Be rule do warcrimes
Picture shows a pride parade. A group of people are carrying a banner that says "LOCKHEED MARTIN" over a rainbow graphic.
Picture shows a pride parade. A group of people are carrying a banner that says "LOCKHEED MARTIN" over a rainbow graphic.
Getting wealthy on war profiteering while wrapping yourself in the pride flag. Great, just great...
Is there at least any way we can leverage this so that bigots become literally scared of mistreating queer people? Like, if you deliberately misgender someone or use a homophobic slur everyone goes quiet and scatters in different directions because they are anticipating the drone strike.
"My pronouns might be they/them, but yours are about to be were/was."
This message brought to you by Lockheed Martin: proudly supporting LGBTQ+ drone pilots worldwide.
I'd say that it's better to frame it as; lockheed supports lgbtq+ but lgbtq+ does not support lockheed as long as lockheeds business-model is based on killing people.
I'd say that it's better to frame it as; lockheed does not support lgbtq+ but does support free publicity.
I know it's difficult but you don't speak for everyone that isn't straight, you don't get to decide what the whole group thinks.
Having sex with people of the same gender is not a political position, sexuality does not determine political and moral views. Plenty of gay people have political and moral perspectives which differ from your own and they are still valid in their sexuality.
Pride should be for everyone who wants to celebrate LGBT, it's not a political party. Yes that means people you don't agree with politically get to celebrate too.
Right wing queer people aren't invalid in their identity, they're just shunned for aiding people who will oppress all of us. Blaire White is a valid woman, but she's not welcome at pride because she works to make our lives worse for short term gain. Bernie Sanders is cishet, but he's welcome at pride for being a long time ally of queer rights.
Pride isn't for queer people by virtue of their identity; it's for all people that fight for our right to proudly exist.
"supporting the military conglomerates is just a matter of ideology, don't criticise it pls!" Fuck that lukewarm shit, every exec at Lockheed Martin should be tossed in jail
Okay I’m all for equal treatment, but you sound fucking crazy right now. Do you know what you’re actually suggesting? Instilling fear of death in people committing a minor intolerance. That’s not a free society and it sounds like the start of a different monster of an oppressive system.
It's obviously a joke.
How am I supposed to tell when lemmy users are constantly saying extreme stuff like this
Oh, people associate queer people with drone strikes, alright. Not as much in the US but there are people around the world (global south, etc) who will take stuff like this at face value and hate queer people because they associate us with the US military. It generally doesn't work out well for the queer people living there.
Jesus fucking Christ, imagine believing this.
Imagine being THIS into apologia for homophobia.
And then pretending like you never said this, lol.
Multiple stealth edits lol.
See if you can spot the differences:
:::spoiler Can't read?
"There are people" does not mean "this is the sole source of homophobia," it means, "there are people." It is obviously true that some people believe that, it's just an objective fact about the world. There can still be long-standing homophobia and one of the ways in manifests and gets more people on board is what I mentioned, almost as if it's a complex issue with multiple contributing factors.
Also, the US can be tolerant or intolerant in reality, but that doesn't always conform to people's perceptions.
:::
I understand that you're coming into this with a bone to pick with me, looking for any way to twist my words around. But maybe you, uh, shouldn't do that.
Yeah, it's very stupid. Lots of reactionaries will talk about the concept of queer people being "imported" from Western culture, while at the same time importing their own talking points from the Western far-right media sphere. Obviously, there's plenty of queer history to be found all around the world, and in many cases homophobia was historically imported through Christian colonizers, but reactionaries aren't exactly known for their historical literacy.
Wait, now I'm confused. Did I misinterpret your comment as interpreting my comment correctly?
Are you saying "imagine believing this" in response to people being homophobic, or in response to me acknowledging that homophobic people exist?
"Imagine believing that long-standing homophobia in other countries is caused by the US military becoming relatively queer-friendly 10 years ago"
Ok I'm imagining it. Seems like a really dumb thing to believe. Not sure what that has to do with anything I said tho.
🤌
My first pride experience involved wearing a Kuffiyeh and shouting at my local military contractor’s HR department and the one visibly LGBTQ person as they strolled down the street appalled that people didn’t want them there.
No pride in genocide,
You wore a garment of clothing typically worn by a group that wants to kill LGBT people to a pride rally? Sounds like you're the one who didn't understand pride.
