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

101–110 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#101

Post by run4yourlives »

scott_s wrote: post #74
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You may be interested in Dave Grossman's "On Killing": http://www.amazon.com/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-Soci... Grossman is a Psychology professor at West Point (or was when he wrote this), and a former Army Ranger, although he never saw combat. His conclusion is actually similar to the author of this piece. First, he argues, with evidence, that humans have a pretty high disposition to not kill each other unle…

On Killing DOES NOT agree with the premise that soldiers are sociopaths. It makes the exact opposite claim. He says that tools that have been employed to increase firing rates have themselves increased the PTSD rate to astronomical levels.

PTSD's existence itself (at levels since Vietnam) proves that W's thesis is incorrect. Grossman's allowance for sociopathic behaviour is a demonstrated, consistent 2%.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#102

Post by run4yourlives »

bdunbar wrote: post #96
run4yourlives wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great post. I too noticed that the author's "combat experiences" seemed to be more about relating the experiences of his friends than his own personal thoughts and feelings. The best analysis I've seen about the combatant are the works of LCol. Grossman. On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here.

On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here. This might be because W is an intelligent Brit who enlisted as a private solider. Grossman is an intelligent American who accepted a commission. Different experiences, different cultures.

Grossman is a psychology professor, specializing in the psychology of killing and its effects on humans.

Add "different skillset" to your comparison while you are at it.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#103

Post by javert »

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…

The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s.

My life is my own to live. It's not your right to dispose of it. The draft is a massive violation of individual rights.

If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting.

In my view, mandatory conscription is one of those first-class evils that we need to dismiss as a society---like genocide, slavery, and denying women the right to vote.

My father was drafted to Vietnam, and although he survived the war, I think it damaged him badly and in turn damaged me.

So please consider whether you really want to advocate the draft.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#104

Post by noarchy »

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…

>The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. With a draft and mandatory conscription, everybody had the common experience of serving and perhaps doing really bad things in the line of duty. As it is now, the vast majority of civilians have absolutely no idea what military service is like, as the author points out.

The last time there was coerced/forced military service in the US, many people here were not alive. Imagine how the disproportionately-libertarian leaning crowd in places like HN would react to being compelled to serve in the military.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#105

Post by CodeMage »

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 a part of society that the vast majority of that society likes to keep romanticized and far away from home. The idea that the "society tells you to go kill somebody" is a gross oversimplification.

And claiming that a society made you do something and therefore you can't be called sociopath for doing it is not exactly the soundest excuse, because you can ultimately blame everything on the society.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#106

Post by bdunbar »

run4yourlives wrote: post #102
bdunbar wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here. This might be because W is an intelligent Brit who enlisted as a private solider. Grossman is an intelligent American who accepted a commission. Different experiences, different cultures.

Grossman is a psychology professor, specializing in the psychology of killing and its effects on humans. Add "different skillset" to your comparison while you are at it.

Before he was a professor of psychology he was an NCO, a company commander ...

I thought 'different skillset' went without saying (smile).

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#107

Post by Scriptor »

gizmo wrote: post #71
spindritf wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civilized society? Yes, of course. It came to existence when Ghengis Khan united nomadic tribes but so did the countries in Europe -- Franks were a confederation of tribes, Poland was founded by a tribe subduing its neighbours, etc, etc. That is how civilization is born. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't be able to reach Europe. That is why we call them the Mongol Empire.

Oh c'mon. If you define civilized society that broadly than anything capable of organized warfare is by definition a civilized society. It would be a pointless tautology. In that context my response that systematic murder is uncivilized (and that therefore a society that engages in systematic murder is an uncivilized society) becomes a direct contradiction in terms. So that's obviously not what I meant. When I speak…

The Mongols may not have had cities (besides Karakorum, the capital). However, by the time Genghis Khan's conquests were under way they had a written alphabet, a very highly organized military structure, a complex legal code, freedom of religion, and a postal system that was unrivaled until the Pony Express was established in the US. They were generally far more sophisticated than you give them credit for and their system of warfare was more than just 'tribal'. Sure, they used hit and run tactics, but a great deal of logistics and organization is required to besiege cities.

