Live data from Hacker News

A violently true depiction of what war really is

mediumdifficulty.com

31–40 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#31

I can't imagine how anyone enjoys games like these unless they really are sociopaths. War is when young men go die for the old men's mistakes and kill a lot of women in children in the process.

"Bang! You're dead." "No I'm not! No I'm not!"

Sociopaths?

That's all these games are. If you seriously can't understand how normal, empathic people could enjoy playing pretend, then you, not they, are the one who has difficulty distinguishing reality from fiction.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#32

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

"If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath."

I have no problem with the notion that our society is sociopathic or at least on a fast pace towards it.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#33
post #15
post #7

Being ex-military and not a sociopath -- he lost me when he said that the "vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths" We constantly made decisions that increased the risk to ourselves while trying to minimize the risk to civilians. That is not a mindset of a sociopath.

In your experience, what determines the degree to which a unit will uphold such standards vs. degenerating into what the OP calls "sociopaths"? Is it a matter of training? leadership? character?

Hmm. As I read the article, it seemed like the author was alternating between suggesting that experience was what turned people that way ("he was the FNG [ed: fucking new guy] that got blown up because he was incompetent, who left the fight before it turned him into one of us."), and suggesting that there is something else at play ("only roughly 20% of combat troops ever get PTSD – when if you think about it, it should affect everyone that ever sees combat."). I read it as him carefully suggesting that the career self-selects for sociopathic tendencies.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#34

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

> War is part of society

War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't settle disputes by mass murder.

> If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath.

Are you kidding me? Society can't tell a person to go kill somebody. A person tells another person to kill somebody. It is this absurd respect for authority that makes these wars possible, combined with a lack of personal accountability. Didn't we learn the lesson of the second World War?

> The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s [...] As it is now, the vast majority of civilians have absolutely no idea what military service is like, as the author points out.

That was the entire point of ending conscription! Vietnam became a huge PR nightmare because average kids from middle class families had to fight in it. That's why it got constant media attention. That's why people protested in the streets. The people don't mind war as long as it doesn't affect them personally, and poor people have no say anyway. So now poor kids with few options are recruited into the military. Problem solved.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What games? MW and the like, or the hypothetical game he was describing?

Any type of game where you shoot another human being is F*d up. The hypothetical scenario where you can accidentally kill innocents does not justify the game.

The game does not have to 'justify' itself to you, or anyone. It is what it is - a virtual world where human conflict drives the story and the mechanics, and the goal is entertainment. And if people like playing games where other humans are enemy, what does that tell you about people?

Maybe you have not noticed, but violence is part of human nature, and our creative works (of all kinds) have used this because, for better or for worse, it mirrors us. If you don't like the reflection, don't look.

I don't suppose you think any book where humans kill humans is also 'F*d up'? What about movies? Or is it only acceptable when they provide moral overtones you agree with?

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#36

"the vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths" Society can't function without socially acceptable outlets for this and other anti-social behaviors. That is the best justification I have found for a long list of things that don't seem to make sense in an enlightened society. What would the world be like if we didn't have the Army and NFL? A lot of people would find new, more chaotic outlets for their aggression.

I think fewer people would have a problem with this if the outlet for sociopathic aggression didn't involve detonating women and children

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#38
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>martial arts won't help This is patently false and completely ridiculous. Someone who is trained to take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight.

How so? All I ever heard from people who did serious martial arts is that an attacker with a weapon will always be in advantage, and an attacker with no moral qualms even more so. Your karate won't help you much if someone attacks you with a knife, or a shattered bottle.

I guess I understand what you are trying to say, but you can't seriously think you, with a knife in hand, are going to kick an unarmed Bruce Lee's ass?

(using Bruce Lee because he is internationally famous, but assume I mean any world-renowned, elite trained multi-dimensional fighter)

The person still needs to be trained how to use a knife in combat. Have you ever stabbed anybody? (I haven't) but it seems obvious that it would be a lot harder than you'd think. (what is the proper grip? how do you thrust, how not to break your wrist, obviously can't go lunging blindly because if you miss your momentum carries you to a defenseless position... lot's of things going on here)

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#39
post #37
post #7

Being ex-military and not a sociopath -- he lost me when he said that the "vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths" We constantly made decisions that increased the risk to ourselves while trying to minimize the risk to civilians. That is not a mindset of a sociopath.

[deleted]

It’s because the vast majority of us are straight up sociopaths.

I don't think this can be taken out of context.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#40

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. I usually like most of your contributions, but reasoning like this bugs me. "Society" in your reasoning is being treated something like a mathematical set. Society isn't so cleanly defined. Even for that, one could still have psychopathic tendencies, be told to by society to go and kill, but go and kill for comple…

I must be missing what ticked you off here.

We set up a system where society approves of the use of lethal force. (In fact, many believe the true defining characteristic of a government is the monopoly in the use of force) People are instructed by this system to go kill people.

As long as that's all the information we have, there's nothing to indicate that these people care nothing about societal norms. In fact, they might actually be less sociopathic than those who do not serve. The only thing we'rd offered is descriptions of the cavalier attitude they have towards death, but, yet again, this is not an indicator of being a sociopath. Perhaps a callous and heartless person. Perhaps a crazy person. Perhaps as you point out they may actually be sociopaths. But nothing in this article tells us one way or another. Instead we're presented with these experiences as being the "true" nature of the entire conflict, and then the brutal and crass attitudes observed as being indicative of some sort of psychiatric disorder. That's just a little too much wringing of the hands and over-reaching for my comfort.

There is a premise here: going off and sneaking through the high grass to kill somebody in a brutal and bloody fashion without remorse is indicative of a psychiatric disorder. I'd like to explore that idea. But this article doesn't go there. Instead it's trying to be a "yeah, well this is how it really is, kid." and all I'm saying is to take such stories -- no matter what their slant -- with a gain of salt.

If it makes you feel any better, if the author had written the same tough-guy-been-there story with the soldiers all acting like boy scouts I would feel the same way. The only difference is that there would be plenty of folks willing to take that apart for me, so no comment would be needed.

Post reply on HN