|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 5:58:53 GMT
I am talking about militant attitudes and of course it goes without saying, that those in the military have militant ideals. So either way, are most people with militant attitudes, or in the military, republican or hold conservative values that do more harm than good? I seriously doubt that Antifa has a substantial Republican contingent. I am not sure of your point here, but there are always anomalies and expectations to a rule. I don't much about ANTIFA anyway, I'm not from the US. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 6:01:39 GMT
Why are military and militant put together in this discussion? I know, right? They're almost opposites.  Well Toasty?  Definitely they are taken as totally opposite words in India.
It is not the first time that I have seen this lumping together of military and militants from western people. In India, the distinction is 100% crystal clear. Militant refers to terrorists and Maoists who carry on planned terrorist attacks on the civilians. Military refers to people who protect civilians from militants.
In Pakistan on the contrary there isn't much differences between military and militants. Because the dirty work of Pakistan is also carried out by their militant outfits and terrorist organizations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 6:03:44 GMT
Are the politics of the "majority" of those that serve in the military steeped in conservative values? It's a matter of time. There is no thing set in stone. Yes, if you are talking about "USA" then in last 10 years military people have had greater associated with conservatives. In India, the militant people (the Maoist insurgents) are totally committed to leftist values. I am only interested in the West. India is a difficult melting pot due to cultural background. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2018 6:03:54 GMT
I seriously doubt that Antifa has a substantial Republican contingent. I am not sure of your point here, but there are always anomalies and expectations to a rule. I don't much about ANTIFA anyway, I'm not from the US. Anomalies and expectations to what rule? I apologize, but I'm lost to us talking about some rule here. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 6:05:06 GMT
It's a matter of time. There is no thing set in stone. Yes, if you are talking about "USA" then in last 10 years military people have had greater associated with conservatives. In India, the militant people (the Maoist insurgents) are totally committed to leftist values. I am only interested in the West. India is a difficult melting pot due to cultural background. Even in west it is not the same in all countries. Even in USA it's not always the same that military people are more associated with conservatives. 10 years back
The Military Is More Liberal Than You Think
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 6:05:53 GMT
I know, right? They're almost opposites. Well Toasty? Definitely they are taken as totally opposite words in India.
It is not the first time that I have seen this lumping together of military and militants from western people. In India, the distinction is 100% crystal clear. Militant refers to terrorists and Maoists who carry on planned terrorist attacks on the civilians. Military refers to people who protect civilians from militants.
In Pakistan on the contrary there isn't much differences between military and militants. Because the dirty work of Pakistan is also carried out by their militant outfits and terrorist organizations.
Semantics due to cultural differences. Militant as I know it is about violent and confrontational ideals. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 6:07:16 GMT
I am only interested in the West. India is a difficult melting pot due to cultural background. Even in west it is not the same in all countries. Even in USA it's not always the same that military people are more associated with conservatives. 10 years back
The Military Is More Liberal Than You Think
Then perhaps they are not true liberals. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 6:08:28 GMT
I am not sure of your point here, but there are always anomalies and expectations to a rule. I don't much about ANTIFA anyway, I'm not from the US. Anomalies and expectations to what rule? I apologize, but I'm lost to us talking about some rule here. You will have to first explain your point about ANTIFA. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 6:18:31 GMT
Even in west it is not the same in all countries. Even in USA it's not always the same that military people are more associated with conservatives. 10 years back The Military Is More Liberal Than You Think
Then perhaps they are not true liberals. It seems to me that you come up with an idea and then want to keep on stressing on your original point and have no actual interest in discussing what others have to offer. Why did you create this no true Scotsman? You are not even an American. You don't know all the military people. The militants as opposed to military have had strong association with leftist values. In fact the leftist ideologies have given birth to many militant outfits world over.
Military people are people just like the rest of us. Some of them are conservatives, some of them are leftists and some of them are centrists or non-political. But that's not you are happy with. You have the child in you that has no respect for other people and is full of yourself. When things are shown against your preconceived beliefs, you create things out of your mind. Labeling people who are leftists as not actually leftists and doubting honesty of others against your own. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Sept 22, 2018 6:24:41 GMT
I know, right? They're almost opposites. Well Toasty? Definitely they are taken as totally opposite words in India.
It is not the first time that I have seen this lumping together of military and militants from western people. In India, the distinction is 100% crystal clear. Militant refers to terrorists and Maoists who carry on planned terrorist attacks on the civilians. Military refers to people who protect civilians from militants.
In Pakistan on the contrary there isn't much differences between military and militants. Because the dirty work of Pakistan is also carried out by their militant outfits and terrorist organizations.
It's the same in the U.S. People talk about "militant feminists" et al. Military is about keeping order. "Militant" refers to violent action against the established order. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 6:25:32 GMT
I am talking about militant attitudes and of course it goes without saying, that those in the military have militant ideals. So either way, are most people with militant attitudes, or in the military, republican or hold conservative values that do more harm than good? I seriously doubt that Antifa has a substantial Republican contingent. Antifa is a left wing militant movement. Anti-Capitalist as well as anti-government.
Antifa: Left-wing militants on the rise
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 6:26:21 GMT
Definitely they are taken as totally opposite words in India.
It is not the first time that I have seen this lumping together of military and militants from western people. In India, the distinction is 100% crystal clear. Militant refers to terrorists and Maoists who carry on planned terrorist attacks on the civilians. Military refers to people who protect civilians from militants.
In Pakistan on the contrary there isn't much differences between military and militants. Because the dirty work of Pakistan is also carried out by their militant outfits and terrorist organizations.
It's the same in the U.S. People talk about "militant feminists" et al. Military is about keeping order. "Militant" refers to violent action against the established order. Exactly. That is how the words are supposed to mean. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 6:30:22 GMT
Definitely they are taken as totally opposite words in India.
It is not the first time that I have seen this lumping together of military and militants from western people. In India, the distinction is 100% crystal clear. Militant refers to terrorists and Maoists who carry on planned terrorist attacks on the civilians. Military refers to people who protect civilians from militants.
In Pakistan on the contrary there isn't much differences between military and militants. Because the dirty work of Pakistan is also carried out by their militant outfits and terrorist organizations.
It's the same in the U.S. People talk about "militant feminists" et al. Military is about keeping order. "Militant" refers to violent action against the established order. Another point to note is that military people save civilians not just in wars but also in natural calamities such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes etc etc.
So yes, military is about keeping things in order in many ways.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2018 6:32:48 GMT
Anomalies and expectations to what rule? I apologize, but I'm lost to us talking about some rule here. You will have to first explain your point about ANTIFA. My point is that Antifa is a militant group that is decidedly not Republican nor military. Militancy is not something exclusive to Republicans or the military. And I still want to know about whatever rule is being discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 7:20:06 GMT
You will have to first explain your point about ANTIFA. My point is that Antifa is a militant group that is decidedly not Republican nor military. Militancy is not something exclusive to Republicans or the military. And I still want to know about whatever rule is being discussed. So you are saying that ANTIFA has militant values, but they are leftist? I get that point. My question was are 'most' people with militant values and in the military republican right wing? That is my guideline, so if this was to be the case or 'general rule' and I am not saying it is yet—which I know you get, but in your obtuseness, claimed you didn't know why they militant and military were strung together...Duh!—is militancy something that is 'predominantly' exclusive to republicans or right wing conservatives in the west?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 7:22:40 GMT
It's the same in the U.S. People talk about "militant feminists" et al. Military is about keeping order. "Militant" refers to violent action against the established order. Another point to note is that military people save civilians not just in wars but also in natural calamities such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes etc etc.
So yes, military is about keeping things in order in many ways.
