Fair enough

The construction of the sentence is just getting to me: “wlw…with a gf.”

It feels like the important part is “having a gf,” and “having the gf” implies the “wlw.” So you could have just left off the “wlw.”

It’s about teaching people to disregard their own self-preservation, when following orders. That’s why they say “it scares me”.

Perfectly valid to fear being compelled to move toward danger.

But can we agree that: 1) saying “teaching you to run into machine fire” is negative tonally, and 2) you could make the quoted point illustratively, without phrasing it so reductively?

The most obvious read of the original line is “jarheads being sent to their deaths,” – they told me to, so I’m going to run into machine gun fire – which would obviously receive pushback.

And that’s saying nothing about the actual philosophies of how to deal with danger, vis a vis fleeing it or neutralizing it.

This is for people that will come after (assuming the whole post isn’t randomly deleted).

I think my reading of your comment’s anti-military message was reasonable, certainly not mean-spirited. However, I will admit my first comment was more declarative than inquisitive. A more open dialogue might have been “Then what is the forest?”

Because, like, it’s plain obvious your “run toward a firing machine gun” is a figure of speech.

I’m curious what you think OP meant by their statement seeing as they claim my interpretation was reading something that wasn’t there. You’re saying it’s not literal and they’re saying it’s not the idea that war wastes lives carelessly. So how should someone read the statement that the military teaches people to run into machine gun fire? It reads as a critique, although I suppose that could be the start of the misunderstanding.

Sorry, I was trying to think of a more reasonable alternative than your literal statement that didn’t make sense.

Can you please explain what you meant by

It’s basically an organization designed to take young people and teach them to run toward a firing machine gun when told to do so.

Such that you think someone who explained that the statement is false is missing the forest?

I’m all for artistic prose, emphatic amd impactful prose, but so many people think impact is more important than accuracy and coherence.

We can assume they mean (or would accept the substitution of) “the military industrial complex” instead of the concept of “maintaining a military”, but the symmetry required them to be less accurate.

You’re claiming “forests” (“militaries treat young, enlisted lives as expendable for unnecessary wars”) exist and then pointing at a cardboard standee of a tree you brought as evidence.

Yeah, you’re right, but you can admit when your attempt at artistry fails your point.

Censoring expletives is dumb. But I don’t have a problem with hiding names of non-celebrities who aren’t spouting hate.

I personally think it’s just that Saiyans can mate with anything that makes stronger kids

Google does have a text message app. I use it because the native Samsung one looked ass

I mean, maybe they just wanted to build something?

It’d just be a silvery stone. That you’re supposed to operate technopathically. Because all humans get a technopathic link when they are gestated.

Or it’s a sword made of bronze. Because we’re in the Bronze Ages v7 and the dominant species is humanoid bears.

Or there’s nothing because a sieve bomb perfectly deleted any manmade product from the planet, reseting it to a primordial state.

We can’t even pretend to guess technology from even 1000 years in the future, let alone 100,000 years. This is just a creative writing prompt with basically no constraints or rules.

Ah, yes! I do remember that: it’s on break right now. I furlough stuff on hiatus in my mental warehouse.

The art style seems familiar. It registers as ‘Gosu’ but I don’t remember this face from Gosu or Yongbi.

The challenge is in not erasing yourself by the rules, by being famously immortal. Presumably, you also don’t age. So you just have to move around every decade or two.

Yeah, “everyone else is doing it, so why are you only suing this megacorp??” Because I can’t sue every company at the same time? OP’s comment reads like such a “if you didn’t bring enough lawsuit for everyone, you can’t have any at all” argument.

Someone being freaky with an instrument in the same category as something I made is the same as seeing the first nuke annihilate the landscape.

A truth nuke.

Feels like the odour of mass graves would clash with the blancmange

Like, honestly. This one’s lowkey weird