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

Why Young Men Go to War

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 223 posts

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#111

Post by GeneTT »

pestaa wrote: post #99
cmdkeen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are actually interesting parallels to Silicon Valley and startups for techies. It is "the place to be", "the place to prove yourself". The cosy safety net of corporate life leaves you with the naggging feeling that you're not quite as good as someone "hacking" at the startup. The notion isn't new, Shakespeare as usual sums it up: And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not h…

Not being a native speaker, I can't find a handle on this quote. Can anyone please explain in simpler words what Shakespeare meant?

people currently sleeping in England Shall think they were cursed by not being here And feel inferior, when anyone speaks that fought on St Crispin's Day.

Is that of any help?

(some context) This was part of a motivational speech by Henry V, given before the Battle of Agincourt, which took place on St Crispins Day.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#112

Post by lostlogin »

cmdkeen wrote: post #92
scrrr wrote: post #87

I forgot who said it, but it went like this: "If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars." Of course its not that simple, but we, I suppose especially us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. We also think uniforms look good. And we dream of being heroes, especially when we are young. It is, of course, nonsense.…

No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we grew, and continue to grow, rich of trade with the rest of the world. The West has the capacity to be heroic and for a brief period at the turn of the millennium was actually doing that. Kosovo and Sierra Leone were examples of successful military intervention f…

I'm not sure that 1 or 2 successful interventions make a heroic period. And the First Gulf War was a farce. What has occurred in Iraq since is directly related and the stationing of troops in Saudi during the conflict had a profound influence on many, including Bin Laden. Intervention is always complex but this was a disaster.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#113

Post by vacri »

pistle wrote: post #74

My opinion is probably as invalid as the author's or most anyone else's... but I can't let a couple things just sit. Just because some closely related primates display something we can interpret as war doesn't mean you can then assume there is some related, unavoidable instinct in homo sapiens. This is a poor argument that highlights the author's own bastardized interpretation of evolution. It's 2015 and those are ch…

I'm glad you said this; I feel much the same way. There's all sorts of fallacies and pop culture theories throughout the article, though the author is a competant writer.

One of the ones that really bothered me was the assertion that we should be respectful of the decisions that these young men make - despite the decisions of young adults rarely being taken seriously by society, regardless of the context.

As for 'men are clearly wired for war', well, no they're not. As a demographic, they have to be trained hard to take a life (in person at least). Plenty of men can do that, but to suggest it's an innate wiring is just plain wrong.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#114

Post by Htsthbjig »

rob_lh wrote: post #28
yequalsx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your second paragraph seems callous to me. Going to war for the sake of not wasting one's hard training, so to speak, is not moral. At least as I look at it. War is horrible and should be avoided at all costs. Sometimes it is justifiable and necessary. War should be a last resort. I wish society had alternate means of accomplishing your first paragraph without resort to the second.

It could be a callous viewpoint, but intent certainly matters. Just going to war to use your training is wholly callous. But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed. A soldier hears about this in the news, prepares every day to stop large forces like that, and instead is being asked to stand down. The media obviously plays a large role in shaping the pe…

"But take any of the recent genocides (Rwanda) or even ISIS - innocent people are unquestionably being killed."

Yeah, take that. What you don't talk about is that what we call ISIS today was US best friend just months ago. They were called euphemistically "moderate rebels fighting for democracy in Syria" and they were supported economically and with weapons by the US and Saudi Arabia to kill innocent people there(and put a puppet state in place).

Of course they took the weapons and crossed the border to occupy Iraq, as the failed state the US created made it so easier than fighting against a well organized, and Russia supported army.

Media creates your perceptions based on their own interest. If the news come from far away, media has total control of shaping your emotions, as you don't have family, friends, eyes or ears in the place.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#115

Post by cmdkeen »

Htsthbjig wrote: post #104
cmdkeen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No we need weapons to defend others. The USA and UK are in part two of the richest nations in the world because they are physically isolated from threats, we grew, and continue to grow, rich of trade with the rest of the world. The West has the capacity to be heroic and for a brief period at the turn of the millennium was actually doing that. Kosovo and Sierra Leone were examples of successful military intervention f…

"Before that the first Gulf War was again a successful intervention." Successful? You must be joking or only talk about US and UK side. First Gulf war was a disaster. The US and UK invaded a country and asked the locals to support them, but then they went away. So Saddam took all the people that supported US and UK and simply killed them. First GW only served one purpose, to claim hegemony of the US military on the w…

GW1 militarily was a huge success, Kuwait - a "five feet high nation" in the Lloyd George sense, was defended from aggression from its much bigger, nastier neighbour. The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld.

It was our business, and should be our business. That's the whole point of things like the UN charter - remember there were a series of UN resolutions condemning the invasion of one sovereign nation by another. Without recourse to more powerful countries keeping the peace what defence do smaller nations have? That was the real tragedy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the undermining of that moral authority.

