What do you mean by "dishonerable" here? Is this an instance of how Americans love the military so much that it's difficult to understand for people from other countries (where being a military isn't different from being a shop owner, or carpenter or doctor or whatever)?
Americans want to believe. Call it "optimism", if you're feeling generous.
American exceptionalism is a thing to believe in which satisfies all of the needs of a believer. It's part of the belief triad "god-family-country".
The military is an extension of the country. There is very little visible military presence in the US, and the military has no role in civilian affairs except in cases of temporary callup for natural disasters etc.
And yet it's a very big military, so everyone has some adjacency to present or historical members of the military.
In short, it's the perfect object of optimistic belief. The military is consistently the "most trusted" part of American society -- perhaps because all the things it does, it does elsewhere.
And for the most part, American foreign policy is pretty similar across political lines, so there's no inherent partisan rift, making it an easy and safe thing for everyone to agree on.
A foreigner might argue that that is a flimsy basis for belief. They might point to some tragic events visited upon the world by the US military. They might say that Normandy was a long time ago and it doesn't justify everything that's happened since then.
Many Americans would agree with that. But that's the outsider's view. First and foremost, internally, the military is a jobs program. And it's very very good at that! Tons of training and education, incredible amounts of commerce and technology, genuine personal development, and on the whole very little international malfeasance.
Defense contractors are and will continue to make millions.
Cost of the Bush Era wars will probably reach $2 Trillion due to long-term healthcare costs for veterans (on top of the bombs and MRAPs and M-16s, etc.).
One of the biggest financial coups in US history. Mission Accomplished indeed -- cuz that's what he was celebrating with that flight.
Search for the list of the richest counties in the US, and notice how many of them are in the Greater Washington DC area (VA & MD).
Hard to answer this without delving down a political rabbithole. In the USA, there is sentiment for both military service members (not to be conflated necessarily with the military industrial complex or military campaigns), "first responders" (police, firefighters, EMS and hospital workers, etc.).
The sentiment for the military and first responders is that they either have already, or could at any moment, be called upon to put their health and life at risk on behalf of the rest of us citizens and allies - so that the rest of us can live a free and peaceful life in pursuit of happiness. The sentiment is one of sincere gratitude of the deepest variety.
I personally don't think the existence of this ID card mocking the DoD is anything but harmless fun. In fact, the freedom to make such content is a part of the freedom of speech the DoD works to protect. However, as much as I enjoy Woz, I agree that giving a false ID to someone a law enforcement agent who is simply trying to do their job, isn't smart or too funny, it's intentionally obfuscating a process and stealing time (tax payer dollars) from the agent trying to do their potentially deangerous job and prosecute true bad actors.
Law enforcement in the US is far from perfect, and trust me, there's a place and value to peaceful civil dissobedience. However, there's also a psychological and monetary cost. The costs of Woz's act seem very benign to me, but I can see how others could easily get spun-up about it - especially if your job is law enforcement.
No matter what country you’re in, the military is in a position of authority (except maybe Costa Rica). Generally people consider a lie to be worse if it’s a lie you can use to get power.
Reminds me of a time in 7th grade when I wore a band t-shirt that I had received as a gift. A kid in my class took exception because he doubted that I even owned any of their albums. The kid called me a "poser".
It also makes me think of my uncle who is a very proud labor union member. He gets upset if anyone says anything disparaging about labor unions.
My point is, it sounds to me like people taking honor in being a member of an exclusive club, and they don't like it if other people do things to belittle their club membership, like by pretending to be a member.
I wonder if there is some psychological term for that behavior.
Your comment is rather offensive. Stolen valor is a crime. Wearing a band t-shirt while not listening to the band is not. Military members risk their lives for others. People that do this get respect, be it a Dr, Military, Police, etc.
A civilian wearing an army T-shirt is not “stolen valor” in the sense that stolen valor is a crime, so this is, at best, equivocation.
