Live data from Hacker News

Why Men Love War (1984)

esquire.com

131–140 of 188 posts

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

But is that what we really aspire to as human beings? Things being simple? Isn't that just a cop out? The uncomfortable nature of a low IQ individual? Things being all black and white are historically very unpleasant. And war is destructive and stupid, especially in the 21st century.

So while I understand our brutal nature, I also realize we have to rise above it, be smarter, find better outlets, and realize that everything in the universe is nuanced and be okay with that.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#132
post #2

This is a compelling long read. If the subject is of interest, the movie Restrepo and this talk from Sebastian Junger [1] may be of interest, too. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn0zEBhvwXY

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…

It's not just combat veterans, a novice photographer wrote a book about covering/surviving the messy civil war in former Yugoslavia. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4360.My_War_Gone_By_I_Mi...

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#133
post #71

That was a pretty narrow viewpoint. It seemed to lack any consideration of Vietnam as a country or the Vietnamese people affected by his love of war. Do those fighting for their countries and lives share that love? So I guess my takeaway of his point is: War is some special experience that Western Men have (and not women, Vietnamese, or anyone else), where they get to fulfil some kind of murderous power fantasy over…

War is some special experience that Western Men have ... where they get to fulfil some kind of murderous power fantasy over people who don't matter? No. Nothing about that is western. That’s just history. War is the most human you’ll ever be. I don’t know how to explain it to someone who doesn’t want to believe their own potential for malevolence. It’s like eating from the forbidden tree in the garden. You’re eyes be…

As someone who has probed the depths of his own "malevolence" in very anti-social ways (and with nothing to do with socially acceptable state-sanctioned acts) I understand what you are saying. However, "primates that talk" is not what we aspire to being, at least not me.

The enthusiasm that soldiers have for carrying out the policies of their leaders is what bothers me about them. It's really nothing to do with the basic mechanics of killing other than the outright cowardice that technology brings into it all.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War is a call to power and a purpose. It's also disgusting, but a man can get used to anything.

> but a man can get used to anything. If this were true PSTD would not actually happen. Wouldn't the cure just be more exposure, if you could get used to it? > War is a call to power and a purpose. We're a long time past when the raiding hordes would actually be profiting from their own raiding. Like it or not we live in a country so rich that we have essentially nothing significant to gain by pillaging: the cost for…

Now this is something which is misunderstood quite a lot. Almost nobody gets it, though, sometimes not even the doc at the VA. But how could he? He's never been over there. And even if he was over there, he was a desk jockey, a fobbit (you can google that one). Maybe it's best to think of it -- PTSD -- like a switch. And the switch gets turned on when you deploy: The switch that activates the soldier on the battlefield, scanning for threats, vigilant and ready to fight in every situation. Soldier mode -- the mode you love to be in, for all the reasons mentioned in this thread. And then when you get back home, the switch gets turned off: Civilian mode. Once again the civilian slob that goes to the movies and eats a big tub of popcorn. Then when you deploy again, the switch is turned on again: Master of chaos. You come home again, the switch is turned off again: Master of Sunday afternoon naps.

The problem is that at some point, you come home and you realize the switch can't be switched off. It's just a part who you are now. It's now the way you're wired: The first time you go to the movies as a civilian with the switch turned on, you realize you're surrounded by strangers in the darkness for an hour and a half of intense visual and auditory stimulation. Walking down the street to the restaurant, you're actually on patrol, and nothing's more dangerous than a dismounted patrol through the city. You start leaving all the lights on in the house at night, because the things that killed your friends often came out of the darkness. You can't sleep, because of the lights, and because you're hypervigilant and every little noise signals it's time to dispense violence. And if there's one thing that compounds the problem, it's a lack of sleep. This is how you end up in situations where somebody knocks on the door when you're laying on the couch chasing naps that never come, and the mailman smiling at you when you open the door has no idea you're holding a loaded firearm in the hand he can't see. And worse yet, lots of people in this situation drink until they pass out, just to try and get some sleep. But this switch doesn't get turned off when you're drinking at the bar. And on top of that, all the people and all that noise makes things worse, and.......

The problem is that indeed, you've gotten used to it. All of that has been your reality for long enough that you can't turn it off. But our culture has no place for people like this. Our culture is definitely not used to this, and won't get used to this. Relationships cannot handle the strain, so they disintegrate. And employers don't put up with that shit, no matter how cool they are. And lots of people don't try to get help, even in places where the VA normally does a good job and knows how to handle these problems. So in the end, completely alienated by the rest of their communities, some kill themselves. Others end up on the street. Others spend the rest of their lives teetering on the edge of sanity, trying to play a trivial, vapid game with trivial, vapid rules that are always at odds with the life-or-death rules of combat they're wired for. And this is actually why people don't understand unless they've been over there.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#135
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A calf is no more perfect than the wolf that rips it apart and eats it. There's no reason to assume other people are like you, and that if someone's not, that they're better or worse, broken or holy.

Apples and oranges. I'd wager that most people would agree that there is something fundamentally broken with a calf that rips apart other calves.

Right. To assume people are anything like calves, is incredibly delusional.

Valuing human life for it's own sake is an incredibly recent phenomena, and the jury is still out on whether or not it's a good idea, since we make trade-offs everyday, we just pretend otherwise. (Speed limit on vehicles being the most popular example of this, we could decrease the speed limit and save lives, but it'd inconvenience many people, so we don't.)

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#136

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…

Art or skill is an interesting way to look at it. There are a couple somewhat opposing social skills that seem to make like easier, or more bearable, for those who possess them. One is the ability to schmooze people, or even just remember their names and faces, easily.

The other is what you describe: not taking shit from others. But in the more artful way you described. I still think being a schmoozer a more useful superpower. But being able to signal that pushing you will be more trouble than it's worth seems to help avoid trouble.

I often think about the violent climax of Do the Right Thing. There's the melee in the pizza parlor which ends with the police killing Radio Raheem. Then, as things seem to be calming down, Spike Lee's character, who works at the parlor, picks up a trash can and throws it through the parlor's window. It leads to a full-scale riot.

The first time I watched the film, I was a bit puzzled by his action and even put off by it. Now I feel like it is the right thing to do. For the reason you described here: not as an act, not even as an act of catharsis which is how I expect it often gets read. But as a communication device. As an argument on behalf of violent resistance.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#137

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…

> 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. Somehow this feels right, although that's just intuition on my part.

I've just started reading Robert Sapolsky's book, Behave, and this is how he frames his study of human biology. Around violence. From the introduction:

We are always shadowed by the threat of other humans harming us.

If that were solely the way things are, violence would be an easy problem to approach intellectually. AIDS--unambiguously bad news--eradicate. Alzheimer's disease--same thing. Schizophrenia, cancer, malnutrition, flesh-eating bacteria, global warming, comets hitting earth--ditto.

The problem, though, is that violence doesn't go on that list. Sometimes we have no problem with it at all.

This is the central point of this book--we don't hate violence.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#138

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.

[deleted]

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I feel like you’re arguing the obvious, something your OP almost certainly understands.

Actually I think your point would be stronger if your agreed with them—that sports do substitute for war in important ways, and use your knowledge and experience to show specifically where and when that stops being true.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Some good candidates:

Talking.

Giving up.

Waiting.

Doing the math.

Bringing in a third party.

Reading.

Experimentation.

Taking a nap.

Eating.

Spending money.

Machining.

Being nice.

Post reply on HN