Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[H.P. Lovecraft]

I stubbed my toe on my coffee table. Ban Semi-Automatic Tables 2016.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You guys are trolling, so fuck off.

 

[CiG]

I definitely am, HP seems serious though.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

He's certainly put my distaste for Dak's argumentation style in perspective.

 

[H.P. Lovecraft]

 

[Dak]

Do you really see nothing wrong with an argument like this when you make it? Come on.

He's certainly put my distaste for Dak's argumentation style in perspective.

As I've said before, words mean things. "Guns cause death" is factually incorrect, and a typical mistaking of correlation for causation sort of error. Anyone who goes "lol leave a gun in a room" is pointing that out, but in a very sarcastic way that isn't going to win any friends - but then again the facts won't either because most people are arguing from emotional positions. My additional point was that even a statement like "Guns are positively correlated with death" still doesn't tell us anything substantial about guns or death and the strength of the correlation. Not all deaths are bad, and there are all sorts of ways to show that that positive correlation is quite small or even negative actually.

 

[Einherjar86]

Here's my opinion:

There should be room in our national budget - in any national budget - for thinktanks to conduct research on a virtually limitless number of subjects. Whether or not the research will yield any practical gain should be beside the point. That's my opinion.

When CERN proved the existence of the Higgs boson, they were asked by a journalist what the economic and/or social impact of the discovery would be. The scientist fielding questions admitted that, at the moment, there are no immediate practical benefits. I refuse to admit this means the discovery is worthless.

I consider thinktanks and other institutions of this sort to be crucial to our cultural development in ways we can't imagine. For that reason, I think it's worth investigating/researching the impact that various objects have on our way of life: cell phones, drones, the internet, self-driving cars, etc... Guns fall into this category.

And that's like... my opinion, man.

 

[Dak]

BTW, the CDC actually did help do a recent gun study post-Sandy Hook:

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/1

Page 15 on defensive gun use.

Page 28-29 Suicides: The majority of "gun deaths". Rural whites use guns to kill themselves.
Page 30 for Homicides: Urban blacks are using guns to kill each other.
Page 31 Unintentional: Insignificant amount.
Page 32 Non fatal use: Less than 6, 7% usage for assaults and rapes, respectively.

Page 35: Society Level factors: Being poor, uneducated (and "diverse").
Page 36: Community Level factors: Drugs, drugs, drugs. Blacks.

Much of the prevention stuff talked about aggressive interventions in "hotspots". Pretty obvious this is pc code for "heavily police/target for education etc concentrated areas of poor urban blacks".

My evaluation of liberal gun control desires is that as the majority of homicides with guns are done by blacks in urban areas, and liberals tend to live in urban areas, they are caught between the rock of mortal danger from gun wielding minorities and the hard place of appearing racist for talking about the real danger source. So instead we have to disarm everyone because that 1 white guy shooting up his school and the other shooting himself. Because racism.

 

[Einherjar86]

My evaluation of liberal gun control desires is that as the majority of homicides with guns are done by blacks in urban areas, and liberals tend to live in urban areas, they are caught between the rock of mortal danger from gun wielding minorities and the hard place of appearing racist for talking about the real danger source. So instead we have to disarm everyone because that 1 white guy shooting up his school and the other shooting himself. Because racism.

I think there's almost certainly something to this.

Just a few comments on the argument that guns don't kill people because they're objects -

Human beings are objects; we just happen to occupy the subjective position of being those objects. From alternative (and possibly unimaginable) perspectives, we have to accept that we might appear as objects that act as causal factors in gun incidents just as much as the guns themselves do.

This is the general underlying premise of object studies. I would resist appeals to causality (which tend to generalize/universalize) and instead describe guns as "causal factors" - or even "causal actors" (see Bruno Latour's actor-network theory). Without guns, you don't have incidents involving them; therefore, they act as causal factors. That's a more helpful terminology, in my opinion.

 

[Dak]

Without guns, you don't have incidents involving them; therefore, they act as causal factors. That's a more helpful terminology, in my opinion.

This is necessarily true, but it unduly focuses on "gun violence". There are many behaviors that surround guns that do not get the same attention. We would be almost more justified by the logic in talking about an "epidemic of gun purchases", an epidemic of "gun storage", an "epidemic of gun stores", an epidemic of "gun target practice", an "epidemic of gun cleaning". Doesn't have the same ring to it does it?

When deaths from poor health behaviors absolutely dwarf "gun deaths", to include suicide, the equivalence in the logic of talking about an "epidemic of gun violence" is to speak of the "epidemic of ice cream stores". ColdStone Killers.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'd ditch the rhetoric of "epidemic," if I were in control. Obviously what I'm talking about isn't what actually happens in the media, it's a suggestion for how we should talk about guns.

Also, moving this from the military thread since I don't want to clutter it:

There is also a very paradoxical relationship with the Citizenry. On the one hand, the Warfighter is drawn from the citizenry, and in a vague sense often sees the military as the bulwark defending The Nation (or The Tribe), which is made up of the citizenry - including the Warfighters (but interestingly enough not always the politicians). OTOH, when presented with specifics about the citizenry, there is often a similar response of disgust as when presented with the politician, and for similar reasons. The citizenry is seen, at a minimum, as largely comprised of lazy slobs.

I just came across an interesting article in the NYT titled "Star Wars and the Fantasy of American Violence." I know lots of people probably don't subscribe to it, so I'll post some excerpts here. Interesting take on the military from the side of the military journalist (the author was in Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom):

Veterans and pundits often talk about the military-civilian gap. So few Americans serve, they say, that most of the nation doesn’t have any sense of what that service means. This is superficially true. The military is a professional subculture with its own rituals, traditions and jargon. There’s a military-civilian gap just as there’s a police-civilian gap, an oil rigger-civilian gap, a barista-civilian gap. But that’s not what these vets and pundits mean.

What they’re really claiming is that veterans know something civilians don’t understand or can’t imagine, and that this failure of imagination is a failure of democracy, a failure of dialogue, a failure to listen. What they mean is that veterans have learned something special through their encounter with violence, and civilians need to hear that sacred knowledge. This is where talk about the “military-civilian gap” goes awry.

The truth is, most Americans understand what our soldiers do very well: They understand that American troops are sent overseas to defend American political and economic interests, wreak vengeance on those who have wronged us, and hunt down our enemies and kill them. There is no gap there. The American military has a job, and most of us, on some level, understand exactly what that job is. The American soldier or Marine is an agent of American state power.

The real gap is between the fantasy of American heroism and the reality of what the American military does, between the myth of violence and the truth of war. The real gap is between our subconscious belief that righteous violence can redeem us, even ennoble us, and the chastening truth that violence debases and corrupts.

 

[Dak]

If the writer were correct, then there wouldn't be a gap except between actual combat veterans and all civilians. There's also a huge difference between knowing a "job description" and fundamentally understanding experience in carrying out the job. Obviously everyone knows the "job description". If we want to start talking about gaps, there's a massive gulf between the "job description" and the job reality.

 

[Dak]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-war-has-a-remarkable-and-miraculous-effect/

“It seems likely that, for many groups and for substantial periods of human prehistory, lethal group conflict may have been frequent enough to support the proliferation of quite costly forms of altruism,” economist Sam Bowles wrote a few years ago in Science. “This might help explain why altruism often does not extend across group boundaries, and how this kind of ‘parochial altruism’ may have evolved in humans and perhaps even other animals.”

How does this explain the patterns of generosity among victims of war violence? The researchers speculate that our evolutionary history may have predisposed us to behave in certain ways following stressful or violent encounters with outsiders. In times of peace, we might jostle selfishly among ourselves, but in times of heightened conflict, we might instinctively become cooperative — and this trait may have helped our ancestors triumph over their rivals.

I would argue that part of the military/civilian gap in the post-Vietnam US era is the distance between the conflicts the military experiences and the peace that the civilians experience.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wasn't saying the writer was correct, necessarily; only that it's an interesting perspective. As is the perspective that military personnel often view non-military citizens as lazy and thankless, although of course this is often untrue as well.

As far as camaraderie among soldiers, there's certainly a bonding experience that occurs under harsh conditions; but I also think it's true that the military attracts individuals of a certain psychological predisposition, and that many of these individuals have certain propensities toward violence.

Finally, you're absolutely right that knowing a job description isn't the same as knowing the experience of carrying out that job; but that's true for absolutely any job. In this country, we tend to place a higher ideological value on military service, specifically on the violence that we know they commit without experiencing that violence ourselves. I think that was the author's point.

 

[CiG]

In this country, we tend to place a higher ideological value on military service, specifically on the violence that we know they commit without experiencing that violence ourselves. I think that was the author's point.

I'd go a step further and say we place a higher ideological value on any kind of job we aren't willing to do ourselves. Police, fire department, military, etc. Jobs that have bravery as a requirement and personal freedom as a sacrifice.

 

[Einherjar86]

It isn't a personal sacrifice if you enjoy hurting people.

The myth of the selfless hero who goes marching into war despite his hesitance to do so is just that - a myth. Alternatively, there are plenty of people who would rather not fight in the military but do so out of financial necessity. This isn't something to praise either.

 

[CiG]

I'm talking from the civilians pov here, as it's those not in the job that tend to construct the higher moral value, which influences many to do those jobs in the first place.

 

[Dak]

I wasn't saying the writer was correct, necessarily; only that it's an interesting perspective. As is the perspective that military personnel often view non-military citizens as lazy and thankless, although of course this is often untrue as well.

Lazy yes, but not thankless. It is more likely at this point that military personnel are almost tired of the thanks - because it the job itself for most, compared to the pay and bennies, isn't actually out of whack. Plus the thanks rings as hollow as the people.

As far as camaraderie among soldiers, there's certainly a bonding experience that occurs under harsh conditions; but I also think it's true that the military attracts individuals of a certain psychological predisposition, and that many of these individuals have certain propensities toward violence.

It isn't a personal sacrifice if you enjoy hurting people.

The myth of the selfless hero who goes marching into war despite his hesitance to do so is just that - a myth. Alternatively, there are plenty of people who would rather not fight in the military but do so out of financial necessity. This isn't something to praise either.

I'm pretty disinclined to believe in any "selfless people". That said, most people do not join the military specifically because they want to do violence, and most jobs in the modern military do not provide access to do violence. The military does provide a sense of higher purpose, belonging, and structure. It also offers one of the few paths available out of certain situations.

Finally, you're absolutely right that knowing a job description isn't the same as knowing the experience of carrying out that job; but that's true for absolutely any job. In this country, we tend to place a higher ideological value on military service, specifically on the violence that we know they commit without experiencing that violence ourselves. I think that was the author's point.

The value is on giving up a certain amount of liberty to purportedly ensure the ability of others to not have to worry about such things, whether or not any such violence occurs or threatens. Being gone from "civilization" for months at a time, having to get up on a daily basis to exercise at the crack of dawn, no option to simply "quit" when you work for assholes, etc. are a bridge too far for most.

 

[Einherjar86]

Lazy yes, but not thankless. It is more likely at this point that military personnel are almost tired of the thanks - because it the job itself for most, compared to the pay and bennies, isn't actually out of whack. Plus the thanks rings as hollow as the people.

So people who haven't been in the military shouldn't thank veterans? Are they hollow because they didn't join the military? Are they lazy? I'm confused. Is all this purely perception?

That said, most people do not join the military specifically because they want to do violence, and most jobs in the modern military do not provide access to do violence. The military does provide a sense of higher purpose, belonging, and structure. It also offers one of the few paths available out of certain situations.

I mentioned your final point in my previous post. I don't think it's anything to applaud the military for, i.e. allowing people a way out of shitty social conditions in exchange for the possibility of committing violent acts, especially if such people would rather not do this.

In this scenario, there's not much bravery to speak of because they're basically being forced into the situation.

The value is on giving up a certain amount of liberty to purportedly ensure the ability of others to not have to worry about such things, whether or not any such violence occurs or threatens. Being gone from "civilization" for months at a time, having to get up on a daily basis to exercise at the crack of dawn, no option to simply "quit" when you work for assholes, etc. are a bridge too far for most.

Indeed, they're too far even for many people who try to make it in the military.

I just don't think we should blindly put so much value and respect on a job that many people choose only because they have to, and in many cases would rather not do at all. We tend to ignore the fact that in many cases, these people have no other choice. In some cases I'm sure it can be a positive experience, but frequently this isn't the case.

 

[Dak]

So people who haven't been in the military shouldn't thank veterans? Are they hollow because they didn't join the military? Are they lazy? I'm confused. Is all this purely perception?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-warrior-main-20150524-story.html

The military-civilian divide is not marked by particular animosity or resentment on the civilian side. In airports and restaurants, civilians thank men and women in uniform for their service. They cheer veterans at ballgames and car races.

What most don't realize is how frequently such gestures ring hollow.

"So many people give you lip service and offer fake sympathy. Their sons and daughters aren't in the military, so it's not their war. It's something that happens to other people," said Phillip Ruiz, 46, a former Army staff sergeant in Tennessee who was wounded twice during three tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Douglas Pearce, a former Army lieutenant who fought in Afghanistan and is now a marriage and family counselor in Nashville, said civilians seem to think they "can assuage their guilt with five seconds in the airport."

"What they're saying is, 'I'm glad you served so that I didn't have to, and my kids won't have to.'"

.................

a 2011 Pew Research Center study titled "The Military-Civilian Gap" found that only a quarter of civilians who had no family ties to the military followed war news closely. Half said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan made little difference in their lives, and half said they were not worth fighting.

"We've disconnected the consequences of war from the American public. As a result, that young man or woman putting on the uniform is much less likely to be your son or daughter, or even your neighbor or classmate," said Mike Haynie, director of the Institute for Veterans and Military Families at Syracuse University in upstate New York. "That is a dangerous place to be."

Not exhaustive but the article gets the gist of it.

I mentioned your final point in my previous post. I don't think it's anything to applaud the military for, i.e. allowing people a way out of shitty social conditions in exchange for the possibility of committing violent acts, especially if such people would rather not do this.

In this scenario, there's not much bravery to speak of because they're basically being forced into the situation.

Roughly 80% of military jobs are non-combat. Many "combat jobs" still don't deal in direct violence. I've got an inlaw who currently checks baggage for the AF. The closest thing to violence she's most likely going to encounter is a spilled drink.

Bravery is a word that doesn't apply very much to military affairs. It's a job, and if there is a draft, you're of course quite forced. There are certain situations where someone kind of "rises above", like Captain Ripley or John Basilone. Even then, those people themselves would probably not think in terms of bravery but instead of "it needed to be done". The bravery is in that anyone would have known it needed to be done, but wouldn't have done it. Joining the military isn't something that "needs to be done" per se, at least not yet.

Indeed, they're too far even for many people who try to make it in the military.

I just don't think we should blindly put so much value and respect on a job that many people choose only because they have to, and in many cases would rather not do at all. We tend to ignore the fact that in many cases, these people have no other choice. In some cases I'm sure it can be a positive experience, but frequently this isn't the case.

It frequently isn't the case, but polls are all over the place as to exactly why it isn't. I'll say until I'm no longer alive to say it that the biggest problem in the military are the other people in the military. Of course, someone who gets in with a little prior life experience first knows that's just a part of the human condition: People are often kind of shitty. Usually it takes getting out of the military to realize many of those things you complained about can be found anywhere, and sometimes the complaints were merely a symptom of immaturity.