Picture shows a pride parade. A group of people are carrying a banner that says "LOCKHEED MARTIN" over a rainbow graphic.
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
480 points (100.0% liked)
196
16579 readers
1983 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
And Lockheed Martin is giving them weapons, yes.
So democracy is to blame? Get the fuck off your high horse. Is absolute idealism is unrealistic and frankly childish. Go graduate college and get back to me.
Again, absolutely bizarre takes. Just incredible how completely unrelated these responses are to anything I'm saying or any coherent line of thought.
You're treating it as if Lockheed Martin just, inherently ought to exist, that it would be impossible for them not to exist. They do not.
Since you seem to be struggling to understand how that could possibly be, I'll tell you: nationalization. The government should seize control of all assets belonging to Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Boeing (ideally, the CEOs and upper management should be deported to Afghanistan to face justice), no one should be able to make a profit from it (aside from wages), they should not be able to have lobbyists, and there should be no ability to go from war profiteer to policy maker deciding what wars to start or vice versa.
But if you want to lick the boots of warmongers who cause bloodshed for the sake of corporate profits, I guess I can't stop you. But what I can say is that, as a queer person, I completely reject their performative "support" and have no desire to be associated with them in any way, and that they can take their pride flags and shove them up their ass.
My responses are to show the logical conclusions to your asine statements that make no sense.
Yes. I believe arms manufacturers must exist. How else does a people defend themselves? Strongly worded letters?
You think the state should have a monopoly on defense production? That's a recipe for stagnation and disaster.
I glad you don't own "queer" because your purity test is ridiculous. Let these people be. If they want to March in pride with Lockheed flag, let them do it. They aren't hurting anyone.
You should be thanking Lockheed marting for helping to provide the very freedom you are using to bitch.
I sincerely hope that you one day find yourself on the receiving end of what you support.
Is this a death threat?
That's an interesting assumption.
You just hoped that was on the receiving end of a lethal defense weapon. That's no assumption. That's a death threat.
Well, if you told me you hoped I was on the receiving end of what I support, I wouldn't see it as a threat. Maybe you should try supporting better things.
I didn't say that. I was pointing out flaws to your position and hoping to change your mind. You however, went straight to my death, which is uncalled for and little scary. Why do you feel the need wish people death?
I only wished for you to receive the consequences of what you support. If that's death, then I'll turn the question back to you: why do you feel the need to wish people death?
Please point to where I advocated for death? I didn't. You did. Specifically, my death. What compels you to want my death?
I literally only advocated for you to get what you're advocating for. Your conclusion that that means I was calling for your death only makes sense if you were advocating for death yourself.
Im advocating for a strong national defense aided by private enterprises. You wanted me dead. Big difference. Why do you send death threats?
Why do you see being on the receiving end of "a strong national defense with private enterprises" as a death threat? Were you advocating for killing people?
National defense is a life and death affair. You know this. Then you wanted me dead for my opinion. I never wished you harm. You however want me dead. Would you like to retract those words?
Absolutely not. You deserve to be treated the way you want for others. If you support a system that kills hundreds of thousands of innocent people in a decades-long occupation following an unprovoked war of aggression, then, well, you do the math on what you deserve.
Anyway I would think you'd be thanking me for what I said. You just told me I should be "thanking Lockheed Martin," so surely to be on the receiving end of what they do is something you should be grateful for.
So you get to call for people's deaths you disagree with? Seems like you enjoy an authoritarian hellscape. I treated you with dignity and respect. I disagreed with you and tried to argue my point, but you don't seem to respect my value as a human and you called for my extermination over a disagreement. How can you have such a flawed value system. You don't value life at all if you're so quick to call for death of people you disagree with.
Please see the attached graph showing the reduction of poverty under american hegemony thanks to american defense keeping trade open and no large state on state conflicts. Global birth rates have also been increasing rapidly. Thanks Lockheed martin for maintaining the peace.
Lol! Three quarters of poverty reduction since the 80's was in China. "American hegemony" my ass.
Again, I hope the "defense" industry does to you what you want it to do to others. And I hope you have enough time to really appreciate it too.
Guess you never heard of the great leap forward or Mao Zedong. He did a number on the chinese population.
More death threats?! What's wrong with you?
Hmm not familiar, does he have anything to do with this though?
What's wrong with you? Why did you choose to become a bloodthirsty, bootlicking imperialist? Why do you support mass slaughter for profit that you won't even see, that will only go to the super rich parasites who are actively making life worse for the rest of us?
You didn't answer my question at all and are avoiding the horrible statement you made with a non sequitur. I will accept an apology from you if you make one.
yes, neutral countries defend your point
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...