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

George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

gutenberg.net.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 600 posts

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#141

Post by MichaelCollins »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #112
zozbot234 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kids just don't know any better. I would imagine that those who actually spent some of their childhood in a war zone would have a very different perspective. What's toxic is when grownups end up glorifying war or thinking of it as a solution to hard problems.

Eh, war is simply fun. It’s appealing to males in particular, and our testosterone tends to lock in the intoxication. There’s a reason that Battlefield is one of the most successful gaming franchises of all time, and that it’s very hard to find any videogame that doesn’t involve some kind of warfare. (There are dozens of wonderful counter examples: Minecraft, celeste, undertale, sim city, stardew valley. But for ever…

Even minecraft has combat in the default game mode. No guns, but it does have swords, axes, arrows, and numerous kinds of explosives.

Obviously it's better than Grand Theft Auto, but it definitely falls short of pure pacifism.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#142

Post by kruuuder »

refurb wrote: post #90
alex_sf wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why that's toxic. Striving, struggle, and violence are critical for any living thing to survive. Short of reaching post-scarcity, this can't change. If we define toxic as harmful, then violence is the opposite. It's the only reason we have civilization.

Pretty much this. Humans are not peaceful by nature. And when one group of humans want something another group of humans don’t want them to have, violence is the ultimate option to solving that conflict. Thankfully many countries see the cost of solving conflict through violence and seek to avoid it, but it’s always there.

> Humans are not peaceful by nature

I also believed this until recently when I finished reading "Humankind: A Hopeful History" by Rutger Bregman. What an amazing book ... Bregman analyzes why we commonly believe that humans are not peaceful and that this assumption turns into a self-fulfilling prophecy. But there is surprisingly little evidence that being aggressive or violent is in our nature, pretty much the opposite is true.

To me, reading this book did the opposite of what reading the news usually does: I finished every chapter with an optimistic smile. :)

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#143

Post by swayvil »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #7
swayvil wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him Hard to get more black and white than that.

I would certainly kill him, and I also feel great animosity towards him.

That would be blacker and whiter.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#144

Post by alex_sf »

michaelchisari wrote: post #116
refurb wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much this. Humans are not peaceful by nature. And when one group of humans want something another group of humans don’t want them to have, violence is the ultimate option to solving that conflict. Thankfully many countries see the cost of solving conflict through violence and seek to avoid it, but it’s always there.

| Humans are not peaceful by nature You can't make a broad sweeping generalization like this. There have been so many peaceful, even pacifist civilizations throughout history. That they have been wiped out or dominated by the violent ones is a valid historical point, but it doesn't disprove that human "nature" can just as easily be peaceful, given the right conditions. Failing to protect yourself from external violen…

That's semantics imo. If pacifism results in extinction, then any revision of human nature that involves it is irrelevant. Humans don't exist without violence.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#145

Post by waffle_ss »

koheripbal wrote: post #72
tomkat0789 wrote: post #30

I think he highlights some fundamentally toxic aspects of human nature with this bit: “The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do.” The engineer in me wishes we could substitute the soldiers with construction workers or something, but I can’t deny enjoying war games growing up. These da…

It's interesting that Socialism was so synonymous with pacifism in the early 20th century, and how that radically changed. Mussolini famously broke with his Socialist Party to abandon the pacifist doctrine of Socialism and form his own movement which he called Fascism.

That speaks more to socialism's enduring PR successes than reality. Lenin's Red Army didn't roll into Poland in 1918 to spread worldwide revolutionary socialism with just flowers and poetry. That happened basically immediately proceeding from the success of the October Revolution.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#146

Post by agumonkey »

MikePlacid wrote: post #119
agumonkey wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

a few personal notes: - as kids we all did fight games, from just kung fu fights for fun, to team fights where we somehow considered a group strongly as "not our friends" - maybe remains of evolution needs to make kids ready to fight for survival ? it might sound primitive but some bits are important because life may become chaos and ability to secure your own vital space is life critical (even in a modern world)

>as kids we all did fight games My daughter would not have touched toy soldiers with a stick. And her older brother always picked up war movies from a dump on the floor, while she picked up only films about "relationships". >team fights where we somehow considered a group strongly as "not our friends" I was amazed, watching myself playing on a PvP server in World of Warcraft, how easy it is to hate another faction -…

Yeah, no need for semantics, we agree on evolution "emergent" property.. I was just trying to explain that the aggressive nature of boys is not just a poor defect. In a random bath of beings, if you're too passive, the more aggressive ones will stomp you brainlessly.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#148

Post by notch656a »

zozbot234 wrote: post #39
tomkat0789 wrote: post #30

I think he highlights some fundamentally toxic aspects of human nature with this bit: “The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won’t do.” The engineer in me wishes we could substitute the soldiers with construction workers or something, but I can’t deny enjoying war games growing up. These da…

Kids just don't know any better. I would imagine that those who actually spent some of their childhood in a war zone would have a very different perspective. What's toxic is when grownups end up glorifying war or thinking of it as a solution to hard problems.

I spent some time in Northern Syria and there were quite a few "child" soldiers there (mostly teenagers), as well as people who grew up as children in war. I'm sure it was partially a coping mechanism, but I found many of them embraced and enjoyed their existence fighting the enemy that claimed the lives of their family members. The military also provides a sort of place for brotherhood and oddly stability (food / depending on where youre stationed shelter) at least until things really go sidewise.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#149

Post by the_only_law »

shostack wrote: post #80
Latty wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see a lot of children playing Minecraft, or when older, Factorio on pacifist modes where they can focus on "the good bit" of building something. Historically war management was what was available, I remember enjoying building a city in Age of Empires more than the battles, and I think with the options available, while combat will always be popular and engaging, it does have alternatives some people enjoy more.

I love the survival crafting genre but am so dismayed that the best games have gone heavy into combat or thriller directions. And I've played most of them. There may be a way to set a peaceful mode but it is rarely if ever a fully fleshed out experience.

That genre seems to be in the midst of a rush, with every publisher Indy or large trying to pump out games in that genre.

I generally like it, but my steam queue are now filled to the brim with crappy, rushed survival games trying to copy everything else all because I played Ark and Valheim a few times.

Re: George Orwell’s 1940 Review of Mein Kampf

#150

Post by zozbot234 »

pydry wrote: post #67
zozbot234 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big part of early 20th-c. sociology was specifically concerned with their equivalent of "elite overproduction". The problem as they saw it was not so much "losers" in anything like an objective sense, but aspiring elites who viewed themselves as oppressed losers out of a misguided sense of entitlement.

"Elite overproduction" is the elites' own term for too many disaffected college graduates packing boxes at amazon (or equivalent). Put enough of them to work there and many will radicalize and unionize. Having an education and little investment in the existing social order makes them a dangerous political wildcard. I doubt the Economist is fretting about incels shooting up shopping malls when they use this term. They…

> Having an education and little investment in the existing social order

The problem back then was the latter. Many of them were not interested in productive work of any kind, simply because their pre-modern worldview would've equated this with a loss of station. Hence the sense of "elite" entitlement and ensuing "radicalization".

Post reply on HN