|
But Heinlein positioned that only ex-service memebers or something could vote, because only they care about the country enough, but I have spent way too much time on /k/ or reading funker comments to believe that the military produces patriotic voters of high virtue (instead of racism).
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
I just realized how horrifying voter suppression could get in a world with mandatory military service to vote.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Yeah Troopers kind of handwaves it but that poo poo would get real bad real fast irl
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Troopers kind of handwaves it StarshipTroopers.txt
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Grant was an absolutely horrible president. Same with Jackson I thought Grant tried to push through Reconstruction but got stymied by the fact that southern Democrats appealed to racist interests? Not American though so don't know the ins and outs of his presidency
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I thought Grant tried to push through Reconstruction but got stymied by the fact that southern Democrats appealed to racist interests? Not American though so don't know the ins and outs of his presidency Grant's problem was he trusted his friends with positions of power and they swindled him good.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Grant's administration was really lovely with corruption and the economy, which got him a reputation for a long time as one of the worst presidents. That has improved in recent years since he also did a lot more to try to help black Americans than the presidents who came after him, so nowadays he's ranked as more of a mid tier president.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Grant was an absolutely horrible president. Same with Jackson Eisenhower did jack poo poo about the MIC other than identifying it and it was with him that Cold War interventionism started gently caress him
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Eisenhower did jack poo poo about the MIC other than identifying it and it was with him that Cold War interventionism started gently caress him Ike should have disbanded the CIA like he threatened to
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:I thought Grant tried to push through Reconstruction but got stymied by the fact that southern Democrats appealed to racist interests? Not American though so don't know the ins and outs of his presidency His racial agenda was great at least on paper (he was more progressive than FDR in a lot of ways, for reference) but he was probably the most corrupt president we've ever had, or at least that we know of, and this by a pretty wide margin. He ran his administration like a middle school girl clique; if you were buddies with him before he was elected you were IN and could basically do whatever you wanted no matter how shady or illegal, but if you disagreed with him, especially publicly, you were OUT. People are trying to rehabilitate his presidency now due largely to the civil rights stuff, which I find kind of obnoxious - civil rights were/are very important and he should be lauded for his stances on these matters, but that doesn't offset the crimes and corruption, nepotism, etc that significantly harmed the country for many years afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
For a lot of human history our politicians have doubled as military leaders and vice versa. This guy can't seem to best the scythians, he obviously doesn't know anything about dealing with the senate. This guy beat the hell out of the gauls and is throwing money around in the street? He's got my vote. It also really handily cuts the middleman out of coups. The military is more likely to trust one of their own than some paper pusher who is going to send them out into an untenable situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Eisenhower did jack poo poo about the MIC other than identifying it and it was with him that Cold War interventionism started gently caress him sorry bro anyone who sends out the 101st to strongarm racists into behaving themselves gets a high five from me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Wallenstein kept coming up with armies and that was useful. That also meant they had someone with the vaguest idea about the course of the war in a position of power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
JcDent posted:But Heinlein positioned that only ex-service memebers or something could vote, because only they care about the country enough, but I have spent way too much time on /k/ or reading funker comments to believe that the military produces patriotic voters of high virtue (instead of racism). I think we all know the answer to this is that Heinlein wouldn't have seen it as racism and would've been incomprehensible to him for the US to not have a foe worthy of the US turning into a perpetual garrison police state. Like China becoming a capitalistic communist in name only frenemy would probably have shattered his world view. But I never read the book and I am basing this entirely on hearsay about the bug aliens being a metaphor for his fears of the Communist Chinese "hordes" based on his perception of the Korean War; someone can of course let me know if I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think we all know the answer to this is that Heinlein wouldn't have seen it as racism incidentally, the modern US military is actually a sizable force of social mobility for black and hispanic workers, but I guess that was his intention. Anyway, Robert Heinlein does seem to be an unironic fascist, so forgive me if I don't really praise his vision( though it does make for a good easy read).
