site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3335 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for January 20, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Now, special forces are .. special kinds of people. Aggressive guys who just won't quit despite punishing training, expected to go into the hairiest situations in small groups, typically against far more numerous opposition, without much support.

The whole idea of putting them in a box labelled "special forces" is keeping them safely away from the rest of the soldiers and the civil society. You don't want your soldiers to look up to them and your civilians to admire them.

Oh, this is the fun thread, isn't it? Is the role of a soldier a culture war topic?

I personally feel society ought to be militarised completely, or at least, all people with any measure of political power ought to be soldiers involved in some capacity in the army.

That'd pretty much prevent unnecessary wars & ensure the political class was healthy and cohesive. There'd be mandatory wargames held continually (computer simulations of conflict, fought for real money) and less frequent physical exercises.

It's a fun class but I'm the kind of weirdo for whom coming up with half-baked policy policy proposals is a 'fun' activity.

If multiverse is truly infinite, somewhere they have a very entertaining timeline where I'm an absolute monarch of some country and driving the bureaucrats up the wall constantly.

It’s a nice idea, but the closest to your idea that has happened have been states like the German and Japanese empires.

My first thought was America, where everyone has access to a quantity and quality of weapons guerrilla forces in other countries could only dream of. Interesting how you get to the other side of the libertarian-authoritarian spectrum when you include the condition that the armed populace have to be under the command of army officers.

Well, the upper crust of Israeli political class is near-universally distinguished in military service (e.g. Bibi) or, for earlier generations, has history in paramilitary/terrorist organizations (e.g. Begin, Allon, Shamir). Seems to work out okay for them.

But then again, you never know if the overall success is because or in spite of that.

What is certain is that this doesn't make them especially avoidant of conflict. Would be interested to see if @No_one endorses their approach.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that 'nukes are bad because they prevent war, the civilization's only hygiene'. But then I've rather unhinged opinions on all of this and probably deserve to get blown apart by a shell somewhere for them.

It's good that we don't live in a just world, I guess.

or, for earlier generations, has history in paramilitary/terrorist organizations (e.g. Begin, Allon, Shamir).

The early political class in the Soviet Union and in communist China, Yugoslavia and Albania also earned their power by fighting in a war. How did that work out? Not well for the Soviet Union, China or Albania, I would say. Not sure about Yugoslavia.

Edit: I forgot about the American Revolution. But how many of their early politicians actually fought in the war? I know George Washington did, what about the rest?

Vast differences though. And these countries almost never practiced simulated war against each other, for actual stakes.

E.g. German military was full of idiotic traditionalists on eve of WW1.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats