What's new
By:
Filters

Done with Locke...

NAOS said:
and every single sporting event these days where we're asked to celebrate a military person as their credentials are listed in overly broad terms or in a jargon that few understand but most clap for. No politics there. Nope.
Click to expand...

Yep, I don't know if I'm the only one (I hope I'm not) but I find the uncricital hagiography of the military and military folks to be disturbing. Like any large organization, the mlitary is full of great, good, bad, and malevolent people. The mere act of serving in the military make one no more a hero than, say, somebody teaching high school.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Yep, I don't know if I'm the only one (I hope I'm not) but I find the uncricital hagiography of the military and military folks to be disturbing. Like any large organization, the mlitary is full of great, good, bad, and malevolent people. The mere act of serving in the military make one no more a hero than, say, somebody teaching high school.
Click to expand...

I'm right there with you, brough. This tendency in our society is on the rise, too.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
Yep, I don't know if I'm the only one (I hope I'm not) but I find the uncricital hagiography of the military and military folks to be disturbing. Like any large organization, the mlitary is full of great, good, bad, and malevolent people. The mere act of serving in the military make one no more a hero than, say, somebody teaching high school.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but there is the overlying thing of if that person wasnt in the military, and if enough people didnt serve in the military, then the government would probably try to have another military draft.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Yeah, but there is the overlying thing of if that person wasnt in the military, and if enough people didnt serve in the military, then the government would probably try to have another military draft.
Click to expand...

do you know what "uncritical hagiography" meant? It wasn't subtle language. I don't think your overlying thing justifies looking the other way as far as uncritical hagiography is concerned.
 
NAOS said:
do you know what "uncritical hagiography" meant? It wasn't subtle language. I don't think your overlying thing justifies looking the other way as far as uncritical hagiography is concerned.
Click to expand...

Justly or not, it's a large reason why people do it.

How do you suggest these things be handled? Ignore military members completely? List any horrifying acts they were ordered to do while serving?

*And while I wouldn't know what hagiography meant by itself, I'd imagine it means some kind of idolizing/ignoring negatives probably in the form of propaganda.
 
NAOS said:
These are quite extreme reaches. Can you suggest something worth responding to?
Click to expand...

Uhh, you could just respond to the question of how you would handle it. But I understand it's easy to just criticize rather than offer a solution.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Uhh, you could just respond to the question of how you would handle it. But I understand it's easy to just criticize rather than offer a solution.
Click to expand...

Jimmy and I were discussing a problem. It isn't necessary to then offer fixes. The military certainly has people who are worthy of accolade. I'm sure we could publicly acknowledge them when the time is right.
 
Aristotle is credited with saying this, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Which I think means that if you're worried about hearing opinions or ideas that don't mesh with yours because you can't handle it, you must be weak of mind. But that's just me reading between the lines. Come on, indulge Monkey Locke in his venue. I personally appreciate that he speaks what he thinks. Doesn't impact my feelings about the Jazz or sports for that matter. We all operate in this political world, to pretend that we don't is childish.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Justly or not, it's a large reason why people do it.

How do you suggest these things be handled? Ignore military members completely? List any horrifying acts they were ordered to do while serving?

*And while I wouldn't know what hagiography meant by itself, I'd imagine it means some kind of idolizing/ignoring negatives probably in the form of propaganda.
Click to expand...

It's appropriate that your name and avatar invoke a saint, as hagiography also refers to stories/biographies of saints. What would I do? Well, to start of with, I'd stop highlighting service men/women attending b-ball games or other sporting events and thereby creating social pressure to stand up and cheer them for little other reason than they serve in the military (ok, in some cases they do have meritorious service records). We've created a set of strong social expectations that we are to cheer the military and people serving in it, coupled with shaming of those who do not fall in line. The military (along with police force) is one of THE most powerful instituitons in society and should not be extended privileged status because ongoing and rigorous monitoring of them is absolutely essential to curb abuses, while creating social expectations that we should refrain from criticising them, and even cheering them, weakens our ability to monitor them.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
It's appropriate that your name and avatar invoke a saint, as hagiography also refers to stories/biographies of saints. What would I do? Well, to start of with, I'd stop highlighting service men/women attending b-ball games or other sporting events and thereby creating social pressure to stand up and cheer them for little other reason than they serve in the military (ok, in some cases they do have meritorious service records). We've created a set of strong social expectations that we are to cheer the military and people serving in it, coupled with shaming of those who do not fall in line. The military (along with police force) is one of THE most powerful instituitons in society and should not be extended privileged status because ongoing and rigorous monitoring of them is absolutely essential to curb abuses, while creating social expectations that we should refrain from criticising them, and even cheering them, weakens our ability to monitor them.
Click to expand...

No one makes you cheer for them...
 
Note to belabor the point, but here's an example of the inevitable overlap between politics and sports:

https://www.si.com/nfl/2017/01/31/mohamed-sanu-muslim-immigration-ban-falcons-super-bowl

Public policies affect people's lives, athletes no less than regular people. That fact that many of these men/women are in an upper tier income bracket is irrelevant. Do you really expect athletes, and those who cover them, to completely ignore such things?

As for Locke, I'm a bit surprised when he crosses over into politics (which he does only now and then)as he is obviously quite progressive in his political philosophy, and I'm guessing his core audience is overwhleming more conservative white males. He has to know, or guess, that there's a good share of his audience that isn't going to take it well when he does venture over into politics.

But then, I'm also guessing his core audience, which I presume is predominantly urban and educated, voted against Trump as a group. But here I'm only speculating with nothing more to go on than some pretty broad generalizations.

BTW: When I re-read my posts I inevitably find a large number of typos. As I have a milder form of dyslexia, I would appreciate some forebearance here.
 
NUMBERICA said:
Must be nice to just decide that the most dangerous emperor in history is a trivial matter.
Click to expand...

Bahaha.

Holy **** you are dumb. "Most dangerous Emperor in history"?

Go find a safe space to hide in snowflake. Take a history book with you to while you are at it. Don't come out til you see double rainbows in every direction you look.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top