Young South Korean Men Revolt Against Feminism in South Korea

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,461
1,099
118
Country
United Kingdom
And even for the big players, if you actually look at the WWIII plans from the end of the Cold War, those still rely on massive drafted armies and i wouldn't be surprised at all if the current, still secret WWIII plans Nato or China have in their files still do.
Let's be real.

World war 3, had it happened (as it nearly did several times) would have and still would be over in anything from a week to a few hours, at which point a significant proportion of the planet's population would be dead. Many more would die of starvation over the subsequent decades. Human civilization would be forever changed. A conscript in such a war would probably not even have time to receive their draft orders, let alone reach any kind of front. In the unlikely event anyone did reach a front, the situation there would be abject chaos as the nation which sent them there would, in all likelihood, have ceased to exist. Their commanders would be dead or cowering in a bunker somewhere.

All of the world war 3 plans operated on the assumption that the war would escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. They operated on the assumption that supply lines would be destroyed, command and control would break down under the sheer scale of destruction and that most of the civilian population would die. When ground forces appear in such plans at all, they take the form of a highly mobile professional army racing ahead to capture irradiated wasteland cleared by tactical nuclear weapons as quickly as possible in full knowledge that they are never going to be resupplied or reinforced. Even here, the plans are ludicrously optimistic.

The concept of a winnable third world war is absolutely absurd. It's the pinnacle of cold war delusion. We shouldn't be indulging it.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,129
328
88
As cannon fodder?
Ok, admittedly the Iran-Iraq war was a very nasty event all around.

But generally contrasting conscripts and professionals is misleading. Training some infanterist somewhat properly doesn't really take much time and that is time nearly all conscript based armies did invest. Unless you want some special units, you can achieve proper training level for drafties fast enough. Which is the main reason why many countries that still do drafting, only use a couple of month basic training and the rest of the time is mostly guard duty and waiting.

All of the world war 3 plans operated on the assumption that the war would escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. They operated on the assumption that supply lines would be destroyed, command and control would break down under the sheer scale of destruction and that most of the civilian population would die. When ground forces appear in such plans at all, they take the form of a highly mobile professional army racing ahead to capture irradiated wasteland cleared by tactical nuclear weapons as quickly as possible in full knowledge that they are never going to be resupplied or reinforced. Even here, the plans are ludicrously optimistic.
While the Nato side did assume that the nuclear exchange would be the most decisive thing, the Soviet side consistently planned for and believed in a huge conventional war phase after that. And they always had mobilisation directives ready that accounted for loosing most cities first. They also had a vastly more expansive bunker network, more detailed evacuation directives and more preparation for supplying troops and getting mass medical care for radiation damage, while the western side mostly stuck to moral support and symbolic measures because they didn't believe they could do much anyway after a full nuclear war.
Now it is possible that the Soviets always underestimated the damage of a possible nuclear war and always overestimated the importance of conventional troops in the same way as the US is known for always overestimating air power. And we really don't know how well any of that would have actually worked.
But none of those plans were about starting constricption after the war started. Instead most of the troops that were somewhat ready and deployable were originally drafted anyway.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,461
1,099
118
Country
United Kingdom
While the Nato side did assume that the nuclear exchange would be the most decisive thing, the Soviet side consistently planned for and believed in a huge conventional war phase after that.
The Soviets would have lost a prolonged conventional war against NATO, and they knew it.

The Soviets anticipated that they would be the ones being attacked. Their forces were kept at a lower state of readiness, and any large scale mobilization or war preparation on their part would have been fairly easy to spot. Unlike NATO, they also anticipated that any war would be nuclear from the outset, and that nuclear weapons would be used to try and disrupt any Soviet mobilization. For this reason, their plan if attacked was to launch a massive nuclear counterattack. NATO would retaliate, but the Soviets figured they'd come out ahead as their troops would still be mobilizing and thus be more widely distributed. They would use this period of superiority to advance into countries that had already been crippled by nuclear attacks on their cities. Once strategic objectives had been achieved, they would sue for peace in the expectation that both sides would seek to avoid further escalation into a full scale nuclear exchange.

In reality, that escalation would almost certainly have been inevitable. Noone was ever going to "win" that war.
 
