>>12539 >both Sure, to the definition of hypocrisy it's essential that both hypocrites and non-hypocrites agree on exactly one half of the issue. The line just isn't drawn on the axis of "religious" and "atheist" people, partly because of the atheist pretention that it is. The very beginning of that is how contemporary atheists to begin with muddle the line between ideology and praxis, in a way that would not be a lie to call postmodernist, even as it often is justified as direct opposition to postmodernism. If they called themselves Nietschean nihilists I would blame it on nihilism (like critics of the time did do), but chances are if they were aware enough to call themselves that they probably would also be capable of drawing that line correctly anyway and I wouldn't have to. Or I wouldn't be smart enough to notice some even deeper duplicity.
In Greek terminology theo was not such a blind personal faith in a group of men in the sky on mount Olympos, and atheism was a similar figure of speech as "god is dead", but modern atheists set up their blind non-faith statements by strawmanning non-postmodernist actions as absolute romantic naivete. Their narrative necessitates they they act like children pointing out that the emperor has no clothes to all of the adults, but that itself is what relying on a father figure in place of your own cosmic adulthood means. That is WWJD in practice, the reformation of Judaism into Christianity. Calling this practice "non-religious" does nothing but open the door for people who only use the movement as a purity test, and you're left trying to close the door with whining about "you're just like a religion", to feminism, to atheism+, to aron ra and the like. Culturally you've already lost because you started with a broken premise and there's no going back far enough to reverse it.
I know that you are not your beliefs and that beliefs doesn't change who you are. I also know what theos means: absolute principle. However, theos (greek) isn't deos/deus (latin), which deos comes from daimon (greek). Religions that makes theos into another daimon are literally demonic cults. Deism is literally Demonism, rejects theos just like most daimon worshippers pantheistic, theistic, atheistic, etc., which are all together ignorant, guilty of agnosis of theos and so don't know that they don't know, yet pretend to know that they do know despite not truly knowing, which it's okay to not know, but those that don't know can do nothing but seek after what they don't know which is impossible. They can reject many misconceptions but until they understand theos in their love of wisdom, they have no right to tell others that they know the truth of which is not within a spectrum in between an illusion of dualities, it transcends it. Semiology is child's play compared to this, for semiology is stuck under semantic ramblings of those that partake in logomachy because such people don't know how to use grammar as a tool to correct the words being used to properly represent the idea behind the words, which is why they can't come to know the truth nor convey it in words with the right ideas behind them while educating people to some introductory concepts while building upon them towards higher and higher concepts. Purification of falsehoods are impossible through "semiotics" by a bunch of academicians that sniff each other's butts, repeat what others had said before them, and strengthen groupthink which then suppresses actual paradigm shifting progress that they pretend to foster and understand yet instead they suppress and criticize in fear, uncertainty, and doubt of their own ignorance towards the absolute principle as if it was a mystery.
I've already mentioned the book titled On Killing - The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman (Lt. Col. of US Army). It gave some food for thought and I'm planning to write some of my speculation.
But what did the author write? Let's summarize. He starts with the observation that most men has a natural resistance to kill (only 2% of men - those who have "predisposition toward aggressive psychopathic personality" - can go on killing without becoming a nervous wreck). This resistance is so high that even at times that our life is directly threatened (like others shoot at us) still difficult to overcome it. This resistance is the reason why infantry fire was so embarrassingly ineffective in the past 300 years - with the exception of machine guns - despite the fact that infantry weaponry (rifles) are reliable and accurate enough to cause massive losses among the enemy. The author gives examples and sources, such as a Prussian experiment in the late 18th century, several reports and notices from several authors during 19-20th centuries (American, French, Israeli etc.), and an interesting work by a US Army historian who (and his coworkers) made mass interviews with fighting GIs during and after WWII. Also he cites his own conversation with veterans of WWII and Vietnam. He gives new ideas on what's really happening on the battlefield. He compliments the widely known fight-or-flight model with two other options: in reality the soldiers can fight, posture, submit or flight. And most soldiers choose the second option. Then he ponders on what enables killing (I'm gonna write more about this later) and how modern (post-WWII) armies achieve this. Then he compares these methods with the ways of contemporary mass media. His conlcusion is (after pointing out the exponential rise of violent crimes) that mass media has an undesirable effect on society.