You're also trying to have your cake and eat it by saying we shouldn't be involved in other countries affairs and then laying the failure of an internal uprising on the West. It wasn't an invasion where we asked the locals to support us, it was a national revolt (also in the North) as a result of the dictator being seen as weak following his failed invasion of Kuwait.

The USA made a few radio broadcasts, that's not enough to kick off an entire revolution. Iraq was in social turmoil after the Iran-Iraq war and the Gulf War, it was a powder keg waiting to go off.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#116

Post by kristofferR »

blfr wrote: post #6
kijin wrote: post #2

> "The male response to war is an evolutionary adaptation that clearly works for our species." > "It's a left-wing version of the Christian right rejecting the theory of evolution," he says. "I mean the far left is also now rejecting the theory of evolution, which is just insane." The left wing, whatever it's worth, is certainly not rejecting the theory of evolution. Just because men are evolutionarily predisposed to…

The rejection is not in not wanting men to go to war, or in favouring any particular social order, but in denying innate sex differences. According to Junger, these theories are strongly rooted in academia, and particularly the social sciences. “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all…

> “I have friends who are anthropologists and primatologists and evolutionary psychologists … [who are under] an enormous amount of pressure to generate data that shows that all gender differences are cultural.”

This documentary is really interesting in that regard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVaTc15plVs

It's a Norwegian documentary from 2010 about "Why do girls tend to go into empathizing professions and boys into systemizing professions? Why does the labor market become more gender segregated the more economic prosperity a country has?"

A lot of the scientists interviewed didn't even bother to consider evidence that innate sex differences exists.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#117

Post by elemeno »

pestaa wrote: post #99
cmdkeen wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are actually interesting parallels to Silicon Valley and startups for techies. It is "the place to be", "the place to prove yourself". The cosy safety net of corporate life leaves you with the naggging feeling that you're not quite as good as someone "hacking" at the startup. The notion isn't new, Shakespeare as usual sums it up: And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not h…

Not being a native speaker, I can't find a handle on this quote. Can anyone please explain in simpler words what Shakespeare meant?

> And gentlemen in England now-a-bed Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

It's from Shakespeare's Henry V and it's part of the speech given by the titular King to his troops just before the Battle of Agincourt - which fell on St. Crispin's day. The Battle of Agincourt became a major English victory against the French during the Hundred-Year War and led to Henry V being recognized as Heir Apparent to the French crown, and his son, Henry VI, claiming the title of King of France as well being King of England.

In simpler terms the quote is saying that the glory gained by fighting in the battle alongside their King will be so great that any man who could fight who was not there will be jealous and will think of themselves as lesser men when in the company of those who fought.

The whole speech is here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Crispin%27s_Day_Speech - and well worth reading.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#118

Post by [deleted] »

scrrr wrote: post #87

I forgot who said it, but it went like this: "If people recognise the banality of war, there will be no more wars." Of course its not that simple, but we, I suppose especially us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. We also think uniforms look good. And we dream of being heroes, especially when we are young. It is, of course, nonsense.…

[deleted]

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#119

Post by jacquesm »

pauleastlund wrote: post #98
antocv wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> us techie boys (us because I am one), think that an M1 Abrams tank, a F-15 airplane or a Sig Sauer rifle are, well, cool. Speak for yourself only. As a child Ive seen artillery in action, MiGs XX dropping bombs close to basement "us techies" were hiding it, those things are not fucking cool. It would be so fun one day for you to experience an F15 dropping its load on your village or an M1 Abrams tank, firing its gu…

I get what you're saying, but your tone here is pretty hostile here and you don't seem to acknowledge that the point you're making is in perfect agreement with the post you're responding to. You quoted him just before he said, "[This] is, of course, nonsense."

Stating something first and then negating it in the same comment is a pretty weird way to make a point.

Re: Why Young Men Go to War

#120

Post by kristofferR »

meheleventyone wrote: post #109
csours wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a (lefty) colleague who sincerely believes that testosterone does not significantly affect personality[0]. I understand that human history has been overwhelmingly male dominated, and that this has undesirable consequences and side effects. I think these effects and ideas should be counteracted "with prejudice"[1] to use a policing term. I don't think counteracting the horrible facts of the past should include…

The science is much less settled on the link between testosterone and personality than you think. Some interesting discussion of it here: http://www.nature.com/scitable/blog/cognoculture/testosteron... It's hard to tease out what behaviour is culturally learnt and what is caused by innate biological differences. Folk wisdom about testosterone is just one example. The downside is that these "biotruths" are used as jus…

Sure, but there's a lot of people who basically claim that the massive hormonal and genetical differences between the genders have no impact on personality, behavior and interests.
Post reply on HN