4 ms·

Nobody signs the dotted line to sit in a tower or stand around at a checkpoint for twelve hours a day, but even the gunners have to go to the motor pool to PMCS

Nobody signs the dotted line to sit in a tower or stand around at a checkpoint for twelve hours a day, but even the gunners have to go to the motor pool to PMCS the vehicles every once in a while. Perhaps the specific, historical role of "concentration camp guard" was a job fulfilled by a specific section of the SS, but the underlying point remains. They were not any less human than you are. This makes people uncomfortable, so they don't like to agree with it, instead using some other factor in their denial (e.g. "They were psychopaths, I am not"). But they were the same animal that you are. The same animal your children and grandchildren are. We like to think highly of ourselves, but it's a grave mistake to believe that you (personally) are not capable of those things. You absolutely are. You are just taking completely for granted that you've won the most amazing lottery in the history of the universe: The gift of a violence-free life in which you've never been pushed to the point of doing those things.

Dylan16807 8y ago
> Nobody signs the dotted line to sit in a tower or stand aroun Few people sign the dotted line for what's described in the article either, it's something that happens after they get there, and doesn't happen to a guard in the middle of controlled territory. > They were not any less human than you are. But for completely different reasons than the thrill of violence and war-fighting.
- fapjacks 8y ago
  The military is a huge community of people in the United States -- about two million people -- and we can't talk in any other sense than the general one. But my experience directly contradicts your first assertion. Were you in the military? It would be useful to tell us about your experience. Because I would say most people join combat arms specifically for what's described in the article. Nobody joins the infantry for any other reason (or perhaps a few with a family tradition or something). Even then, I never met a soldier in almost fourteen years that joined for the minutiae of guard duty or peeling potatoes or mopping floors. Combat, "adventure", college money, steady paycheck, service to country, family tradition, getting the hell out of town. Those are the big reasons people join. I think you're still trying to put the Nazi SS concentration camp guard into a category of his own -- which is what most "normal" people want to do, to sort of implicitly deny that they could ever do such a thing. And I'm not sure how else I can address this denial other than with what's already been written, except to say that you don't know what you're capable of if you think that you or your family members or your friends couldn't ever be a party to these kinds of things. People are animals and products of their environment. Add a layer of abstraction, and you are ever bit as dangerous as the Nazis you've read about. This may seem astonishing and shocking, but it's true. Hitler was a human being. Genghis Khan was a human being. There will be another person like this in the future, and perhaps it will shock you to learn that they, too, will be a human being.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    > Because I would say most people join combat arms specifically for what's described in the article. Interesting, because the article strongly implies that it's strongly something you find on the battlefield, not go there for it. >I think you're still trying to put the Nazi SS concentration camp guard into a category of his own -- which is what most "normal" people want to do, to sort of implicitly deny that they could ever do such a thing. Why do you think that when I explicitly agreed with you? I'm not trying to deny it at all. I'm saying it's not what the article is about.
    - fapjacks 8y ago
      Well, you take what you want from the article, but it does not in fact say (or imply, to me) that people don't join looking for this experience. People do go looking for this experience specifically. I'm telling you this is the case because it's one of the reasons I joined personally. My best friend joined for similar reasons -- incidentally, there is only one person I consider a close friend who was never in combat, and he spent time in prison (it's no coincidence the old Stoics have been popular among soldiers and prisoners). One of the main reasons I joined was specifically for the chance to experience combat, even though before 9/11, it wasn't a very big one. People have different names for this ("kill terrorists" and "kick some ass" are pretty common), but it's what pretty much everybody joins the infantry for. Now, what people find when they get off the plane could be anything. It's hard to quantify this complex experience even with the many varied perspectives shared by people who were right there with you. So you're going to have to understand that while the article is broadly true, nobody has perfect insight into what this experience is all about, myself included (perhaps especially me). Nobody in history has ever known all there is to know about war, just as nobody in history has ever known all there is to know about love. It's no different here, even if he's exposed a universal truth of combat. Exposed the kind of open secret that war fulfills a basic male impulse. Either way, you replied to a comment in a thread about the innate human capacity for war and the danger of people denying or not recognizing that capacity, so that's why I'm talking about it here.

Dylan16807 8y ago

> Nobody signs the dotted line to sit in a tower or stand aroun Few people sign the dotted line for what's described in the article either, it's something that happens after they get there, and doesn't happen to a guard in the middle of controlled territory. > They were not any less human than you are. But for completely different reasons than the thrill of violence and war-fighting.

fapjacks 8y ago
The military is a huge community of people in the United States -- about two million people -- and we can't talk in any other sense than the general one. But my experience directly contradicts your first assertion. Were you in the military? It would be useful to tell us about your experience. Because I would say most people join combat arms specifically for what's described in the article. Nobody joins the infantry for any other reason (or perhaps a few with a family tradition or something). Even then, I never met a soldier in almost fourteen years that joined for the minutiae of guard duty or peeling potatoes or mopping floors. Combat, "adventure", college money, steady paycheck, service to country, family tradition, getting the hell out of town. Those are the big reasons people join. I think you're still trying to put the Nazi SS concentration camp guard into a category of his own -- which is what most "normal" people want to do, to sort of implicitly deny that they could ever do such a thing. And I'm not sure how else I can address this denial other than with what's already been written, except to say that you don't know what you're capable of if you think that you or your family members or your friends couldn't ever be a party to these kinds of things. People are animals and products of their environment. Add a layer of abstraction, and you are ever bit as dangerous as the Nazis you've read about. This may seem astonishing and shocking, but it's true. Hitler was a human being. Genghis Khan was a human being. There will be another person like this in the future, and perhaps it will shock you to learn that they, too, will be a human being.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  > Because I would say most people join combat arms specifically for what's described in the article. Interesting, because the article strongly implies that it's strongly something you find on the battlefield, not go there for it. >I think you're still trying to put the Nazi SS concentration camp guard into a category of his own -- which is what most "normal" people want to do, to sort of implicitly deny that they could ever do such a thing. Why do you think that when I explicitly agreed with you? I'm not trying to deny it at all. I'm saying it's not what the article is about.
  - fapjacks 8y ago
    Well, you take what you want from the article, but it does not in fact say (or imply, to me) that people don't join looking for this experience. People do go looking for this experience specifically. I'm telling you this is the case because it's one of the reasons I joined personally. My best friend joined for similar reasons -- incidentally, there is only one person I consider a close friend who was never in combat, and he spent time in prison (it's no coincidence the old Stoics have been popular among soldiers and prisoners). One of the main reasons I joined was specifically for the chance to experience combat, even though before 9/11, it wasn't a very big one. People have different names for this ("kill terrorists" and "kick some ass" are pretty common), but it's what pretty much everybody joins the infantry for. Now, what people find when they get off the plane could be anything. It's hard to quantify this complex experience even with the many varied perspectives shared by people who were right there with you. So you're going to have to understand that while the article is broadly true, nobody has perfect insight into what this experience is all about, myself included (perhaps especially me). Nobody in history has ever known all there is to know about war, just as nobody in history has ever known all there is to know about love. It's no different here, even if he's exposed a universal truth of combat. Exposed the kind of open secret that war fulfills a basic male impulse. Either way, you replied to a comment in a thread about the innate human capacity for war and the danger of people denying or not recognizing that capacity, so that's why I'm talking about it here.