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.

Do you think people will support a war, like they used too? or will apathy mean that support will be sporadic.

I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.

 daedalus wrote:

Here we have an impressive exhibit of a comment made about how other people cannot tell reality from fictional stereotypes based upon the assumption that those people largely reflect the ones found in a fictional stereotype.
I do need to go to the shooting range again. It's been a couple years now.

If it was just a stereotype I'd be a lot happier. We're undermanned and we showed 25 of them the door for Outstanding Stupidity in the last two months. 'This material is Confidential and not to leave the facility' does not mean 'try to leave the building with it'. 'Cameras and Photography Prohibited' does not mean 'Take a Selfie in Front of this sign!' I'm talking grade A, full on slow stupidity. Of the thirty guys we took in we have ONE millennial still on, and his time is up at the end of the week, and despite the recommendations of all the team leads, he's not being retained due to policy handed down from on high, or at least, from Foggy Bottom.

Out of twenty six millennials, we found 1 guy who was worthwhile, and we were not even allowed to keep him. And it makes me fething furious. We get young talent, we can't keep em, but we can keep the guys who've been in for a thousand fething years, who're fething sprawled across the desks drunk, or sit all day doing puzzles and not working, but someone shows some talent, and they get pirated right out of our office by the field manager's wife who wants them for her team over at OPM. We have about 26 YEARS before our estimated time of completion at this point, so we've dragged it up form 48, but I STILL can't decide what side the boss is on. I swear to god he's trying to force the project to fail.

 loki old fart wrote:
Do you think people will support a war, like they used too? or will apathy mean that support will be sporadic.

You've got some assumptions in there that don't really hold up. Support for war in general isn't weaker today.

While war broke out in Europe in WW1 Wilson maintained a policy position of strict neutrality. He was privately concerned about a German victory but didn't want to involve the US. When Germany sunk the Lusitania, Wilson did nothing more than demand Germany warn the vessel so passengers could disembark before sinking it. Germany broke that promise three times, only for Wilson to repeat his requirement for future attacks. Can you imagine a US president today failing to respond to that with war, and then winning office again? Because Wilson won re-election in 1916 (though it was close). It was only after that, with yet more sinkings and the revelation that Germany attempted to encourage a Mexican attack on the US, that the US entered the war.

In 1939 while Hitler was expanding the Reich across Europe, it was not uncommon to find polls where as little as 5% of the population supported sending US troops to aid. As the war turned that number increased, but it never reached a majority until the US came under direct attack.

The Korean War was very different, perhaps as the US came off of relatively clean wars against pretty despicable regimes in Germany and Japan. More than 70% supported US involvement in the Korean War at the outset. That said, during the war itself support dropped in to a minority position as the US position worsened and the MacArthur Crisis played out, before the end of the war ending the war with majority support.

When the US committed active combat troops to Vietnam, support was 64% (though this might be due in part to claimed attack on the Maddox, I couldn't find a poll before then).

The first Gulf War had minority support, just 37%. This quickly improved as the war was decidely quickly and decisively.

Support for the war in Afghanistan polled around 90%, though in wake of 9/11 I'm honestly surprised it wasn't higher.

The second Gulf War... in February 2001, before 9/11, there was popular support for invasion and removal of Saddam, 52% wanted it. After 9/11, and with the US already in Afghanistan, support for Iraq peaked at 75%.

So there's a pretty clear seperation marked by WWII, prior to and including, where the US sentiment was largely opposed to war, perhaps because the US understanding of war was defined by the Civil War. After WWII you see majority support for US wars, even ones like Vietnam that were dependent on weird geo-political theories to justify US intervention.

So no, the US is not less likely to support a war than they used.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

If it was just a stereotype I'd be a lot happier. We're undermanned and we showed 25 of them the door for Outstanding Stupidity in the last two months. 'This material is Confidential and not to leave the facility' does not mean 'try to leave the building with it'. 'Cameras and Photography Prohibited' does not mean 'Take a Selfie in Front of this sign!' I'm talking grade A, full on slow stupidity. Of the thirty guys we took in we have ONE millennial still on, and his time is up at the end of the week, and despite the recommendations of all the team leads, he's not being retained due to policy handed down from on high, or at least, from Foggy Bottom.

Out of twenty six millennials, we found 1 guy who was worthwhile, and we were not even allowed to keep him. And it makes me fething furious. We get young talent, we can't keep em, but we can keep the guys who've been in for a thousand fething years, who're fething sprawled across the desks drunk, or sit all day doing puzzles and not working, but someone shows some talent, and they get pirated right out of our office by the field manager's wife who wants them for her team over at OPM. We have about 26 YEARS before our estimated time of completion at this point, so we've dragged it up form 48, but I STILL can't decide what side the boss is on. I swear to god he's trying to force the project to fail.

