181–190 of 223 posts
Because there are army recruiters in american high schools... This for me was an unbelievable experience as a German, where if the army would be involved with any kind of school it would be a major scandal. But while in high school in america it was normal to be propagandaed on during your lunch hour.
Because there are army recruiters in american high schools... This for me was an unbelievable experience as a German, where if the army would be involved with any kind of school it would be a major scandal. But while in high school in america it was normal to be propagandaed on during your lunch hour.
Perhaps there is some historical reason for this.
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…
There is a big qualitative difference between the conflicts in Europe and the wars waged by America. Wars in europe are nationalistic, vicious and leave deep scars even decades later on. It's fair to say we still haven't recovered from the scars of the 2 WWs and are still suspicious of each other. The US army is worldwide police. Their soldiers are basically heavily armed "policemen" who execute missions in exotic co…
As so often the case it's about money and power (e.g. oil). Where was the police during the Rwanda and Dafur genocides? Even the UN kept relatively silent in contrast to how horrible those were.
First, while gender may be "a social construct" it tends to recur in similar patterns across most societies. That's not to say that gender roles don't exaggerate the (actually very slight, in biological terms) differences and aren't a source of much injustice. However, there's a recurrent ranking that societies create: high-status men > high-status women > low-status women > low-status men. This is why conversations about gender and "patriarchy" fall flat, it's why feminists and MRAs both have a point, and it's not how things necessarily should be, but it's how things are in at least 90% of the societies that humans create.
High-status men have harems of 10+ wives, in pre-monogamous societies, which means that some men will have zero. Since women have a rate-limiting reproductive resource (i.e. a womb) they have a good chance of getting at least some action. Low-status men don't, because they're the lowest of the low. No one likes them. And in a non-monogamous society, they're recognized as an actual danger. Of course, most young men will start out low in status. When's the last time, in popular culture, you saw a teenage male portrayed in a positive light? Most of the world fears and hates (most) teenage males.
Eventually, the high-status men recognize the threat. They see men who are sex-starved and poor and deprived of opportunities for improvement, but young and fit while they are fading. So they encourage them to raid other tribes, escalate petty conflicts into moral causes, and even glorify the whole thing because it brings the male population down and makes a pre-monogamous society (which would otherwise be unstable and violent) stable for a while.
This pattern is so ingrained in us that we've mythologized it and glorified something that is actually pretty awful. It's also where we get the need to "become a man". Because the gap between high-status (or, at least, realized and mature) men and low-status ones is so severe, we've had to create narratives around it. We've also had to elevate quixotry to a virtue.
You see this not just in war but when the stakes are smaller. Take startups. What do we call those (oddly nostalgic, even if things were awful at the time) narratives about low-status men working 90-hour weeks, debugging others' awful written-to-deadline code, as 0.02%-owners of a startup whose benefits would accrue to high-status men (founders and investors)? "War stories."
As a species, we've had to create this narrative to explain something that we do to each other for Darwinian, reproductive reasons. It continues even in a mostly monogamous and mostly peaceful society.
Having been in for 20 years now, I definitely agree with Junger, there is an innate element in young men trying to prove themselves. I think YCombinator appeals to a similar desire. I was performing an autopsy yesterday when the med student, the photographer, and the assistant started talking about guns. Their gusto was impressive. I felt no need to partake, but I think that was attributable, at least in part, to the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The principal of territorial integrity was upheld. The strategic aims were upheld. Let's be honest, the US cares about those only in there's oil or other goodies involved (see the lack of response to the current situation in Ukraine, where there's little to gain and much to lose for the US).
The change in leadership explains the change in response. Obama does not believe the US should have the same role in the world the Bush did.
It is frightening to see some people on this thread saying how they feel an urge to go to war because they "want to best other men" or "want to win". One way to counteract that could be actively practicing nullifying one's ego. Everyday, do one thing you really dislike, and stop doing one thing you really like and can do. People need to get over this ridiculous idea that all their desires must be sated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The army is the reason young men go to war. That's what I infer from your comment at least. What other institution is so organized, so marketed, so respected, as the army? What other institution will take you in and dedicate the same level of attention and money in guiding you? What other institution does all the above with as low of a barrier to entry? To some extent, the army provides the same benefit as a cult. Th…
Luckily in most other developed western countries it carries no prestige to be part of the army outside of certain low income / right wing / uneducated circles. To the point where the majority of university students would never consider dating someone who went to the army. While there was still conscription, if you didn't chose to do alternative civil service, you were in the minority and considered suspect.
I disagree with the author when he states the West doesn't really have an answer - sure, the answer isn't in the back of a textbook. One might even reasonably conclude there exists a multitude of answers - some of which probably conflict.
Here are some examples -
Pedestrian - acquire a skill, get a real job, marry, have kids. Clearly serving the profit motives of others - cultivate expensive tastes. Macho - pursue dangerous hobbies, enter a risky profession - which for some reason excludes cab drivers and convenience store clerks.
If I had to offer a guess, I might say, "Assume responsibility for yourself."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This reminded me of the article "The Jihad Cult: Why Young Germans Are Answering Call to Holy War" [1] - after reading it, I got the impression that at least some young men became jihadists because they are basically narcissistic losers whose attempts to be cool via normal and non-destructive means (like becaming famous rapper or kickboxer) failed so they convinced themselves that joining ISIS is the cool thing - the…
Post-modern Western journalists and politicians are spectacularly ill-equipped to understand and hence deal with, people who actually believe in something , whatever that thing may be.
Any sort of Group of people X is Y statement is very unlikely to be true, but this is more so than most. Western Journalists regularly risk life and limb for what they believe in. In many ways it's like saying the clergy are atheists sure some of them are, but there is strong !atheist selection pressure going on.
EX: Let's cover an Ebola outbreak!