4 ms·

This. I'm gonna cut to the chase: that line is probably the most fascist thing I'm going to read all day, and excepting you, Hacker News has failed to call it o

This. I'm gonna cut to the chase: that line is probably the most fascist thing I'm going to read all day, and excepting you, Hacker News has failed to call it out. This idea that war can somehow mythically rejuvenate the ethos or spirit of a country isn't unique to fascism though. It was also common in the jingoist imperial western european powers, and partly used as justification for aggression against neighbors and abroad. This is disgusting to see at the top of the comment thread. Anyone who upvoted that comment needs to engage in some serious introspection. This tactic, of identifying a problem that may have some real validity, but then making logical leaps into absurdity, is typical of postmodern types like Bannon. How exactly does war solve the problem identified? Who are we to watch against? It's not always about the words that are said. There's a subtext or more than one. The given justification isn't always the real justification, it just has to be plausible enough to get the real message out, seen in that last line. The overton window opens, and those on the sidelines who might have kept similar thoughts to themselves can now be drawn in and engaged. And that last sentence creeps closer to becoming real. Oppose these ideas and these tactics, HN.

eeZah7Ux 8y ago
> the most fascist thing I'm going to read all day ... Hacker News has failed to call it out Yes, and the same happens in other posts on HN. This says a lot about HN's Overton window.
- lisper 8y ago
  Or it could simply be that no one is paying attention. HN comments are not exactly the most important thing to which a person can devote their time and attention.
scottLobster 8y ago
I think you're straw manning a bit there. It's not illogical to say that severe national challenges help rejuvenate society in the long run. You can even see it locally when the power goes out for a few days in a hurricane, and all of a sudden neighbors who barely knew each other for 10 years are pooling resources and talking. War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form. Much of the internet came out of military research, as did flight, as did satellites, as did many nautical advances, the list goes on. Whether those benefits are worth it and on what scale could be the subject of a dissertation, but we don't want to become the Eloi any more than we want to be the Morlocks. Just because the concept can be twisted into pointless war mongering by fascists doesn't make it less true. For my part I think climate change alone is going to provide enough national challenges.
- notfromhere 8y ago
  military research is not the same as war. Flight was developed by the commercial sector. the people blabbering about war as a means of national rejuvenation are usually the ones not planning on bleeding out in a muddy ditch. 30 million people died in WWI and not much was rejuvenated
  - scottLobster 8y ago
    Can't speak for everyone, but your second point is an easy one for me. If I were drafted, in any remotely realistic circumstance I would go. And military research is a result of war or potential war. And if you want to deny the lack of the military's influence in human flight, I'm not even sure what to say to that. Aircraft were adopted by militaries around the world as soon as they were viable. And military observation balloons go back to the 18th century. The military may not have invented human flight, but they funded a crap ton of it.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  > War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form. That's because nobody on this site has died from it.
  - scottLobster 8y ago
    So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and? My point was that war is not always entirely negative if you zoom out far enough. It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Would you rather the British to have surrendered to Hitler and the Americans refuse to fight in WWII?
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      > So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and? And therefore your claim that everyone here has benefited from it suffers from significant survivor bias. > It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Sure. But we've seen way too many examples of people selling how wonderful a war would be (and you're flirting dangerously close to that). War's not wonderful. It's horrible. Only fight it when the alternative is even more horrible (which is not never).

eeZah7Ux 8y ago

> the most fascist thing I'm going to read all day ... Hacker News has failed to call it out Yes, and the same happens in other posts on HN. This says a lot about HN's Overton window.

lisper 8y ago
Or it could simply be that no one is paying attention. HN comments are not exactly the most important thing to which a person can devote their time and attention.

scottLobster 8y ago

I think you're straw manning a bit there. It's not illogical to say that severe national challenges help rejuvenate society in the long run. You can even see it locally when the power goes out for a few days in a hurricane, and all of a sudden neighbors who barely knew each other for 10 years are pooling resources and talking. War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form. Much of the internet came out of military research, as did flight, as did satellites, as did many nautical advances, the list goes on. Whether those benefits are worth it and on what scale could be the subject of a dissertation, but we don't want to become the Eloi any more than we want to be the Morlocks. Just because the concept can be twisted into pointless war mongering by fascists doesn't make it less true. For my part I think climate change alone is going to provide enough national challenges.

notfromhere 8y ago
military research is not the same as war. Flight was developed by the commercial sector. the people blabbering about war as a means of national rejuvenation are usually the ones not planning on bleeding out in a muddy ditch. 30 million people died in WWI and not much was rejuvenated
- scottLobster 8y ago
  Can't speak for everyone, but your second point is an easy one for me. If I were drafted, in any remotely realistic circumstance I would go. And military research is a result of war or potential war. And if you want to deny the lack of the military's influence in human flight, I'm not even sure what to say to that. Aircraft were adopted by militaries around the world as soon as they were viable. And military observation balloons go back to the 18th century. The military may not have invented human flight, but they funded a crap ton of it.
AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> War is horrific in the short term, but everyone on this site has benefited from it in some form. That's because nobody on this site has died from it.
- scottLobster 8y ago
  So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and? My point was that war is not always entirely negative if you zoom out far enough. It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Would you rather the British to have surrendered to Hitler and the Americans refuse to fight in WWII?
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    > So people who die in war don't benefit from the war... and? And therefore your claim that everyone here has benefited from it suffers from significant survivor bias. > It can be entirely negative or partially positive, just like many other things. Sure. But we've seen way too many examples of people selling how wonderful a war would be (and you're flirting dangerously close to that). War's not wonderful. It's horrible. Only fight it when the alternative is even more horrible (which is not never).