Militia and military relationship

Umbran · Jan 7, 2016

Ovinomancer said:
And accusing someone of 'mental masturbation' is on par with daydreaming or wild speculation.

In common parlance, it has a rather more negative connotation - masturbation is something done specifically for personal sexual pleasure, is publicly considered to be slightly dirty, that should be done in private, if at all. There is an implication of purpose and intent - sexualized self-pleasuring - that is not really present in daydreaming or wild speculation.

As an analogy: How would you like it if someone said you were threadcrapping here to stroke your own ego - because you found it easier to make yourself look good by tearing other people's things down than by building something yourself? I doubt you'd like the insinuation. Now, apply the Golden Rule, and don't refer to other people's thoughts as masturbatory, or in other disrespectful forms. Please and thank you.

Janx · Jan 7, 2016

Sacrosanct said:
Yeah, I know a few of those as well. those people want to be part of the sense of brotherhood veterans have, I think.

Though to adjust my language, Wannabe might be derogatory, as I used it a bit loosely. A vet might consider a non-vet to be a wannabe soldier. There might be somebody who really likes military stuff, couldn't serve for a non-crazy reason, and wants to be involved. There's a lot of shades.

There is of course the barney fife inept example of somebody who is enthusiastic, but incompetent as heck usage of the term Wannabe. Not wholly how I intended to use it.

Mostly, I'm interested in the vet and non-vet membership reasons/whatever. Not so much in the cartoon examples of ineptitude, that I;m sure exists, but would really just be making fun of somebody.

Janx · Jan 7, 2016

was said:
...IME, as a vet, most of the people that I have run into with such anti-government views are military wanna-be's. Their outlook simply wouldn't allow them to join any governmental organization.

...The ones that are vets, either failed to make it through basic or were discharged for various reasons before completing their first enlistment.

..To be fair, however, I have also run into several national guardsmen, active and vet, with such views. I don't know why.

Prior to Sacro's post, that's the negative stereotype version of a militia member I had in mind. Somebody who's faults blocked them from serving, so they start their own thing. Not my only vision of how it could be, but one kind of picture out of many.

I don't know enough about militias to know if they are almost all a bunch of extremists, or just a few bad groups.

I would imagine that a vet with extremist view X would be inclined to join a group of people with the same view. That group being a militia would be a perk, as it would invoke that familiar environment of military lifestyle.

Would a vet who didn't have extremist views still be inclined to join a militia?

Sacrosanct · Jan 7, 2016

Janx said:
Would a vet who didn't have extremist views still be inclined to join a militia?

Only to speak for my own experiences, but my answer would be "no". I would posit that most vets aren't extremist, and have no desire to join a militia. It's just that when you add in all those aforementioned factors that it become more probable than your average non-veteran dude.

that being said, combat vets are a lot more likely to join organizations or engage in activities that people might consider higher risk. Your example of WWII vets forming motorcycle clubs is a prime example of this. It has been proven that adrenaline rushes are addicting, and once you've been in combat and felt that rush, a part of you wants to recreate it or as close to it as you can. I've spoken with many, and have seen many interviews, with combat vets who were addicted to the rush of combat. It's a problem even more compounded when you figure that when you're not in the rush of combat, you're bored off your butt. Like, really bored.

Istbor · Jan 7, 2016

Janx said:
Though to adjust my language, Wannabe might be derogatory, as I used it a bit loosely. A vet might consider a non-vet to be a wannabe soldier. There might be somebody who really likes military stuff, couldn't serve for a non-crazy reason, and wants to be involved. There's a lot of shades.

There is of course the barney fife inept example of somebody who is enthusiastic, but incompetent as heck usage of the term Wannabe. Not wholly how I intended to use it.

Mostly, I'm interested in the vet and non-vet membership reasons/whatever. Not so much in the cartoon examples of ineptitude, that I;m sure exists, but would really just be making fun of somebody.

Not terribly on topic but I for one could be considered one of those former somebodies. I certainly wanted serve my country and my family has a long history of being apart of the Military. I could not carry that torch however, due to circumstances beyond my control. I am not at the level of needing/wanting to join a militia, but I could see some in similar circumstances that think it would somehow fill a void.

Everyone is searching for purpose.

Cor Azer · Jan 8, 2016

Ovinomancer said:
I, however, tend to not respect people that armchair psychoanalyze other people in broad, generic, and stereotypical terms. It'a form of soft bigotry.

I'm curious how you reconcile this tendency with your stated practice/belief of using people's thoughts on transgender rights in comparison with their thoughts on a completely unrelated psychologic disorder? Because it certainly sounds like you'd be engaging in psychoanalyzing of others in broad, generic, stereotypical terms...

Kramodlog · Jan 8, 2016

Militia. Miliatary. No difference. Both take power from violence. Both are problematic.

No idea which is worse. The first is disorganized and not democratic, so it has many problems. The second works for the rich and there interest. Like making sure Iraq is "free". So, armed people who were influence by propaganda is to be avoided.

Ovinomancer · Jan 8, 2016

Cor Azer said:
I'm curious how you reconcile this tendency with your stated practice/belief of using people's thoughts on transgender rights in comparison with their thoughts on a completely unrelated psychologic disorder? Because it certainly sounds like you'd be engaging in psychoanalyzing of others in broad, generic, stereotypical terms...

Largely because the discussion around both is similar, even if the two aren't necessarily linked. I've found it interesting that people that are vehemently for trans rights often find BIIDS to be abhorrent. Given that the end result of both is a change in the body to match the mental perception, I find there's enough of a similarity for such reactions to be interesting. I'm not sure they tell anything, I just find it interesting to see the justifications for why the one is good and the other bad.

Sacrosanct · Jan 8, 2016

goldomark said:
Militia. Miliatary. No difference. Both take power from violence. Both are problematic.

No idea which is worse. The first is disorganized and not democratic, so it has many problems. The second works for the rich and there interest. Like making sure Iraq is "free". So, armed people who were influence by propaganda is to be avoided.

See this picture? Every building in a country the size of Oregon was like this. I can assure you, my time in Bosnia to protect the Muslims from getting even more massacred by the Serbs was not "only in the interest of the rich." Might want to check your biases and get better informed.

Militia and military relationship

Umbran

Mod Squad

Janx

Hero

Janx

Hero

Sacrosanct

Legend

Istbor

Dances with Gnolls

Cor Azer

First Post

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Sacrosanct

Legend

Similar Threads