|
MaxxBot posted:There's some pretty serious crazy on crazy infighting going on right now between right-wing pseudo historian David Barton and the Southern Baptist Convention. This is pretty notable because both Barton and the SBC are beloved by evangelicals and tea partiers, this could be a serious blow to Barton in a way that being a fraud historian who's book was pulled was not. How did this happen? Barton was dumb enough to attack the troops, on Veteran's Day  I'm not really much of a fan of the SBC, but credit where credit is due: GodDAMN that was a beautiful takedown.
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 18:54
|
|
.
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Telling someone they shouldn't have PTSD because of god and the holy war sounds like a way to get people to stop believing in God and the holy war more than anything else. Unless there's an actual phenomenon of PTSD symptoms being cured by realizing you did it all for the Holy One I'm not reading about. Like even if you believe that wholesale what happens when you're still suffering? What's the explanation? Edit: Wait...back that poo poo up...if what they're saying is true then why are we even talking about PTSD? It shouldn't even exist
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Or PTSD mean's a war isn't righteous in the eyes of God.... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
Was ptsd common among soldier in the pre-modern era? It seems to me that a huge part of the condition is living in a constant state of high alert for long periods of time which i would assume wasn't really the way that war worked for most of civilized history.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Was ptsd common among soldier in the pre-modern era? It seems to me that a huge part of the condition is living in a constant state of high alert for long periods of time which i would assume wasn't really the way that war worked for most of civilized history. On Killing talk a lot about it. Basically, not having front lines, not having uniformed/identifiable enemies, and always being paranoid and jumpy about urban terrain makes it hard to come down from it when you go home... to your urban terrain.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Was ptsd common among soldier in the pre-modern era? It seems to me that a huge part of the condition is living in a constant state of high alert for long periods of time which i would assume wasn't really the way that war worked for most of civilized history. Recent research it often was, but then again it was also more common for many of the people in a battle to not get involved in the fighting, and for the people in the thick of it to have what would be considered an extraordinarily high mortality rate by modern standards. It's hard to get PTSD when you get killed during battle or die of your wounds in a few days, meanwhile many things you'd straight up die from in older times can be patched up fairly well but you're still just as traumatized by it as you woulda been in 300 BC if you managed to survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Was ptsd common among soldier in the pre-modern era? It seems to me that a huge part of the condition is living in a constant state of high alert for long periods of time which i would assume wasn't really the way that war worked for most of civilized history. I would imagine that PTSD would be way more prevalent in modern war, especially the kind in which the US in engaged. Roadside bombs, mortar attacks, suicide bombers. Constant gunfire, hyper-vigilance, stimulants, odd hours. I would go nuts in an environment where literally anyone or anything could explode at any second. Compared to Bronze Age warfare, for example, where one guy can't kill everyone within a 100m radius in the middle of the night with no warning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
At the risk of invoking  , I remember reading somewhere that since both humans and their ancestors engaged in hand-to-hand combat for so long, pre-modern warfare was easier on the psyche than modern warfare, where the enemy is often invisible and you live in constant fear of a bullet or mortar shell hitting you out of loving nowhere. Another factor is the fact that there used to be a "cool-down" period after most wars in which troops marched or were transported home. They were surrounded by guys who had gone through the same poo poo they did, and some cultures even had "cooling down" ceremonies in order to help warriors transition back into civilian life. By the Vietnam War, you could be taken off the battlefield and sent home via plane in about twenty four hours, which was jarring for a lot of people.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:29
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:At the risk of invoking I also wonder whether socialization of acceptance of premature death plays a role as well. When you're living in a premodern age and have probably already seen relatives, friends, parents, etc. die of some terrible scabrous disease, and families are having seven or eight children so that three live to adulthood (I'm probably exaggerating, but you get my point), the social norms for dealing with rapid and untimely death were probably different than they are now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:31
|
|
|
robotsinmyhead posted:Compared to Bronze Age warfare, for example, where one guy can't kill everyone within a 100m radius in the middle of the night with no warning. Achillies
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Recent research it often was, but then again it was also more common for many of the people in a battle to not get involved in the fighting, and for the people in the thick of it to have what would be considered an extraordinarily high mortality rate by modern standards. It's hard to get PTSD when you get killed during battle or die of your wounds in a few days, meanwhile many things you'd straight up die from in older times can be patched up fairly well but you're still just as traumatized by it as you woulda been in 300 BC if you managed to survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
Also don't forget, especially for medieval Europe, it was pretty common for troops marching through a territory on their way to fight soldiers from somewhere else to just do whatever they want to the people in the way. Steal the food, rape people, forcibly induct people they pass by into their forces. Those soldiers might have gotten away from having PTSD from their battles, but I wouldn't be surprised if the civilians in their path got it instead from the sheer abuse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
I would think the less constant and ever present nature of premodern conflict would lead to less PTSD, but I am sure that it has existed as long as we have had conflict and survivors of that conflict. Killing and the threat of being killed can't be healthy for anyone's psyche.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
