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

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#51

Post by dullcrisp »

keybored wrote: post #50
wruza wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one.

I’ll take the explanation though.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#52

Post by wruza »

dullcrisp wrote: post #51
keybored wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I’ll take the explanation though.

It cuts both ways in you. You read both things when one was written, for an internal reason. That’s an important distinction. Otherwise there would be no way to say one thing without implying another. Human speech can generate lots of collateral associations, but all of them live in the mind of a listener. “Assume good faith”.

A good writer predicts and suppresses associations in advance, but it’s not always feasible. The main issue itt is that skewed associations are its own topic.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#53

Post by nonrandomstring »

carapace wrote: post #45
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.

"language that takes the life out of life" Carlin never fails to deliver. Thanks for sharing that one.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#54

Post by Terr_ »

KineticLensman wrote: post #6

I used to work with Soldiers a lot (I helped build training simulations) and was often amazed by their perspectives. I remember theoretical discussions (Q: when is the enemy defeated? A: when he thinks he is) alongside powerful raw emotions (Dutch peacekeepers unable to intervene in the Srebrenica massacre). On one project, where things were technically crashing around our ears, I was staggered by the emotional and p…

> when he thinks he is

Or when they do not think they are defeated, but their goals now align with your own.

> But Miles had seen it complete in Metzov's eyes sixty seconds earlier. It reminded him of that definition of his father's. A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind. The mind was the first and final battleground, the stuff in between was just noise.

-- The Vor Game by Lois McMaster Bujold

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#55

Post by keybored »

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 actually care who is or isn’t Russian.

Have you stopped beating your wife? I don’t care if you’re a wifebeater, no judgement. I’m just randomly curious.

Saying that someone is both a Russian and pro-Invasion (by your faulty interpretation) has a well-deserved stigma.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#56

Post by keybored »

aguaviva wrote: post #47
keybored wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I’ll explain the context for my initial comment in this subthread. The comment I replied to was then downvoted and at the bottom of the thread. That’s why I did the whataboutism.

I understand if you think it’s tedious to bring up America’s war efforts on tangentially related topics. There’s a time and place for everything. I used a more subtle hint in my first comment on this submission[1] while also addressing Stoicism (or stoicism). But I didn’t like when someone was downvoted for simply saying that going into self-made conflicts on the other side of the world might make someone question if the team they were fighting for had righteous reasons to fight.

> They don't "yell" whataboutism, they kindly point it out in context.

:)

Since you refer to them and not you I can say that this point (non-argument) is brought up to shut down the conversation since whataboutism is (in their minds) basically a fallacy.

It’s not “kind” but so are non of the conversation points on such a topic. So that’s whatever.

> 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.

No one would presume that people have been living under a rock for half a century or so. That would be daft. Everyone knows that the US invades places. And plenty of people think that’s either good or that it’s bad but it was done with good intentions, so therefore no one is to blame.

> 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

Counter it with what?

Your “deflate” is quite on point. Why have an argument when you can do a whataboutism-deflate? Then you don’t need to provide any arguments.

But then the other thread participants need to be on board with the thinking that it’s a slam-dunk. Which wasn’t the case this time.

> (backed by a lot of broken or distorted narratives about what actually did happen).

With that? It’s actually different?

> 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.

See the original comment:[2]

> > What scientists call the “are we the baddies?-syndrome”

It’s never quite the same when the aggressor is “us” (the US or whatever else). Then any such comparison is obviously wrong and not nuanced.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41724980

[2]: Which is from a skit, probably not a researched symptom. Right?

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#57

Post by keybored »

dullcrisp wrote: post #51
keybored wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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’…

Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I’ll take the explanation though.

> Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one.

I can’t coax your interpretation into the correct lane. Even when they are so obviously wrong.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#58

Post by dullcrisp »

wruza wrote: post #52
dullcrisp wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comparisons always cut both ways. You’re saying both those things, even if you only wanted to say one. I’ll take the explanation though.

It cuts both ways in you . You read both things when one was written, for an internal reason. That’s an important distinction. Otherwise there would be no way to say one thing without implying another. Human speech can generate lots of collateral associations, but all of them live in the mind of a listener. “Assume good faith”. A good writer predicts and suppresses associations in advance, but it’s not always feasibl…

In me and anyone else exposed to Russian propaganda, which is probably just about everyone.

But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#59

Post by keybored »

dullcrisp wrote: post #58
wruza wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It cuts both ways in you . You read both things when one was written, for an internal reason. That’s an important distinction. Otherwise there would be no way to say one thing without implying another. Human speech can generate lots of collateral associations, but all of them live in the mind of a listener. “Assume good faith”. A good writer predicts and suppresses associations in advance, but it’s not always feasibl…

In me and anyone else exposed to Russian propaganda, which is probably just about everyone. But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A. Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.

> But in this case it’s also the literal meaning. You can’t say (or imply) that A is just as bad as B without also saying that B is no worse than A.

Wrong on two counts.

1. These kinds of comparisons hone in on the thing the two things have in common. Invading places. This goes back to my “salient commonality” point. Which you rejected. But now you’re back to claiming that a comparison makes things equal. They don’t. They show that two things have two specific things in common.

2. “You’re saying both those things”, referring to my second thing “it’s okay that Russia did it!” (the wrong interpretation). Somehow you’ve gone from “these two things are just as bad” (covered by (1)) to “therefore Russia doing it is okay”. I still can’t make sense of that.

> Call it the anti-symmetric property of partial orderings if that helps.

Dressing it up in fancy language doesn’t make it true.

Re: The Soldiers' Philosopher (2014)

#60

Post by aguaviva »

keybored wrote: post #56
aguaviva wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I’ll explain the context for my initial comment in this subthread. The comment I replied to was then downvoted and at the bottom of the thread. That’s why I did the whataboutism. I understand if you think it’s tedious to bring up America’s war efforts on tangentially related topics. There’s a time and place for everything. I used a more subtle hint in my first comment on this submission[1] while also addressing Stoic…

Is deflating/shutting-down always such a bad thing? Conversely: are all positions worthy of protracted, nuanced debate?

I think not. And in particular, I find the the position that "hypocrisy, or rather weakly supported insinuations of hypocrisy, in regard to a certain evil is a vastly more vital and pressing topic than the actual evil happening on the ground itself" (to sum up these discussions in a nutshell) to be especially non-worthy of protracted discussion and "nuanced" debate.

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, such as debates and counter-debates about whataboutism on HN.

Post reply on HN