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

The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

philosophyforlife.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#41

Post by 082349872349872 »

The_Colonel wrote: post #25
rightbyte wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is Well, giving up is taboo in the military. As is fragging etc. I think there is a big correlation between being defeated and thinking you are. The quote seems to imply a one way causality. Like as if the realization causes the defeat.

You interpret the question in a tactical context, but I sense it was in a strategic sense. e. g. US thought it defeated Taliban by the end of 2001, Taliban certainly didn't think so. Similar thing with Palestinians vs. Israel.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa...

> ...such is man, that most individuals will stop fighting at some point short of extinction; that point is reached when one of two things happens:

> Either, the defeated people may lose their sense of organization, fail to decide on leaders and methods, and give up because they can no longer fight as a group. This happened to the American Southerners in April, 1865. The President and Cabinet of the Confederate States of America got on the train at Richmond; the men who got off farther down the line were "refugees." Something happened to them and to the people about them, so that Mr. Davis no longer thought of himself as President Davis, and other people no longer accepted his commands. This almost happened in Germany in 1945 except for Admiral Doenitz.

> Or, the defeated people can retain their sense of organization, and can use their political organization for the purpose of getting in touch with the enemy, arranging the end of the war, and preparing, through organized means, to comply with the wishes of the conquerors. That happened when Britain acknowledged American independence; when the Boers recognized British sovereignty; when Finland signed what Russia had dictated; and when Japan gave up.

Note that Linebarger claims the high point of his PsyWar career to have been figuring out a formula by which outgunned chinese during the Korean War* could stop fighting, in a way that seemed to them not cowardly but honourable.

* a conflict which has yet to reach either of the endings above

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#42

Post by mistermann »

dullcrisp wrote: post #32
biorach wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't whataboutism

Well it’s certainly hard to tell sometimes. People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Russia: Other countries do bad things too!™

Some people have a weird thinking style whereby they think broader context and perspectives upon an issue are relevant and important.

And other people think this is a bad way to think.

I wonder if one approach is better than the other. I suppose it depends on one's goals, and perhaps on some other things.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#43

Post by keybored »

dullcrisp wrote: post #29
keybored wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone posted an article about The Russian Officers’ Philosopher it would get flagged to hell. But since it’s about the empire on the other side of the Pacific it’s kosher and should be treated with solemn reflection.

Nothing goes together like Russians and whataboutism

I'm not Russian. But I'm not insulted because you think I am. It's just weird.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#44

Post by keybored »

dullcrisp wrote: post #32
biorach wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wasn't whataboutism

Well it’s certainly hard to tell sometimes. People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Russia: Other countries do bad things too!™

It’s whataboutism. Yes. Pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

That’s what is at the heart of it.

> People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US.

Like most people who yell “whataboutism” as if it is an argument you don’t make the effort to parse the salient commonality between these two countries: they both invade places.

Being worse or better in some greater picture has got nothing to do with it.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#45

Post by carapace »

nonrandomstring wrote: post #7

Excellent read. Original perspectives too - just drop the D from PTSD and get with the idea that this is normal and the hardest people are soft on the inside.

Have you seen Carlin's bit about shell shock?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpVtJNv4ZNM

We're doing abnormal things (technologically-intensified war), the effects of those things are "normal" in the sense that we should expect trauma from experiencing traumatic events. What we put our soldiers through is hell. "Hardness" is scar tissue.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#46

Post by dullcrisp »

wruza wrote: post #36
dullcrisp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it’s certainly hard to tell sometimes. People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Russia: Other countries do bad things too!™

How would you comment on that? What would change if ggp wasn’t (allegedly) russian? Your comment reads like “whatever, shut tf up” and nothing else. What you expect from that?