What the in racist hell is this stupid bullshit?
I don’t see anything racist about it, but I’ll take it down if it is racist.
Sounds good.
So, are you gonna tell me what’s racist, or what?
You think an entire people are one dimensional religious fundamentalists, based on an article of clothing worn by an entire people, even their queers?
Jesus fucking christ, you are being racist as hell
Was hoping you'd be self critical and figure it out on your own.
"Zionists" = Jews, an entire people.
This meme portrays them as bloodthirsty psychopaths who fantasize about killing their own people via their mortal enemy because they are gay. My very close friend is a "Zionist", ie a person with more complex feelings about the war than anyone on this goddamn site thinks is possible. A person who doesn't want dead civilians or anything else, but was there when her friends were butchered in the streets. She also happens to be a lesbian, and the "average Zionist" is her.
Are you unaware that anti-zionist Jews exist or do you deny their Jewishness?
You are misunderstanding what I said and I'm tired of bad faith arguments.
I just read your other more recent comments. You think its the old dog whistle usage when its clearly the literal Pro-Israel-Ethno-State meaning. I don't know how you could interpret it as anything other than literal Zionists when the subject is their genocide in Gaza. "Zionist" here includes Biden and Trump.
Unfortunately, zionism is not equivalent to a group of people. Zionism, at least in this context, is a geopolitical position, not an ethnic or religious group.
To consider an entire population of people one-dimensional and hold a political position is harmful. I literally said this exact thing in an earlier comment.
To elaborate on this point, I’ll describe it in this context, and then describe it being used as an antisemitic dog whistle, so we should be on the same page.
In this context, zionism is a political ideology based around settler colonialism, and it led to the founding of Israel, among many, many other consequences.
The meme points out a really annoying tendency that I, as a queer person, and many others have seen when supporting palestine where pro-israel people will go “lol why do you support hamas, they will literally torture you and kill you for being LGBT” even though it is pro-palestine, not pro-hamas.
In the antisemitic dogwhistle context, it is simply used as a stand-in for “the jews”. If you think this is the context people on the left are using, you lack all forms of critical reasoning.
Based on what you said, this meme would indeed be racist if you view it from the antisemitic dogwhistle context. But it isn’t coming from there. To try and conflate the two is just trying to conflate opposition to a geopolitical position with racism.
Says you. It is a fucking dog whistle for racists and telling me it isn't with that stupid meme confirms it. It's amazing how the term as been so whitewashed that even Jewish people buy it.
I’m sorry, you are being silly and rejecting reality.
Zionism literally is a political movement, founded by jewish people, with a desire to make their own state. Zionism isn’t new, and it is well over 100 years old. Check out this wikipedia article for a rundown.
To say that it is only a dogwhistle is just a rejection of reality. But it is also a convenient rejection of reality because it lets you vilify political opponents.
Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists. You are deliberately misconstruing my words so you can get mad.
It is literally what you wrote. Don't write A = B, when you mean A ⊆ B.
What about the Israeli Christians or the Druze?
Ironic considering the meme you just posted. And pathetic.
I don’t see anything racist about the meme, but I’ll take it down if it is.
Sounds like you don’t understand Palestinians, if you’re going to paint them with such broad strokes.
I can't say if this specific one is authentic but I would not be surprised, as my company does the same: branded pride flags, t-shirts for their LGBTQ+ employees. And I'm torn on this, because I feel a bit bad about the branding aspect of it, but on the other hand the company putting their name to openly support all sexual and gender identities does seem like a good thing to do....
Yes, the irony of a company that produces more efficient ways of killing people being concerned with social issues does not escape me. But there are employees of the company who apparently support both (and good for them)
Any employee of Lockheed Martin who's an ally attended on their own, not behind company branding. This is just a big business rainbowwashing itself. Using queer people as a tool to improve its own social capital.
Well that doesn't really adress the point
God, what the fuck is wrong with you people. "Good for people to be able to both be supportive of LGBTQ+ and support the military industry of an imperialist country like the US!!". Fuck you, honestly
That imperialist country is really the leading force in pushing for LGBTQ rights globally. So keep stanning dictatorships where queer people would be bullied at best, routinely tortured and murdered at worst.
