Extreme deification of the armed forces..

[andmark]

Until they turn those guns on the people they are working for. Which is entirely the point Ausage is making.

A problem though is that that would require a large degree of cooperation amongst most of the people with guns. Like in coups, they can work, but if a large contingent stays loyal to the existing regime, then simply pointing the gun at the regime is not enough. If a large contingent is willing to remain loyal to the government, then it suggests loyalty which has been gained from some source, which reflects the importance of political power in such a situation. The importance of political power also expands if the civilian population becomes involved, whether that is through strikes, guerrilla warfare, protests or whatever. The loyalties of the civilians is likely to depend on their view of the government, which is a reflection of the regime's degree of political power. Ultimately though, who civilians choose to support increases the military power of that person/group, but it does again reflect the importance of political power.

 

[Prince EWS]

I think there is at a local level IMO, in your classic small town community. The sanction imposed by the community upon you if you transgress its norms - not even laws - is incredibly high, in practice no different from a very onerous fine, yet it’s not typically enforced primarily through your neighbours holding a gun to your head if you don’t agree.

There are ways to threaten people in very serious ways without resorting to physical harm.

I fail to see how this does anything other than back up my point above and my overall world view though. Precisely what I advocate for is a society with an extremely high social cost for transgressing norms in this way, providing the norms are reasonable, without the gun in the room. The reason people follow norms is as such, but the reason people follow state diktat even when it'd fall outside those norms is layered threats of violence. The norms would be there even if the state went away. The fact that your explanation applies to things that aren't even laws does my argument nothing but wonderful favours. There's clearly something other than social pressure at play when it comes to what the state does, or it wouldn't bother with all the guns.

P.S. calling things "tankie logic" is not an argument. Whatever it is you're associating with them obviously isn't exclusive to them given you accused Corrin of it in a foreign policy thread and are accusing Ausage of it now - two people who could barely be further from tankies if they tried, so you're really just making an pseudo-argument by association. Tankies are obviously wrong about authoritarian communism but whatever "tankie logic" is to you doesn't seem to result in people actually believing in authoritarian communism very often, strangely enough, which means they might not be wrong about whatever it is you associate with them. To my eye Ausage was simply saying that the difference between Pakistan and most other countries in this area, while real, was one of degree rather than kind. If that's "tankie logic" then so be it, but I bet he can follow it through to its natural conclusion without even flirting with that ideology.

 

[Spark]

I mean the point about tankie logic is not that it’s wrong per se, because the identification of the common factor is usually accurate. The main problem is that by deliberately ignoring and eliding distinctions between things which are very clearly different at a qualitative level, it muddies the waters and weakens the case for good faith actors to stand against the worst examples of authoritarianism in the world - because, as is often demonstrated, it is much easier to critique a government in a way that is likely to actually stick and gain traction if people feel confident that they have some sort of moral standing to do so. So in practice this sort of logic simply enables the worst actors in the world, who obviously don’t give a **** about any of this, to do what they like, knowing that they won’t meet much pushback from people who do.

As evidence, I submit 150 years of internicine left-wing arguments about this. It can’t be denied that crap whataboutery arguments in favour of the Soviet Union et al massively weakened the power of left-wing critiques of US foreign policy during the Cold War, and it continues to do so today.

 

[Spark]

I fail to see how this does anything other than back up my point above and my overall world view though. Precisely what I advocate for is a society with an extremely high social cost for transgressing norms in this way, without the gun in the room. The reason people follow norms is as such, but the reason people follow state diktat even when it'd fall outside those norms is layered threats of violence. The fact that your explanation applies to things that aren't even laws does my argument nothing but wonderful favours. There's clearly something other than social pressure at play when it comes to what the state does, or it wouldn't bother with all the guns.

I don’t think I was arguing that the threat of violence plays no role though. Merely that it’s clearly inaccurate to suggest that it’s the only or in many cases determinative reason why people follow laws.

Why people follow rules in general is a complicated question that does not admit a straightforward theoretical answer IMO, but inherent to all of them seems to be some sort of threat. I’m not convinced that it’s so self-evident that distinction between being physically locked up, or being unperson’d by everyone you know, or burning in eternal hellfire, or committing sepukku is as fundamentally and self-evidently categorical as described.

 

[Prince EWS]

I mean the point about tankie logic is not that it’s wrong per se, because the identification of the common factor is usually accurate. The main problem is that by deliberately ignoring and eliding distinctions between things which are very clearly different, it muddies the waters and weakens the case for good faith actors to stand against the worst examples of authoritarianism in the world - because, as is often demonstrated, it is much easier to critique a government in a way that is likely to actually stick and gain traction if people feel confident that they have some sort of moral standing to do so. So in practice this sort of logic simply enables the worst actors in the world, who obviously don’t give a **** about any of this, to do what they like, knowing that they won’t meet much pushback from people who do.

As evidence, I submit 150 years of internicine left-wing arguments about this. It can’t be denied that crap whataboutery arguments in favour of the Soviet Union et al massively weakened the power of left-wing critiques of US foreign policy during the Cold War, and it continues to do so today.

