I think Eugine Nier was talking about real-world warriors, not stories. (I don’t think all the people who enjoy watching HIMYM for the Barney Stinson character also have positive attitudes towards real-world PUAs, I know at least one person (namely myself) who enjoyed playing Carmageddon but is generally horrified by real-world serious violence for frivolous purposes, etc.)
IME people who worship warriors as heroes tend to come from the right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist cluster, and there are plenty of people from the other ‘side’ who condemn them as murderers (or pity them as slaves, as the case may be) instead. And the people who dislike advertisers, lawyers, and financial traders for playing zero-sum games are more likely to be from the latter cluster, so fewer people may be inconsistent than Eugine Nier realizes
I think Eugine Nier was talking about real-world warriors, not stories.
I had in mind real figures, and mythologised versions of them. Shakespeare’s Henry V, for example.
I know at least one person (namely myself) who enjoyed playing Carmageddon but is generally horrified by real-world serious violence for frivolous purposes, etc.)
I’m not sure what this has to do with it, as people who commit real-world serious violence for frivolous purposes are not regarded as valiant heroes, even in war.
IME people who worship warriors as heroes
Eugine said “they’re generally considered valiant heroes”. What process led to your fingers typing “worship”?
tend to come from the right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist cluster, and there are plenty of people from the other ‘side’
This looks like pure politics devoid of rational content. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but it sounds to me that “right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist” is a way of implying “therefore they don’t count, because they’re wrong/stupid/ignorant/malicious/brain-damaged/subhuman/Republican”, and “side” is in quotes because where you stand doesn’t feel to you like a “side”, it feels like reality itself. Are the entrails leading me astray?
and there are plenty of people from the other ‘side’ who condemn them as murderers (or pity them as slaves, as the case may be)
How big is this “plenty”? America still has a huge military, and I haven’t heard of any mainstream agitation for shutting it down as a gang of murderers and slaves, which would be the consequence of actually believing that. In fact, I rather doubt that any country anywhere, ever, has had any substantial movement for disbanding its military on these grounds.
I’m not sure what this has to do with it, as people who commit real-world serious violence for frivolous purposes are not regarded as valiant heroes, even in war.
And yet it’s fun to watch people who commit fictional serious violence for frivolous purposes. So what’s fun to watch isn’t a terribly reliable way of telling what’s considered good.
Are the entrails leading me astray?
I’ll try to reword my post to avoid those connotations. Anyway, “right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist” was supposed to imply “not the whole of humanity, and therefore I wouldn’t assume Bundle_Gerbe is from that cluster without any evidence other that they are human”, and by “‘side’” I meant something roughly like “each of the two regions of ideologyspace you get when you split it by the sign of the first principal component”.
How big is this “plenty”?
I don’t have statistics, but probably around 50% of my high-school classmates. (More recent social circles of mine aren’t unbiased samples.)
America still has a huge military
Never been to the US and don’t know much about it, so I won’t say anything except… doesn’t it still have (say) 95-year-long copyright too?
and I haven’t heard of any mainstream agitation
Are you treating non-mainstream groups the way you accused me of treating right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist groups?
for shutting it down as a gang of murderers and slaves, which would be the consequence of actually believing that. In fact, I rather doubt that any country anywhere, ever, has had any substantial movement for disbanding its military on these grounds.
As for the “slaves” part, well, conscription was recently abolished in my country (two years before I was supposed to be drafted, lucky me!). And whereas there aren’t that many people who propose to disband the military altogether (which is a much stronger position than not thinking soldiers are heroes), pacifism doesn’t seem exceedingly rare to me.
It’s possible there is a bit of a cultural disconnect here. I live in the United States and soldiers are treated with a great deal of respect, often receiving discounts on meals and other services. Here’s a Reddit thread where former military talk about “soldier worship.” We also have acouple national holidays honoring service people. On these days, it’s common for there to be parades and for ex-military members to speak at schools.
I’m uncertain how common this knowledge is outside of the US, so apologies if this is obvious, but I think it would be fair to characterize soldiers in the United States as “generally considered valiant heroes,” especially among e.g. World War II veterans who fought at the Normandy landings.
I’m not sure I’d say “heroes”; soldiering’s definitely a respected profession, but as far as I can tell that respect doesn’t approach worship. Familiarity probably has a lot to do with this: with about half a percent of the population on duty and many more retired, almost everyone in the States knows a soldier or a sailor or a Marine fairly well. Pretty hard to worship someone that, let’s say, shared your first cigarette with you when you were both thirteen.
There’s also a bit of a rural/urban divide, though. Servicepeople receive noticeably more respect in my hometown (of a few thousand people) than my current city (100,000 people, part of a contiguous urban area containing millions).
I think Eugine Nier was talking about real-world warriors, not stories.
I was talking about our instincts about what’s moral. These are reflected in both our attitude towards real people and the kind of stories we tend to enjoy.
Speak for yourself! I don’t have a positive attitude towards real-world soldiers and actually find war movies kinda boring. (And if that ‘stories we tend to enjoy’ heuristic makes sense, what does the success of the Hannibal Lecter franchise tell us?)
