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

A violently true depiction of what war really is

mediumdifficulty.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#41

Post by itmag »

As a personal development junkie, I find war to be very problematic (well duh). Killing people is just so... unenlightened.

Then again, I find the warrior ethos or what you might call the male Warrior archetype to be of great interest. It's pretty obvious that this is something that the modern world very much lacks, at least we don't have any formal initiation rites for it (going to Marine boot camp might qualify though).

For more reading, check out this book: http://www.masculinity-movies.com/articles/king-warrior-magi...

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#42

Post by Alex3917 »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

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…

"Not only can the military manipulate public opinion through selective release of information, other soldiers like this one can also."

It's illegal for a soldier to even tell a reporter how they feel about the war, whereas the military has a propaganda budget of several tens of billions of dollars per year to control what gets shown on TV, in movies, in newspapers, etc. Yes, a retired soldier could theoretically spin something, but in reality they have basically 0 percent control over the way that war is portrayed and sold to society.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#43

Post by cglace »

Nitramp wrote: post #28
angrycoder wrote: post #23

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 it depends on what form of martial arts you are talking about. Some only focus on "dirty fighting". The whole purpose is to maim the other person so that they have no choice but to quit fighting.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#44

Post by phaus »

dfc wrote: post #26
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

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…

Why are you "sure this author isn't one of those people"?

If he came out and made a bunch of ridiculous claims about actual events, I would find it appropriate to assume that he was a liar.

In this article, his ridiculous claim was simply his personal opinion about the psychological state of the average soldier, so I find it pretty likely that he was actually a soldier, even though his opinion is clearly wrong.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#45

Post by jakeonthemove »

angrycoder wrote: post #23
jakeonthemove wrote: post #11

Street fights and other violent encounters are the same. There is no honor, no right way to fight and nothing good comes out of it except you surviving. It's nothing like video games - martial arts won't help (well, beyond helping keep you in shape), a bullet will kill you in a horrible, slow way (dying instantly means you're lucky) or leave you with a disability for life, a simple knife slash will leave you in a hos…

>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.

I meant situations where you're at a disadvantage - as I said, doing any kind of martial arts will keep you in shape and will decrease your reaction time (unless you "freeze" in a real situation), but when you don't know how your attacker will move or he's got a weapon in their hands, it's not of much help (not as much as most instructors make it out to be, anyway).

And you'd be surprised at how many hits a fat, untrained drunk man can take and dish out, especially once adrenaline kicks in...

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#46

Post by cellis »

gizmo wrote: post #34
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

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 lac…

Politicians are the body and voice of society. I hate to expose an ugly truth to you, but it is not a single person deciding to go to war. It takes many people to nod in agreement before bombs start being dropped and troops start marching.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#48

Post by angersock »

cpursley wrote: post #22
icebraining wrote: post #18

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.

If you accidentally kill innocents you probably aren't very good at the game.

(ammo is a precious resource)

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#49

Post by tfb »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

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…

There are some logical flaws with the sociopath label, but there is certainly some truth to it, at least from my own experience. I'll provide a single example.

One of my childhood bullies - let's call him Tom - is most definitely a sociopath, and he joined the marines, along with his two brothers who are not unlike him. All three of these guys have been violent for as long as I've known them. During middle school and high school (and the couple years after where he happened to live in the same city as my university), he would pick fights with anyone and everyone for the dumbest reasons. I think he did it just to do it. Oddly enough, despite all the bullying and "shittalk" towards me over the years, he never fought me - although we did come close a couple of times but I just laughed at his stupidity and that was that. One of the last "conversations" I had with Tom was shortly before he went off to boot camp (or whatever you want to call it) and I asked him why he was going; he explained that he had nothing else better to do so he might as well go kill some people. He said those exact words, and he was dead serious.

If you're wondering why I didn't avoid the guy like the plague, it's because he and I had a lot of the same friends and he would always throw parties as his house to which my friends would invite me. Despite Tom's overly violent behavior, he was always very popular with the ladies, and most people really liked him. This is the same guy who posts pictures of himself on facebook cutting off the heads of goats in his marine gear. My theory is that because of his aggressive behavior (and using it to "dominate" others), people perceived him as an alpha male. Can I get a second opinion on this? Because so many people liking such a violent sociopath has always bothered and confused me.

Back on topic though... while Tom and his brothers are an example of some confirmation of the article's statements, as far as marines (or army, navy, etc.) go, for every Tom I've known, I've also known at least a few very easy-going men. So the author is partially right but his argument is flawed. Violent sociopaths without education probably do gravitate towards the military and war, but the statistics have got to be way off - not nearly 80% - but that's just from the small sample set of my experiences.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#50

Post by muhfuhkuh »

Nitramp wrote: post #28
angrycoder wrote: post #23

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.

Low-level, trained MMA fighters would wreck a street brawling toughman 10/10 times. If they rush the MMA fighter with a broken bottle, they'd get slammed to the floor on their own velocity and the MMA fighter would twist around, take their back, grab and arm, get their legs around it pull. Good luck fighting with a broken arm.

We saw it play out recently. Remember Kimbo Slice? If you don't, he used to post videos of him beating the crap out of regular dudes in street fights for money. He became a legend. People were saying he was unstoppable. He went to the UFC based on that and lost just about every major match he was in. Why? Because he doesn't train for the various martial arts the way even the lowliest fighter does there. He's currently in boxing, now, and likely will be back fighting normal people in the street for 500 bucks again.

Seriously, you think guys who train 8 hours a day in Muay Thai and Jiu Jitsu aren't going to be good at beating you up? You think some street thug would rough up Junior Dos Santos or Anderson Silva? They would KILL the common man, likely in short order. A broken glass would just make them more careful about it (and piss them off even more).

This isn't even to say if Silva grabbed a glass, too. Then what?

Post reply on HN