pentyne posted:On the subject of Millenials, what is with the conservative obsession to demean and insult that generation? I keep remembering some right wing blogger who when writing a rant against something or other mocked Millenials for worrying about the government spying on their "awkward boudoir fumblings" as if previous generations had some refined sophisticated method of sexing each other. It's an organized attempt to justify the horrible status quo by victim-blaming.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:I would think the less constant and ever present nature of premodern conflict would lead to less PTSD, but I am sure that it has existed as long as we have had conflict and survivors of that conflict. Killing and the threat of being killed can't be healthy for anyone's psyche. Exactly. In fact, some psychologists are beginning to prefer the term "PTS" instead since the symptoms of PTSD are the body's natural way of responding to scary, life-threatening events, so the condition really isn't a "disorder" in the technical sense. In the wild, hyper-vigilance and a constant awareness of danger would probably be a useful way to avoid predators.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:It was called various names back in, say, WW I and WW II. One of my mother's Uncles had what they called "shellshock" back then, which they attributed to people reacting to the noise of war. The guy would repeat everything twice and shake and couldn't control himself at times. I'm not sure what all he had, but I'm guessing PTSD was in the mix. The point is, yeah, like cancer vs. "he died of old age" it's been around as long as people have been dealing with catastrophically stressful situations. It's present in God knows how much of Cambodia's population, for example, but would never be diagnosed or dealt with, because they're poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I think Uncle Mac-mac-mac, as he was known, served in WW I.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
Tuning into Rush today for about 15 minutes he was (predictably) railing on Obamacare and all that but he sort of hosed up and (shockingly) contradicted himself. First, he prefaced his argument by saying that the mainstream media is reporting this story by focusing on who it hurts (Dem vs Rep) and then 5 minutes later expounded on why Republicans should do this or that or the other based on why it would hurt them politically. In other words, doing the exact same thing. But the main thing he was talking about were the polls that show the majority of American don't want this law and all that. Sadly, he left out the poll(s) that show that the majority of Americans are in favor of single payer and/or a public option. I still wonder what percentage of those "anti PPACA" polls are people who wanted it to go further and wanted single payer, Medicare for all or a public option. It's no wonder Rush doesn't invite guests on his show and aggressively screens his callers because this argument would have been so easy to refute. "Yes, Rush, You're correct. The majority of Americans polled oppose this law. They opposed it in 1993 and in 2008 when John McCain ran on it. Conversely, roughly 70% of Americans support a single payer system, a public option or a Medicare buy in. Maybe we should listen to the people, Rush."
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:But the main thing he was talking about were the polls that show the majority of American don't want this law and all that. Sadly, he left out the poll(s) that show that the majority of Americans are in favor of single payer and/or a public option. I still wonder what percentage of those "anti PPACA" polls are people who wanted it to go further and wanted single payer, Medicare for all or a public option.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
I watched some of Neil Cavuto's show on Fox today. He was doing a segment on how labor unions were supposedly encouraging workers being told to work on Thanksgiving by Walmart and the like to stay home. I knew it was going to be a "gently caress labor unions" thing but I was curious to see if he'd even present any contrary viewpoint since I'd think the idea of being made to work on Thanksgiving would be pretty objectionable to a lot of righties, and this story becomes an issue where "gently caress unions, corporate overlords uber alles" bumps up against "traditional family values". Nah. He had on some guest I never heard of who was some psychologist, psychiatrist or mental health professional of some type. She was just making, literally, the "gently caress you you should be happy to have a job and do what the bosses want or else go starve, bitch" argument, and whatever her background or credentials as a mental health type didn't inform her argument at all, it was just literally "gently caress you, serfs!" That was the only guest and viewpoint presented. It just feels like they aren't even trying very hard, like this lady was just Fox person's relative or friend with a Ph.D. just given a mike to spout right wing-ism. I can only imagine their slant if Obama made some servicemember work on Thanksgiving or Christmas if they didn't want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I watched some of Neil Cavuto's show on Fox today. He was doing a segment on how labor unions were supposedly encouraging workers being told to work on Thanksgiving by Walmart and the like to stay home. I can't wait until their reaction to this year's Black Friday strikes
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 01:31
|
|
|
The San Diego Museum Council, which I guess exists, has denied membership to the Creation Museum because quote:"It’s like we’re in Selma, Alabama in the 1950s and I want to have a museum on black Americans," he said. "Do you think I’ll be accepted by the council of museums in Selma, Alabama?" Yeah, all those sit-ins at various industry trade conventions in the old South, that's what the civil rights movement was about. Oh, also I guess somebody is firebombing and lynching creationists. No? That's not actually happening? Huh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
It's amazing that huckster-rear end Kenneth Copeland will just take a verse that applies specifically to ancient Israelites and apply it to the United States, as if we were fighting for the same reasons. Either he's a fraud or an idiot. But within the subgroups of "idiot" lies the terrifying truth: he, and other evangelicals, believe that America kind of is Israel and that Americans are God's new chosen people because...well, it's not like it's in Scripture or anything it's just obvious, I mean look how many trucks and fighter jets we have...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's amazing that huckster-rear end Kenneth Copeland will just take a verse that applies specifically to ancient Israelites and apply it to the United States, as if we were fighting for the same reasons. Either he's a fraud or an idiot. But within the subgroups of "idiot" lies the terrifying truth: he, and other evangelicals, believe that America kind of is Israel and that Americans are God's new chosen people because...well, it's not like it's in Scripture or anything it's just obvious, I mean look how many trucks and fighter jets we have... Actually evangelicals often actually do, in fact, believe that America is God's nation in the current world. Jew's are God's chosen people so Israel and America are obvious allies but America is the most powerful nation in the world. What other reason could there be than "God made that happen."
