In the US, everyone seems to be tripping over themselves in an effort to thank veterans and those currently serving their country. Make no mistake, I have nothing but respect for those that serve. They are risking their lives. I get that, but do they deserve more thanks or respect than the police, firefighters or others that risk their lives for our safety? We have a Veterans Day, should we have a Policemans Day?
Yes. There has been a deliberate effort by hawks in the government to create what is essentially military worship, so that they could browbeat people who objected to the latest military escapade into accepting it. They equated “support the troops” to “support the war”, and made the ridiculous over the top military worship so strong that no one would dare even question that.
Then it increased a social construct on which people could become holier than thou - rah rah I wave the flag harder, I’m better than you. People all wanted to become part of the military worship club.
It’s also obnoxious when people try to tell you that the only reason you have any freedom is because our military is blowing up backwater countries for economic and political interests.
I say this without any inherent disdain for the military or those in it at all. For the most part they’re good people - many of whom buy into the same bullshit and truly want to sacrifice themselves for their country. But the fervor is over the top. It has gotten to the point where it’s difficult to have a rational discussion about the merits of particular military actions.
Which is exactly what the intent was in the first place.
I realize that even though my criticism is rather mild, most people reading this will be uncomfortable with what I’m saying. That fact is a really good piece of evidence that I’m right - that even questioning military worship is a forbidden thought.
How does one determine what the proper amount of gratitude is?
Also, keep in mind that while there is a superficial resemblance between police work and military work, during war time, the military has to put up with everyday living conditions that no policeman every has to deal with. And during the really intense wars, like WWII, they get put their lives on the line like no cops have to do.
As for Veteran’s Day, keep in mind that it started out as Armistice Day after WWI (which was sort of big deal, in case you didn’t know) then morphed into the more generic Veteran’s Day in the 50s. I think the experience of vets in the two WWs is on a different level than that of policemen.
I think to approach the proper amount of gratitude we must consider what exactly the military is doing at a certain point in time.
Remember Coldfire’s legendary post about the gratitude towards those brave men who liberated The Netherlands in 1945? I share that gratitude to the bone. Our debt to those brave young men who risked & often lost their lives to come and save an entirely foreign country from Nazi occupation is immeasurable.
However, since the WWs the reasons for the various wars the military (I’m talking about several countries now) have been involved in have become murkier. Things aren’t as clear cut as they were during the Nazi occupation. There have been some errors in judgement, even if they were well meant (certainly by the young men and women in the military).
If the military goes to war in a place far away, and it turns out that place may not have posed a threat to us and they may not uniformly have wanted to be “liberated”, then what exactly should we be grateful for? I think we can still be grateful for the intent of the men and women who go out there, after all they go with faith in their leaders, thinking they are risking their lives to protect us or to liberate others. We can be grateful for their bravery, but perhaps we don’t need to be grateful for the actual mission (if that makes sense).
Blind gratitude spurred by patriotism, without examining each situation individually, can be a dangerous thing. After all, I’m sure many citizens of Nazi Germany felt gratitude to their military for what they were doing.
None of that diminishes my gratitude towards the brave Canadians, Americans and Brits who liberated the Netherlands 1945 and allowed me to grow up in a free country.
Although soldiers, policemen & firemen share a similar mortal risk, soldiers have to deal with additional hardships that, IMHO, represents and even greater sacrifice.
A policeman risks his life daily, but still gets to go home to the wife and kids and sleep in his nice warm bed. Even in times of peace, soldiers usually face extended deployments away from his family, and usually stuck some crappy barracks or worse.
I like what you did there. You’ve set it up so that anyone who disagrees with your premises can be dismissed on account of them being brainwashed into reverence for the military. Bravo.
No, I didn’t say anyone who disagreed with me was wrong. I’m fine with rational disagreement. I’m saying that most people will have an immediate, intuitive, irrational response to what I said - and this response should be indicative of the sort of Orwellian way we’ve been programmed to think about the military.
I have that response and agree with him.
Time magazine recently had an article titled “An Army Apart”, on the increasing gulf between military and civilian life. It included the quip that we’re grateful to the troops because we don’t want to have to be them.
How does that reasoning differ from what conspiracy theorists use when they, for example, talk about the lack of press coverage about their pet theory? That just proves there’s a cover-up!
I don’t understand the similarities. I’m not making an argument based on the intuitive feelings of the reader - that’s just an aside to attempt to get people to think about my point. My post stands otherwise without it.
I guess you mean I’m saying “if you think I’m wrong, that just proves I’m right!” but my point was more nuanced than that. My point is that if you intuitively, emotionally reject what I’m saying automatically, as if it were so wrong as to be beyond consideration, then it’s a reaction of conditioning rather than reason. If you don’t have that reaction, then obviously I’m wrong about that particular person. It’s also entirely possible not to have that reaction, but to examine the issue and genuinely disagree with me - that’s fine.
Didn’t we do this thread on Veteran’s Day?
Odesio’s analysis is spot-on.
No, it isn’t. The line is an aside. My post can be read entirely without losing a bit of meaning if you just ignore the last line entirely.
He’s also logically incorrect, for reasons I already pointed out. He’s attempting to portray my argument is dismissing anyone disagreeing with me as brainwashed, and I have very clearly elaborated that that isn’t the case.
But don’t let a lack of reading comprehension get in the way of trying to feel clever.
Oh, I’m sure that you do want everyone to ignore that last line completely.
Odesio did an admirable job of pointing out why your statement effectively dismisses the opinion of anyone who disagrees with your premises. After all, their disagreement is surely evidence that they’ve been brainwashed – programmed by Orwellian means into adoring the military. Sheesh.
In another thread, I pointed out that you tend to paint people into extreme corners, without regard for any middle ground. This is another example of which I speak.
It is perfectly possible for someone to reject what you say without saying that it is unworthy of consideration. One may consider your words, for example, and yet ultimately conclude that you’re incorrect in that regard.
Ah, but you may point out your use of the word “automatically.” And sure, you did use it – in your subsequent posting, that is. Not in the posting to which Odesio responded. One could argue that it’s wrong to automatically reject your words without any consideration, but that’s not the sentiment which was expressed in the statement that Odesio quoted.
I don’t want anyone to ignore that line. It’s there for a reason. The point is that it’s not my argument. It’s not presented as an argument. The rest of my post does not hinge on that.
I mean, for fucks sake, are we really going to pretend that mindless jingoism doesn’t exist? That a lot of people chant “USA!!! USA!!!” at stupid shit for no reason? Why is this any different?
There are lots of people who are blindly supportive of the military for probably very personal reasons - perhaps they’re vets, or their family members have served and died for the military. Perhaps they’ve just rationally come to the conclusion that people who are willing to serve, regardless of the merits of what they’re serving, deserve a lot of respect. I never precluded the possibility.
I’m simply saying that a lot of people are simply blindly jinogistic and worship the military because there has been an emourmous social pressure to do so. That they don’t come to that position through rational analysis, but rather a knee-jerk conditioned reaction. And that there are people who want to encourage this because they’ve deliberately conflated the idea of “support the troops” with “support whatever we want to do with the troops”
I have no in way, whatsoever, precluded the possibility that people can disagree with me for rational reasons. I have, in fact, gone way out of my way to avoid doing so.
Yes, and the thread in which you speak of, you were yet again wrong and responded to straw men because you lack reading comprehension. Saying that there are people that exist that hold a certain view, or that other people deliberately encourage that point of view, is not saying that every single person subscribes to that view, or that everyone who does indeed have that view came to it through the same motivations.
Of course. THIS IS MY ENTIRE POINT. You’re the one that created this straw man position that I said that no one can rationally disagree with me.
Your entire point hinges on me automatically dismissing people who disagree with me, which is not something I’ve done, and which I’ve specifically gone out of my way to point out several times that I specifically crafted my position to avoid exactly that.
Of course, it’s not your argument. Nobody said that it was. It is, however, a convenient way to dismiss the opinions of people who DO disagree with your argument. After all, you claim that their disagreement is “a really good piece of evidence” that they’ve been effectively brainwashed.
I think that you’re fully aware of this distinction.
Of course it exists. Nobody here denies that. However, this does not logically imply that the people who disagree with you ARE guilty of such jingoism.
Again, I’m pretty sure that you understand this distinction – or at least, that you’re capable of understanding it if you so choose.
What you did was poison the well with an implicit conclusion. i.e. Any discomfort I might have with your argument is evidence that I’m troubled by “forbidden thoughts.” I can’t possibly respond to your statements without simultaneously defending myself against your conclusion that questioning military worship is a forbidden. If that last sentence had nothing to do with the rest of your post, well, you shouldn’t have written it down.