10% better than the previous multirole jet"

Hell, anyone making steel of the correct grade to go into small arms probably kills more innocent people, by that standard, than your average person working for Western defense contractors.

[–] Septimaeus@infosec.pub 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

First, props for backing a bonafide unpopular opinion so unflinchingly. (A) discusses your argument. (B) challenges it.

A. I liked your direct approach to this position, and think you raise some important points. In particular…

  1. It’s important to acknowledge that we all serve this machine in some capacity by our engagement with the free market. But why?
    • Economists call these markets efficient (i.e., pareto efficient) because of how quickly they achieve equilibrium/zero-sum states in response to change.
    • That efficiency is the curse no participant can outrun, because anything short of complete absence from the market necessarily furthers its result, which always includes violence. In other words, no one’s hands are clean.
  2. Appearing closer to acts of violence often has little to do with magnitude of influence or actual violence produced. How so?
    • Suppose we define violence quotient (VQ) for the roles of market participants, some formula to rate the lockheed engineers and steel workers of small arms manufacture, etc.
    • We could measure VQ in lots of ways — e.g., by the count of people hurt, the severity of suffering, the degrees of causal separation between the violent act and the role behind it, etc.
    • For each case, it seems we can always find a role further from the violence with higher VQ — a much greater hand in the violence — to the extent that we have old tropes contrasting the direct-but-limited violence of the simple-minded goon and the detached yet far-reaching avarice of the ruthless kingpin.
    • So it’s true that working on a small piece of an incremental improvement to some military technology isn’t technically going to be easily traced to much bloodshed, comparatively.

B. But each of these observations correspond to a problem with the idea that the roles we choose don’t matter…

  1. While the principle of efficiency makes all of us morally culpable — again, because we drive the market onward by merely living in it — by the same token this machine tells us what it wants most, and does so quite unambiguously: by naming a price.
    • Concretely, for any two roles considered, you can bet that whichever offers greater personal benefit is the choice that further maximizes overall productivity, accumulation of capital, and ultimately violence.
    • This heuristic is mostly useless to the individual (since a strategy of deliberately minimizing personal benefit is like trying to use your body to slow a speeding train… you’ll only slow it down about one human’s-worth).
    • But when many individuals coordinate to decommission machines like ours by agreeing to make small survivable sacrifices, they achieve collective action, which has halted many a train.
    • What delays collective action, however, is choosing instead to look out for number one, to defect against the social contract.
    • And that is the social problem OP describes. So one might then ask why is it a breach of the social contract?
  2. Ultimately it’s the symbolic value of the choice that’s so disappointing.
    • It’s obviously not the “VQ” of your military-industrial job, how close to the violence you work, or any such utilitarian metric.
    • It’s not even the individual intent. Most Americans still at least pay lip service to the individual “pursuit of happiness” idea.
    • In the end, it’s simply that a person chose the money in spite of everyone’s misgivings about what these contractors represent and purvey in our world, because each defection, however minor, makes the victory of collective action feel just a bit further away than they once hoped.
[–] Comrade_Spood@slrpnk.net 19 points 1 day ago (14 children)

I mean yes there is a sort of "there is no ethical consumption under capitalism" dilemma when it comes to working. But just with that dilemma, you don't just give up, you try to minimize your participation as much as you can healthily do. And I think not working for a corp who's sole purpose is to develop weapons for killing people is one of those no brainers.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] cybersin@lemm.ee 15 points 1 day ago (16 children)

If less people worked to make weapons, there would be less weapons made.

How is this a hard concept to understand?

load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] Kobie123@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 day ago

I don’t work for a defence contractor, but i’ll probably be going to hell anyway since I picked up making/racing drones as a hobby specifically so i have some way of raising hell if my country is ever invaded.

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 29 points 2 days ago (1 children)

At MIT in the 1980's it was called, "Get your fingerprints on the murder weapon."

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RedFrank24@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

If I worked for a defence contractor, I would make the most accurate weapons in the world. Why? Because when the people who fired those weapons are up in court and they go "Oh well I didn't MEAN to hit that hospital, the bomb just didn't hit its intended target", the prosecutor can go "Nonsense! Those are the most accurate weapons in the world. They ONLY hit what you intended to hit with as much force as you wanted to hit it with!".

The weapons are gonna get built, I'd rather there be no ambiguity in how they get used. It's not like WW2 where Bomber Command was like "Here's the dockyards we want to blow up, and a bajillion tonnes of bombs to blow it up with", and then the bombers flatten half a city just trying to hit the docks and miss every single time because it's cloudy, or hit an entirely different city because they got lost on the way!. You only have to look at Russia's "throw enough artillery shells at the area until it's completely flat" approach to war to know what happens when you haven't got precision munitions, or not enough of them.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Catching General Dynamics strays

[–] LeaveITtoThePros@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago

Search for Veridian dynamics commercials from Better Off Ted

[–] HappySkullsplitter@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (4 children)

I guess it would

Lockheed does more than just defense contracts

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Got offered interviews at Raytheon and Lockheed once. Said no immediately. Can't have a good conscience working for these companies.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›