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Troopers is actually kinda progressive on race, he obv hates him some ChiComs but the infantry are a mix of races from all over the planet, plus the Navy is gender-integrated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:the position of power turned out to be the awkward bit Yeah. It did at least come closer to working out than Ferdinand's policy of starting the next fight every time he won. bewbies posted:sorry bro anyone who sends out the 101st to strongarm racists into behaving themselves gets a high five from me.  Also politicians aren't magical beings who make everything right, they're people who try to find the best solution to the problems at hand, and precedent is a really tricky beast to manage.StashAugustine posted:Troopers is actually kinda progressive on race, he obv hates him some ChiComs but the infantry are a mix of races from all over the planet, plus the Navy is gender-integrated. It's very easy to fix problems when you're creating a new society. Less so when you're trying to guide an existing one with centuries of baggage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
It's a really bad idea to try and distill Heinlein's political views from one book because across his work he's all over the place. The importance of Starship Troopers is that Heinlein puts the 'western' protagonist up against a perfect communist society that functions really well as a whole and puts to us that the communist society will prevail unless our society is able in some way to engender a sense of civic duty in its members. Now the answer in the book is fascism where the whole human race is united against a common enemy and there's no acknowledgement that total capture by the military industrial complex might have something to do with that, but the fundamental question of what the most effective balance between individual duty and community interest (and how that balance might shift according to the circumstances) is one that's relevant today and will be long into the future.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Yeah. It did at least come closer to working out than Ferdinand's policy of starting the next fight every time he won.  "Go to war now please." "It's the wrong season to go to war." "Go to war now please.""The grass isn't up yet and the food has not yet begun to grow. Everyone will die in two weeks or leave." "How about now?" "You are terrible at strategic decisions as well as the tactical ones." "My 20 year old son, who has never smelled powder fired in anger, wants command of your army. Can we go ahead and give it to him?" "Oh for gently caress's sake..." "..." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:Troopers is actually kinda progressive on race, he obv hates him some ChiComs but the infantry are a mix of races from all over the planet, plus the Navy is gender-integrated. Also the main character is Hispanic. Also you don't necessarily have to actually fight to get the vote, if I recall, just to serve (so presumably a few years in the equivalent of the Peace Corps and you're good to go)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
I think the personal political opinions of Heinlein aren't really as important as what values Troopers embodies, given its position on various military recommended reading lists especially in the Cold War environment. Given the rising belief in the legitimacy of military rule this is especially problematic.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
A lot of people on my Facebook were all in favor of some kind of mandatory service. Haven't heard a peep about it since November 9th, oddly enough.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
Part of me wants to see the return of National Service in the UK, but it is the same horrible part of me that wants to have a close look at a train wreck or gossip about somebody doing something terrible in the town. I think I am just a bastard.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Also the main character is Hispanic. Also you don't necessarily have to actually fight to get the vote, if I recall, just to serve (so presumably a few years in the equivalent of the Peace Corps and you're good to go)? Yeah, a recruiter or indoc person or someone says this pretty explicitly in the book. "If you came in here in a wheelchair and blind in both eyes and were silly enough to insist on enrolling, they would find you something silly to match. Counting the fuzz on a caterpillar by touch, maybe."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
Either Heinlein was all over the place ideologically or he was just using science fiction as thought experiments for different kinds of societies. You have the ultra-libertarianism of Moon is a Harsh Mistress which doesn't work with the friendly fascism of Troopers which sure as poo poo doesn't jibe with Maximum Hippie Society in Stranger in a Strange Land. I think it's easy to confuse writing about stuff in a fictional context for saying "this is how we should live life". Guys like Haldeman were definitely trying to make statements about contemporary war and society with their stuff but I think Heinlein was mostly playing mind Legos. Also those are the only three Heinlein books I've read so please don't own me too hard if I'm way the gently caress wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:A lot of people on my Facebook were all in favor of some kind of mandatory service. Haven't heard a peep about it since November 9th, oddly enough. Bring back National Service/The Draft for people who want to bring back National Service/The Draft