What interesting for me is this resistance, and the enabling part. These things are actually give an entirely new way of looking warfare, and how and why battles were won. For example the part officers (the demanding authority to kill) play in the enabling. When people (professional historians, history pros and other armchair generals) comparing the Hellenic phalanx with Roman manipulus and why the latter was more successful they compare everything but the officers. In the phalanx he's only one among those who stand in line and do the poking with pikes, but a Roman officer is one outside the formation and pressuring the soldiers to kill. It makes a huge difference if someone shouting in your ears "stab! stab! stab!" and generally pressuring you to kill. Especially if this one person is an exemplary one, a veteran whose skill in killing surpasses all the others in that particular unit. However noone talks about this because noone thinks about it.
I'll continue this sometimes, maybe only next weekend, we'll see. If you wish to read the book you can probably find it on libgen.
>>12070 When I looked this up in one book (A Companion to Vietnam War edited by Marilyn B. Young and Robert Buzzanco, Chapter Twenty-Two: Sanctuary!: A Bridge Between Civilian and GI Protest Against the Vietnam War by Michael S. Foley) I found a line: Perhaps it has been too easy to accept the stories that portray returning soldiers as mistreated by civilian opponents of the war; images of long-haired protesters spitting on Vietnam veterans or calling them “baby killers” persist in the American consciousness despite a lack of evidence? This part has a endnote reference: The image of antiwar protesters spitting on returning veterans has recently been challenged persuasively in Jerry Lembcke, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam (New York New York University Press, 1998). Lembcke, a Vietnam veteran and a sociologist at Holy Cross, argues that not one single instance of an antiwar protester spitting on a veteran has ever been convincingly documented.
>>12101 Now this spitting thing is fairly marginal. According to Grossman Bob Greene in his book, Homecoming, mentions he got over thousand letters from veterans stating they were spat upon. I dunno how wide were the audience of Green who could now about his request to send letter to him but I guess many spitting victim didn't know about it. But if we compare this 1000 cases (and an unkown number of unknown cases but probably not that many to tip the scale) to the number of personnel deployed in Vietnam by the US (cca. 2.600.000), it's nothing. Even if we compare it the possible 500.000-1.500.000 cases of PTSD... However I looked up the dude, he has a page here: https://www.holycross.edu/academics/programs/sociology-anthropology/jerry-lembcke This lists his works, and places he got mentioned or referd to. I got the book in question (''The Spitting Image'). It's over 200 pages so I won't read this tonight. I couldn't find the Homecoming. Well I found one actually but it's password protected. 123456, 654321 and password aren't working.
I will admit, my impressions on Vietnam are badly stained by the modern American opinion: those pretty cool guys got screwed.
Vietnam occupies an odd place in the American psyche. Beyond the Civil War and WWII it is the most emotionally charged. Nostalgia for rock and roll's glory days, the optimum relatability between the modern American and the soldiers of the period, the moment where the mainstream finally gave up on our government, and the pain. God, how we Americans celebrate suffering. Usually as a badge of honor, but catharsis is not unheard of.
>>12148 The picture seems very colorful. The Companion has three chapters on the antiwar movement one I already mentioned here >>12101 and another is titled: The Veterans Antiwar Movement in Fact and Memory. I just glanced inside them but it's clear that lots of veterans joined to or founded movements against the war. Many people saw the problem with the war on many different level. But it's sure noone - especially not the government - knew how those deeds will effect mentally and emotionally the soldiers who were trained and basically conditioned to do them and how should the society deal with the baggage which came with them. I think the image you described as "pretty cool guys got screwed" already existed back then but wasn't that widespread.
Snilo mi się, że z jakiegoś powodu musiałem spać z Irkiem w jednym pokoju. Obrażał mnie i chciał się ze mną bić, gdy lekko go uderzyłem przez przypadek w jakieś wrażliwe miejsce to zaczął się zwijać i wyzywać mnie od psycholi, że nie nie tak się bije na pięści itp. W ogóle czułem się jak śmieć przez to że ze mnie szydził i gdy wyszedł z pokoju po ciemku to szybko zacząłem sprzątać żeby nie zauważył jak wróci za mam bałagan w pokoju i nie śmiał się ze mnie jeszcze bardziej.
>>105100 >always Not really, only when the translator adds what's implicit explicitly in English. This is a good translation >holiday pebble >whiter on the beach >than back at home because it leaves it up to the intelligence of the reader.
Also the syllabry being 5-7-5 shouldn't be such an important point as people often make it out to be. It's reasoning is in the way the number corresponds to Japanese grammar, and because English has such different grammar an English continuation of the haiku tradition should implement some other description of the grammatical structure that makes it a "real" haiku. There's just no way to invoke the same inspiration out of mu if you're artificially counting for arbitrary syllables.
This is pretty basic. Nothing like video games, that to be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand because Nintendo sticking their mascot on a product is much deeper than how the same mascot can be stuck to a t-shirt or something.