Sacking cities and killing the inhabitants was nothing new. The Crusaders did it at the end of the siege of Acre during the 3rd crusade. Khan actually gave the cities he attacked a chance to surrender and be spared.

Also, the term "barbarian" is loose, vague, and sometimes downright irresponsible when talking about history. Different cultures have viewed others as barbarians throughout history. Unless we're talking about one of these specific cases (such as the Greeks calling those north of them barbarians, or the ancient Chinese calling everyone around them that) it's a meaningless term. Would you call tying peasants to the land and severely limiting their rights and freedom to even move around a barbaric practice? Or is it just cruel or unfair?

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#108

Post by Cushman »

Homunculiheaded wrote: post #73
Cushman wrote: post #13

Reminds me of my father (who was in the Airborne) looking over my shoulder playing the training in America's Army. "That's pretty realistic. Do they have a level where you have to go knock on somebody's door and tell them their son was killed in a training exercise?" That said, I feel like this article, like the censors, gives video games much too much credit. Glorification of violence is everywhere in our culture an…

I actually think a bigger problem is not the fear of violence leaving the screen and coming into daily life, but that we increasingly see violence as 'that things that happens behind a screen, its pretty entertaining'. I have no data to back this up, but the general population certainly seems to be more 'meh' about US military actions abroad. I think your father's reaction was responding to the issue that you've triv…

I really don't see how it could be true that US citizens are "meh" about military action. We treat military casualties in the single digits as tragedies. We're somewhat less adverse to collateral damage, but compared to Vietnam, let alone the wholesale firebombings of WWII, even that is (and I hope everyone will pardon me for saying it) pretty minimal.

That's the essence of Pinker's point-- the more aware we become of each individual death, the less violent we become, but the more violent we feel. Violent video games are probably the pinnacle of expression of that: our culture is so safe and so risk averse that we become upset by 100% fictional violence which hurts literally no one.

And I feel the comparison between murder and rape is pretty much invalid, for the reason you state. We do have a very serious rape problem, and again, it is obviously not because of all the rape video games out there, or glorification of rape in our culture. It's because real men do not learn to respect real women in the real world.

Again, that's what we should be talking about.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#109

Post by Karunamon »

orbitingpluto wrote: post #72
[deleted] wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

You didn't follow the train of thought there. I was ascribing (in a tongue-in-cheek manner) empathy issues to the person who was against these games. Not the people who play these games. Thank you for playing.

Welp - that's what I get for browsing HN in a bad mood. My bad, deleting :)

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#110

Post by angersock »

javert wrote: post #103
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…

The United States made a huge mistake in moving to an all-volunteer army in the 1970s. My life is my own to live. It's not your right to dispose of it. The draft is a massive violation of individual rights. If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting. In my view, mandatory conscription is one of those first-class evils that we need to dismiss as a society---like…

While I do agree with you in some regards, there is a very real policy impact involved in having a professional all-volunteer army.

When you have to draft chunks of your population in order to conduct warfare, public opinion is very much against you if your cause is not 'just'.

"If a nation cannot get enough paid volunteers to fight a war, that war is simply not worth fighting."

The flaw here is that there are always going to be people available to fight for a chance at gold. Additionally, and even more troubling for the United States, we are increasingly reliant on machines to do this work for us--there is increasingly no meaningful connection between the citizenry and the hawkish body politic.

If we do not have drafts, nor the possibility of drafts, then we find ourselves in a position where either:

1. We do not fight, for war is not worth fighting.

2. We continue to fight, and find ways of reducing the human requirement even further than it is already.

(2) is much more likely, given the history of man and the way our tech is evolving.

At best, this implies that one day we'll have robots blowing up other robots, all made by autonomous factories--this is merely a farcical misallocation of resources.

At anything less than best, this implies that we'll have robots blowing up lots of civilians or other troops. It doesn't matter whether the lives lost are ours or not, it matters only that things are worse off.

I'd suggest that the United States solely use draftees, and that we pursue national policies that don't require us to deploy widely to hostile areas.

Post reply on HN