Well, fair enough. For what it's worth, the second paragraph is more or less about what I've witnessed in the private sector, and we actually try to pay out for talent retention sometimes. I think while it's true that its hard to find good jobs nowadays, the actual honest-to-god ones that are worth having can pretty much come and go as they please. I also recall an article talking about how the FBI and NSA were having problems finding people to staff their black-hat programs. Not sure if it was journalistic speculation, but one of the things floated as a cause in it was the drug tests. As in, the guys you want for those kinds of positions were the guys who weren't comfortable taking drug tests. Not that you want someone who's job it is to carry a gun around getting high, but I guess my point is that the people who might be able to do it best are probably getting better offers elsewhere.

yellowfever wrote:
I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.

Lol,

"More informed" and "has access to the internet and social media" don't exactly go together. I don't think this increased information access has led to an increase in how well informed people are. If anything, it's just encouraged more Group-think and mindless sheep behavior. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, the horse is taking a selfie, watching cat videos, and just doing whatever his friends do with it instead of drinking the dang water.

 daedalus wrote:

I also recall an article talking about how the FBI and NSA were having problems finding people to staff their black-hat programs... As in, the guys you want for those kinds of positions were the guys who weren't comfortable taking drug tests. but I guess my point is that the people who might be able to do it best are probably getting better offers elsewhere.

NSA shocked that people they want to employ because they do illigal stuff also do other illigal stuff? I'd say that's stupidity on the part of the NSA and FBI.

 Grey Templar wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.

Lol,

"More informed" and "has access to the internet and social media" don't exactly go together. I don't think this increased information access has led to an increase in how well informed people are. If anything, it's just encouraged more Group-think and mindless sheep behavior. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, the horse is taking a selfie, watching cat videos, and just doing whatever his friends do with it instead of drinking the dang water.

Because people in the past spent their days reading Tolstoy and Shakespeare whilst sipping tea and listening to the works of Moszkowski and Mendelssohn? The young have much more access to information than in the past, and are much more likely to read the news or look up facts. The internet has not brought any more "Group-think" or "mindless sheep". It has just meant that those people find more and more niche groups rather than local groups of friends all thinking and doing the same. My parents generation still formed friendships groups of likeminded people and hung out in places that matche their views.

 Grey Templar wrote:

yellowfever wrote:
I never thought of millennials being weaker or lazy. With easy access to Internet and social media everywhere they are just more informed. Millennials have the advantage of being able more easily educate themselves on current events and then decide for themselves if they agree or not.

Lol,

"More informed" and "has access to the internet and social media" don't exactly go together. I don't think this increased information access has led to an increase in how well informed people are. If anything, it's just encouraged more Group-think and mindless sheep behavior. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, the horse is taking a selfie, watching cat videos, and just doing whatever his friends do with it instead of drinking the dang water.

Well obviously not everyone will take advantage, but I think it goes without saying that information on any given topic is much more readily available then say during the Vietnam War.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Here we have an impressive exhibit of a comment made about how other people cannot tell reality from fictional stereotypes based upon the assumption that those people largely reflect the ones found in a fictional stereotype.
I do need to go to the shooting range again. It's been a couple years now.

If it was just a stereotype I'd be a lot happier. We're undermanned and we showed 25 of them the door for Outstanding Stupidity in the last two months. 'This material is Confidential and not to leave the facility' does not mean 'try to leave the building with it'. 'Cameras and Photography Prohibited' does not mean 'Take a Selfie in Front of this sign!' I'm talking grade A, full on slow stupidity. Of the thirty guys we took in we have ONE millennial still on, and his time is up at the end of the week, and despite the recommendations of all the team leads, he's not being retained due to policy handed down from on high, or at least, from Foggy Bottom.

Out of twenty six millennials, we found 1 guy who was worthwhile, and we were not even allowed to keep him. And it makes me fething furious. We get young talent, we can't keep em, but we can keep the guys who've been in for a thousand fething years, who're fething sprawled across the desks drunk, or sit all day doing puzzles and not working, but someone shows some talent, and they get pirated right out of our office by the field manager's wife who wants them for her team over at OPM. We have about 26 YEARS before our estimated time of completion at this point, so we've dragged it up form 48, but I STILL can't decide what side the boss is on. I swear to god he's trying to force the project to fail.