So er, even less of an argument than the non-argument I was giving you credit for then? Got it. I'll duly completely ignore you whenever you accuse someone of tankie logic from now on.

Ironically, I actually think using the phrase "tankie logic" to describe what Ausage said is actually a great example of:

by deliberately ignoring and eliding distinctions between things which are very clearly different, it muddies the waters

Associating a type of logic with an established common enemy to discredit it even when it's not even close to being distinct to that enemy absolutely muddies the waters of the debate, so the phrase tankie logic is itself a example of what you mean by it. You filthy Stalinist you.

 

[weldone]

Until they turn those guns on the people they are working for. Which is entirely the point Ausage is making.

Indira Gandhi's security guard killed her. But was he really more powerful than Indira Gandhi given he himself was killed a couple of seconds later? Were Gandhi's and JFK's killers more powerful than Gandhi and JFK themselves? I think you'd agree the answer is no.

People with guns can only get more powerful when they are organised among themselves, and there's a great sense of unanimity. That unanimity is not easy to attain.

 

[Spark]

So er, even less of an argument than the non-argument I was giving you credit for then? Got it. I'll duly completely ignore you whenever you accuse someone of tankie logic from now on.

Ironically, I actually think using the phrase "tankie logic" to describe what Ausage said is actually a great example of:


Associating a type of logic with an established common enemy to discredit it even when it's not even close to being distinct to that enemy absolutely muddies the waters of the debate, so the phrase tankie logic is itself a example of what you mean by it. You filthy Stalinist you.

You don’t have to be an example of x to fall into the same logic traps particular to x and, more importantly, make the same flawed category of argument as x do.

“All governments are underpinned by violence, and therefore the usurpation by the large and independent Pakistani military of the civilian government is qualitatively similar to the fact that a (much much smaller) military exists in a Western democracy under civilian control” is absolutely in the same class of logic as “The US was founded on stolen land, and therefore the Russian invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t be criticised by the US Government”.

EDIT: Also very few tankies actually believe in authoritarian communism any more, mostly because there are very few remaining examples of governments that could be reasonably described as authoriatarian and communist (as opposed to authoriatarian capitalist, authoritarian corporatist, or just plain authoritarian). They are mostly animated by hostility to liberal democracy more than anything else. Even the most deragned of them have given up pretending that Russia or Iran represent examples of workers’ revolutionary democracy and that China is on the path to abolishing private property. They just like the fact that they’re opposed to liberal forms of government.

 

[Spark]

Indira Gandhi's security guard killed her. But was he really more powerful than Indira Gandhi given he himself was killed a couple of seconds later? Were Gandhi's and JFK's killers more powerful than Gandhi and JFK themselves? I think you'd agree the answer is no.

People with guns can only get more powerful when they are organised among themselves, and there's a great sense of unanimity. That unanimity is not easy to attain.

The main thing here is that PEWS/Ausage are essentially treating the state as unitary, or at least a semi-coherent and well-defined entity in the singular sense. If you view the military and civilian government as distinct then clearly this no longer works; essentially you’re saying the Army has become separated from the state.

 

[harsh.ag]

In absolute land, all checks and balances are theoretical hand-waving.

 

[Prince EWS]

You don’t have to be an example of x to fall into the same logic traps particular to x and, more importantly, make the same flawed category of argument as x do.

Sure but it absolutely muddies the waters to associate the logic with a common enemy. Someone might not think Logic Y is actually flawed at all even when X uses it and that X is fundamentally wrong for other reasons, but if you both agree that X is wrong more generally and then you call Logic Y "X Logic" you've basically just attempted to discredit it without making an argument at all. It'd be like you saying we need animal cruelty laws to protect innocent creatures without proper defence mechanisms from suffering and then someone replying by dismissively calling it "Nazi logic". It absolutely is Nazi logic but that doesn't mean it's wrong, and the fact that the Nazis believed it and were horrifically wrong on other issues doesn't discredit it in the way it seems to.

“All governments are underpinned by violence, and therefore the usurpation by the large and independent Pakistani military of the civilian government is qualitatively similar to the fact that a (much much smaller) military exists in a Western democracy under civilian control” is absolutely in the same class of logic as “The US was founded on stolen land, and therefore the Russian invasion of Ukraine shouldn’t be criticised by the US Government”.

Instinctively I want to nitpick that but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. It still doesn't mean that it's wrong, and associating it with tankies because they make a similar logical leap with their wrong original precepts muddies the waters in a pretty dire way, especially if you just say "lol tankie logic" and end your engagement with that.

 

[Spark]

Sure but it absolutely muddies the waters to associate the logic with a common enemy. Someone might not think Logic Y is actually flawed at all even when X uses it and that X is fundamentally wrong for other reasons , but if you both agree that X is wrong more generally and then you call Logic Y "X Logic" you've basically just attempted to discredit it without making an argument at all. It'd be like you saying we need animal cruelty laws to protect innocent creatures without proper defence mechanisms from suffering and then someone replying by dismissively calling it "Nazi logic". It absolutely is Nazi logic but that doesn't mean it's wrong, and the fact that the Nazis believed it and were horrifically wrong on other issues doesn't discredit it in the way it seems to.



Instinctively I want to nitpick that but I'll grant it for the sake of argument. It still doesn't mean that it's wrong, and associating it with tankies because they make a similar logical leap with their wrong original precepts muddies the waters in a pretty dire way, especially if you just say "lol tankie logic" and end your engagement with that.

But being against animal cruelty was hardly the defining feature of Nazis. Proposing that authoratarian and democratic arguments are fundamentally similar (and thus it is hypocritical to argue too strongly against the former) is the defining feature of tankies.

The logic isn’t wrong because it’s associated with tankies, it’s wrong because it’s wrong and tankies are odious because of their close association with such wrong logic.

 

[Prince EWS]

But being against animal cruelty was hardly the defining feature of Nazis. Proposing that authoratarian and democratic arguments are fundamentally similar (and thus it is hypocritical to argue too strongly against the former) is the defining feature of tankies.

The logic isn’t wrong because it’s associated with tankies, it’s wrong because it’s wrong and tankies are odious because of their close association with such wrong logic.

The bold is precisely my point. Calling it tankie logic to someone you know hates tankies when:
a) the reason it is wrong has nothing to do with whether tankies believe it or not; and
b) it's quite easy to believe it without becoming anything close to a tankie

.. just muddies the waters.

Having read your edit above it seems by "tankies" you just mean anti-western cheerleaders (I think they tend to call themselves post-colonialists now, yeah?) rather than what I'd consider actual tankies, which makes things make slightly more sense, but that would mean I've met "tankie ancaps" which is the funniest combination of words to describe an ideology I've heard all year.

 

[Spark]

The bold is precisely my point. Calling it tankie logic to someone you know hates tankies when:
a) the reason it is wrong has nothing to do with whether tankies believe it or not; and
b) it's quite easy to believe it without becoming anything close to a tankie

.. just muddies the waters.

Having read your edit above it seems by "tankies" you just mean anti-western cheerleaders (I think they tend to call themselves post-colonialists now, yeah?) rather than what I'd consider actual tankies, which makes things make slightly more sense, but that would mean I've met "tankie ancaps" which is the funniest combination of words to describe an ideology I've heard all year.

Haha yes I 100% would describe some people as tankie ancaps ftr.

 

[Prince EWS]

Haha yes I 100% would describe some people as tankie ancaps ftr.

Rohrabacher and McAdams, come on dowwwn

 

[Ausage]

The bold is precisely my point. Calling it tankie logic to someone you know hates tankies when:
a) the reason it is wrong has nothing to do with whether tankies believe it or not; and
b) it's quite easy to believe it without becoming anything close to a tankie

.. just muddies the waters.

Yeah, I think it's clearer to state that there are some ways that democracies like Australia and Pakistan are different and there are some ways that they are the same. I see Spark's point being that focusing on the ways that they're similarly problematic is a) unhelpful and b) wrong. I can concede a) as a fair point (even if I disagree with it) but I don't see how b) is in any way reasonable.

 

[hendrix]

This. We deify every other component of the state, why not the only arm that gives it actual legitimacy?

I don't know if theoretical is the right term (and patently untrue certainly isn't), but at the end of the day modern Democratic governments serve at the pleasure of the men with the guns. If the army in any nation disapproves of a leader badly enough it won't be running the country. Simple as that.

Now we're lucky that we live (mostly) stable societies with little social upheaval. I'm sure many in the army buy into democracy as a system as well. But at the end of the day any state rules because its army is happy with them there and it's naive to forget that.

Sure. There are different components to any group that can be fractured/isolated/weakened politically. The potential for manipulation certainly isn't one sided either.

The ultimate power resting with the men with the guns was the extent of my point though.

No.

Unless the military starts voting in its leadership, Generals and other high ranking military leaders is not the same thing as "the men with the guns".

 

[Gnske]

I like to get on my knees and spit clean the shoes of my peers who serve in the army and sit around base, party like you would in Costa Rica every weekend and occasionally fly out to Timor to build shacks.

 

[Flem274*]

I like to get on my knees and spit clean the shoes of my peers who serve in the army and sit around base, party like you would in Costa Rica every weekend and occasionally fly out to Timor to build shacks.

I wish you were on cricsim when midnight was posting

What a character he was

 

[vcs]

https://www.firstpost.com/india/sc-...ed-with-contempt-say-petitioners-8005891.html

Some real dinosaurs in charge there.

However, several prominent voices have raised concerns about involving women in combat roles in recent times as well. For instance, former army chief General Bipin Rawat had told News18 that women are not ready for combat roles because they have the responsibility of raising kids. He also said that a woman officer would feel uncomfortable at the frontline and accuse jawans of “peeping as she changes clothes”.

He also highlighted the issue of maternity leave and said the Army would not be able to give her leave if she is the commanding officer as she can’t leave her unit for six months, but said objecting to the leave could create a “ruckus”.

 

[Kirkut]

World is a very complex place when you see that most humans want to live a good life without harm yet countries like US and Russia have 6000 nukes each.