Almost as if, hear me out, I won't praise any private company whose profit motive is making killing easier :0
The INSTITUTIONS of the US in general aren't responsible for the social progress in feminism and LGBTQ+ and racial issues, let alone the military or the industrial complex behind it. It's the people in the US who are behind all of this momentum, despite the institutions fighting against it as we can see with the recent Roe v Wade incident or the oppression of trans rights by republicans. These social victories have been achieved DESPITE the US institutions and the military industrial complex NOT BECAUSE of them.
Do you happen to know what the polling was for approval of interracial marriage at the time of Loving v. Virginia? Just curious.
It's also led by LGBT people and allies within the company. The goal is to make it a nicer place to work and recruit talent; whatever PR comes their way is just a perk.
If you're not fucking ASHAMED of parading with a Lockheed Martin banner, you're a disgusting human being. Change my mind
Is this picture real? I mean, for real, real...? Link to video?
Probably. Following resource is from 2021: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/16-years-of-pride-business-resource-group.html
Thank you
Video source
I live near another military contractor, and I saw them in pride this year. I’d say this is real.
It’s pretty disgusting ngl
they might ... you know ... be gay and work at lockheed martin ... and got their managers to pay for some shit for pride. maybe could submit expense reports and have the trip paid for ...
there were times when gay people couldn't work at lockheed martin. i prefer this photo to that.
The fact that anyone, let alone LGBTQ+ people, can go to the streets holding a "Lockheed Martin" sign and not get shamed into dropping it, shows we're failing as a society
Lockheed martin makes HIMARS. HIMARS is saving ukraine lives. That's a good thing.
They also make a motherload of AGMs including hellfires & mavericks which the IDF used exclusively to nuke Gaza and its residents into oblivion.
Weapons can be used for liberation or oppression at the same time. Lockheed doesn't get to say who they sell to.
Yes, you've identified the problem.
So corporations backed by tax dollars get to sell to anyone?
Swing and a miss. Try going in the opposite direction.
So only the American government can sell Lockheed martin arms? Then the corporation is no longer liable for any harm their weapons cause since they have no power or agency in how they are used. Are you really sure you know your position here?
Wow. I genuinely don't know how you managed to come up with that, it's genuinely impressive.
Try: "Manufacturing weapons of war for profit when you can't guarantee that they won't end up in the wrong hands is unethical and war profiteering corporations should not exist."
Wow. It is more unethical to not manufacture weapons leaving your society completely defenseless. Don't know what planet you live on , but bad people exist and they seek to do harm and must be stopped with weapons. You can't tell them to go away with rainbows and lollipops like you seem to think.
yes, neutral countries defend your point
And Lockheed Martin is giving them weapons, yes.
OK, so your earlier comment was saying they're good for sending (selling) weapons to Ukraine. Then you say they can't be held responsible for the bad things. If they can't be responsible for the bad, then they also don't get credit for any good.
That's fine. They manufacture the top of line defense products. The government decides when they should be used. Those products work and keep Americans safe when used properly. The ethical use of them falls on our elected leaders, which is the way it should be.
"sometimes they kill the right people, sometimes they don't, not their fault for producing weapons fully knowing that"
How about we don't use the word nuke, in the context of military actions, unless actual nuclear weapons were involved? Because Israel is the one country on Earth that has them but hasn't declared as such. And they have repeatedly threatened to use them on Gaza as some sort of act of god.
Many people on this platform disagree with that, unfortunately.
Call me crazy, but if you save a granny from getting run over by a car, and the next thing you do is pull out a gun and shoot a pregnant woman in the face, I don't think people are just gonna forget the latter act of violence because of your former act of compassion.
Also, they aren't doing it an act of compassion either. They're being paid stupid amounts of money. I'm not going to thank someone for walking a granny across the street if they were paid a few million dollars to do so.
But what if you do both at the same time? Continuously...
No you dont
If all of a sudden the white power movement had mass public support, these corpos would have their logos plastered over red, black, and white banners by next week. Fuck em.
Liberalism in a nutshell:
When the new gay CEO unfairly fires 2000 workers, gay and straight alike 🤑👌
IDK, I'd rather the people making the weapons be on our side.
As a Queer person what the hell do you mean? The gears of the military industrial complex are lubricated with the blood of the innocent.
Do you believe that if the US didn't make weapons, then everyone else would also just stop making weapons?
It's not like they're arming queer people.