Yes, when there are no wars to fight or blood to shed. This does bring another light on the topic then. Are those in the military genuinely caring people, or are they just doing a job because there is no war to fight in? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 22, 2018 7:25:17 GMT
It's the same in the U.S. People talk about "militant feminists" et al. Military is about keeping order. "Militant" refers to violent action against the established order. Exactly. That is how the words are supposed to mean. Military is still derived from the word militant. If they are keeping order— order from what?—and one doesn't have to be militant to do this, why is the term military still used then? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 7:36:10 GMT
There's probably some liberals, but the general consensus is the majority skews right of center. The word majority is important here. Does majority mean 1 more than 50%? Even if yes it still doesn't mean majority of military leans toward the right. Keep in mind that republican party increases spending on miltary so some of the support from military for them is purely based on that. But aside from ignoring the propaganda surveys from the right or the left, real unbiased surveys depict a different picture. Political scientists Jason Dempsey and Bob Shapiro found a very different result. So not even half of military personnel considered themselves conservatives a decade back. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 22, 2018 7:46:25 GMT
Another point to note is that military people save civilians not just in wars but also in natural calamities such as floods, cyclones, earthquakes etc etc.
So yes, military is about keeping things in order in many ways.
Yes, when there are no wars to fight or blood to shed. This does bring another light on the topic then. Are those in the military genuinely caring people, or are they just doing a job because there is no war to fight in? There isn't any one answer to your question. Personally, I do not believe that the people who are in military should all be expected to be truly caring people. But the authorization and creation of military by governments may be for protecting the citizens. It still doesn't mean military is inherently good. For example, the USA attacks poorer countries for no great reason. It turned Iraq into a living graveyard. Is that a good thing? Nope. But at the same time is military only supposed to be for aggressive wars? No. They can also defend us. They can also save our lives when natural calamity hits us or when a war is forced on us.
But individual military personnel join military for various reasons. For some it could be easy to get into military because they have good physique. Some may like the lifestyle and so they join military. Some actually do care about people and for that very reason join the military. So the thing is that each individual in military is different just like in other professions. There can be accountants who are cheaters and there can be accountants who are very ethical. Some of the military people may have joined military because they care about people. But just because some didn't join military because they care about people still doesn't make them uncaring people. They will simply be doing their jobs when time calls them to do their job.
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Sept 22, 2018 11:43:31 GMT
In general terms you might be right, but I wouldn't assume they were all the same.
Dad was working class, but he seemed to take a certain pride in owning the best car in the entire street, sometimes the entire town. He and Mum were both enrolled nurses. He'd be up before 0500 hours every morning, whether he was working or not. If Mum was on an early, he'd be up to make her breakfast and warm the car up while she showered. If they were both on an early, when they got home in the afternoon, Mum would take a nap, but Dad would go out and see what yard work needed to be done. At night, unless he was on a late or there was a specific reason to stay up, he was often in bed by 2100 hours. And I doubt you would've met many people quite as savvy as he was. He had an ability to "read" people - or situations - that often unsettled Mum.
I knew him and what he was like. I just didn't know him during the period you described. I also know the period you described through watching countless documentaries and such, but by then, Dad was already dead. So I was never able to fully combine both sides of that equation.
I feel left and right values may have a different dynamic today, as to what they did say over 40yrs ago. What people thought was right and what they fought for and worked hard for then, now has a different outlook. PC values are very much different today and that can determine ones politics. Those that may have been from your Dad's era and were left wing supporters, may very well be right wing based on what they see today.
Whenever I notice that phenomenon, it seems to be most apparent in the world of politics. Although I might occasionally notice something in general society.
For example, I've heard more than one TV hosts and political commentators say that Ronald Reagan or George HW Bush would now be considered too left-wing to gain a nomination in the Republican party. It seems that there's been quite a swing to the right within the Republican party.
Meanwhile, in the mid to late 1970s, wave after wave of Vietnamese refugees made their way south to Australia on little wooden boats, escaping from the aftermath of the Vietnam war. The right-wing Prime Minister at the time worked in conjunction with the left-wing Opposition Leader to put out the welcome mat for them. These days, anyone who shows up on a wooden boat gets locked up in a prison camp on a little Pacific island and told they'll never ever set foot on Australia.
Times change and people change along with it. And not always for the best...
|
|
