I pity the poverty of your wealth. You! I’ve just awarded you the prize for the
hundred-meter dash. Does it make you happy?"
"Uh, I suppose it would."
"No dodging, please. You have the prize — here, I’ll write it out: ‘Grand prize for the championship,
one hundred-meter sprint.’ " He had actually come back to my seat and pinned it on my chest. "There!
Are you happy? You value it — or don’t you?"
I was sore. ... I ripped it off and chucked it at him.
Mr. Dubois had looked surprised. "It doesn’t make you happy?"
"You know darn well I placed fourth!"
Here, Johnny shows more integrity than the entire SJW movement combined. He didn't earn the championship, he admits that, and he takes no satisfaction in the fake "award."
But SJWs... SJWs only seem capable of seeing the award itself. They shower themselves in them, and wonder why they still feel so empty. Then, instead of reflecting on themselves for even a moment, they declare that everybody else is keeping them down and hogging all the awards -- never realizing that it's the achievement that's important enough to commemorate, not the award itself.
I've never understood how their twisted brains can like their fake awards at all. I feel the same way as Johnnie. I don't want some participation award. Even back when I finished high school, I would say I didn't care about graduation and it didn't feel like much. A lot of people didn't understand this, you know high school graduation is a big deal and all. The thing is for me, it was compulsory, it was expected--finishing high school was nothing more than meeting the baseline.
It's the same in the work world too, at least if you're in a corporate job. They will do these little awards things, and it's always given out to one person who was the one vocal person of a project, sucking on the teet of management to get recognition. Since I'm sort of competitive mindset, I tend to just set my own goals to be the best at whatever work. Maybe it goes back to when I ran my own business. Recognition of the feat isn't even required, because the fact that I know I "won" is the important part.
These chapters start to get into the meat of how Federation society is different from ours. Corporal punishment is used, with effectiveness, in both the military and among civilians/citizens (to both adults and minors). Adults with responsibility for minors can be compelled to share in their punishment, not merely be held responsible for any restitution owed. While the people (both civilians and citizens) of the federation share many ideals with those who founded western civilization, they don't share their philosophies. We will get further glimpses of this as the book progresses, so I won't go into more detail on this bit unless someone wants to discuss it specifically, but suffice it to say that while the philosophy presented in the book seems to be more grounded in reality than that of our current society, the results of implementing this philosophy, as shown in the book, are likely a fair bit more utopian than would occur if they were implemented in our society.
As an aside, I think this is the first time we get any hard numbers on exactly how difficult M I training is, and what portion of recruits actually manage to get through it, which sheds some light on roughly what portion of the populace are Citizens vs. civilians. Over 90% of those who started at Camp Arthur Currie with Johnny failed to graduate, with almost 1% of those being due to death, and an unknown number more due to other casualties. Now, transfers are mentioned and there are other modes of service which likely have higher (or lower) rates of retention than M I, and at least some people fail to show up to even start their service, but this would certainly an estimated bound for the portion of the populace of the federation which have citizenship in the lower quadrant (the other services are supposed to be equally difficult, if more or less selective, after all.)
This leads us to an accusation frequently leveled against Heinlen, this book, and the Federation: "That's Fascist". It's fairly easy to see why those raised in a modern, libertine society would take offense at one which institutes corporal punishment for a variety of crimes, and permits the 'right' to vote and run for office to anything less than "the entire law-abiding adult population" (particularly when the author takes efforts to justify the logic of such a society, and portrays it as downright utopian compared to our own.) To those raised on the ideal of "Universal Suffrage*" and a belief that corporal punishment is abusive, a society where such punishments are meted out by schools, parents, and the government, and where that government is made up entirely of former members of the military, and whose civilian laws are superseded by military law when and where the military has jurisdiction, would seem Fascist without question (insert Orwell quote about 'Fascism' being a useless term.
To bring up a fairly current, relevant comparison, let's suppose that the Federation took over the US government in 2020. How do you think Antifa and BLM would have been treated? This question is not (entirely) rhetorical, but I'll give my opinion all the same. The riots would have been swiftly broken up, and those participants who could be apprehended would be swiftly brought before the court. In general, minors would receive sentences of (public) corporal punishment, along with their parents/legal guardians. Those adults who had 'merely' caused property damage would also receive corporal punishment and likely be required to provide some form of restitution, and I imagine some would receive prison sentences if the court felt further rehabilitation was necessary. Those who committed violence against civilians would receive more severe sentences of corporal punishment, and in more severe cases, would be hanged. Those who committed violence against police or military would receive short, swift trials, and the majority, being unable to provide reasonable justification for their actions, or mitigating circumstances, would receive sentences of death. I'll leave it up to discussion if this would be better or worse (generally) than our current system, or whether I or Heinlen have left out some detail which would change the outcomes discussed.
*I think this is possibly the most damaging element of modern western political theory/philosophy. Heinlen equates voting to violence, though I cannot find in my text the most succinct quotation that covers this. Allowing anyone, merely by virtue of their residence and age, to enact violence on the level of a state is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen over the past decades.
OOPS! I thought this week included Chapter 11, which is quite long.
Edited them out :p
The discussion of badly raised children becoming like animals, seeking gangs to survive? Heinlein ain't seen nothing like the 21st century has to offer. Entire generations of undisciplined, uneducated and immoral 'children' facing NO consequences at all for abhorrent criminal behavior. No respect, no ambitions, no role models except drug dealers and violent rap artists.
The History and Moral Philosophy class segments are very blatantly authorial self-insertion in order to preach the philosophy that comprises the backbone of the story. However, they're well done and I agree with Heinlein Dubois overall. Some of it is almost prescient
"Law-abiding people [...] hardly dared go into a public park at night. To do so was to risk attack by wolf packs of children, armed [...] to be get at least, robbed most certainly, injured for life probably--or even killed. [...] these things also happened on the streets in daylight, on school grounds, even inside school buildings"
Matches pretty well with what we see in today's urban youth, with pretty much the same causes.Public schools seem more like warzones today, especially in diverse areas. Though I suppose prescience might be giving Heinlein a bit too much credit, as I'm sure there were similar issues arising in the 60s as well. He describes the failings in the modern penal system very well. Delinquents, if charged at all, live in relative comfort among others of a similar mindset, learn more delinquency and are back on the streets until they commit an act heinous enough to warrant death or permanent confinement.
News organs and officials usually kept their names secret [...] A boy might be arrested and convicted several times before he was punished
Where have I seen that before? Surely not in the black communities of the US, that would be racist to notice. Though I suppose Starship Troopers would be dodeca-ultra-secret canceled for fascist thought if Heinlein was ever of a racial mindset.
I think Heinlein does sum up the necessity of discipline in order to instill a sense of duty very well. Resonates today. We have so many people told they have rights, but they have no sense of why. It's how things get perverted to the right to kill your unborn child, the right to whore around with no consequence, the right for Kangs to take reparashuns from whitey. Haha, we're not officially at the last one yet, but last year's looting spree is a good precursor. Duty is the adult virtue, and we have so many people today without the slightest consideration of it. They were never taught it as children, whether because of a lack of spanking or whatever you want to assign the cause to, the end result is the same. Our modern culture is hopelessly infantilized. People unironically talk about "adulting" as if it's something you do, rather than something you are. No media must be allowed to make anyone uncomfortable, things are described with the monosyllabic speech of babies, even in supposedly reputable media outlets, "gross", "icky", "mean", etc. I think the final bit of Dubois's speech is poignant as we all live through the slow collapse of the West
The junior hoodlums who roamed the streets were symptoms of a greater sickness; their citizens glorified their mythology of 'rights' ... and lost track of their duties. No nation, so constituted, can endure
I really enjoyed Heinlein's description of the power armor. Just enough to be interesting, just enough that it makes sense, but not too much that the proposed mechanisms it works by would fall flat in a modern day sci-fi. Very well done to be able to write future tech in the 60s and still have it be plausible 60 years later.
