|
Weapons headed for Somalia seized by a French warship.
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
Kro-Bar posted:Pretty interesting visualization of the rise of partisanship in the House. Click on the image for more. Congressional mitosis has completed. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Hmm....
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
lushka16 posted:Poe's law? Serious question. Yes it was! http://www.vice.com/read/i-fooled-the-internet-with-a-petition-to-allow-guns-at-the-republican-convention
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
lushka16 posted:Yes it was! Hey shouldn't have revealed it until the convention started. Would have made watching it SO much more fun. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:04
|
|
|
lushka16 posted:Yes it was! The most disgusting part of this image is the idea of something called "Quicken Loans Arena"  e: also that awful image crop on the rifle stock.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:The most disgusting part of this image is the idea of something called "Northeast Ohio" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
Yes, all the people featured in that comic are terrible and should jump off a bridge except the aliens and communist demonbama, who don't exist, and the black guy, who is probably just a target pistol enthusiast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 11:49
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Yes, all the people featured in that comic are terrible and should jump off a bridge except the aliens and communist demonbama, who don't exist, and the black guy, who is probably just a target pistol enthusiast. OH poo poo OH gently caress somebody posted a thing about guns where did I put my guns are for pussies image whew there it is that was a close one 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Reynold posted:OH poo poo OH gently caress somebody posted a thing about guns where did I put my guns are for pussies image whew there it is that was a close one  German officer scrutinizes Stens captured from partisans.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 17:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
 timely!
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Look at this
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:45
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
You loving mouth-breathers get that the second one was an edit, right? Zodiac Griller e-vvv Sorry, I forgot this was the guns-are-for-pussies and youtube-link-with-no-description-or-context thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
 shooting gun for putssies, fix of bayonet and use spear mosin nagant of glory the motherland tovarich http://imgur.com/gallery/fY4HS7J
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
ArmZ posted:
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:23
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:You loving mouth-breathers get that the second one was an edit, right? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC4Pvm6Oj4A
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
JoelJoel posted:youtube-link-with-no-description-or-context thread. https://youtu.be/PtBy_ppG4hY
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Son of Thunderbeast posted:an ancient, tried-and-true tactic In the latest Hardcore History episode, Dan Carlin talks about how most bayonet charges ended with the other side going "LOPNOPE" and retreating before it actually hit because while you can train out a soldier's fear of being shot from a distance it is really loving hard for the monkey brains we have to work with to get over the fact that some other monkey is going to try to shank us with a metal pointy thing. Which is fine, because the typical reaction by the side actually DOING the charging is that once they get in close they go from trying to poke people with the sharp bit to clubbing them over the head with the butt of the rifle. Because, again, we don't like causing that kind of injury to one another. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
citybeatnik posted:In the latest Hardcore History episode, Dan Carlin talks about how most bayonet charges ended with the other side going "LOPNOPE" and retreating before it actually hit because while you can train out a soldier's fear of being shot from a distance it is really loving hard for the monkey brains we have to work with to get over the fact that some other monkey is going to try to shank us with a metal pointy thing. Which is fine, because the typical reaction by the side actually DOING the charging is that once they get in close they go from trying to poke people with the sharp bit to clubbing them over the head with the butt of the rifle. Because, again, we don't like causing that kind of injury to one another. The thing I've never really understood about this explanation is that before guns there were huge formations of dudes with spears or swords just lopping limbs off and perforating organs left right and center and if they were so squeamish about stabbing history would look a lot different. Or is it that musket soldiers were trained primarily to shoot while warriors of yesteryear were trained primarily for stabbing? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
The only weapon one needs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzDMCVdPwnE
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The thing I've never really understood about this explanation is that before guns there were huge formations of dudes with spears or swords just lopping limbs off and perforating organs left right and center and if they were so squeamish about stabbing history would look a lot different. Or is it that musket soldiers were trained primarily to shoot while warriors of yesteryear were trained primarily for stabbing? One of the reoccurring themes he likes to come back to is whether society now has the stones to do now what we did in the past. Was battlefield fatigue a relatively new invention because we've all gone soft, or was basically all of the ancient world suffering from PTSD and no one noticed because everyone else was? He gets up his own arse about it at times, truth be told. But it's still an interesting enough thought. I mean, there's a school of thought out there that you have to train an army to hate the enemy to have them willingly take a life. Without that, and once the soldiers start seeing the other side as actual fellow humans, you end up with poo poo like this:  And then the generals get pissed off because people aren't killing each other like they should so they start punishing their own men and transferring them around to make sure poo poo like that doesn't happen in the future. Because we're having a loving war, drat it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:The thing I've never really understood about this explanation is that before guns there were huge formations of dudes with spears or swords just lopping limbs off and perforating organs left right and center and if they were so squeamish about stabbing history would look a lot different. Or is it that musket soldiers were trained primarily to shoot while warriors of yesteryear were trained primarily for stabbing? I'm going to guess that it has to do with many historically stabby solders having been trained and drilled for years to stab and slash and fight at close quarters (in some cases the entire lives of a class of people were devoted to it in one way or another). Training someone to fight effectively with swords and spears and the like takes a lot longer than showing a group how to load, point, and shoot a gun in formation. Really what made guns effective was the fact that they didn't take much to master. Plus, it's probably a lot easier psychologically to kill by pointing and shooting with a huge group at a huge group than to get up close and actually see the damage you're doing (and being done to you). Plus Carlin likes to go on about how we just aren't tough enough now or whatever compared to this or that generation or people. He tries to cover his rear end with his usual "I'm no historian and this is only a maaaaaybe" but the point remains. He may have a point in regards to material conditions impacting the type of solider you have but he relies on the notion far too frequently and heavily.  e:^^- yeah, and the level of dehuminisation of the enemy probably fits in there somewhere, though I'm not convinced it's any kind of primary factor in the particular example given. Cocaine Bear fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Apr 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 1, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
A veteran friend of mine recommended that I read this: Basic summary of the point relevant to this chat is that during close quarters fighting you slip into a different mental mode (that does have a high chance of loving you up psychologically later) but historically with ranged fighting a significant fraction of people just didn't shoot. They didn't want to kill people so they fired high or just kept loading their muskets and not priming the pan and hoping that their not firing got covered by the volley. iirc this was apparently as high as 1 in 5 during the fife and drum era. Then as more people were forced to shoot to kill throughout the 20th century through more mobile individual-focused combat and better conditioning to overcome the fear of killing, more people started getting recognizable severe PTSD. Otherization of the enemy is a point that was also picked up upon. I can't remember if it covered the big factor of WWI era PTSD being caused more by constant shelling and low level 'boring' fear for one's life (Subaltern on the Somme is a good one for that).