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Also the main character is Hispanic. Also you don't necessarily have to actually fight to get the vote, if I recall, just to serve (so presumably a few years in the equivalent of the Peace Corps and you're good to go)? Wikipedia: The people of the Terran Federation are either "Citizens" or "Civilians". Everyone is born a "Civilian", and at age 18 every "Civilian" has the right to enroll for a minimal 2-year term of "Federal Service". In theory a completed term of Federal Service ensures a "Citizen" is willing to put the needs of the community before their own personal well-being. This is because Federal Service is tough and dangerous (by design). It can involve joining the military, being a human guinea pig, testing survival equipment, or manual labour. The Federation makes it quite easy to quit a term of service before completion (even during war-time), but once someone has quit they are never allowed to enroll again. This is to ensure that all volunteers are dedicated, whilst also discouraging people from leaving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Part of me wants to see the return of National Service in the UK, but it is the same horrible part of me that wants to have a close look at a train wreck or gossip about somebody doing something terrible in the town. I've thought about that kind of thing, and I think I've come down against it. The "instill discipline, pride, and dedication in idle young people" motivation is good, but LPOs and sergeants have enough problems with some of the idiots who actually signed up to be there. Pulling in people who would never have volunteered might make some of them stronger people at the end, but I think it would also reduce the military's effectiveness at its primary mission: hurting people and breaking their toys. It's still rather tempting, though, since like everyone else since the dawn of time, I consider the generation after mine to be simpering mewling wimps, and I like the idea out of sheer schadenfreude. I think we may both be bastards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:07
|
|
hogmartin posted:It's still rather tempting, though, since like everyone else since the dawn of time, I consider the generation after mine to be simpering mewling wimps, and I like the idea out of sheer schadenfreude. I think we may both be bastards. Possibly so. Part of the non bastard in me in this scenario kind of wants to root for the younger generation to do better and show up those whiners but I know it will never happen. I just want the most obnoxius people of both parties to suffer a good hit of reality.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
I consider the government to be the entity that should "earn" its privileges, not the people. Getting back to Grant, his memoir mentions as a boy putting on his shiny new uniform to head off to West Point, and feeling quite proud for about a minute until random people on the street started making fun of him and his dumb little uniform. Wouldn't mind having just a little bit of that America back, as opposed to the hegemony of the military-masturbatory complex.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:technically, the guys i study are a warrior-politician society. Lots of business for Big Window.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
bewbies posted:sorry bro anyone who sends out the 101st to strongarm racists into behaving themselves gets a high five from me. That doesn't offset his bad poo poo at all!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:36
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:I consider the government to be the entity that should "earn" its privileges, not the people. Yeah; people who hold power are presumed illegitimate unless proven otherwise. Also national service to cure laziness is a terrible idea and assumes that the problems endemic to millennials are character flaws that just happen to be shared by a few million people in the same age bracket, rather than a societal issue, which is kind of inherently ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
zoux posted:Either Heinlein was all over the place ideologically or he was just using science fiction as thought experiments for different kinds of societies. You have the ultra-libertarianism of Moon is a Harsh Mistress which doesn't work with the friendly fascism of Troopers which sure as poo poo doesn't jibe with Maximum Hippie Society in Stranger in a Strange Land. I think it's easy to confuse writing about stuff in a fictional context for saying "this is how we should live life". Guys like Haldeman were definitely trying to make statements about contemporary war and society with their stuff but I think Heinlein was mostly playing mind Legos. Nah, you're pretty much spot on. The guy was about two things: playing with taking political systems to their logical extremes in future sci-fi settings that would allow him to make the hand-waves and assumptions required, and crazy non-traditional sexual relationships up to and including pedophilia and incest. There was some big internet sci fi nerd drama ca. 2008 or so about how he had some horrible old man views about . . . something. I can't remember what. I think it came out that he had some views in the 60s on race and women that didn't meet the standards of 21st century internet liberals? I just remember that it was pretty cringe worthy poo poo, and stuff that you would rightly yell at someone for saying today, but that it was also from half a century or so ago. I vividly remember some webcomic I was reading at the time having a melodramatic issue about "what do you do when you find out one of your favorite authors was a racist?" What really, really needs to be remembered is that his work wasn't produced at one time and place and it evolved a lot. All the stuff that most non-turbonerds think of when they think of him (Troopers, Strangers, Moon) were written in about 15 years from 1959 - 1975. He's writing these books about experimental social arrangements and exaggerated forms of government during a period of profound social and cultural change. The other thing you need to remember is that he was a prolific writer and a lot of it was TERRIBLE. He was active from before WW2 through the 80s and mostly wrote forgettable schlock. The reason I mention this is that there is a subset of nerds who seem to think he's the best thing ever based on the handful of