I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. That wasn’t my point. I’m saying it’s a Russian talking point and a silly one. You can’t justify everything bad you ever do by bringing up the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trust me I’ve tried.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#47

Post by aguaviva »

keybored wrote: post #44
dullcrisp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well it’s certainly hard to tell sometimes. People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Russia: Other countries do bad things too!™

It’s whataboutism. Yes. Pointing out inconsistencies and hypocrisies. That’s what is at the heart of it. > People will bring up Russia out of nowhere just to point out that it’s not any worse than the US. Like most people who yell “whataboutism” as if it is an argument you don’t make the effort to parse the salient commonality between these two countries: they both invade places. Being worse or better in some greater…

They don't "yell" whataboutism, they kindly point it out in context. And they already know that the US invades places, and have fully "parsed the salient commonality" that you seem to think is so elusive to them.

The reason they need to keep doing that is because it seems necessary to counter/deflate the relentless "hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hyprocrisy" tide of thinking that tends to dominate what passes for discussion on the topic (backed by a lot of broken or distorted narratives about what actually did happen).

And also, because in fact there are substantial differences between the current aggression in Ukraine and what the US has done in most of it recent adventures (the Iraq invasion the one notable exception). So while there are commonalities between what these countries do, by and large they really aren't that "salient". To suggest that they are is, well, whataboutism.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#48

Post by kloop »

sandworm101 wrote: post #39
rightbyte wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is Well, giving up is taboo in the military. As is fragging etc. I think there is a big correlation between being defeated and thinking you are. The quote seems to imply a one way causality. Like as if the realization causes the defeat.

>> Well, giving up is taboo in the military No. It is only taboo at basic training. Mission-focused delegation of authority in modern militaries specifically adresses this. Leaders are encouraged to take initiative, which often means abandoning a failing plan. The ability to quickly recognize failure, "give up" and reattack a problem is what separates western forces from the drills-based approach of the post-soviet b…

That's not giving up in the sense it's being used here. Giving up would involve no longer attacking the problem, not switching tactics

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#49

Post by wruza »

dullcrisp wrote: post #46
wruza wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you comment on that? What would change if ggp wasn’t (allegedly) russian? Your comment reads like “whatever, shut tf up” and nothing else. What you expect from that?

I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. That wasn’t my point. I’m saying it’s a Russian talking point and a silly one. You can’t justify everything bad you ever do by bringing up the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trust me I’ve tried.

I don’t think that that commenter tried to justify bad things, they only brought up a seemingly skewed perception of different nations by users of this forum. The fact that you see it as a sort of justification alone should be thought inducing. They simply added a contrast to what OP was already talking about in a delicate way, which was for reasons similar to those that generated this whole subthread.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#50

Post by keybored »

wruza wrote: post #49
dullcrisp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t actually care who is or isn’t Russian. That wasn’t my point. I’m saying it’s a Russian talking point and a silly one. You can’t justify everything bad you ever do by bringing up the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Trust me I’ve tried.

I don’t think that that commenter tried to justify bad things, they only brought up a seemingly skewed perception of different nations by users of this forum. The fact that you see it as a sort of justification alone should be thought inducing. They simply added a contrast to what OP was already talking about in a delicate way, which was for reasons similar to those that generated this whole subthread.

Exactly. They interpreted the message backwards. Instead of:

1. This other empire/country invades countries (BAD). It would be weird for them to philosophize about “a philosophy for hard times”—that’s like a cold-blooded murderer trying to find a philosophy for the mental anguish that killing causes him, for those “hard times” (okay we’re two similes/metaphors down here maybe time to stop)

2. Likewise people shouldn’t be surprised and react with negativity[1] when someone points out that this empire/country does it (America)

Instead they seem to have interpreted in this backwards, roundabout way:

1. We’re talking about America and the military

2. The main topic is not even how the military kills people, btw (that’s just the backdrop)

3. Russia enters out of left-field: Hey America invades countries so therefore it’s okay that Russia did it!

Quite bizzare.

[1] When I replied that reply was downvoted and at the bottom of the thread

Post reply on HN