(OK, as far as you could tell I might be lying or self-deluded, but in principle you could test this by administering me an IAT for soldiers vs hippies or something.)
Unfortunately, his redeeming qualities tended to be of the incorruptibly evil variety, i.e., normally good qualities that made him more effective at his evil goals.
By whom?
By everyone throughout history who has enjoyed stories of valiant heroes. Were you really asking a question here?
I think Eugine Nier was talking about real-world warriors, not stories. (I don’t think all the people who enjoy watching HIMYM for the Barney Stinson character also have positive attitudes towards real-world PUAs, I know at least one person (namely myself) who enjoyed playing Carmageddon but is generally horrified by real-world serious violence for frivolous purposes, etc.)
IME people who worship warriors as heroes tend to come from the right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist cluster, and there are plenty of people from the other ‘side’ who condemn them as murderers (or pity them as slaves, as the case may be) instead. And the people who dislike advertisers, lawyers, and financial traders for playing zero-sum games are more likely to be from the latter cluster, so fewer people may be inconsistent than Eugine Nier realizes
I had in mind real figures, and mythologised versions of them. Shakespeare’s Henry V, for example.
I’m not sure what this has to do with it, as people who commit real-world serious violence for frivolous purposes are not regarded as valiant heroes, even in war.
Eugine said “they’re generally considered valiant heroes”. What process led to your fingers typing “worship”?
This looks like pure politics devoid of rational content. Perhaps I am reading too much into this, but it sounds to me that “right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist” is a way of implying “therefore they don’t count, because they’re wrong/stupid/ignorant/malicious/brain-damaged/subhuman/Republican”, and “side” is in quotes because where you stand doesn’t feel to you like a “side”, it feels like reality itself. Are the entrails leading me astray?
How big is this “plenty”? America still has a huge military, and I haven’t heard of any mainstream agitation for shutting it down as a gang of murderers and slaves, which would be the consequence of actually believing that. In fact, I rather doubt that any country anywhere, ever, has had any substantial movement for disbanding its military on these grounds.
And yet it’s fun to watch people who commit fictional serious violence for frivolous purposes. So what’s fun to watch isn’t a terribly reliable way of telling what’s considered good.
I’ll try to reword my post to avoid those connotations. Anyway, “right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist” was supposed to imply “not the whole of humanity, and therefore I wouldn’t assume Bundle_Gerbe is from that cluster without any evidence other that they are human”, and by “‘side’” I meant something roughly like “each of the two regions of ideologyspace you get when you split it by the sign of the first principal component”.
I don’t have statistics, but probably around 50% of my high-school classmates. (More recent social circles of mine aren’t unbiased samples.)
Never been to the US and don’t know much about it, so I won’t say anything except… doesn’t it still have (say) 95-year-long copyright too?
Are you treating non-mainstream groups the way you accused me of treating right-wing/theist/low-Openness/nationalist groups?
As for the “slaves” part, well, conscription was recently abolished in my country (two years before I was supposed to be drafted, lucky me!). And whereas there aren’t that many people who propose to disband the military altogether (which is a much stronger position than not thinking soldiers are heroes), pacifism doesn’t seem exceedingly rare to me.
It’s possible there is a bit of a cultural disconnect here. I live in the United States and soldiers are treated with a great deal of respect, often receiving discounts on meals and other services. Here’s a Reddit thread where former military talk about “soldier worship.” We also have a couple national holidays honoring service people. On these days, it’s common for there to be parades and for ex-military members to speak at schools.
I’m uncertain how common this knowledge is outside of the US, so apologies if this is obvious, but I think it would be fair to characterize soldiers in the United States as “generally considered valiant heroes,” especially among e.g. World War II veterans who fought at the Normandy landings.
I’m not sure I’d say “heroes”; soldiering’s definitely a respected profession, but as far as I can tell that respect doesn’t approach worship. Familiarity probably has a lot to do with this: with about half a percent of the population on duty and many more retired, almost everyone in the States knows a soldier or a sailor or a Marine fairly well. Pretty hard to worship someone that, let’s say, shared your first cigarette with you when you were both thirteen.
There’s also a bit of a rural/urban divide, though. Servicepeople receive noticeably more respect in my hometown (of a few thousand people) than my current city (100,000 people, part of a contiguous urban area containing millions).
I was talking about our instincts about what’s moral. These are reflected in both our attitude towards real people and the kind of stories we tend to enjoy.
Speak for yourself! I don’t have a positive attitude towards real-world soldiers and actually find war movies kinda boring. (And if that ‘stories we tend to enjoy’ heuristic makes sense, what does the success of the Hannibal Lecter franchise tell us?)
(OK, as far as you could tell I might be lying or self-deluded, but in principle you could test this by administering me an IAT for soldiers vs hippies or something.)
Something rather disturbing, although, to be fair, he is the villain.
He also does have quite a few redeeming qualities. If he were just an average Joe who eats people, I doubt the franchise would have gotten far.
Unfortunately, his redeeming qualities tended to be of the incorruptibly evil variety, i.e., normally good qualities that made him more effective at his evil goals.