A violently true depiction of what war really is • Hacker News Board

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#181

Post by gnosis » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:37 AM UTC

bdunbar wrote: post #89

mattdeboard wrote: post #6

As a former Marine infantryman, and a former Marine PR idiot, I think his numbers are off but a lot of the concepts are right, with a caveat. It's not sociopathy of the organic sort. It's the kind of detachment from prolonged exposure to extreme, unmitigated stress. So don't take this article as justification to feel like there's something mentally wrong with people who join a combat arms unit.

Former 0311. After I EASd I realized that a _lot_ of perfectly normal behavior in the service is downright _weird_ in the civilian world. It was perfectly normal to make my rack (bed), tuck those hospital corners in, get the folds just so ... then sleep on top of the made bed, wrapped in a poncho liner or a comforter from the PX. Because you save time and hassle in the morning. Toss the blanket in the wall-locker, ti…

"After I EASd I realized that a _lot_ of perfectly normal behavior in the service is downright _weird_ in the civilian world. ... I think about some of the stuff I thought was funny, some of the things I did when I was 20, and I'm appalled."

This is part of the brilliance of the military: they mostly use young people who are still maturing and often don't know any better and brainwash them in to doing their bidding. Older, more experienced people are not so easily used.

I have a feeling if humans were physically feeble and infirm for their first 25 or 30 years and became fit and healthy afterwards, we'd have a lot less war.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#182

Post by pyre » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:40 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #175

leot wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, it's unlikely that a war is just if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to a draft. In the same way, if an administration can't convince everyone in the population to pay for a war with tax increases, then the war either isn't defensible or the administration is too stupid to wage it effectively. The worst possible situation is when you get a war that is fought by volunteers being paid with borrowed m…

Are you willing to apply this logic to policies you support? Is public education unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor in public schools? Is care for old people unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor cleaning old people's bedpans? (I'm assuming you support these two policies, based purely on the observation that most people do.)

Are you really attempting to say that going to war is just as serious as public education or elderly care-giving?

The gist (which seems to be going over your head), is that the decision to go to war is not one that should be made lightly. If you don't have any 'skin in the game,' then you're more apt to make the decision lightly (or just be apathetic, letting others make the decision).

Instituting a draft increases the chances that someone you know may die as a result of the decision to go to war. It's easy to make the decision to go to war if someone else's friends/family are the ones making the actual sacrifice. For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids on the front-lines?

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#183

Post by kevinkemp » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:40 AM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #56

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're being too literal about the word psychopath. The original article claims, in essence, that war creates an environment where ordinary people can kill without it affecting them much personally. That is, from a behavioral point of view, what psychopaths do in regular society. The article definitely isn't claiming that the 5% of so of humanity that is genetically incapable of feeling (much) empathy (i.e. sociopath…

I'm not sure that the math doesn't work out. I'd think that 80% of the part of the military that actively engages in combat is well below 5% of the population. I'd consider it obvious that psychopaths would be much more likely to join a group of people where they would be tolerated, perhaps even glorified while also giving them an outlet for their tendencies.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#184

Post by ObjectiveSub » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:43 AM UTC

On a similar note: I recently watched the movie "Act of Valor". I had no idea it was one big propaganda piece before I got in. As soon as the movie started I thought "Yep, here we go. 110 minutes of pure army PR".

What I thought was more interesting were the comments on the reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. You can check them out for yourself here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/act_of_valor/ It is a shit movie; no doubt about it. What I find interesting are the comments on the reviews that the critics gave.

Critics of course correctly pointed out how this movie is basically an advertisement paid for by the Navy. However, any critic that dared to give a bad review or even mention the word "propaganda" was attacked by countless posters that were shouting how he is a "damned liberal" and how the soldiers "die for [him] everyday to protect [his] freedom".

I do not understand the glorification of soldiers and I probably never will. War is a horrible, horrible thing. Soldiers are professional killers. As Voltaire said: "All murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets"

There is no glory or honor in war (more specifically the current situation in Afghanistan/Iraq). The soldier sure as hell did not die for you. He most likely died protecting his comrades that he has been living with for the last 4 years. The soldier probably doesn't even give a shit about you. The Army is not defending America's "way of life". Terrorists do not hate you because of your "freedoms". As a Canadian, I really don't understand why my opinion is so frowned upon in the US.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#185

Post by mst » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:45 AM UTC

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…

When I was younger, I remember playing a game called Aces Over Europe. I took a pilot character through to 1943 or so. Then he got shot down, and he was dead. Weeks of playing. No respawning. I spent about thirty seconds wanting to cry about him being dead, and then remember my grandfather surviving world war II, just, and spending the rest of his night waking up screaming from the memories, and didn't play war games after that.

