Social Justice Warriors Thread

[heydaralon]

If the people who are voting for the war are also the people who are dying in said war, I find that much more preferable than a system in which there is no decision to go to war, because the political system allows wars to be entered unilaterally, and with no meaningful opposition.

fair enough

[heydaralon]

Another point to make is that the body count has become a lot lower in post Vietnam conflicts. I don't know why this is. It might be the nature of the conflicts we have been fighting, which is urban vs. the open warfare you see in Korea and Vietnam. Maybe the Taliban and Sunni militias aren't the same level of fighters as the VC and North Koreans. Combat medicine has improved too, although I don't think that alone would account for the disparity in casualties.

In addition to the Vietnamese Nationalists being highly trained, extremely disciplined, supremely motivated, and well equipped, you simply had far more large scale high intensity battles in Vietnam, not just an ongoing insurgency against the National Liberation Front, but prolonged campaigns against the North Vietnamese Army with ferocious engagements against whole regiments and even divisions, also factor in a largely dimounted infantry war at close quarters on complex terrain, as opposed to mounted and mechanized at often stand off range.

All the Vietnam movies make it seem like it was all guerilla warfare and ambushes, but there were some straight up fucking battles that happened. Like the one at the end of Platoon.

[Okeefenokee]

It's a big part of why I think there needs to be much greater involvement of society in the military. Direct involvement.

We can take this in a completely different direction. Take waste of money by the MIC. Veterans know all about it. We've seen decades of it, but we are a small segment of the voting block. If a substantial segment of the voting block had intimate first hand experience with it, we'd be more likely to be able to curb it. But, as it stands, most people's experience with it is only a vague understanding that there is waste, but not exactly where that waste is.

Not that I'd encourage it, but if most people had experience working for government, they'd have a better understanding of really how much of their money is being wasted.

[Speaker to Animals]

In terms of poorly chosen conflicts, the American electorate bears the lions share of the blame. But what if in your hypothetical society the warrior class still wanted to fight in Middle Eastern Wars that have minimal strategic value? There are examples of this in history.


During the Peloponnesian War, Nicias did not want to go to Sicily. His strategy to avoid having to lead an army there was to keep suggesting a bigger and more costly force to turn the Athenian voters off from the whole thing. It didn't work, and the voters still decided to go. They ended up losing a generation of men and a huge portion of their wealth. This was a citizen army by the way. Self interest didn't keep them from sailing to Sicily.
Are you both okay with fighting in questionable conflicts as long as the soldier class agrees that this is the course of action they want to take? In other words, if you treat war like a legally binding contract, content is not as important as the fact that all parties signed off on it?

The majority of the Athenian demos would not have been mustered. If I am not mistaken, was the army not filled by lots? Even with a minimal draft, there's still a high probability that a voter will not have to risk his life in the adventure.

Furthermore, there is a distinction between a warrior class and a demos in which people sometimes served in the army. The voters in a warrior class have already served. It's very likely that their children will serve after them. Their brothers and sisters serve. Their nieces and nephews. I don't think you'd see people from outside this class enlisting at very high rates, to be honest.

But as I said before, education is critical here. This class of people, even those who just come from enlisted families and will not likely want to go to a university, should possess a good grasp of history, political thought, and foreign policy. This would be a kind of social duty for them to understand these topics just as a professional class would need to understand economics and business. There could still be some crossover. I can imagine a professional class kid wanting to serve for a while and then going to college where his dad went to college to study economics and business administration. But for the most part, the people raised in these two classes should be able to engage in relatively high level discourse on these topics.


Think about how the modern prole is "expected" to know all sorts of information about sports, automobiles, video games, Star Trek, or whatever the hell else their opiate of choice may be. Most Americans right now are being trained in just the way I mentioned, but they are being trained in stupid, meaningless activities to keep them occupied with nonsense instead of important matters.

I am saying that people should be raised to think about important matters with the same zeal as they know who won the world series in 1986 or how the Romulans are related to the Vulcans.

