Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone

You don't have to go far to find service members with a "you are either a soldier or you aren't mentality", and you can find about 500 books on the subject as well. Saying no one has the attitude is either incredibly naive or delusional. Cops run into the same problem.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
you clearly don't read my posts very much

Or I have, and you are oblivious to how you come across online sometimes.

 Ahtman wrote:
You don't have to go far to find service members with a "you are either a soldier or you aren't mentality", and you can find about 500 books on the subject as well. Saying no one has the attitude is either incredibly naive or delusional. Cops run into the same problem.

As would accountants, I imagine. After all, you either are or you are not an accountant. I'm not really aware of any non-binary states of being.

 Seaward wrote:
As would accountants, I imagine.

Not really. That is ok, a statement this ridiculous shows you don't grasp the fundamentals of what is being discussed.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not really aware of any non-binary states of being.

Going by your posts, I'd say you aren't aware of a great many things.

 Ahtman wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'll make sure to apply tags in the future to wildly outlandish statements that wouldn't be held seriously by anyone

You don't have to go far to find service members with a "you are either a soldier or you aren't mentality", and you can find about 500 books on the subject as well. Saying no one has the attitude is either incredibly naive or delusional. Cops run into the same problem.

Service Before Self is one of our Core Values in the Air Force. It means that you are an Airman before anything else. I find that a lot of our problems in the Air Force are brought about by people who forget that, or never learned it in the first place.


That being said, I have no idea how it relates to what he posted, and yes, it obviously was sarcasm.

 Ahtman wrote:
Not really. That is ok, a statement this ridiculous shows you don't grasp the fundamentals of what is being discussed.

It appears to be a bunch of dudes with absolutely no frame of reference attempting to tell current and prior service members about the military.

I mean, I like endless hilarity as much as the next guy, but c'mon.

 djones520 wrote:
That being said, I have no idea how it relates to what he posted

You don't understand about how pointing out that a well known sociological and psycholical event in which soldiers begin to think anyone who isn't a soldier is against them relates to why KM's statement may not be taken as sarcasm?

 djones520 wrote:
and yes, it obviously was sarcasm.

And no, it obliviously wasn't, or I would not have asked him. It is also easy to say once the poster has specifically stated it was.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
That being said, I have no idea how it relates to what he posted

You don't understand about how pointing out that a well known sociological and psycholical event in which soldiers begin to think anyone who isn't a soldier is against them relates to why KM's statement may not be taken as sarcasm?

In that context I see it now, I was looking at it from a differant point of view, which related more towards what I posted in how we look at ourselves.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Not really. That is ok, a statement this ridiculous shows you don't grasp the fundamentals of what is being discussed.

It appears to be a bunch of dudes with absolutely no frame of reference attempting to tell current and prior service members about the military.

Your "no one really understands but us" actually strengthens the argument. You would understand that if you understood the basic concept, which, you obliviously don't. It is actually a serious problem that can cause all sorts of distress and issues for servicemen. It also ignores that a lot of the research was/is done by *gasp* servicemen and women.

 Ahtman wrote:
Your "no one really understands but us" actually strengthens the argument. You would understand that if you understood the basic concept, which, you obliviously don't. It is actually a serious problem that can cause all sorts of distress and issues for servicemen. It also ignores that a lot of the research was/is done by *gasp* servicemen and women.

Sorry. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that most civilians do not understand the military better than members of the military.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:
Your "no one really understands but us" actually strengthens the argument. You would understand that if you understood the basic concept, which, you obliviously don't. It is actually a serious problem that can cause all sorts of distress and issues for servicemen. It also ignores that a lot of the research was/is done by *gasp* servicemen and women.

Sorry. I'm afraid I'm going to have to insist that most civilians do not understand the military better than members of the military.

Which is very true. Operative word here is most.

Ahtman is not Most Civilians.

There's a certain element that rings true in the concept tha civilians don't really understand military life. It leaves out the part where a large amount of former service members ARE civilians, first term turnover is more common than reenlistment, and retirees trough age or medical. It's a but like saying you can't really understand what it's like to be homeless until you've been homeless. You can conceptualize sure, but the gap between reality and concept is pretty wide.
It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.

"Only people in my group are in any position to judge or criticize the positions of the people in my group"

Not exactly a way of approaching things that is useful for approaching productive discussions of any sort.

Chongara wrote:
"Only people in my group are in any position to judge or criticize the positions of the people in my group"

Not exactly a way of approaching things that is useful for approaching productive discussions of any sort.

Good thing no one's making that argument, then.

 AustonT wrote:
It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.

and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

Chongara wrote:
"Only people in my group are in any position to judge or criticize the positions of the people in my group"

Not exactly a way of approaching things that is useful for approaching productive discussions of any sort.

Good thing no one's making that argument, then.

