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

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#221

Post by burgerbrain » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 10:12 AM UTC

gnosis wrote: post #195

icebraining wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, paintball? Because I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels. And I assure that I'm perfectly capable of distinguish them, both at a rational and emotional level.

"I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being. ... I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels." This reminds me of a story in Stanislaw Lem's Cyberiad (which is a fantastic book -- highly recommended). From this[1] description of the story: In the story "How Trurl's Own Perfection Led to No Good," Lem describes how Trurl consoles a deposed dictator named Excelsius by buildin…

The Turing Test's disturbing twin.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#222

Post by PakG1 » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 11:09 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #218

PakG1 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's data about a lot of gang members entering the service these days and receiving a lot of military training, but then taking that training back to the gang (as well as smuggling some weapons). If it's reliable data, I wonder if the number of sociopaths in the military could be growing, if it's also possible that gang members have a higher probability of being sociopaths. A lot of conditionals there, I know.

[Citation needed]

Per other comment: www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#223

Post by chrischen » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 11:25 AM UTC

kiiski wrote: post #166

chrischen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. That doesn't make sense. If society asked for volunteers to torture someone, the first to step up would very likely be a sociopath.

I think the point is that while a sociopath might be more likely to volunteer for it, volunteering for it doesn't make one a sociopath.

It seems as if he was trying to define sociopathy as purely the act of doing what's socially unacceptable, and that if society condones it then it's by definition not sociopathic. However I don't believe that's true since gov != society and even society can be conditioned into sociopaths.

I'd say I consider sociopathic as anything that's harmful to society, regardless of how society perceives it.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#224

Post by Jach » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 1:14 PM UTC

Splines wrote: post #67

dlikhten wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they want to make a video game depict war... Have a bad guy escape through some civilians, you shoot after him. Then after coming closer find a parent/child dead with another child screaming over his/her family's body. That would be a scene that makes people remember what war really is. But war games are not about war. They are about shooting things and feeling justified about it.

I'd be very interested to know if it's even possible to create a game where you genuinly feel remorse for killing an innocent person while chasing "the bad guy". Many games have innocent bystanders, and there is a spectrum of consequence, from none (GTA), to inconvenience (Oblivion), to an instant game-over (Ghost Recon). In any case, I've never felt bad, since it's just a game. Can a game elevate the characters to a…

Even just a small reminder that "you might want to consider the moral consequences of what you've been doing" is beyond what most games do. It doesn't necessarily require branching consequence paths and other silly mechanics, it doesn't require building up an attachment to the fictional character, just a small reminder that makes the player think about something in a broader context instead of focusing on the action. Of course game content around these things is fine, it's just not usually done that well.

One thing that stood out for me while I was playing Lord of the Rings Online (noting that the LotR universe is a very black-and-white-morals one) was a bounty hunter quest line where I made money killing some wanted thugs. This led to a bounty poster on me:

"For the death of Jachad, Hunter of no account, Cuthbert Sprunt offers two gold pieces.

This Elf has come to Evendim and caused nothing but trouble. Just ask Mrs. Idden where her boy Andy is, or the widow Tripper why her son Will is missing a brother!

If you think you've been wronged in this, Jachad, "bounty-hunter," then you come talk to Mr. Sprunt at the Sparring Circle. We'll sort it out, fair-like."

Of course the game quickly reminds you that Sprunt is a low-life villain, and I subsequently defeated him (though he lived since he gave up in the fight). But it was one of the few times the game ever questions the morality of player's actions, and even though it was incredibly brief it stood out for that reason.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#225

Post by vacri » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 1:34 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #199

vacri wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I truly believe that a civilised society does not fall apart after the death of one man. The Mongolian Empire was an incredible military achievement, but it was only an Empire in terms of conquest - it wasn't an Empire in terms of sustained society (like the Roman, Byzantine, or British Empires). The guy at the top dies, and the whole thing falls apart? That's not really a 'civilised society'.

So I guess Alexander's Greece wasn't a civilized society either.

Ancient Greece was a collection of societies that shared Greek culture. "Alexander's Greece" lasted only a few years and was hardly a society unto itself - it was another example of an empire-by-conquest. The guy at the top dies, and it all falls apart again.

Unless you're trying to tell me that Alexander turned the people all the way to the Indus into greek culture adherents, no, Alexander's empire wasn't a society.

It's important to note here that Alexander created a short-lived empire - he did not create the society we think of as 'ancient greek'. That pre-existed him quite considerably in greece. And just because he gathered Perseopolis into his fold doesn't make the society there 'greek'.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#226

Post by wallawe » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:50 PM UTC

I have a friend in the special forces who has changed as a person completely since his first deployment.

The last time we hung out, we went to a casual bar for a drink. He brought his pistol everywhere he went now out of paranoia. He spoke in jealousy of the British mercenaries who were allowed to kill anyone without permission. "I wish we could do that," he said. I was honestly baffled.

It truly is amazing how much war can change someone. He lives and loves to kill now. He says there is no better rush in the world.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#227

Post by gnosis » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 2:56 PM UTC

BadassFractal wrote: post #208

gnosis wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd love to know what these more realistic arts are called. I like whatever is most pragmatic.

Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, Judo, Muay Thai, boxing, various types of wrestling, and many other arts train and compete against resisting, sometimes strongly resisting, opponents.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#228

Post by tsycho » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 4:16 PM UTC

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…

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

So, if society tells you to stone a woman since she committed adultery, you would do so?

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#229

Post by bdunbar » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 4:40 PM UTC

cglace wrote: post #186

bdunbar wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. And except for the 'looking for a fight' part I might have been one of those guys.

My point was that _some_ guys may be stupid thugs but not all of them are, and most of us grow out of it.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#230

Post by pyre » Sat, Mar 03, 2012, 5:07 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #188

pyre wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

  >> 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.

I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh, but this really seems like you're trying to troll me here. "How many [GROUP OF PEOPLE] are willing to put their children in [DANGEROUS SITUATION]" is a common idiom that has nothing to do with slavery.

In this specific case, it means things like:

1) How many policitions would be happy to see their children on the frontline?

2) How many policitions would support [WAR AGAINST X] if they knew that their child would be on the frontlines (or killed in action)?

3) How many policitions would implement a draft, and then pull strings to make sure their children exempt?

It's a matter of the people making decisions only reaping the benefits, but being divorced from the costs.