While I believe (but I don’t feel like checking the UCMJ) there is a much more extensive crime (or set of crimes) relating to stolen valor within the military, the crime of stolen valor that it is possible for a civilian to commit consists of, and (outside of selling military decorations) only of, fraudulently claiming one of narrow set of awards with the intent to obtain money, property, or other tangible benefit, specifically:
a Congressional Medal of Honor,
a distinguished-service cross,
a Navy cross,
an Air Force cross,
a silver star,
a Purple Heart,
a Combat Infantryman’s Badge,
a Combat Action Badge,
a Combat Medical Badge,
a Combat Action Ribbon,
a Combat Action Medal, or
any replacement or duplicate medal for such medal as authorized by law. 18 USC Sec. 704.
I didn’t say a civilian wearing an army shirt is stolen valor, however pretending to haven been in the military while never having been is.
Wearing a band shirt and an army shirt are not comparable at all. The default thought when someone sees someone wearing a military shirt is “oh they were in the military”. The thought when wearing a band shirt certainly wasn’t “oh they must be in the who”.
> I didn’t say a civilian wearing an army shirt is stolen valor, however pretending to haven been in the military while never having been is.
Again, no, not in a sense of “stolen valor” where “stolen valor is a crime” is true, it isn’t. You are still engaging in thebsame equivocation where you are trying make an argument grounded in “this behavior has a name which is also the name of a crime”, even though the behavior in question is not within the scope of the definition of the crime. Fraud is a crime (older than “stolen valor”, which is a novel 21st century crime in the US), pretending to have been in the military other than as part of a fraud scheme is not. (ISTR at least one state has proposed a more general ban on this, but even if it passed it would likely be struck down aa violating the First Amendment, just like the earlier and somewhat broader version of the Stolen Valor Act was.)
> Wearing a band shirt and an army shirt are not comparable at all.
To the extent that there is a defensible argument for this position, it doesn't involve invocations of non-germane criminal law.
I apologize for making you feel offended. That was not my intent.
I wasn't trying to make light of the service of military members. I agree that it is wrong to try to obtain fake respect.
I was just recounting two specific tales from my memory about people being defensive against others disrespecting their social circles. I find the behavior interesting ... maybe because I have never felt that way before about something.
When I mentioned psychology, my curiosity was in the context of behavior psychology (what is the word used to describe the behavior), not in the context of a mental illness.
Incidentally, I did like the band's music, I just didn't own any of their albums.
> No matter what country you’re in, the military is in a position of authority
In the United States, the military has no authority over citizens. It's a foundational law. Exceptions can be made under temporary and unusual circumstances.
I disagree. I can't think of any western country where the military are in a position of authority. It's something we have got rid of over the past 50 years, with the end of the juntas in Greece, Spain, and Argentina; Franco's Spain; and so on. There are some countries where the military are not running the place, but are "kingmakers", but I can't think of any western ones.
Authority isnt the word. Im in the military and that gives me absolutely zero authority in civilian life. It would be a crime for me to even attempt to wield such. But i do expect a modicum of extra respect for people who give up time/money/priviledges of civilian life in order to serve thier country. I dont expect cops to let me get away with speeding, but i do expect them not to detain me by the roadside in uniform for a "random" check.
I agree with you overall, but that "serve their country" line makes me cringe every time.
The military's operations are vast and numerous, but also politically-motivated and, at times, disgustingly utilitarian. Obviously, no grunt should bear that burden, but I feel better served by the post office.
It is cringe worthy, but when you get orders for a multi-year posting far away from friends and family, it really does feel like servitude.
It was -30 outside this morning. My car hates me for bringing it here.
Some people join the military to serve their country.
But everyone in the military is indoctrinated to believe that they are serving their country.
Some of them are shipped overseas. Some live in Virginia Beach. Some are physically endangered. Some sit behind a desk.
There are good and noble people who choose a life of service. Some of them are in the military. Some of them are food kitchen volunteers.
Not everyone in the military is noble, or serving their country. Any more than any other federal employee.