Can you explain what argument you ARE making then? Because, just reading your posts it kind of sounds like that is the EXACT argument you are making.

Possibly it's that the people he's specifically referring to in this context don't seem to know what they are talking about.

I don't often agree with Seaward, but I think he's spot on here.

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.

and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.

Care to tease out that thought?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Possibly it's that the people he's specifically referring to in this context don't seem to know what they are talking about.

I don't often agree with Seaward, but I think he's spot on here.

Okay, so specific people (Ahtman?) can't judge because they haven't been part of the group, but some other people who aren't here can make the judgement even if they haven't been [part of the group he is defending? Is that the jist of it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.

and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.

Care to tease out that thought?

I will try, but I will admit it is only a half-baked feeling. Vast oversimplification ahead! Let's say you have group A, who has a monopoly on force, and group B who has only token force. Do you want Group A to get to a point where they can no longer relate to the Group B and feel that Group B is in fact a seperate entity than group A? What can Group A ever do to stop Group B from doing whatever the heck it wants? The system only works if Group A and Group B feel like they are part of the same "whole". If they feel disconnect from each other, why stay as one "whole"?

Granted, pretty half-baked.

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.

and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.

I'd like to hear more about this.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Possibly it's that the people he's specifically referring to in this context don't seem to know what they are talking about.

I don't often agree with Seaward, but I think he's spot on here.

Yep. I don't honestly see the issue with the "You either are a soldier or you aren't a soldier" mentality. Nor do I see my quip as an extension of that mentality. Because you either served or you're some unprintable civilian. You either know, or you have at best second hand knowledge and probably more like third or forth hand.

Meanwhile my sarcastic remark was taking to the extreme the common CIVILIAN mentality that we give up our individuality upon entering the service, or that we're all just a bunch of rednecks.

I actually just had a conversation with a civilian who was upset about how "exclusionary" the Marine Corps is. We have special greetings for each other and groups to meet with other Marines, presumably we have a secret handshake, etc. I still fail to see how being exclusionary is a bad thing, we don't disbar any one from membership by color, creed or sex, you want to learn the hand shake visit your local recruiter and pay your "club dues"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AustonT wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
It's not to say civilians don't understand the life and pressures involved, it's more to say its unlikely. Rather than creating an us them mentality, it should be used to point out a cultural: subcultural divide that is both real and pronounced.

and such a divide is also potentially dangerous/unhealthy for our society.

Care to tease out that thought?

I will try, but I will admit it is only a half-baked feeling. Vast oversimplification ahead! Let's say you have group A, who has a monopoly on force, and group B who has only token force. Do you want Group A to get to a point where they can no longer relate to the Group B and feel that Group B is in fact a seperate entity than group A? What can Group A ever do to stop Group B from doing whatever the heck it wants? The system only works if Group A and Group B feel like they are part of the same "whole". If they feel disconnect from each other, why stay as one "whole"?

Granted, pretty half-baked.

Because the Marine Corps hasn't managed to pick out an island to form it's own nation on? I get that it's half baked but America especially is filled with cultural divides. State to state, region to region, never mind the various ethnic cultures in various locations, it doesn't stop any of us from being Americans.

While I get that it's a generalization. Group A comes from Group B. It lives beside and amongst them in concurrent but not seperate environments. Group A can relate to Group B the danger really lies in Group A not providing the tools for Group B to relate to Group A.
It's danger then becomes that Group B, unable to relate to Group A begins to fear and despise Group A and it's monopoly on force. Attacking them through peaceful means like legislation and financing; Group A eventually becomes so threatened by Group B it siezes power. Also known as "the Roman Empire" pre Germanic inclusion of course.

Yeah, I can see that too.

So, I think we can all agree that it is bad. The question is, what tools do we need to make sure Group A and Group B stay together for the good of the "whole"?

@ KM
If this was how recruiters actually were I think there'd be more Marines.
http://www.military.com/video/forces/marine-corps/very-funny-usmc-recruiting-video/1227412559001/

Which is odd, because I am not judging, just talking about real, recorded psychological phenomena. Nowhere did I say anything remotely in the area of judging soldiers, or claim that all soldiers have this problem. In fact, most do not, at least to the level where it becomes a problem.

In extreme cases where the military feels as if it doesn't need to be beholden to anyone, especially those idiot civilians who don't know anything, it can lead to serious problems. In other countries is has lead to coups.

On more personal levels, and really the type being talked about, the ability to relate only to other soldiers can cause rifts in friendships, divorce, high job turnover rate, alcholism, feelings of isolation, and in extreme cases (such as mixed with PTSD) suicide or lashing out at loved ones. There are people in the service that think that if they aren't in their platoon then they must hate them, just as their are cops that have trouble trusting anyone who also isn't a cop.

We aren't talking about recognizing different groups, we are talking about when it becomes "I am in group A and anyone not in Group A is either out to get me or might be".