Maybe things have changed, game wise. I can't say whether that means anything though.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#186

Post by cglace » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:47 AM UTC

bdunbar wrote: post #99

JS_startup wrote: post #64

I like one point in particular that he touched on. That is, the military's careful manipulation of the media and public perception and the lens through which we view military personnel. I know I'm supposed to laud infantrymen as brave and patriotic (which is why I'd never voice this in public), but frankly..nearly every frontline veteran I've ever met seems like an uneducated, violent and scary thug. I know that's ba…

but frankly..nearly every frontline veteran I've ever met seems like an uneducated, violent and scary thug. I never went to war, but I was a rifleman in the Marines, spent eight years there. One thing I've noticed about me, and other guys like me, is that you'd never know on first acquaintance that I was a Marine. Commonly heard: But you don't look/act like a Marine! I suspect you've met more so-called 'frontline vet…

I spent a lot of time near Beaufort, SC on a nearby island after college. All the marines from Parris Island would go to downtown Beaufort on the weekends. Most of the marines were dicks looking for a fight. Some were cool but I remember thinking they were the exception not the rule.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#187

Post by gnosis » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 3:04 AM UTC

BadassFractal wrote: post #139

yason wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing with 99,999% of martial arts is that they're practicing the wrong thing. At best they're practicing for competitions and some are even trying to pose as street-cred martial artists but yet that's a whole another universe away from survival . And survival isn't about fighting—at all. The thing is, it wouldn't be legal to teach survival in a dojo. Fighting is about winning but survival is about... surviving,…

This sounds a lot like what Krav Maga claims about its teachings. They certainly have a point when they say that fighting in the ring and fighting against gangs with guns and knives on the street is a very different situation that traditional martial arts do not do much about.

Unfortunately, from what I understand, Krav Maga students don't practice against resisting opponents. Because of this, it has been criticized as more of a "dance" art, where the student and the opponent are just going through a "kata" or predefined motions without meeting real resistance.

Of course, it is rare to come across a situation in any martial art where your training opponent will be resisting 100%, the way a real opponent would on the street.

However, there are some martial arts where opponents do give a significant amount of resistance both during training and in competition. I have heard the claim made that this factor makes the students of these other arts more ready for real survival situations than something like Krav Maga.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#188

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 3:15 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #182

yummyfajitas wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to apply this logic to policies you support? Is public education unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor in public schools? Is care for old people unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor cleaning old people's bedpans? (I'm assuming you support these two policies, based purely on the observation that most people do.)

Are you really attempting to say that going to war is just as serious as public education or elderly care-giving? The gist (which seems to be going over your head), is that the decision to go to war is not one that should be made lightly. If you don't have any 'skin in the game,' then you're more apt to make the decision lightly (or just be apathetic, letting others make the decision). Instituting a draft increases t…

Are you really attempting to say that going to war is just as serious as public education or elderly care-giving?

I'm addressing this reasoning: "In my opinion, it's unlikely that $POLICY is just if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to a draft [to provide necessary labor for $POLICY]."

Nothing leot said is specific to war, so I don't see why you are attempting to contrast war to other policies.

Also, regarding the chances someone may die, forced labor on construction projects increases the chance that someone you know may die as a result of the decision to engage in construction (to select one particular non-war policy with real physical risks). It's easy to make the decision to build roads if someone else's friends/family are the ones making the actual sacrifice. So should roads be built with forced labor?

For example, how many politicians are willing to put their kids on the front-lines?

This is unknowable, since we (thankfully) don't allow parents to enslave their children.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#189

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 3:23 AM UTC

leot wrote: post #179

yummyfajitas wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you willing to apply this logic to policies you support? Is public education unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor in public schools? Is care for old people unjust if the citizenry is unwilling to submit to forced labor cleaning old people's bedpans? (I'm assuming you support these two policies, based purely on the observation that most people do.)

First off, I'm going to call "straw man". No one is forced to clean old people's bedpans. They all do it for money, or because of a sense of obligation/love. But, there are a few other big differences between waging war and providing social services. Perhaps the biggest is that a particular war is a one-time, no-easy-turning-back event, that generally provides little direct benefit to the population funding it. By wa…

They all do it for money, or because of a sense of obligation/love.

Soldiers also do it for money. You are advocating that we change this in order to make a policy you oppose less politically popular.

I'm just trying to determine whether you are willing to apply this logic in an intellectually consistent manner, or if it's just a political maneuver unrelated to your real motivation [1].

If the possibility of deaths is the justification for tying forced labor to another policy, then there are many government programs we should tie forced labor to - construction, policing and firefighting are all obvious examples.

[1] See, for example http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#190

Post by gnosis » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 3:34 AM UTC

lukifer wrote: post #114

I have a cousin coming of age who's downright excited to join the military and become a sniper. I have little doubt that war video games are partly responsible for that. Now, I don't think violent games are inherently bad, and relatively few people playing them will actually sign up to go blow up insurgents in the desert. But there is a significant difference between Modern Warfare and Hitman, Doom, GTA, etc.: most o…

Many violent video games are, in effect, murder simulators.

I wonder how much more realistic they'd have to get before most people who gladly play them now would object to them.

In many games you can already hear the screams of the victims and even the victims pleading for their lives, and see quite a bit of gore as the murder is carried out.

However, you can't yet feel your hands around someone's throat, feel the blood pumping in their veins as you slowly squeeze their throat until they die. You can't feel their warm blood spurt out of their bodies or feel the knife plunge in.

It's probably just a matter of time until improvements in virtual reality do let you experience just that. You will be able to more effectively feel just what it's like to kill somebody.

Would you object to those sorts of games? Would they even still be games at that point? What effect do you think such realistic experiences of simulated murder have on the players?