It's difficult to know the appropriate level of respect or honor to give to a random person displaying the paraphernalia of military service. "Thank you for your service" is free, and perhaps genuinely felt and received in some cases (but also vacuous at times).
I've worked with a lot of ex-military folks. And several members of my family are current or former members. I can't think of a single trait that is common to all of them.
Not physical fitness. Not leadership skills. Not honesty or honor or respectability. Not intelligence or grit or perseverance or fashion sense.
The median is probably higher than the average across the whole population. So there may be a correlation. Except fashion sense!
However this does not persuade me that there's a reason to differentially treat military vs random citizens in your example of a traffic stop. But I'm also not a cop!
There is professional curiosity amonst the "armed" professions. Being in the military also means, to a cop, that you probably dont have any warrants out of you and that you have a job, two things they cannot assume about the random people they interact with every day.
> Not everyone in the military is noble, or serving their country. Any more than any other federal employee.
I stopped reading here. Every military member swore an oath. They have no choice of duty, but they still swore the same oath to die for their country. Anybody attempting to minimize their sacrifices should remember things like Pearl Harbor, which killed all indiscriminately. And remember that desks fit in tents fit on ships and in tents, which are themselves in active war zones.
You said a whole lot of nothing here. Tell me how those willing to die are somehow the same as someone not and it’s somehow psychological?
This seems like a psychological issue with some demanding they have given just as much, and are just as important, yet are too scared to pay the ultimate price.
Or how about the psychological issue that results in hatred towards the military? That one I witnessed personally and I find very interesting.
Some people love the Kool-Aid, some people drink it out of convenience, some people detest all sugary drinks on principle, and some people just find flavor chemistry to be fascinating.
Sorry to be blunt, but you chose that life. There are vast numbers of people serving their country economically (albeit perhaps indirectly) in uncomfortable circumstances and they all deserve respect.
Without a doubt, it is servitude, but I feel it downplays the plight of servicemen like yourself to roll it up into that "of country". The expended lives towards obtuse ends is far more tragic than that of something noble like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I wish you luck on your tour, wherever it is.
Yes, because we all are by merit of participation alone, and servicemen are often baited into enlisting via capitalistic motivators (enlistment bonus, GI bill, insurance, etc.) We'd be dealing with reality, not the denial proliferated by force in boot camps.
Serving in the military is different from other jobs as soldiers may be sent to dangerous situations where there is a risk of death. Although many Americans believe the decisions made by politicians that put military personnel in harm's way have not been good, this does not take away from the bravery of those who voluntarily choose to serve their country.
They need a job and being a soldier is a job. A glorified one where words like bravery and valor are thrown around in the US to make people accept risking their life in a noble way.
And I realize that some people will actually be driven by these ideals and there are things like military families where this tradition is actually strong and it gives them purpose but for the average soldier, they just needed a job and the propaganda worked.
1. Although military people are paid, it's not enough to compensate the amount of time, health risks, and loss of normal rights and freedoms experienced by young people.
2. Are we better off or worse off if people think of service as just a job to pay the bills? I'm not naiive about this, but we want people to take it seriously, not treat it like a retail job at the mall.
3. A small number will ultimately die. I think you would be a foolish leader/government to give those people who died for you anything but respect if you hope for similar sacrifice in the future.
In the US, the military is actually used for combat operations so the risk of being injured or killed is higher than being "a shop owner, or carpenter or doctor or whatever". The majority aren't but you're still signing up for it when you join so you are given an amount of elevated respect. It's not something you sign up for willie nillie. You're obligated to serve for at least a tour (4 years I believe) and in those 4 years, you've lost every bit of free-will. It's a sacrifice that I wasn't willing to make so kudos to those who do.
Enrolling into military is a choice and you know risks beforehand, there’s nothing about that choice that deserves worship-like cult status military has in US.
And why do you think they take those risks? Do you think they would if people treated it like a job at mcdonalds? Would their families support them in being away for so long for 30k/year?
But psychologically, the drive to be a part of something important is very strong, especially in young men.
The military has a rich mythology that plays into, and perpetuates, this.