 Easy E wrote:
So, I think we can all agree that it is bad. The question is, what tools do we need to make sure Group A and Group B stay together for the good of the "whole"?

Female 11Bs, obviously.

Oh and Jesus NSFW OR CHILDREN

 Easy E wrote:
I will try, but I will admit it is only a half-baked feeling. Vast oversimplification ahead! Let's say you have group A, who has a monopoly on force, and group B who has only token force. Do you want Group A to get to a point where they can no longer relate to the Group B and feel that Group B is in fact a seperate entity than group A? What can Group A ever do to stop Group B from doing whatever the heck it wants? The system only works if Group A and Group B feel like they are part of the same "whole". If they feel disconnect from each other, why stay as one "whole"?

Granted, pretty half-baked.

or to put it more bluntly:

"Why excuse me Mr.MilitaryMan you seem to be doing things in way that are one or more of the following: is an inefficient use of resources, is ethically dubious, fails to reflect our nations values, is actively against the best interest of the citizenry."

"It has to be that way and/or is best that way."

"Hmmm, I think I have a rather well-reasoned argument backed up by either data gathered from independent sources or that stems from basic implications of common knowledge. Do you have a counter-argument or data that conflicts with mine?"

"Sure Here."

"I see. I think I can see some holes in this reasoning and/or data you've provided. Could you address any of these points specifically, or outline your concerns on a more granular level?"

"No. You'd never understand you're not a solider"

"That makes it rather difficult to the trust the issue is being given full consideration in good faith, and it's an important issue"

"That's because you're not a soldier. You'd understand if you were soldier"

Could you give us some real-life examples of that scenario, Chongara?

 Seaward wrote:
Could you give us some real-life examples of that scenario, Chongara?

Any issues of equality in military service, up to and including this one.

Chongara wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Could you give us some real-life examples of that scenario, Chongara?

Any issues of equality in military service, up to and including this one.

So you've just neglected to read the points about readiness, physical standards, and unit cohesion? Fair enough.

And now, a joke I'm stealing from Kyle Defoor:

The DOD contracted a scientific company to find out what made Special Operations soldiers so unique in hopes of graduating higher numbers from the various selection courses. The company came up with a way to test for resourcefulness, problem solving abilities, physical and mental strength, and performance under pressure.

The company was given two members from some of the most elite units in the world; Navy SEALs, Army SF, MARSOC, German GSG-9, Australian SAS, and even 2 mujahideen from Afghanistan who had fought the Russians in the early '80s.

Finally ready, they began the experiment. The two members of each team would be locked into a room for 24 hours with nothing but two 36" steel ball bearings and the uniforms on their back. The room had no windows, no furniture, no lights, nothing. It was essentially a large concrete room with only one entry/exit that was guarded. Once inside, the door would be locked and the two team members would not be allowed out until 24 hours had elapsed. After 24 hours the scientists were excited to see what these commandos had come up with.

First they went to the Germans' door: upon opening it, the scientists saw an Audi A8 in perfect working order. It was unbelievable that these two GSG-9 soldiers could have built that car in one day with no tools and nothing but two ball bearings.

The scientists decided next they would check on the mujahideen. They opened the door, and could not believe what they saw: a Toyaota Hilux in one corner, and in the other corner a lush, green field growing poppies with irrigation water running uphill! They were excited to see that the Afghani men had indeed made all this out of two ball bearings.

Next the scientists visited the Army Special Forces room. They opened the door and were in awe at what they saw: a fire base complete with .50 cal machine guns, sandbagged positions, a chow hall, a hospital, and 50 indigenous personnel crazily working to make the fire base even better while the two SF guys were playing X-Box. All of this out of two ball bearings.

The scientists made their way to the MARSOC room. When they opened the door, it was completely empty. No ball bearings, no Marines. They searched and searched, but never found them. The Marines reported back to their unit six months later with a complete report on the disposition of enemy forces within the room.

Next was the Australian room. The scientists opened the door and were completely surprised by what they saw: A beautiful woman with an Aussie accent welcomed them in and showed them to the bar, where they could have any beer they wanted from the taps on the rack. The beautiful woman showed them to their table and had their steaks waiting for them. All this - a bar, a grill, beer, a woman - all this from two ball bearings.

Lastly, the scientists made their way to the SEALs' room. They were so excited to see what the frogmen had come up with. They opened the door. In the corner of the room sat the two SEALs. The scientists looked around and saw...nothing. They asked the SEALs, "What happened? We saw all the other teams make these fabulous things; cars, submarines, women.. even the mujahideen made some poppies grow and water flow uphill! What happened to you guys, and what happened to your ball bearings?!"

The SEALs looked at each other and responded to the scientists, "We broke one and lost the other."

Let it be known that I was not referring to Ahtman.