This is similar to the point I tried to make earlier in this post. As someone who actually works with Trainees in AIT(the school you attend immediately after basic training) for the last 5 years of my life, I can tell you that the talent is few and far between. Physical conditioning is extremely poor. The ability to learn through deductive reasoning is poor, as is basic common sense. every weekend someone gets caught stealing from the PX. We warn them every Friday that they have cameras everywhere but it still happens. At least once per month inappropriate sexual behaviors occur especially since we integrated. The ability to focus on one thing for more than 5 min is rare. Out of a class of 30 in the 13J school house I usually can pick out 10 off the bat that would fail at life if an NCO did not follow them around baby sitting them constatnly. So as someone who is speaking not from speculation but from experience, no they would not make it at first. When I was on the line it took me no less than 6 months of constant supervision, Im talking time away from my family on the weekends coming in to make sure they would clean their rooms, do PT, and stay out of trouble. 6 months of constant counseling and correction to get points across. The army isn't all constant training for war, which may be part of the problem. There are hundreds of other daily tasks that happen and warfighting is usually last on the list of things that happen on the regular. I could write a book on why the majority of the younger generation fails.

Isn't the question then, is that particularly different from how army recruits have *always* behaved?

"Those damned recruits. They took the Kings Shilling from the bottom of a beer mug, why do they dare have the temerity to think that's unfair?"

 Compel wrote:
Isn't the question then, is that particularly different from how army recruits have *always* behaved?

"Those damned recruits. They took the Kings Shilling from the bottom of a beer mug, why do they dare have the temerity to think that's unfair?"

That is a good question. I can only compare with the groups I went to AIT and Basic with and served at my first duty station with. Would need other veterans to chime in. So those traits are not new. Its the frequency we see them that is new.

Physical fitness: In my basic training the only ones we worried about failing the PT test were the few Females we had and one Male. Out of a company size element thats pretty good. On the flip side, the last PT test I over saw before retirement we had about 50% meet the exact bare minimum, 10% male failures and 5% female failures. (Standards are lower for females) Of those that met the bare minimum I am sure that there were double pushups and situps counted. I never did it but I know NCOs who did after a Soldiers 3rd failure just go get them out of there.

When my NCO told me to do something as a Private-Specialist it was never answered with why or why me, it was roger and I moved out smartly. Same could be said for all of my old friends from my first duty station. Now I find my self having to breath as I explain why they should do what they are told. Many of you are wondering why is that a big deal. Because training Soldiers to execute functions and follow instructions is important. Combat related tasks require quick thought, and quick decision making. I didn't understand a lot of the why till I was almost a Sergeant and then it all made sense.

Mental toughness: Soldiers today, that I have experienced, have a tendency to take offense very quickly. I mean very quickly. The norms of my generation are now taboo. I understand times changing and you must adapt or leave, but the simple things like telling a soldier to shut is ***** holster after politely and sternly explaining to him he can not talk during instructions in the classroom leads to triggering and an inability to further function. The point of that statement is after the first time instructions should have been followed. Its a different life.

These people volunteered. Now put a draft into the mix and you are talking a weak force. I am not using hyperbole. they thought they wanted to be here and quickly many realized there is actual hard hard work involved, and stress, and standards. Imagine if they hadn't volunteered.

To be blunt, contrary to popular belief the military isn't a place where only the best and brightest go. Stupid people have always found their way into the ranks.

 LordofHats wrote:
To be blunt, contrary to popular belief the military isn't a place where only the best and brightest go. Stupid people have always found their way into the ranks.

Truth. My concern is the frequency in which I see them.

I blame high fructose corn syrup in everything for the lack of fitness and low quality memes for the brain. Plus a generous helping of "the 90's were great!" and "durn kids"

 redleger wrote:

 Compel wrote:
Isn't the question then, is that particularly different from how army recruits have *always* behaved?

"Those damned recruits. They took the Kings Shilling from the bottom of a beer mug, why do they dare have the temerity to think that's unfair?"

That is a good question. I can only compare with the groups I went to AIT and Basic with and served at my first duty station with. Would need other veterans to chime in. So those traits are not new. Its the frequency we see them that is new.

Physical fitness: In my basic training the only ones we worried about failing the PT test were the few Females we had and one Male. Out of a company size element thats pretty good. On the flip side, the last PT test I over saw before retirement we had about 50% meet the exact bare minimum, 10% male failures and 5% female failures. (Standards are lower for females) Of those that met the bare minimum I am sure that there were double pushups and situps counted. I never did it but I know NCOs who did after a Soldiers 3rd failure just go get them out of there.

When my NCO told me to do something as a Private-Specialist it was never answered with why or why me, it was roger and I moved out smartly. Same could be said for all of my old friends from my first duty station. Now I find my self having to breath as I explain why they should do what they are told. Many of you are wondering why is that a big deal. Because training Soldiers to execute functions and follow instructions is important. Combat related tasks require quick thought, and quick decision making. I didn't understand a lot of the why till I was almost a Sergeant and then it all made sense.