Last edited:

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
15,906
1,507
118
In reality, that escalation would almost certainly have been inevitable.
Wasn't that well understood at the time though? My understanding that while there was all that nice talk by theorists about escalation ladders and the like, anyone actually involved for real knew that "one flies, they all fly".
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,504
4,561
118
Country
United States
Wasn't that well understood at the time though? My understanding that while there was all that nice talk by theorists about escalation ladders and the like, anyone actually involved for real knew that "one flies, they all fly".
A lot of military planners at the time were absolutely insane. And I don't mean that colloquially: dudes were driving from their suburbs to their 9-5 defense planning job, mathematically calculating how many high yield hydrogen bombs to drop on each specific enemy airfield of importance and then if the air war wasn't won, would begin to target civilian centers and industry. They would specifically use ground bursts because they were more likely to completely fuck up a runway and the extra fallout was a perk

They absolutely thought that they could win a nuclear war. This was their plan for before the ICBM

 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,276
581
118
You're talking about Christian women. Who are generally against feminism and the ERA. They're the women who go around pretending that women need to be protected all the time.
Sounds rather like modern feminism and there whole "It's time for men to step up and make it safe for women to walk the streets alone at night". As though men are meant to be out there like Batman patrolling the night to make sure nothing happens to any woman and suggesting self defence training is viewed as some heinous act because "It's men who attack or rape women in the night it should be men fixing it" as though somehow men are meant to be there to protect women all the time and the people attacking them don't deliberately operate in areas where the footfall is very sparse so they're less likely to be disturbed & stopped.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,046
3,485
118
Country
United Kingdom
Sounds rather like modern feminism and there whole "It's time for men to step up and make it safe for women to walk the streets alone at night". As though men are meant to be out there like Batman patrolling the night to make sure nothing happens to any woman

Or, y'know, calling out aggressive or sexist behaviour from other men when we see it. Which doesn't require vigilantism, but just being a decent human.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,113
1,521
118
Country
Ireland
"It's time for men to step up and make it safe for women to walk the streets alone at night". As though men are meant to be out there like Batman patrolling the night to make sure nothing happens to any woman
That's just not what that means. Like at all. It's not even close. Have you spoken to a woman, like ever?
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
A lot of military planners at the time were absolutely insane. And I don't mean that colloquially: dudes were driving from their suburbs to their 9-5 defense planning job, mathematically calculating how many high yield hydrogen bombs to drop on each specific enemy airfield of importance and then if the air war wasn't won, would begin to target civilian centers and industry. They would specifically use ground bursts because they were more likely to completely fuck up a runway and the extra fallout was a perk

They absolutely thought that they could win a nuclear war. This was their plan for before the ICBM

They're not insane, though. With these weapons existing and expecting the possibility of use, there are obviously expectations of ways to use them that are the "most reasonable". And it is most reasonable to attempt to destroy your opponent's military capabilities before their whole country. The insanity is the scenario - the potential annihilation of whole civilisations. But what they are doing is as sensible as it can be within that insane scenario.

I seem to remember we found out how the Soviets planned to use nukes - it was much the same. They'd flatten military assets in Western Europe, and if that wasn't enough to end a ground war, then they'd go for cities. Although again, I think this more relates to the early years of nuclear weapons from planes, before ICBMs. MacArthur, of course, wanted to drop atomic bombs on China, just to let them know who's boss.

Although Thaluikhain is probably also right to some degree. Once the first nuke went, there's a good chance others would follow. However, there are plenty of scenarios of limited nuclear war. It's very unlikely anyone would have started a war with a nuke, a nuke would be an escalation of conventional warfare by the losing side. Assuming the war would be over Germany, it's likely each side early in the conflict would let the other know certain red lines - I would guess approximately the Rhine (West) and Oder (USSR), at which point if crossed the really nasty stuff was going to fly. With a clear arranged set of guidelines, it is a reasonable possibility a ground war winner that crossed the line might accept the warning nuke on a significant military target, halt, and take their gains, rather than return fire.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,113
1,521
118
Country
Ireland
Or, y'know, calling out aggressive or sexist behaviour from other men when we see it. Which doesn't require vigilantism, but just being a decent human.
A guy in line at the coffee shop I work in was harassing a customer I was serving. I refused to serve him. It took less effort than ignoring it because I ended up with less work to do.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,276
581
118
The gains of pay equality and equality in recruitment require the eventual acquiescence of corporations. But there is no alliance there. Corporations will eventually, begrudgingly adopt measures to address these issues if society at large has already recognised that it needs to address them. This is largely what happened.