This is not bad or unhealthy! But it is also not inherently good. There are other groups which use the same tactics to recruit people for bad services. It very very much depends.
I was reading up on the history of Iran the other day and thinking: "wow, how can a relatively educated and secular country end up with such fanatical laws?". This sounds likes it's in the same wavelength.
I'm interested in hearing if there are non religious people that support these kind of laws. I come from a secular country, so all this is very difficult to understand
I dislike this scene for personal (?) / historical (?) reasons.
The French are singing this nice liberation / freedom song against the germans. This is nice and all, but they are in freaking occupied Morocco, not France! They continued to occupy it even after the war.
The people that made the movie didn't care about this irony because they didn't consider moroccans to be equal to the french. I get that. What I'm surprised is that people nowadays don't find this scene ridiculous (or at least very ironic). Coming from a colonized country (and being one of those people that weren't considered worthy of having their own country back then), I can't like that scene.
While the occupation of France by Germany was a matter of ideology, the occupation of Morocco etc by France was a matter of a different stage of human evolution.
I would argue that the colonisation of Morocco by France was a net positive event and jump-started them out of the middle ages into an industrialised society.
I fully expect to be downvoted to oblivion for this statement, I would like to express it nevertheless
This is a reason that has been given for centuries to justify invading and occupying countries.
But if you're in favor of colonization then you won't have an issue with this scene. It precisely what I said before: it's ok if Moroccans get invaded and occupied, but french shouldn't, because white/christian/civilized/european/developed/ {insert favorite keyword here}
The point is whether is has more immediate benefits than costs. My sense is that it usually does (immigrant population contributes more economically that what they cost in taxes), at least in the countries I've checked. The exception might be countries that accept a huge amount of refugees (I dunno, just speculating)
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.
It depends entirely on what kind of immigration you are talking about, there are empirical evidence that certain type of immigration can be beneficial, but it also exist empirical evidence of the contrary, thus making a general claim is not possible without looking at the specifics, i.e. which immigrant group to what country and in what time.
There was this pedophile in my neighborhood that received water, gas and heating from companies. People were upset because without water he wouldn't have been able to become a pedophile
We need to think about alternatives. It's easy to find issues and weaknesses in what Julia does, but we should consider what we would do with a different language to make a fair comparison.
If you don't want composition, then there's no issue and Julia can be as weak/strong as other languages.
If you do want composition, then I see two ways (but I'm sure there are others): you do the "typical" thing with glue code or you use the more "automatic" way that Julia provides. Which one is better? If this is too subjective: Which one is more correct?
Yes, Julia can propagate errors in unexpected ways, but how would you implement this in another language? You'd probably have to spend X hours writing glue code and Z hours writing tests to make sure your glue code is working. This also raises issues with maintainability when one of the two packages you're connecting /composing changes.
Julia offers a reduction on the X hours for writing glue code (sometimes with X = 0) and maybe a similar time Z writing test code. The maintainability, I'd argue, becomes easier.
The cost is the unknown unkowns that might creep up when doing this composition. My (extremely) subjective sense is that this doesn't happen that often to me (I don't usually pass approximation intervals to sparse matrix to auto differentiation to neural networks), which means the benefits outweight the cost in this regard. YMMV
'Pro: saves X amount of coding hours. Con: may silently return wrong results.' is a terrible philosophy. It's like saying 'well, the surgeon messed up, but at least the surgery was cheap'.
There's nothing more silent about it than any other bug that arises in a similarly dynamic language. People use Python over C++ in large part because it saves X amount of coding hours, and comes with different kinds of bugs that can "silently return wrong results".
It seems you've picked the weakest version of what I said (which means communication becomes less likely)
Two points
1) the glue code you HAVE to write to make the composition in other languages and the mantianability issues you get also may introduce wrong results
2) MAY doesn't mean it will and we trade-off speed / convenience and risk in many other areas. Surgeons (or the health system in general) do trade off % of success for cost / speed, just because they don't have the resources to do everything / spend 100 hours on everyone