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FsHC52a6x4
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I can't remember if it covered the big factor of WWI era PTSD being caused more by constant shelling and low level 'boring' fear for one's life (Subaltern on the Somme is a good one for that). Shellshock (and a shitload of deaths) primarily came from artillery/heavy guns. Seeing thousands of fellow soldiers ripped apart by machines when most conscripts who were from farms had absolutely nothing to compare it to was more than horrific. Google some of the drawings of Otto Dix. It looks like the cover of a metalocaylpse album but that poo poo was real. Here's one: 
Ritz On Toppa Ritz fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Off topic random poo poo: "It sure is fun to imagine a dystopian security state with flying police robots and hacker activists fighting gamely but doomedly against an overwhelming corporate overwatch that has completely saturated the remaining shreds of democratic governance." —Teenagers in 1986 "I am not exaggerating. People were coming in to gas stations with milk containers. I literally saw someone filling a flower pot with fuel. A FLOWER POT!" —A New Jersey resident after Hurricane Sandy disrupted people's ability to get their cars to gas stations.  
StickySweater fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:05
|
|
|
Are inert explosives different than not explosives? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W45DRy7M1no
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Bip Roberts posted:Are inert explosives different than not explosives? Modern explosives are stable enough that they won't explode outside of the very specific circumstances of a planned detonation. You can smash C4 with a hammer, set it on fire, and more, and nothing will happen. You're still an idiot who shouldn't be trusted with it if you lose track of it. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
 One million moms censor the poo poo out of their press release
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
re: history of violence First I posted some words on how "naturally" violent/unviolent people are elsewhere so I'm going to quote myself. Tiler Kiwi posted:First one is a reddit link and its more about PTSD, but it relates to the "innateness" of violence aversion. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j6ssm/are_there_any_indications_of_combat_ptsd_in/ Pretty much the use of violence and our relationship with it varies tremendously from culture to culture and from one period of history to another. Nomadic peoples like the Huns, Hsiung-Nu, and the Mongols tended to be shockingly violent compared to their urban contemporaries (which was part purposeful psychological warfare, not that it really excused the wholesale slaughter of peoples for propaganda purposes), who were shockingly violent compared to modern western society. People really didn't give much of a poo poo about inflicting violence, close quarters or otherwise. The cultural norms that we have that regard violence as inherently taboo just were not really there. I'd also be very skeptical of the stuff involving soldiers not really shooting at their enemies. In the era of muskets, soldiers were very highly trained and drilled to the point where, under stress, a soldier would carry out their practiced reloading routine even if they had a misfire, to the point where they'd have their gun explode since they had reloaded it five times and a spark actually managed to alight the huge amount of powder in their weapon; you'd also see other fuckups as stress built up like soldiers accidentally shooting their front line in the back of the head, and I think there's a danger of reading too much into things like that about their psychology (battle stress causing soldiers to do dumb things with their weapons without realizing it also the reason a lot of rifles do not have full auto, since soldiers tended to blow their their magazines and think their weapon had jammed after a few shots). The factoid about soldiers shooting above heads and other things and such is something I'd regard with skepticism as well, since it comes across as someone misunderstanding things like suppression fire or the fact that a lot of soldiers, even those "in combat", never really get much of an opportunity to shoot directly at another person,, and a lot of soldiers (in both the musket era and in early 20th century warfare) were reluctant to fight mostly from a sense of self preservation or a sort of confusion about what they ought to be doing in an increasingly disorganized and unknowable situation than any sort of direct aversion to hurting other human beings (getting soldiers to kneel fire in line shooting was a huge pain since they would become very reluctant to stand up again and approach the opposing line). I think the perception that people are inherently nonviolent is a rather noble one, but I'm also a bit scornful of it since it results in a sort of unpleasant side effect where groups or individuals that carry out violence are deemed sociopathic or inhuman in some way, which ironically makes the whole dehumanization aspect and subsequent violent response a lot easier for so-called "decent" value systems, and makes actually attempting to address things like these individuals being raised in settings that normalize violence much more difficult to address. I'm not an expert historian or anything so yeah.  the Sentinelese, whom are known for being fairly hostile towards any sort of outside contact. e: article about the whole "did soldiers fire at other people" question http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers-actually-fired-their-weapons-at-the-enemy-during-the-vietnam-war.htm Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 08:10 on Apr 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 07:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 08:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 21:50 |
|
|
a big difference is that in ancient warfare you'd spend months if not years of fanfare for a few hours at most of extreme violence, but in the industrial era you could go from civilian to solider in a few months and then spend months at a time under combat stress and gruesome conditions constantly all the time. the amount of time actually in combat has increased by a huge amount because it's hard to live under the threat of dudes stabbing you 24x7 for weeks at a stretch but introduce guns and bombs into the mix and suddenly your whole existence is under a death microsocope that never blinks
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 08:46
|
|