Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Men Love War (1984)

esquire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#171

Post by fapjacks »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #169
fapjacks wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody signs the dotted line to sit in a tower or stand around at a checkpoint for twelve hours a day, but even the gunners have to go to the motor pool to PMCS the vehicles every once in a while. Perhaps the specific, historical role of "concentration camp guard" was a job fulfilled by a specific section of the SS, but the underlying point remains. They were not any less human than you are. This makes people uncomfo…

> Nobody signs the dotted line to sit in a tower or stand aroun Few people sign the dotted line for what's described in the article either, it's something that happens after they get there, and doesn't happen to a guard in the middle of controlled territory. > They were not any less human than you are. But for completely different reasons than the thrill of violence and war-fighting.

The military is a huge community of people in the United States -- about two million people -- and we can't talk in any other sense than the general one. But my experience directly contradicts your first assertion. Were you in the military? It would be useful to tell us about your experience. Because I would say most people join combat arms specifically for what's described in the article. Nobody joins the infantry for any other reason (or perhaps a few with a family tradition or something). Even then, I never met a soldier in almost fourteen years that joined for the minutiae of guard duty or peeling potatoes or mopping floors. Combat, "adventure", college money, steady paycheck, service to country, family tradition, getting the hell out of town. Those are the big reasons people join.

I think you're still trying to put the Nazi SS concentration camp guard into a category of his own -- which is what most "normal" people want to do, to sort of implicitly deny that they could ever do such a thing. And I'm not sure how else I can address this denial other than with what's already been written, except to say that you don't know what you're capable of if you think that you or your family members or your friends couldn't ever be a party to these kinds of things. People are animals and products of their environment. Add a layer of abstraction, and you are ever bit as dangerous as the Nazis you've read about. This may seem astonishing and shocking, but it's true. Hitler was a human being. Genghis Khan was a human being. There will be another person like this in the future, and perhaps it will shock you to learn that they, too, will be a human being.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#172

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

tim333 wrote: post #162
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But isn't Taleb's core criticism precisely the lack of rigorous statistics backing Pinker's claims? I mean you can't just write a book with claims in it backed by pretty graphs and data and then go "sorry, was never meant to be hard science lol". Because then we're in bullshitting territory, unless I missed your point?

You're dealing with the sweep of human history over centuries and there isn't really a clear data set to do stats on. So given that I think Pinker's approach is about as good as you can do. But none of it is 100% conclusive - it's more a bunch of fuzzy data pointing the same way. You can get his argument in about 10 mins in his talks - here's one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjT4HlNJNgI The book is much the same a…

Yeah that Guardian article nails it. Taleb can't do nuance - its all black and white. I believe this is both his strength and his greatest weakness.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#173

Post by supergirl »

it is more like why men with tanks love war against people with sticks. if this guy got horribly injured he would still love war? if his city back home was bombed into the ground he would still look back with joy at his shenanigans in vietnamese whorehouses?

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#174

Post by theredking »

supergirl wrote: post #173

it is more like why men with tanks love war against people with sticks. if this guy got horribly injured he would still love war? if his city back home was bombed into the ground he would still look back with joy at his shenanigans in vietnamese whorehouses?

In way yes, it is not really about winning it is about being truly at the edge of your abilities mentally and physically though I understand your sentiment there is something innately human about war, about being on your limits, facing death and standing tall surely it is not beautiful and we can argue the ethics and motivations but it is a part of what makes us human.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#175

Post by supergirl »

theredking wrote: post #174
supergirl wrote: post #173

it is more like why men with tanks love war against people with sticks. if this guy got horribly injured he would still love war? if his city back home was bombed into the ground he would still look back with joy at his shenanigans in vietnamese whorehouses?

In way yes, it is not really about winning it is about being truly at the edge of your abilities mentally and physically though I understand your sentiment there is something innately human about war, about being on your limits, facing death and standing tall surely it is not beautiful and we can argue the ethics and motivations but it is a part of what makes us human.

