discipline posted:

it's funny how I'm not one of those yanks who picked up a fake accent after living in england but I am the kind of weird weird nerd who takes on a fake accent when communicating via text mediums

random thoughts: i've only heard your real voice like once i guess and i remember it was slightly deeper than i imagined it to be. my voice is fairly deep, such that people say i should have a late night radio show. i should have a late night radio show.

tpaine posted:

you can actually criticize the military just fine as long as you keep it abstract, the second you say anything bad about the Soldiers themselves is when the average person's brain switches off and they can only think of john ashcroft singing let the eagles soar

lol

Goethestein posted:

one thing i've run into a lot is that when you criticize soldiers from a moral perspective, most people don't get angry, they don't even really disagree. they're just baffled at the concept and reject it outright. many -probably most- americans literally believe soldiers exist in some kind of nega realm where their actions aren't so much beyond good and evil, but rather just not applicable to the framework, like the actions of a spider or an earthquake. here i'm not even including that old leftist excuse where they admit that, yeah, they do bad things, but they're poor or brainwashed or whatever, although that is a cousin of it. i'm talking about "following orders," "signed a contract," "theirs is not to question why," "following a code," and so on.

deep down, though, you can see the apologist's hierarchical bent and repressed fear and dislike of the military as an organization, and soldiers as people, when their scaremongering starts. like if soldiers started questioning their orders there would just be anarchy or military dictatorship. like the only thing keeping these people in line is removing them in all arenas from the responsibility for independent thought and action. maybe they're right

I'm not sure I see how your reasoning in the second paragraph follows from the first. Imo the idea that you can't apply normal morality in a war situation makes sense if, like most Americans, you believe every war is another WWII and all of our enemies are hitler reincarnated. If you accept that rape and pillaging are integral to warfare but also believe it that at times war is necessary then you have to develop a morality that can tolerate pillaging under the right circumstances. This is why when you get upset about a drone strike incinerating some wedding party you get rolled eyes and criticized for not being realistic or practical.

I think there's also an idealistic bent in the troop worship, in which erasing the shortcomings of individual soldiers is seen as necessary to defending broader belief and objectives. It's like how in Batman 2 Batman and Commissioner Gordon need to cover up the fact that Harvey Dent went insane, or when Alfred destroys the letter in which Batman's girlfriend says she's leaving him for Dent. There's an ideology at work which raises an idealized view above a baser objective material analysis of the situation

Goethestein posted:

bill burr is funny but also a total MRA

mighty rad animal

getfiscal posted:

this is sorta basic but it gets the point across:

http://rabble.ca/news/2010/08/term-ngo-misnomer

Good cop & Bad cop routine eh??? I've seen these before..

cleanhands posted:

is that true though, like im sure a majority of armed services people dont have a moral stake one way or another in what theyre doing, theyre not crazy fucked up psychopaths, they just want the benefit of structures designed to guide their personal and professional development in a world that sometimes punishes you for not having the imagination and emotional strength to guide yourself. im reminded of captain wales, piloting his chopper, taking them out of the game before they can do bad stuff to our guys. hes not psycho, he doesnt want to inflict pain - what does he know of pain? - he only cares about the job. hes completely and utterly normal. he's not curious enough to wonder if these people arent terrorists, and the people who are get washed out soon enough. the military actively selects for these traits in its recruits, so im not sure on what grounds you could restrict your moral criticism to the individuals. thats my post, thanks 4 reading (dont probate me fuckers!!)

its probably both

antonymous posted:

I was talking to my friend and she talked about not supporting the war etc but still supporting the troops. And I said I categorically do not like troops, except for the ones who come out against the military and even then just in a useful idiot way.

And she said why? And I explained that like most male citizens of the USA I got calls from recruiters and letters about selective service once I turned 18, but unlike troops I never for a second considered killing strangers who have done me no wrong for money on behalf of the state. And I explained that there was no conceivable way that you could be mentally sound enough to join the military and not fully understand, let alone consider, that that was explicitly what you were doing, killing strangers in an act of aggression for your own material benefit and glory.

She told me that I lived a sad little life.

See here's the disconnect, they're killing strangers on behalf of the Nation, the act is one of defense of all that is good, and it was done not for material gains, although they would be deserved (see everyone crying for Osama's assassin), but for Honor and to better yourself, not materially but psychologically or metaphysically.

If someone really believes these points joining the military would seem fine. Traces of these ideas still reside somewhere in the lizard brains of even most lefties in the U.S. You're not going to convince them troop hate is okay with a material analysis of the situation.

But if you really hold troops turned anti-war activists are unredeemable she might be right about your life being sad and little.