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
The Weekly Standard has finally uncovered proof that Obama is gay and the identity of his partner will not surprise you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Weekly Standard has finally uncovered proof that Obama is gay and the identity of his partner will not surprise you. Obama knows that Biden has the softest hands in the lands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
That idea comes from the Puritans. Providence led them to America to found the New Jerusalem, the golden city on the hill that would be a beacon to all. It ties in with Manifest Destiny and may be considered the root of American Exceptionalism (tm).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I watched some of Neil Cavuto's show on Fox today. He was doing a segment on how labor unions were supposedly encouraging workers being told to work on Thanksgiving by Walmart and the like to stay home. Chik-Fil-A's official reason for being closed on Sundays is to allow their employees to spend important times with their families but that didn't stop them from opening at 8PM on Thanksgiving last year (and possibly earlier too, that was just the first time I noticed).
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Actually evangelicals often actually do, in fact, believe that America is God's nation in the current world. Jew's are God's chosen people so Israel and America are obvious allies but America is the most powerful nation in the world. What other reason could there be than "God made that happen." Actually, this ties in with Anglo-Israelicism, that is, the belief that the English are a lost tribe of Israel and that the Irish are filthy mongrels who betrayed the faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The Weekly Standard has finally uncovered proof that Obama is gay and the identity of his partner will not surprise you.  poo poo is that if you don't have an irrational hatred of gay people, it's just a stupid waste of time. Even if it wasn't horseshit, why should the president's sexual orientation matter anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Mentioning Cavuto just made me realize something. My father works out of the home. I've just mapped out his total viewing of Conservative Talk/Fox News viewing -2 Hours in the morning of "Fox and Friends" -3 Hours of Glenn Beck on the radio -4 Hours of Rush Limbaugh on the radio -1 Hour of Neil Cavuto -1 Hour of "The Five". -1 Hour of "Special Report with Bret Baier" -1 Hour of "Bill O'Reilly" This isn't including any potential weekend viewing he'll make of some business show on Fox News or "Stossel" Good lord it's like some form of crack or something. He literally told me today that "I like that Charles Krauthammer, though I find him to be a bit of a Rino". FuzzySkinner fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Nov 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:Good lord it's like some form of crack or something. He literally told me today that "I like that Charles Krauthammer, though I find him to be a bit of a Rino". Is it because Krauthammer opposes Intelligent Design? Because I can't think of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:33
|
|
|
I think it's more because he didn't choose to wipe out the Bajorans when he had the chance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
Krauthammer has a number of domestic political positions that don't fit neatly into the usual GOP narrative. He's still a lunatic, but like a lot of the neoconservative crowd it's largely about Israel and he has socially liberal positions on domestic issues that he doesn't talk about much - I think it's the usual litany of pro-choice, anti-death penalty, pro-gay rights and so on, but I can't recall exactly. Other than a brief few hours one day I spent reading about him to learn more, the guy barely (thankfully) comes across my radar screen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
JediTalentAgent posted:I think it's more because he didn't choose to wipe out the Bajorans when he had the chance. I just started watching DS9 (and I've never watched a star trek series before) and this made me laugh
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 06:54
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Is it because Krauthammer opposes Intelligent Design? Because I can't think of anything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
fade5 posted:I can't help but laugh at this. The most idiotic part of all the "Obama is secretly gay" See also, Birthers who believe in the embassy theory.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The San Diego Museum Council, which I guess exists, has denied membership to the Creation Museum because This made me imagine what a black history museum made by the creationist museum people would look like. It's like half of my brain is chastising the other half for finding it funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:17
|
|
|
Nucleic Acids posted:Is it because Krauthammer opposes Intelligent Design? Because I can't think of anything else. Krauthammerr was smart enough to see the shutdown as a bad thing for republicans and coined the term suicide caucus as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
FuzzySkinner posted:-2 Hours in the morning of "Fox and Friends" See, here's the thing. Even if you're the type to nod your head in agreement during all this programming.... How could you loving stand it? All the negativity? So many hours of it? Also, it's not just that the message is right wing, but isn't this the first time in history that you could spend your whole waking day bathed in program content that is all explicitly political? If you were a right winger of old you'd just spend breakfast peering over your spectacles at the Wall Street Journal or whatever William Randolph Hearst rag was in your area and pish posh about the foibles of the world, then go about your business, you didn't spend the whole goddam DAY listening to people poo poo on the Demmycrats and poors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2013 09:17
|
|