[Smitty-48]

Another point to make is that the body count has become a lot lower in post Vietnam conflicts. I don't know why this is. It might be the nature of the conflicts we have been fighting, which is urban vs. the open warfare you see in Korea and Vietnam. Maybe the Taliban and Sunni militias aren't the same level of fighters as the VC and North Koreans. Combat medicine has improved too, although I don't think that alone would account for the disparity in casualties.

In addition to the Vietnamese Nationalists being highly trained, extremely disciplined, supremely motivated, and well equipped, you simply had far more large scale high intensity battles in Vietnam, not just an ongoing insurgency against the National Liberation Front, but prolonged campaigns against the North Vietnamese Army with ferocious engagements against whole regiments and even divisions, also factor in a largely dimounted infantry war at close quarters on complex terrain, as opposed to mounted and mechanized at often stand off range.

All the Vietnam movies make it seem like it was all guerilla warfare and ambushes, but there were some straight up fucking battles that happened. Like the one at the end of Platoon.

Oh, there were much bigger battles than that, and some of them are in the movies, the first major engagement between the US Army and the NVA being at the Ia Drang Valley in 1965, which is portrayed (poorly) in the movie When We Were Soldiers, another infamous one being Hill 943 at Don Ap Bia in the A Shau Valley in 1969, portrayed (poorly) in the movie Hamburger Hill, there's also Hue during the Tet Offensive in 1968, portrayed (brilliantly) in the movie Full Metal Jacket...

[Okeefenokee]

In terms of poorly chosen conflicts, the American electorate bears the lions share of the blame. But what if in your hypothetical society the warrior class still wanted to fight in Middle Eastern Wars that have minimal strategic value? There are examples of this in history.


During the Peloponnesian War, Nicias did not want to go to Sicily. His strategy to avoid having to lead an army there was to keep suggesting a bigger and more costly force to turn the Athenian voters off from the whole thing. It didn't work, and the voters still decided to go. They ended up losing a generation of men and a huge portion of their wealth. This was a citizen army by the way. Self interest didn't keep them from sailing to Sicily.
Are you both okay with fighting in questionable conflicts as long as the soldier class agrees that this is the course of action they want to take? In other words, if you treat war like a legally binding contract, content is not as important as the fact that all parties signed off on it?

The majority of the Athenian demos would not have been mustered. If I am not mistaken, was the army not filled by lots? Even with a minimal draft, there's still a high probability that a voter will not have to risk his life in the adventure.

Furthermore, there is a distinction between a warrior class and a demos in which people sometimes served in the army. The voters in a warrior class have already served. It's very likely that their children will serve after them. Their brothers and sisters serve. Their nieces and nephews. I don't think you'd see people from outside this class enlisting at very high rates, to be honest.

But as I said before, education is critical here. This class of people, even those who just come from enlisted families and will not likely want to go to a university, should possess a good grasp of history, political thought, and foreign policy. This would be a kind of social duty for them to understand these topics just as a professional class would need to understand economics and business. There could still be some crossover. I can imagine a professional class kid wanting to serve for a while and then going to college where his dad went to college to study economics and business administration. But for the most part, the people raised in these two classes should be able to engage in relatively high level discourse on these topics.


Think about how the modern prole is "expected" to know all sorts of information about sports, automobiles, video games, Star Trek, or whatever the hell else their opiate of choice may be. Most Americans right now are being trained in just the way I mentioned, but they are being trained in stupid, meaningless activities to keep them occupied with nonsense instead of important matters.

I am saying that people should be raised to think about important matters with the same zeal as they know who won the world series in 1986 or how the Romulans are related to the Vulcans.

Almost like a world where the people who have means are expected to be knowledgeable about that world, because it is their burden to shape that world, and carry the needs of that world.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's a big part of why I think there needs to be much greater involvement of society in the military. Direct involvement.

We can take this in a completely different direction. Take waste of money by the MIC. Veterans know all about it. We've seen decades of it, but we are a small segment of the voting block. If a substantial segment of the voting block had intimate first hand experience with it, we'd be more likely to be able to curb it. But, as it stands, most people's experience with it is only a vague understanding that there is waste, but not exactly where that waste is.