I'm not saying it's about winning, I'm saying he will find it too painful to remember "being on his limits, facing death, etc." if he was in a real war where his side also suffered losses or he was injured, captured, etc. those painful memories would dominate his view

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#176

Post by SigmundA »

em3rgent0rdr wrote: post #168
SigmundA wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Statehood and by extension society is pretty much defined by the "monopoly on violence" [1]. As much as I dislike it, it is a pretty much a law of physics, if you you don't have a monopoly on violence someone else will, some one must wield it, power vacuums will be filled. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence

Yet in international relations there is no monopoly on violence. So maybe it isn't a law of physics?

"However, this monopoly is limited to a certain geographical area, and in fact this limitation to a particular area is one of the things that defines a state."

International relations is a manifestation of multiple monopolies on violence in different geographic areas interacting.

They either find some sort of equilibrium for a period of time or they war and new boundaries are defined.

The law of physics statement was hyperbole, but my point is anarchy doesn't last, it is quickly replaced with a monopoly of violence, because it has to be.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#177

Post by JackCh »

fapjacks wrote: post #167
JackCh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a small minority, but probably not as rare as you make it out to be: https://www.quora.com/What-percentage-of-people-are-psychopa... I don't mean any offense by this, I'm trying to say it delicately, but I think "anybody who brags about killing in combat is lying" is something of 'white lie', probably earnestly believed by most who repeat it, meant to preserve the reputation of combat veterans as a whole…

Good luck in your quest to nail down precise numbers. You'll never get there, but I wish you luck in any case.

I'm not on a quest for precise numbers.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#178

Post by Dylan16807 »

fapjacks wrote: post #171
Dylan16807 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody signs the dotted line to sit in a tower or stand aroun Few people sign the dotted line for what's described in the article either, it's something that happens after they get there, and doesn't happen to a guard in the middle of controlled territory. > They were not any less human than you are. But for completely different reasons than the thrill of violence and war-fighting.

The military is a huge community of people in the United States -- about two million people -- and we can't talk in any other sense than the general one. But my experience directly contradicts your first assertion. Were you in the military? It would be useful to tell us about your experience. Because I would say most people join combat arms specifically for what's described in the article. Nobody joins the infantry f…

> Because I would say most people join combat arms specifically for what's described in the article.

Interesting, because the article strongly implies that it's strongly something you find on the battlefield, not go there for it.

>I think you're still trying to put the Nazi SS concentration camp guard into a category of his own -- which is what most "normal" people want to do, to sort of implicitly deny that they could ever do such a thing.

Why do you think that when I explicitly agreed with you? I'm not trying to deny it at all. I'm saying it's not what the article is about.

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#179

Post by mariodiana »

fapjacks wrote: post #145
erikpukinskis wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For my arguing something so obvious, you sure seem to have missed what I said. You think my point would be stronger if I agreed with the parent instead of disagreed... Except that my point is that I do not agree with his post at all and it's obvious that he does not almost certainly understand the difference. Suggesting team sports as a "good substitute" for wartime experience plainly demonstrates a lack of understan…

I'm inclined to agree with you. I just want to add something I heard said by a retired NFL player in an interview. He said that when he was on the field playing football, he "knew he was alive, on planet Earth."

I'm guessing he was talking about an immediate, all-consuming experience—a Zen kind of thing that he experienced, playing a physically tough and dangerous game at the world class level.

I cannot believe that that compares with what you describe. But I'm inclined to believe that there is some kind of continuum to which both experiences belong. Can you allow for the possibility that the football playing described by the athlete is at least a pale facsimile?

Re: Why Men Love War (1984)

#180

Post by w_t_payne »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #148
w_t_payne wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humanity is what happens when we tame human nature.

I think “civilization” might be a better word for that.

I used 'humanity' to link to humanitarianism and the humanities.

Civilisation has ... other connotations.

Post reply on HN