this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6625 readers
411 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be niceDo not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.


Join our Matrix chatroom


Other communities you may be interested in


Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 26 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

William Faulkner has some wonderful stories about the WW1 days when people would go up in these rickety planes with a handgun, and take potshots with it with one hand while they flew the plane with the other, or take up a big basket of hand grenades and be lobbing them down at people on the ground while the people on the ground were shooting at them with infantry weapons.

Pilots in war have always been nuts, but there's levels of nuts.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I love seeing pictures of WW1 infantry preparing to let loose an anti-aircraft volley from their bolt-action rifles. What a wild time of military developments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Somewhere there is a Vietnam book where an American pilot told a story about "One-Shot Charlie". There was an old Vietnamese man in some village who had some kind of ancient rifle, and every time they were flying nearby, he'd come out of his house and fire a single shot at the aircraft going past him half a mile up or whatever, and then go back inside. Just kind of a "I hate the fuck out of you but all I have is this rifle but fuck yes I will do my part."

They loved him. They never tried to attack him and I think would have been legitimately angry if someone had tried to hurt him. When you are in war you find your moments of safety and humor where you can.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

No gun, no problem. If you are wearing shoes you always have options.

George W. Bush dodging a show thrown at him during a press conference

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Not with those lightning fast shrub reflexes!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (2 children)

W was a piece of shit in many many ways, but you can't deny his humanity in that moment. Dude handled it like a champ and couldn't wait for whatever was coming after the second shoe. You could tell that was his favorite thing that ever happened in a press conference.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

I love watching this video. The look of bewildered amusement on his face after the first shot is so relatable.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

The guy who threw it still got thrown in prison, though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Say what you will about GWB, the man could certainly dodge a shoe!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

My Post Civil War American History professor told us that the enemy pilots used to wave to each other as they flew past each other. Then one day some asshole pulled out his revolver and shot the guy waving at him, and that's when they started mounting guns on airplanes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Waving at each other just shows how fucked up society was at the time:
"Sure, you're spotting for the artillery that'll kill hundreds of my countrymen, but they're only peasants. Us two, we're nobles."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Us pilots are above the men on the ground, quite literally.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

"Knights of the air"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Honestly, rank-and-file pilots would've done the same.

"Holy shit we're flying isn't this amazing?"

"Ich bin begeistert dass wir dieses Wunder gemeinsam geschafft haben!"

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's how it all started. Guys in planes with handguns.

The French eventually put a forward-mounted gun on the plane but had to install deflectors on the prop that would protect it from bullets. On the German side Fokker developed an interrupter gear to be mounted onto the Fokker Eindekker which prevented the mounted gun from discharging when the propeller was in the way. It wasn't perfect, but better than the deflectors.

ETA: The story goes that Fokker himself went up to demonstrate the forward-mounted machine-gun with the interrupter gear, but once he got behind an Allied scouting plane, he didn't have the heart to kill the crew. It didn't take long, before other pilots gladly started shooting down enemy planes.

With biplanes, guns were sometimes mounted on the upper wing to evade the problem, though eventually the central powers developed their own interrupter gear mechanism.

Note that those flying contraptions were considered more valuable than pilots, and they were sent up without parachutes in order to given them incentive to return with the plane, or at least get it to the ground with less damage. As I flew WWI flying simulations, I noticed I had a while to think up some good last words while staring at the looming ground. Too bad no one would ever hear them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There is a wonderful movie about a dog fighting ww1 pilot who is a pig. Both pilots guns jam so they start throwing shit at eachother. It's called Porco Rosso, it's a wonderful film on Netflix(atleast in Canda). If you haven't checked it out I suggest you do. "I'd rather be a pig than a faciast:

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If it wasn’t so sexist I might agree with it being a good movie.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

? It was pretty clear that the male characters' behaviour was not being celebrated. Porco is troubled and self-hating, and Curtis and the pirates are explicitly villains. Sexism is real so I think depiction of it is necessary, so long as it's not applauded or encouraged. I might even use it as a start point for talking about misogyny with my daughters one day.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sexism in a movie set in the early 1900s!? Say it ain't so!

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Well damn, I guess Birth of a Nation gets a pass on it’s racism because it was made in 1915.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Like criticizing cavemen for not properly washing their hands. Our ancestors were fucking stupid and what's obvious to us now was not obvious to them then. That's why it's a product of it's time, a window to a past society, and a reminder of how far we've come. I'm not seeing anybody here celebrating racism or sexism and ignoring that it existed at all is a braindead thought-pattern. You're arguing for the sake of arguing and it's entirely unnecessary.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

Everyone who argues online does it for its own sake.

If you don’t hold the position that Porco Ross is a good movie in spite of its sexism because of the era it was made, then you should not have responded as you did.

In 2024 the movie is not good and I don’t care about how good it was in the year it came out.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's absolutely racist, and it was at the time. That doesn't mean it's not worth watching, it's fantastic as a window into the culture of the time. It was super popular (among white people), and it helps to understand segregation and racial conflict. It's one of the most important films of all time. What it portrays is absolutely disgusting, but that doesn't change the importance of the film.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That doesn’t mean I can’t criticize it, or other movies that don’t match the modern standards.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Sure, but the criticism will be unfair unless you take into account the culture of the time.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 months ago

I don’t give a Fuck if I’m not fair to a movie. It’s a movie. It exists to entertain. I can’t be entertained if I’m distracted by obvious flaws.

I understand critical theory, and there are lessons to be learned from any piece of media. But real life isn’t film school. Racism sucks, sexism sucks, it is valid to say that movies that contain these also suck.