Not that I'd encourage it, but if most people had experience working for government, they'd have a better understanding of really how much of their money is being wasted.

See.. I think the opposite. I think the military should be open to most Americans who are able. But we should encourage this trajectory of military culture and military families to separate into it's own thing.

It shouldn't be a caste system where people are trapped. But people raised in a military family should be brought up in a certain culture, with certain obligations, and a particular knowledge base that will help them make informed decisions with respect to war and foreign policy.


I think most people would be quite happy being raised in a professional class in which their peculiar knowledge base centers around economics and domestic policy.

What I am coming to realize is that societies actually want to divide up like this. This isn't just some bullshit Plato pulled out of his ass. This happens naturally in all complex human societies. What we have been doing since the Enlightenment is just unnatural.

[Okeefenokee]

It's a big part of why I think there needs to be much greater involvement of society in the military. Direct involvement.

We can take this in a completely different direction. Take waste of money by the MIC. Veterans know all about it. We've seen decades of it, but we are a small segment of the voting block. If a substantial segment of the voting block had intimate first hand experience with it, we'd be more likely to be able to curb it. But, as it stands, most people's experience with it is only a vague understanding that there is waste, but not exactly where that waste is.

Not that I'd encourage it, but if most people had experience working for government, they'd have a better understanding of really how much of their money is being wasted.

See.. I think the opposite. I think the military should be open to most Americans who are able. But we should encourage this trajectory of military culture and military families to separate into it's own thing.

It shouldn't be a cast system where people are trapped. But people raised in a military family should be brought up in a certain culture, with certain obligations, and a particular knowledge base that will help them make informed decisions with respect to war and foreign policy.


I think most people would be quite happy being raised in a professional class in which their peculiar knowledge base centers around economics and domestic policy.

What I am coming to realize is that societies actually want to divide up like this. This isn't just some bullshit Plato pulled out of his ass. This happens naturally in all complex human societies. What we have been doing since the Enlightenment is just unnatural.

I don't disagree. When I imagine, I imagine based on what is similar to reality. In reality, everyone votes. That system would be better if everyone also had the experience to influence their vote. Trimming the fat on that only slims down the process.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's a big part of why I think there needs to be much greater involvement of society in the military. Direct involvement.

We can take this in a completely different direction. Take waste of money by the MIC. Veterans know all about it. We've seen decades of it, but we are a small segment of the voting block. If a substantial segment of the voting block had intimate first hand experience with it, we'd be more likely to be able to curb it. But, as it stands, most people's experience with it is only a vague understanding that there is waste, but not exactly where that waste is.

Not that I'd encourage it, but if most people had experience working for government, they'd have a better understanding of really how much of their money is being wasted.

See.. I think the opposite. I think the military should be open to most Americans who are able. But we should encourage this trajectory of military culture and military families to separate into it's own thing.

It shouldn't be a cast system where people are trapped. But people raised in a military family should be brought up in a certain culture, with certain obligations, and a particular knowledge base that will help them make informed decisions with respect to war and foreign policy.


I think most people would be quite happy being raised in a professional class in which their peculiar knowledge base centers around economics and domestic policy.

What I am coming to realize is that societies actually want to divide up like this. This isn't just some bullshit Plato pulled out of his ass. This happens naturally in all complex human societies. What we have been doing since the Enlightenment is just unnatural.

I don't disagree. When I imagine, I imagine based on what is similar to reality. In reality, everyone votes. That system would be better if everyone also had the experience to influence their vote. Trimming the fat on that only slims down the process.

And what I mentioned doesn't include the huge numbers of urbanites who live on the dole, don't own property, don't pay net taxes, and don't serve. Those people should be limited to arguing about parks, bus schedules, and stuff like that. Give them something to vote on and govern, but keep it limited and somehow make them work for it.

[Okeefenokee]

No one on the dole can be considered to be a legitimate voter.

The same rationale is used to forbid employers from boning their employees.