... this may come as a shock, but the US and its allies are the primary countries upholding LGBT rights in their own nations at this point in time.
Just watch this
Even back in 2009 Pacifists understand what endless conflict would lead to, exactly what we're seeing today.
You know what disarming leads to?
Invasion by a hostile force.
Just ask Ukraine. They're a very peaceful people, very into disbanding the military, defunding the military industrial complex, even getting rid of fighter jets and their nuclear weapons.
Ah yes because the US is going to be invaded by... Canada? Mexico? Uzbekistan? Seriously what the hell are you talking about? If you actually think that upholding the American empire has benefitted Americans then you're just a liberal.
The US isn't about to be invaded by anyone. We have a very powerful military. So there is no threat in the world we live in, aside from the threat from internal extremists and asymmetrical warfare (ie terrorism). If the world were quite different, and we had no military power, we'd be at risk from a number of adversaries. Possibility the greatest threat would be foreign-backed "separatism" as occurred in Ukraine in 2014 (which is simply a covert invasion that is disguised as a civil war).
There's literally nothing wrong with being a liberal. It's really quite preferable to a number of the alternatives. It must kill you that the majority of people don't remotely support your political views.
Ah yes, if you're the biggest and most violent bully in the school yard, you don't have to worry about being beat up. Just say "they hate us for our freedom" in the mirror 3 times while ignoring any sort of actions we do as a country that might make other people or countries want to attack us. I swear, your exact message could've been said by the average republican in 2008.
Funny, when I opposed the Iraq invasion in 2001 (and 2008 and beyond) I was called a bleeding heart liberal, but now I'm accused of supporting the Iraq war, "enhanced interrogation," "extraordinary rendition," "indefinite detention," Guantanamo Bay, etc for saying there's nothing wrong with being a liberal.
I really wish the world would pick one definition of liberalism rather than just labeling whatever they don't like "liberalism."
I seem to recall that the apex of Republicanism in 2008 was the Tea Party, which I never identified with in the slightest. No, that was 2009. 2008 was when Mitt Romney was campaigning on the idea of strapping the family dog to the roof of the car. Is that what you think liberalism is? A Mitt Romney republican?
How about, instead of arguing definitions of words that are constantly misused by people who want liberalism to mean anything stretching from neoliberalism to communism (which is weird how you'd take conservative's definition of liberal at face value), you talk about how much your individual ideas have ratcheted to the right instead? I'm also not the original person who blamed your position on your liberalism.
Insular, America-centric, "we must have the most firepower to protect us from the evil people", is absolutely the rhetoric used by republicans in 2008. Maybe if you traveled back in time, you'd be voting for Mitt Romney regardless of how safe his dog was. It's entirely a fear-based position to have, and that's been the republican MO for a while. Our military industrial complex makes us less safe because it constantly creates situations that guarantees its own existence. Protecting your comfort through global threat of violence is a cowardly position to uphold.
Perhaps you should talk about how your beliefs have ratcheted towards the right, if that's what you identify with. Or left. I'm not going to tell you how your beliefs evolved over the past few years or decades. I don't pretend to know you.
I don't know what your definition for liberalism is. So far, on Lemmy, "liberalism" seems to be anything to the right of tankie/Stalinist/Maoist. It seems to be just as broad as the right's definition of it.
America is the arsenal of democracy. That's as true now as it was when Franklin D Roosevelt said it.
I'd love to see NATO take over that role, or the EU take on a bigger share of it. Especially if they ensured the weapons were solely used in a defensive capacity. That would be great. But someone in "the west" needs to have a major military industrial complex.
And sure, other countries make some weapons. After all, everyone donates weapons to Ukraine. But we all know the majority is coming from the US. Nobody else has the arsenal to stand up to Russia's USSR stockpile (though diminished) and China's stockpile. Both Russia and China are hungry for more territory. Russia annexed Georgia, Ukraine, crushed the independence of Chechnya, and is right now trying to conquer enough of Ukraine to make a land bridge so they can go annex parts of Moldova. After that, they're highly likely to try taking land from one of the Baltics, probably Latvia or Lithuania.
China has invasion in its past (have you already forgotten about Tibet? The Tibetans haven't forgotten, although forced sterilization, mass famine, and insanely high rates of suicide have decreased the number of them, part of China's campaign of Han supremacy and cultural genocide) and invasion in its future (started with Taiwan, but they are also eying Vietnam, Kazakhstan, and someday perhaps even Russia).