books he wrote that turned out pretty well, and this is partially responsible for the glee with which others point out the numerous failings of the man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Yeah; people who hold power are presumed illegitimate unless proven otherwise. The argument for national service isn't that it cures laziness, it's that it creates a much stronger bond between the military and society in general and creates a lot more accountability for politicians who want to use force abroad. It's not even just about not wanting to go into Syria because your nephew might be sent there, it's about having enough personal experience with people involved in military stuff that you can call bullshit on some of the more excessive garbage. I'm not certain that this is enough to justify universal conscription or anything, but it's hard to argue that we don't have a major civilian-military disconnect in most western countries, one that didn't exist when it was an institution that a broader cross section of society was involved in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:50
|
|
|
TheLovablePlutonis posted:Wikipedia: The people of the Terran Federation are either "Citizens" or "Civilians". Everyone is born a "Civilian", and at age 18 every "Civilian" has the right to enroll for a minimal 2-year term of "Federal Service". In theory a completed term of Federal Service ensures a "Citizen" is willing to put the needs of the community before their own personal well-being. This is because Federal Service is tough and dangerous (by design). It can involve joining the military, being a human guinea pig, testing survival equipment, or manual labour. The Federation makes it quite easy to quit a term of service before completion (even during war-time), but once someone has quit they are never allowed to enroll again. This is to ensure that all volunteers are dedicated, whilst also discouraging people from leaving. Note that within the book the main character and everyone he is with treats the notion of the non-military options as being distinctly inferior for the people who can't hack it in the military. It also makes the principle of 'willing to put one's own life on the line for the sake of the community' fall apart when you are just making up random incredibly dangerous tasks for people to do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Part of me wants to see the return of National Service in the UK, but it is the same horrible part of me that wants to have a close look at a train wreck or gossip about somebody doing something terrible in the town. Post 45 national service was mainly just guys doing drill and being miserable while producing nothing of value to the Army - I think the biggest critics of the reintroduction of national service in Britain today are military, what the gently caress would the modern army do with something ludicrous like 100,000 new recruits every year who leave again in 36 months?
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Grant was an absolutely horrible president. Same with Jackson Grant is my example of "awesome dude, bad president." Nixon in contrast I think was a good president for the most part, but, ah.... bewbies posted:His racial agenda was great at least on paper (he was more progressive than FDR in a lot of ways, for reference) but he was probably the most corrupt president we've ever had, or at least that we know of, and this by a pretty wide margin. He ran his administration like a middle school girl clique; if you were buddies with him before he was elected you were IN and could basically do whatever you wanted no matter how shady or illegal, but if you disagreed with him, especially publicly, you were OUT. He was also elected three times which is weird all things considered. Since we're on the topic of presidential corruption (I don't know about you but I just have this feeling I wanna educate people on this issue for some reason) Harding had the same problem: he was way too trusting, and his friends were corrupt as poo poo. One of them was trying to sell the oil out of the strategic naval reserve, for gently caress's sake Warren G. Harding's dad is on record saying "It's a good thing Warren wasn't born a woman; otherwise I think he'd be often in the family way."
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Post 45 national service was mainly just guys doing drill and being miserable while producing nothing of value to the Army - I think the biggest critics of the reintroduction of national service in Britain today are military, what the gently caress would the modern army do with something ludicrous like 100,000 new recruits every year who leave again in 36 months? This is kind of the situation here in Denmark, except the period is 12 months at the very most( depending on reg and MOS, it's usually 6-8 months). The officer's staff organization has just come out saying we need to increase the numbers drafted to meet Trumps talk about increasing demands on NATO members, but we're basically just boot camping teenagers and when they're close to making sensible soldiers we let them go again. Oh, and you can't be forced to participate in combat, so our actual intervention force is de facto voluntary and drafting someone is no guarentee of getting a committed soldier in the other end. It's -really- dumb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 21:30 |
|
|
lenoon posted:Post 45 national service was mainly just guys doing drill and being miserable while producing nothing of value to the Army - I think the biggest critics of the reintroduction of national service in Britain today are military, what the gently caress would the modern army do with something ludicrous like 100,000 new recruits every year who leave again in 36 months? What if we devised a "National Labor Service" that worked like the military, but they built, I don't know, maybe highways? We could even come up with snazzy uniforms for them. edit: It would be really RAD
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2016 18:03
|
|