My comments are in reference to this post in the Pit. It is primarily a discussion of the mission of the United States Military at present.
With some exceptions from both sides, most of the invective, especially name-calling, has come from those who support a strong military and all that that entails. They present their arguments in more aggressive terminology. The other side is more assertive – presenting their points with less hostility.
Has anyone noticed this in other threads on this same general topic? What is the connection between language, personality type, psychological makeup and stance on the use of military force? Anyone want to speculate?
(I acknowledge that “colorful” language is not considered inappropriate in the Pit. I don’t personally view individual words as intrinsically good or bad.)
What actually characterizes a “militant personality”?
I fully agree, Monty. Similarly, just because someone supports the troops doesn’t mean they support the military, etc.
But surely there is no argument that the use of invective and name-calling is belligerent and aggressive – also associated with the word militant. I’ve never been in the military, but I have a sneaking suspicion that strong language is not exactly discouraged – and with good reason. Do you know what I mean?
Thanks for helping me to clarify what I’m trying to ask. In the thread that I linked to, I found that the more militaristic supporters were also the more militant in the wording of their posts.
There were exceptions on both sides. I do not want to get into naming names.
Does this militancy show up in other threads on the same subject? What are some of the other characteristics of a militaristic personality?
I grew up in the South (1940’s-1960’s) where there was a slightly different take on the military – at least where I lived. The military academies played an important role as did what I think was called OCS. Yet these men were not “militant” in any of the ways that I usually think of the word.
Oh yes - I’ve noticed that it’s the militarists who always jump straight to the foaming personal attacks laden with profanity - before ebven attacking the actual points. While I’ve resolved to give it right back to them, most non-militarists seem much less likely to go for the four-letter words and the diversions into personal attack.
I will also point out that most of those militarists seem to be American (not sure about Monty) - make of that what you will.
I’m curious as to how many of those miltarists are ex- or current-military, and how many are chickenhawks.
To clarify - this isn’t a backhanded way of saying I think most militarists are over-compensating chickenhawks. I suspect most of the Doper militarists are in fact current or ex-miltary. “The corps is Mother, the corps is Father” and all that.
To speak only for myself, my name-calling is directed at Der Trish and everybody who supports his deathwish against American soldiers. In my mind, wishing death upon American soldiers is worse than calling names, but others may disagree.
I’m not exactly clear why wishing death on American soldiers is not a violation of board rules, especially as there are many American soldiers that actively post on this board, but that’s why I’m not a moderator.
Der Trihs, have you had your daily dose of happy news about American soldiers dying yet today?
What lies? you sound American, but your location says Korea, which is why I said “not sure”. There’s an active Pit thread you can come back to if you want to fly off the handle, you know.
So are we discussing militant or militaristic personality?
I would say that the “militant” personality as the OP describes is more of a “true believer”. They believe in certain processes, ideals or principals and they believe in them strongly and uncomprimisingly. They see the world in terms of “us” vs “them” and generally do not like having their beliefs questioned or tested. In fact, anyone who criticizes their beliefs, regardless of how constructively, becomes a “them”.
Such personalities do well in activities and careers like team sports, military, and traditional business. Basically where there is a clearly defined structure, hierarchy and rules. Probably not so well in creative fields.
The obvious weakness in this type of thinking is that it is very narrowminded and rigid. In the business world, it works effectively so long as your business environment doesn’t chage. If change happens, they often have trouble adapting.
On the SDMB, such a personality type might manifest itself in the form of hostility and simplistic solutions. “Bomb the heck out of them” might be a recommendation for Iraq. “We’ve been bombing the heck out of them for three years. It’s not working…” one might reply. “Then we need MORE bombs!!” :smack: