[The Lizard of Oz]

(06-15-2014 12:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

You wrote:

Quote:

A major war is craved, necessary, and inevitable.

and

Quote:

Such a war will be savage; limited nuclear exchanges possibly including successful delivery of nuclear bombs to the US mainland are entirely plausible, maybe even likely.

Readers can draw their own conclusions.

Sp5, what conclusions can "readers" draw from that?

To say that a major war is craved, necessary, and inevitable is an observation about the mood and the direction of the times -- what is in the air, and what is coming. I believe that it is an undeniable observation. Men grow weary of the extended peacetime and crave its opposite; and its opposite arrives, sooner or later. That has been the case throughout history, and the current period is no different in that respect. That is all.

(06-15-2014 12:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

As for personal experience, yes it means something, but not just in the experience of war itself. Whether you liked the experience of war or didn't like it, one thing is that it gives you a sense of perspective. You learn that small shit does not matter, and you don't get upset about every little thing.

I was happy to see the short-haired tattooed girl barista with-an-attitude when I got back, I was amused. I really don't care much about transgender pastors, I know that in a world with seven billion people, and a USA with 300 million plus people with some freedom are going to make all kinds of choices. People on this board get too upset about Shit Other People Do that has no affect on them.

Call me a contrarian, call me a beta, call me a male feminist, but I'll take feminist bitches with short hair on Twitter over nukes on San Diego or even the USS Ronald Reagan being sunk in the Sea of Japan.

That's fine -- but taking it or not is not your choice to make, nor is it mine. A major war will happen, or not, no matter how we feel about it.

If you read my post carefully, you might note that I ended it with a call to enjoy the stale peace while it lasts -- including even the short-haired barista. Indeed that is the only thing in the entire post that I called for.

(06-15-2014 12:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Writing about what a great thing a general war would be without any experience of it reminds me of all of the think-tank academics who are always cranking out such papers who condescend to military professionals.

Again, please distinguish between the subjective experience of war (or anything else) and its objective purposes and consequences. If one cannot separate these two things, there is no thinking at all. That is one reason women are not very good thinkers, by the way.

I did not say that a war would be "great". Fucking a luscious 18 year old girl in every hole is great; war is not.

What does that have to do with its objective consequences?

(06-15-2014 12:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

The other thing about your essay is your naive certainty about the outcomes of the war and your omissions of certain undesirable effects.

"War is the health of the state." There hasn't been a war which did not lead to the advance of the state and more control over individuals. Even this "War on Terror" has brought total surveillance, the removal of due process rules and the militarization of local police. A general war would stamp out freedom altogether. Maybe you think that would be a good thing - no more feminists on Twitter!

WWII has been credited with advancing feminism by placing women in factories doing traditional male work. Since a future war, especially one in the Pacific mostly fought at sea would bring more drones and automation, women would have an equal role in fighting that war. This would not lead to a return to your idea of "natural roles."

The USA could lose, after having its economy and infrastructure destroyed. It could lose in a limited way, by being humiliated in the western Pacific with the sinking of a few carriers and submarines, or it could lose in a big way, say the occupation of Hawaii.

I disagree with these specifics, but they were not the point of my post.

(06-15-2014 12:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

I can't think of a more radical idea than advocating a general war to restructure society. It is the antithesis of conservatism.

I am advocating nothing. Is that so hard to comprehend?

And "conservatism" -- what do these meaningless labels have to do with anything? Come on.

(06-15-2014 12:37 AM)Sp5 Wrote:  

When I was reading the essay, I imagined it being read in this accent:

Well, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed...

But seriously, I am disappointed with the use of shaming language and rhetorical devices of this kind. They have no place in trying to understand the world and its tendencies.