TWEEEEEEET!
Everyone: address the issue or leave the thread.
If you need to bicker over personalities, take it back to the Pit.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
It doesn’t have to - at any rate, I’ll refrain from continuing here, the thread referenced in the OP is a better place for it.
…
So, I’d still like to know if most of the people who could be called “militarists” are ex- or current military. I think it’d give a good insight into the degree of feeling they have for the issue.
Post #22 of course is in reply to Paul and msmith
No. I’ve noticed many anti-war types who are quite “militant” in their postings. I think you tend to notice the foaming at the mouth more when it is in support of something you disagree with. Or, have you not been paying attention to the many, many, many Bushwhacking threads in the Pit, for example? I don’t recall them begining with “I must register my strong, though tasteful, disagreement with our honorable President about…”
I agree in general, though the OP here is talking specifically about debates around the military.
As a participant in the thread cited, I have to say there was a certain amount of bellicosity on both sides, but you saw more of it on the “militarist” side just because there were more people representing that view. But it’s not like Der Trihs or MrDibble were particularly temperate in their language. Then again, it was a Pit thread. The basic argument could perfectly well have taken place more politely in GD, and maybe should have.
Zoe, your thread reminds me of a pop-psychology experiment I wanted to perform in that thread, in which I would ask the people staking out the most strident views what kind of cars they drive. Probably not necessary to say where I’m going with this. (For the record… I drive a minivan.)
I drive a Renault Clio.
I had conciously chosen to give as good as, or better than, I got, after the language used in the Iraq thread I started a few months ago. I hope it can be picked up that I was politer to those who were polite to me, though.
I’m in the military, but I’m not militant about it.
Actually, I don’t know any military people who are militant about being in the military. They’d be kinda looked at funny, like, chill out dude.
The thread mentioned in the OP was in the Pit. It’s a given, that the rules about “salty” language are looser there. It’s a place to vent, to get down and dirty. I don’t think I’m much of a militant, and I don’t think I’m militaristic. However, believe it or not, I firmly believe in a strong military. However, that won’t keep me from cutting loose sometimes (more than sometimes). Sometimes the strong language is a way of emphasizing something, sometimes it is frustration or anger. You may notice, something interesting though. We can and often do, mix it up with someone and still completely agree with them on some other issue. It’s OK to knock the hell out of each other in the Pit, so long as it does not become a personal vendetta.
Why? I’m not meaning this as any kind of personal insult to you at all. Believe me. I’m just interested in what it is that determines that you will respond in kind.
You are so right that we notice it more when it is something we disagree with. I also discount it when it is directed at someone “out there” (such as a political figure) as opposed to a decent fellow Doper such as yourself. That’s why I see Bushwacking as different.
(As a compromise, I offer you The Hillary on a temporary basis and in some other thread. Have at. :))
I am so nailed. Pop anything is always an interest. (red Sebring convertible)
That reminds me so much of my friends and of why I leave some things in the past. Bless them all.
The militaristic mindset and subsequent militant stance is a mind and position firmly entrenched in Nationalism and Patrotism giving unreasoned and irrational permission to violence and aggression. It is unthinking and based in our worse primalism.
It is a manifestation of a very simple misconception, namely that power, aggression, and deathdealing are solutions to problems. Oh, it can be effective in its decisiveness, but at what cost to humanity tangibly and intangibly? True evolution for our species will only come when we end the cycle of violence.
Because I’ve noticed that they tend to shout their opponents down and then claim victory, when all they’ve really succeeded in doing is personal attack or semantic debate, not actually answering the questions put to them. I’m seeing if the reverse tactic works, rather than calm reason. I try and think of it as “insult-laden reason”. And I’ve tried to only respond that way to those people who most try those semantic tactics. Or just the plain rude ones - I mean, did you read duffer’s first post in that thread? He was going for some sort of record for use of the Anglo-Saxon invective there. I know it’s the Pit, but really, is intelligibility too much to ask for?
Yes, I read duffer’s posts.
So if you see his posts as unintelligible, why would you choose that method to try to communicate your thoughts? Keep in mind that in reality, those with opposing ideas here cannot “shout you down.”
Look at devilsknew’s post. Does it seem less firm – less loud and clear to you because it does not have invective?
I have a theory that people respond most truly to those who are most reflect themselves. I happen to think that responding in kind to shouters will cause them to reveal the kind of disregard for the truth and self-delusiuon that I think is at their core.
Note that I haven’t responded to duffer’s less-invective-laden posts later in that same thread in the same way as others’ content-free raving.
I’d disagree. Sheer volume of invective tends to put off the more reasonable or polite posters, leaving the shouters and semanticists to say they won the argument. This they also tend to bring up in later arguments, too, leading to a perception that their side is winning the debate. I don’t think that’s an accurate perception, so a change of tactics might lead to better results there. Anyway, like I said, it’s just a tactic.
No, it seems more reasoned and rational because of the lack of invective. I’d wish for more commas in that particular post, though. 
I understand that people get fed up with the name-calling and invective and just quit posting, but it is the polite person who makes that choice, not the ones hurling the insults. They cannot control the “quieter” well-reasoned logic. The shouters can say they have won the argument, but that fools no one – especially at the Dope, even when they bring it up in later arguments.
Your thoughts on this have been appreciated and our feelings on the issues are not so far apart.
(Don’t be surprised when you see my more colorful word choices!)
Peace on Earth
Thanks for listening,** Zoe**.
It’s not just limited to Nationalism and Patriotism. What about ELF types who burn SUVs or people who blow up abbortion cliniques? It’s basically just what you said - a belief that something is so important that any action is justified on it’s behalf.