Why Men Love War (1984) • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#111

Post by hutzlibu » Sat, May 05, 2018, 10:40 AM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #102

fapjacks wrote: post #96

I was in the infantry for over a decade. I joined before 9/11, but I did reenlist some years afterward, and I deployed a bunch, and fought many times. The thing about the article is that he says right there in the first couple paragraphs... Nobody that hasn't been there will understand the core message here. Worse, it's not socially palatable to embrace your innate human violence, despite it being such an intrinsic b…

About violence: I often feel that there's an "art" or a skill to master violence. As you say it's incarnation of survival; but emotionally and socially too. As a guy who naturally submits peacefully even if I feel aggressed. At some point I had enough and started to be able to embody my internal violent reaction. Not as an act but as a communication device. You're pushing me, you're about to get pushed, you can read…

"In war he said things become binary, friend or ennemy, inaction = death, decision = life. "

Well ... not in every war. Also mentioned in the article, when you face guerilla and not a clearly marked enemy, things get messy. Btw. the most effective war tactics are to create confusion in the enemy, that they don't know anymore where they are and where their friends are and how many enemys etc.

Also people struggled a lot when they fough in a war they don't believe in. But even then, you are right, things are simple when you are with your comrades and under fire.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#112

Post by fapjacks » Sat, May 05, 2018, 10:50 AM UTC

ryanmarsh wrote: post #74

stcredzero wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, most everyone I knew was rather opposed to fighting and saw what we were signed up for as a necessity that we did out of duty to our country, not because we liked it. I met this fellow musician at a jam session in St. Paul. Somehow the conversation got around to the military, and he proudly said he was the 3rd generation of men in his family who had signed up for the Marines. He bragged that it was t…

Bragged about killing. Nope. That’s how you know he didn’t see any shit.

This is one of those rules with essentially zero exceptions. Nobody that's telling the truth ever brags about that.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#113

Post by ILikeConemowk » Sat, May 05, 2018, 10:59 AM UTC

methodover wrote: post #87

ryanx435 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in all of human history violence has been the go to solution: Problem: I'm hungry Solution: let's kill this mammoth and eat it (violence) Problem: there's not enough food Soloution: the neighboring country has food let's invade and take theirs (violence) Problem: I want to be king but I'm 2nd in line for succession Solution: assisinate the king and take his place (violence) Problem: over population in a region…

I don't know what you're trying to say. That violence has been used as a solution to problems? Sure. It has. That violence has, rarely, in some cases, been a sufficient answer for a problem? Sure. You cited a few. But that's not what you started out saying. You said that violence has "solved more problems in human history than any other solution" which is ridiculous. Oh, and I don't think hunting animals for food is…

>Oh, and I don't think hunting animals for food is the kind of "violence" we're discussing.

You didn't understand what he was trying to get at.

He was talking about hunting as an outlet for anger, so in that context I suppose he is framing violence through hunting as an outlet and hence a solution to anger.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#114

Post by tomxor » Sat, May 05, 2018, 10:59 AM UTC

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #104

This article resonated with me. I was a Marine (no combat), didn't like it, but knew and respected the hell out of people who made a career out of it. I learned several lessons in the service, many of which people don't want to talk about. It takes only a few armed and motivated men to dominate hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. So disarmament and pacifism is not a workable strategy until the day we start program…

> Everybody is violent. We are violent as a species. I think this is the thing that bothers so many people. They'd rather just turn away, pretend it's only others, and so forth. There is a ton of disgust and denial about who we are. We confuse who we aspire to be with our actual state. There may be Ghandis and Jesuses in our midst, but they are an extremely small percentage of the population. We are monkeys that kill things.

I agree with the sentiment of your post about the denialism in the modern world, but I slightly disagree that people are one or the other in extreme proportions, I feel like a good analogy is to view those potentials more as phenotypes that can be expressed to varying degrees along side each other (simultaneously), and a phenotype can change from one moment to the next depending on the environment. In other words - I think we are both Gandhi and the violent monkey and many other things.

I say this not from philosophical or psychological musings, I say this simply because with the slightest introspection I feel the potential for it all in me simultaneously - there's the part of me that arrogantly "knows" he can be the most bad ass muthafucka alive if needed, and part of me who has a more rationally minded world view and looks down upon mindless and pointless violence, and a great many things in between.

> I think the analogy that stuck with me most about this was that war may be the male version of motherhood, that is, the closest we come to being true to our biological selves.

Absolutely, I don't think I need to argue this one for any man, but perhaps I can just resonate this: i'm not a very social person, I didn't learn these traits, but I definitely feel the propensity for violence given the right conditions, be it something admirable i.e "protective", or not i.e "vengful".

As usual understanding these things rather than rejecting them out of some miss-placed shame of humanity is the correct way to move forward, accept who we are and understand why. Understanding them should gives us the power to either follow or reject the emotion that drives them to be expressed, rather than being led by them blindly like an animal.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#115

Post by fapjacks » Sat, May 05, 2018, 11:02 AM UTC

emmelaich wrote: post #79

mariodiana wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The book, "War," from Sebastian Junger is well worth a read. I read it before seeing "Restrepo" (which I also recommend). On Goodreads, I wrote this about Junger's book and his take on men and war after finishing it: "[T]he experience of warfare seems to strike a chord deep within the psyche of the men in combat. The bonding among men, the heroism, the swinging extremes of victory won only by the palpable threat of m…

Everyone should play a team game at some point. Soccer, basketball or similar. Not so much baseball or cricket but they're fine too. The experience is a good substitute for war and makes you understand yourself and others.

I think saying team sports is a good substitute for war is like saying that if you need a good substitute for afternoon tea, just eat a bag of mushrooms. At first blush, this might seem like a funny joke, but there are times in combat that feel almost psychedelic: Colors seem brighter and you get a kind of tunnel vision, your senses are not only highly engaged but more sensitive, your heart is pounding, your mind is racing, you're overcome with a kind of euphoria from the adrenaline, and the bottom of your stomach drops out at the existential overload. Playing a team sport is not a substitute for going to war. Perhaps there are some superficial similarities, but nothing on this Earth compares to the experience of combat. Incidentally, this is why training is the difference between life and death: Without the aid of muscle memory, you could be trapped cognitively, and being trapped in any sense of the word will get you killed on the battlefield. Actually, this is why I find the ending of the play/musical "Hair" to be so shocking and believable: Going to war with no training would almost certainly be a death sentence.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#116

Post by ILikeConemowk » Sat, May 05, 2018, 11:03 AM UTC

dba7dba wrote: post #80

ryanx435 wrote: post #78

Fucking dickwads in this thread who can't understand that violence has solved more problems in human history than any other solution. Its like, "oh, I live in a peaceful society, therefore all other societies in the history of humanity should have known better" when they don't realize that america is very violent, has always been violent, and has more capacity for violence than any other society in the history of the…

I think a lot of young folks (many in HN) know history from what they watch/read/hear in daily news, which is a terrible source. So that may be why. Major nations of modern era (since end of WW2) have not gone to total wars simply because of the availability of nukes. Not because people suddenly became enlightened and refused to fight a war.

> in daily news

More like what they are told in "political satire comedy shows."

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#117

Post by [deleted] » Sat, May 05, 2018, 11:03 AM UTC

[deleted]

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#118

Post by DanielBMarkham » Sat, May 05, 2018, 11:06 AM UTC

tomxor wrote: post #114

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #104

This article resonated with me. I was a Marine (no combat), didn't like it, but knew and respected the hell out of people who made a career out of it. I learned several lessons in the service, many of which people don't want to talk about. It takes only a few armed and motivated men to dominate hundreds, perhaps thousands of people. So disarmament and pacifism is not a workable strategy until the day we start program…

> Everybody is violent. We are violent as a species. I think this is the thing that bothers so many people. They'd rather just turn away, pretend it's only others, and so forth. There is a ton of disgust and denial about who we are. We confuse who we aspire to be with our actual state. There may be Ghandis and Jesuses in our midst, but they are an extremely small percentage of the population. We are monkeys that kill…

Thank you for that clarification. I agree. We have all of that inside of us. I meant in comparison to what we wish we were, we are monkeys that kill things. My point was made poorly. Nice catch.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#119

Post by JackCh » Sat, May 05, 2018, 11:07 AM UTC

watwut wrote: post #70

JackCh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "people who will look you straight in the eye and laugh as they talk about murdering someone" Murdering, or killing? I ask because murder refers to a specific sort of unlawful killing, but it's not clear if you're using the term precisely. Most would probably say there's substantial difference between laughing about killing somebody who was trying to kill you (not murder) and laughing about killing a civilian in co…

Why is it unclear that he uses term badly? His statement was clear. It sounds more like you just don't want to believe that someone would brag to him specifically about murder.

The line "I guess there's a need for that kind of person to exist to do our dirty work." made me suspect he was talking about killing not murdering (I presume he wouldn't say that about murderers.) His response to me seemed to confirm he was using the word murder in a loose sense to include lawful killing.. that's how I read it anyway.

Also, I didn't say he used the term "badly", I wondered if he was using it precisely. Maybe you think linguistic imprecision is bad, but my intent was to suss out his meaning, not criticize how he uses language. I'm more interested in the meaning behind the words.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#120

Post by sbmassey » Sat, May 05, 2018, 11:10 AM UTC

methodover wrote: post #87

ryanx435 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in all of human history violence has been the go to solution: Problem: I'm hungry Solution: let's kill this mammoth and eat it (violence) Problem: there's not enough food Soloution: the neighboring country has food let's invade and take theirs (violence) Problem: I want to be king but I'm 2nd in line for succession Solution: assisinate the king and take his place (violence) Problem: over population in a region…

I don't know what you're trying to say. That violence has been used as a solution to problems? Sure. It has. That violence has, rarely, in some cases, been a sufficient answer for a problem? Sure. You cited a few. But that's not what you started out saying. You said that violence has "solved more problems in human history than any other solution" which is ridiculous. Oh, and I don't think hunting animals for food is…

What solution solved more problems in history than violence?