The world isn't a safe place. It's full of conflict.
If you want to see what life is like without the US military industrial complex at your back, keep your eye on Armenia. They're working as fast as they can to build ties to the US, but I don't think it'll come together fast enough to save them from Russian-backed Azerbaijan.
If the whole world disarmed, then disarmament would be a great thing. But preaching disarmament while the "global threat of violence" actually exists is carrying water for the very real authoritarian dictators who currently wish to build an empire at the expense of other people's freedom and sovereignty.
At which point in history should we have gotten rid of all of our boom?
The point where America stopped defending itself and started becoming a global empire (roughly after WWII).
I'm sure the Soviet Union would have disarmed in response, as seen by their holsum reactions to democracy in what-would-become-the-Warsaw-Pact
You do realize that the Warsaw Pact was created in direct response to NATO?
Did you miss the 'what-would-become' in 'what-would-become-the-Warsaw-Pact'?
You... do realize that NATO was founded after the Soviets couped democracy in Czechoslovakia, right?
... right...?
Our side you mean the side of imperialism and neocolonialism, of the invasion of Iraq, of the bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos and Korea, and the interventionism in Chile, Libya, Iran (Mosaddegh era), and the support of the banana republics? Fuck that, that's not my side.
Agreed, as a Queer person I do not stand with the military industrial complex, nor the politicians that are payed off by them, nor the military that uses their weapons against the innocent.
Is it better to be a queer person in a nation with a strong military that respects and integrates queer people, or a queer person in a nation with a weak military that imprisons and sometimes lynches queer people?
Queer rights and small government not only are not contradictary but actively work together to from a free society, so no I will not engage in your false liberal dicatomy.
Great. What's keeping you from moving to these free societies?
What's this nonsense? How does reducing military expenditure lead to imprisonment and lynching of queer people? Is the only thing keeping the Military Industrial Complex from murdering queer people giving the former enough money?
It's called a question. There are two scenarios alternate. There is no supposition of cause and effect.
Sure, then I refuse to answer your question
Lockheed-Martin doesn't commit war crimes, the governments you elected or didn't, do the war crimes. They're a weapon and aeronautical reasearch, development, and manufacturing company. Building weapons and planes and jets is something every single nation on Earth does (or buy from those that do). This is just as silly as Coca-Cola sponsoring Pride, maybe even more so if you knew what they've been up to.
Corporations are not your friend or ally, rainbow or not. It doesn't matter what they support because they are all in some way evil. But if people want their support in Pride, why not?
Corporations want to be perceived as people, and they are protected by law as such. A person who knowingly manufactures weapons that are being used to commit a genocide is a psychopath. Psychopaths typically feign empathy to appear normal and blend in with society. Lockheed Martin supporting Pride is an example of such behavior.
Of course corporations are profit maximization engines, not people. By allowing them to act like people, we are normalizing psychopathy.
That ship sailed centuries ago.
Cool. Enjoy your dystopia.
Bold of you to assume that there's no cause-effect relation between what Lockheed-Martin execs deem profitable, and whatever policy the US takes. Lobbying is a thing, and the same investors that put money in military conglomerates, put money into lobbying and into media. If you can't see how the existence of powerful capitalist companies that make weapons is detrimental to a democracy, I don't know what to tell you.
What's this bullshit? Now we can't criticise the military conglomerates because "they're just companies doing company things"? Nah fuck that and fuck Lockheed Martin, selling weapons to an imperialist government makes you as bad as the imperialist government.
The same plant makes missiles for Ukraine and bombs for Israel. Corporate doesn't care, the governments need to instead.
"Corporate shouldn't be criticised for selling weapons to murderous governments because they're just trying to make a profit". What an absolute shit of a take
I hope you where paid by Lockheed-Martin. Don't make unfair competition to public relationship
The SCP foundation isn't a company
What, no Aperture Laboratories?! Shame! Shame!
Bottom right, third from the bottom.
LOCKQUEER MARTIN
Lockqueer Martini is a great drag queen name
Yikes. I'd rather get arrested than hold that banner
So you don't think national defense is a matter of life and death? You knew what you were saying calling for my death. Just admit that you can't have a civilized discussion without calling for someone's death.
lgbt clowns, rofl