And the measures of corporations are not tied at all to any particular "wave".
It's funny really because as David Pakman pointed out in the research he and his team did for his show the pay disparity is 2-3% in reality and much of that comes down to women being less willing to re-negotiate contracts or push for higher wage and certain jobs pay differently due to the perceived pull (Acting basically).

It's funny really the big corporations who keep being found to be paying women far less deliberately tend to be those pushing the whole "Ra rar rar up the women ra rar rar feminism is great" stuff like the Fearless Girl statue in Wall Street where the company behind it lost quite badly in a pay discrimination lawsuit.

Corporations aren't tied to a wave but the most vocal wave and one they try to pander to these days is 4th wave. (I support the analysis of Feminism at present having seen 5 waves with 3 of them still active to a greater or lesser extent)
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,276
581
118
Or, y'know, calling out aggressive or sexist behaviour from other men when we see it. Which doesn't require vigilantism, but just being a decent human.
Ah yes because that worked so well as proved by

The Skeptic feminist - Who killed his GF while high on shrooms

Hannibal the victor - Early proto Breadtuber who wa found to be a sex offender

Matt Hickey - Wrote a piece on how sexist Microsoft were for hiring women dancers for a party after an industry conference, he was later convicted as he was running a fake porn recruitment company to sleep with women claiming it was their test shoot, of and he drugged some of the women too.

Harvey Weinstein - Very much in the "I'm with her" camp pushing for Hillary to get in and allegedly pushing the whole toxic men angle in Hollywood and well we know how that went.

Devin Faraci - very much calling out toxic men and how anyone not supporting certain lines of thinking and claims was awful, only for a woman to accuse him and him to admitted to grabbing her by the pussy in public randomly and not as some weird couples exhibitionism thing as they weren't intimate with one another.

Joss Whedon - Very much pushing the toxic men claim, happily lending his support to a certain pop culture critic and her message and then it was revealed how awful he was in his wedding, cheating on his wife and gaslighting her a lot and having affairs with some of the women on his shows while being awful to other women on there too and getting a reputation that others on set would make sure he was never alone with some of the younger actresses.

Arthur Chu - the Jeopardy guy who was doing some tour as a sort of feminist male ally speaker and it turned out he wasn't the best to his wife and as was revealed in divorce documents he was allegedly physically violent towards him.

I could go on.

My point and objection is there's a big difference between your friend going "Wow that chick over there is super sexy I'd love to motorboat her" to you (Which under new age logic is sexual objectification and bad) and you friend actually trying to do that or cat calling her. The present level of thinking seems to be that you have to stop all viewing people as sexual beings or on a sexual level and that will change the world while the people who push this a lot keep turning out to be the ones who also are the problem because they can't handle women as sexual being and have weird puritanical hang ups about how they're sinful temptresses etc etc.
 

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,276
581
118
That's just not what that means. Like at all. It's not even close. Have you spoken to a woman, like ever?
Yes, I've also spoken specifically to the kind of women who push said claims and they tend to be the ones who think that "If only we could educated all men not to rape that will stop all rape" not realising that society has been trying that with every other kind of crime for years and yet said crimes still happen because some people just are terrible people who only care for themselves and you're not going to be able to reach out with empathy to teach them to be better because they see that empathy as a weakness or something to exploit.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,030
1,028
118
Country
United States
Yes, I've also spoken specifically to the kind of women who push said claims and they tend to be the ones who think that "If only we could educated all men not to rape that will stop all rape" not realising that society has been trying that with every other kind of crime for years and yet said crimes still happen because some people just are terrible people who only care for themselves and you're not going to be able to reach out with empathy to teach them to be better because they see that empathy as a weakness or something to exploit.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Would education on what sexual harassment is stop all sexual harassment? No, because there will always be people out there who just don't give a fuck, pun unintended. Would it decrease it? Quite probably, because there are some people who don't realize how harmful sexual harassment is, or in some cases, what constitutes sexual harassment. The goal is to reduce the cases as much as possible. That doesn't mean "Well, we can't completely stop people from shooting each other, so we should just let everyone have guns and work it out."
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrCalavera

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
5,276
581
118
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Would education on what sexual harassment is stop all sexual harassment? No, because there will always be people out there who just don't give a fuck, pun unintended. Would it decrease it? Quite probably, because there are some people who don't realize how harmful sexual harassment is, or in some cases, what constitutes sexual harassment. The goal is to reduce the cases as much as possible. That doesn't mean "Well, we can't completely stop people from shooting each other, so we should just let everyone have guns and work it out."
Except it not sexual harassment it's rape they want to try and teach people not to do, the thing basically any right minded person already knows not to do. It's also pushing for teaching instead of measure like teaching the idea of looking after people on nights out, drink testing strips and anti spiking measures and teaching people other things like don't take unlicensed supposed mini cabs and make sure some-one in your group in not going to get blind drunk so they can look out for the others (and to be fair change round who this is). The common response to suggesting those things is "We shouldn't have to do it it's putting the blame on women when men are the issue" because minor inconveniences are so intolerable to them but most of the stuff (other than anti drink spiking measures) are things guys have to do too just to avoid being robbed or attacked and more the anti spiking stuff is becoming relevant to guys too because groups are using it to target men to rob them in recent years too.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
981
946
98
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
Some people did not learn the lesson of the Somme
There are more recent examples, too.
Like the 1982 Falklands War (which I have a particular interest in).
Turns out that conscripts don't do so well when facing a professional army.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,716
2,241
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
There are more recent examples, too.
Like the 1982 Falklands War (which I have a particular interest in).
Turns out that conscripts don't do so well when facing a professional army.
I can definitely say that I wouldn't do so well when facing a professional army
 
  • Like
Reactions: CM156

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Mar 10, 2016
16,916
6,668
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Now i am glad we don't have the draft now. Because we live in a peaceful time without any remotely realistic short term scenario that would require mass mobilisation. It would be folly to waste some of everyones most productive lifetime just for preparedness. Also i was drafted myself and hated it.

But in general i do support a draft. It is the duty of a society to defend itself and the duty of the citicens to help. Draft is morally not much different from taxpaying. If anything it is even more equal because everyone has to do the same time. And yes, i would support women to be drafted as well in any situation that is volatile enough to restart drafting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fallen Soldier

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,046
3,485
118
Country
United Kingdom
Ah yes because that worked so well as proved by
So, you've provided a bunch of examples of semi-notable people who acted like shitheads... and this somehow means to you that we can't call out aggressive or sexist behaviour from our peers? How does that even follow or have any relevance?

I could go on.
Please don't, because it's a meaningless mess so far.

My point and objection is there's a big difference between your friend going "Wow that chick over there is super sexy I'd love to motorboat her" to you (Which under new age logic is sexual objectification and bad) and you friend actually trying to do that or cat calling her. The present level of thinking seems to be that you have to stop all viewing people as sexual beings or on a sexual level and that will change the world while the people who push this a lot keep turning out to be the ones who also are the problem because they can't handle women as sexual being and have weird puritanical hang ups about how they're sinful temptresses etc etc.
Ok. But when women talk about men helping to make the streets safe, they're not fucking talking about men just talking to one another, are they?

They're talking about the aggressive, sexist behaviour directed at women. Which is extremely common, and which lots of men currently just ignore/ laugh along with.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,046
3,485
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's funny really because as David Pakman pointed out in the research he and his team did for his show the pay disparity is 2-3% in reality and much of that comes down to women being less willing to re-negotiate contracts or push for higher wage and certain jobs pay differently due to the perceived pull (Acting basically).
OK so you found... a YouTuber. I'm not at all surprised that your understanding of this topic comes from random internet people rather than actual analyses.

Suffice it to say that plenty of proper in-depth research has shown it to be generally larger than that.

It's funny really the big corporations who keep being found to be paying women far less deliberately tend to be those pushing the whole "Ra rar rar up the women ra rar rar feminism is great" stuff like the Fearless Girl statue in Wall Street where the company behind it lost quite badly in a pay discrimination lawsuit.
Exactly as I said: large corporations are not really allies in any meaningful sense.