5 ms·

TLDR: serving in the military is a bullshit job for "goons". The Guardian really is a parody of itself sometimes.

TulliusCicero 8y ago
Incorrect. They're saying that the military is a "goon" type of job, in that it involves aggression, and you have to do it because others will plow over you otherwise. It has nothing to do with the character of soldiers. This same underlying logic also applies to corporate lawyers and advertisers.
- leroy_masochist 8y ago
  Right, and therein lies the Guardian's stereotypical grad student reasoning: militaries only exist because of humanity's lack of enlightenment, and military service is therefore a job that "lacks positive value" and is "essentially manipulative and aggressive". Even if you subscribe to the standard litany of lefty anti-person-in-uniform grudges, the notion that militaries around the world exist primarily to guard against other militaries is misguided. A much bigger motivating factor for the existence of large standing armies is the general desire of illiberal regimes, be they on the right or on the left, to keep the young male population (ie the backbone of a potential revolution) occupied on a daily basis.
  - pnathan 8y ago
    > A much bigger motivating factor for the existence of large standing armies is the general desire of illiberal regimes, be they on the right or on the left, to keep the young male population (ie the backbone of a potential revolution) occupied on a daily basis. Would you mind citing that or expanding on more depth? I'm curious as to your reasoning chain there and think it is an interesting critique of the article's classification.
    - leroy_masochist 8y ago
      It's a common practice throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Arab world (and Russia until recently). Compulsory military service for males at 18, for a varying amount of time but enough to a) make a tangible difference in the number of young guys loitering about because they have nothing to do in the bad economy; b) have a large internally deployable force to quell any unrest at a moment's notice; c) indoctrinate young men with the idea that being a man / being a patriot / being of good character means supporting the regime and its ideology (while also giving young men a group identity as a veteran of the armed forces loyal to the government). Fighting a war with another country is not the reason most countries spend money on their armies that could be spent elsewhere.

Incorrect. They're saying that the military is a "goon" type of job, in that it involves aggression, and you have to do it because others will plow over you otherwise. It has nothing to do with the character of soldiers. This same underlying logic also applies to corporate lawyers and advertisers.

leroy_masochist 8y ago
Right, and therein lies the Guardian's stereotypical grad student reasoning: militaries only exist because of humanity's lack of enlightenment, and military service is therefore a job that "lacks positive value" and is "essentially manipulative and aggressive". Even if you subscribe to the standard litany of lefty anti-person-in-uniform grudges, the notion that militaries around the world exist primarily to guard against other militaries is misguided. A much bigger motivating factor for the existence of large standing armies is the general desire of illiberal regimes, be they on the right or on the left, to keep the young male population (ie the backbone of a potential revolution) occupied on a daily basis.
- pnathan 8y ago
  > A much bigger motivating factor for the existence of large standing armies is the general desire of illiberal regimes, be they on the right or on the left, to keep the young male population (ie the backbone of a potential revolution) occupied on a daily basis. Would you mind citing that or expanding on more depth? I'm curious as to your reasoning chain there and think it is an interesting critique of the article's classification.
  - leroy_masochist 8y ago
    It's a common practice throughout Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Arab world (and Russia until recently). Compulsory military service for males at 18, for a varying amount of time but enough to a) make a tangible difference in the number of young guys loitering about because they have nothing to do in the bad economy; b) have a large internally deployable force to quell any unrest at a moment's notice; c) indoctrinate young men with the idea that being a man / being a patriot / being of good character means supporting the regime and its ideology (while also giving young men a group identity as a veteran of the armed forces loyal to the government). Fighting a war with another country is not the reason most countries spend money on their armies that could be spent elsewhere.