Mental toughness: Soldiers today, that I have experienced, have a tendency to take offense very quickly. I mean very quickly. The norms of my generation are now taboo. I understand times changing and you must adapt or leave, but the simple things like telling a soldier to shut is ***** holster after politely and sternly explaining to him he can not talk during instructions in the classroom leads to triggering and an inability to further function. The point of that statement is after the first time instructions should have been followed. Its a different life.

These people volunteered. Now put a draft into the mix and you are talking a weak force. I am not using hyperbole. they thought they wanted to be here and quickly many realized there is actual hard hard work involved, and stress, and standards. Imagine if they hadn't volunteered.

Dad would have just stuffed them in a locker and thrown them down the stairs to motivate the platoon.*

*seriously. Standards were...different then.

 feeder wrote:
low quality memes for the brain

You know it is high time we started teaching meme's in art class

"Alright, everyone find something witty from you're favorite TV show/movie/comic/anything and subtitle it!"

If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?

Well, yeah, but when you start pointing out uncomfortable truths like that, everyone flails to show why it was turtles all the way down, with the exception that somehow they're still to blame.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?

Ah, the blame game!

I'm not really sure that's the issue. I mean, I grant how my parents tried to raise me is now called child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, but it did work.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?

Ah, the blame game!

I'm not really sure that's the issue. I mean, I grant how my parents tried to raise me is now called child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, but it did work.

I think nature vs nurture is pretty well documented.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I think nature vs nurture is pretty well documented.

So you're suggesting that they were coddled too much?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I think nature vs nurture is pretty well documented.

So you're suggesting that they were coddled too much?

I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.

Each generation has to learn quicker than the previous, in order to keep up with technology. With the information age, they are constantly berated with new and changing information about the world. They are also constantly told they are the worst thing to ever happen to the world and they will be the doom of it.

But yeah, totally coddled. Little snot nosed brats.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If millennials really suck so much, isn't it the fault of the previous generation for raising them so poorly?

Ah, the blame game!

I'm not really sure that's the issue. I mean, I grant how my parents tried to raise me is now called child endangerment, neglect, and abuse, but it did work.

Uhm, not sure if you are aware but the blame game started quite a while ago with millenials being blamed for everything (and still are). To pretend I was starting it up is willful ignorance at best. Which, come to think of it, goes to support the point I was making.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.

No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.

While I still worked in retail (specifically, a pet store), I was asked by a decidedly non-millenial whether you could keep a "Nemo fish' in a goldfish bowl with some table salt. Twice. I also had a middle-aged lady try to get me to use a coupon on a purchase she'd made a week ago while I was trying to hurry her out the door because someone had set the Bed, Bath, and Beyond next to us on fire and we were starting to fill up with smoke.

Stupidity knows no generation.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.

No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.

So let me get this straight, you work in a top secret underground facility and you guys staff it with people who apparently need babysit constantly?

lol k

 BaronIveagh wrote:

No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.

Hahaha

This conversation has reminded me of Institutionalized:

"How can you say what MY best interest is? What are you trying to say, I'M crazy?
When I went to YOUR schools, I went to YOUR churches
I went to YOUR institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'M crazy?"

Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.

 daedalus wrote:
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.

I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.

Good point. Who wants to shoot up a bunch of farm hands that are just trying to defend their livelihoods? Or see their mates get blown to smithereens by IEDs on patrol?

That lack of faith in the wars we commit to, alongside the increased awareness of the lifelong mental health impact of serving makes signing up a rather unattractive process, especially as the positive aspects of serving don't seem to be very well communicated to the public (at least in the UK).

Service is not really very well sold.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I am suggesting that previous generations were terrible at being parents as opposed to millennials just being bad because they are millennials, which is what you are suggesting.

No, I'm suggesting that a staggering number of them that are well.... idiots. I mean genuine morons. My own parents sucked, I have the literal scars to prove it. But these guys? One flushed his shirt down a toilet and started to flood the place. One tried to set the place on fire (and underground fires are VERY bad). We had people try to carry off Confidential (at least) microfilm reels. I have NEVER had this issue with older people. Not that I have not had issues with them, but NOTHING like this.

Guy sounds like a dangerous pyromaniac. Did he have nothing in his history that red flagged this?

 Ouze wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Maybe the military needs to take a step back and figure out why only the people who can't tie their own shoelaces are falling into it? I assure you, you can find intelligent young people. I think you're seeing a marketing/recruiting issue, not a generational one.

I can't see why it would be hard to talk young people into signing up for a job that could entail being deployed to fight one of several meaningless conflicts in which nothing worthwhile happens, destroying your physical and mental health in the process, possibly losing your life, all the while earning mediocre pay and a lifetime of substandard healthcare.

Well... maybe because that's not how it is at all?