Johnnie's experience with combat is well paced, and continues driving home the points Heinlein made earlier about duty and responsibility. MI takes care of their own, no matter what. You saw that in Chapter 1, which chronologically must take place after 10, with Flores. And it's continued here with Johnnie trying to save a dead man when everything's fubar on Klendathu, with the Lieutenant saving 2 others, purposefully left unnamed. It drives home the importance of duty for a citizen in the novel's universe, that you need to be able to put others ahead of yourself without thinking. You need to be able to be, without thinking, the mother cat dying to save her kittens to truly be a moral adult.
I couldn't help but feel like the History and Moral Philosophy class was not substantially different from the inserted government coursework we see a lot today (e.g. CRT, gender studies, etc.). Maybe it was from Johnnie's father's comment early on about it being something like propaganda. Sure, the content of the class was different, but it was still government inserted education. Can I really say it's good to insert indoctrination into education because I agree with the content?
Seems true as well, that those segments are Heinlen's way of inserting his own viewpoints without being totally direct about it.
You're right in that I'm very attuned to seeing the pushing of political ideology into kids. I wasn't really having an emotional response, but more of noticing this in the book and thought it would make a good discussion point. I am a bit torn on it, but that's mostly from being calloused from seeing the garbage ideology being pushed in our own schools. The fact of the matter is if they were to teach good ideology in schools today, I'd most likely celebrate it.
Your many points regarding correct opinions did make me think of Yuri Bezmenov and his talks/writings on Soviet subversion. The "medicine" he suggests for this is essentially "correct" subversion. Subversion of truth. I don't think he says it directly, but essentially is speaking to the necessity to teach good ideology as a shield against the bad.
It's not education in general, just the History and Moral Philosophy part I'm pointing out. It's just inserted curriculum to teach the kids what to think. It's not described as just a general history class even, but as a government inserted course. So my point being that while I tend to agree more with what it's teaching, is that the only difference between History and Moral Philosophy versus something like Black History or Critical Race Theory?
It's more of a food for thought type question, as I can't decide for myself. Part of me says "yeah, it's good to teach" while the other questions my own hypocrisy.
Fundamentally it's a necessary evil. You have to teach the next generation how to act otherwise the society will fail. The only way to make sure everyone is taught the same thing is to apply it via society in the form of curriculum.
The society didn't just happen by accident, and it requires "maintenance" to continue to function and retain that form. It's a fair point that "education" and "indoctrination" are not discrete categories, they blur together.
It was funny how Johnnie being punished almost felt... like a much smaller event because of the way it was framed by the other two.
Like the first guy, that was drawn out by the fact he didn't seem to know he was wrong and how the others tried to help him kind of understand he fucked up.
The third guy, that was really huge and he wasn't even there for a long time. He wasn't really part of the group.
But Johnnie just fucked up real quick, got his punishment and in a way, it was the least shocking to read, at least to me. Almost like it just had to happen eventually.
A lot of his experiences are very... understated. The thing with the skull earring, for example. He gets it and then it doesn't even matter anymore, because he is in a new group now and it's not a thing they do there.
Really works well with the way some things are written; like how he just ended up enlisting. Things just happened that way.
I was a little behind this week as I was really busy, but I'll probably be ahead next week as I have a lot of free time coming up. Finally through chapter 10 now.
I found the Chapter 8 parts interesting. Most of the chapter was taken up with the parts about punishment, learning from it, etc. The first point I find interesting is I couldn't help but see some of today's world in the descriptions of the bad world of the past in the book. I have to take from it that even as far back as 1959, Heinlen saw what was coming in the real world and put parts of it in the book. So is it because every generation sees the same thing in the younger generation? Or just because he could really see how much shit we were getting ourselves in as a world?
I seem to share a lot of the thoughts on criminal justice anyway. Particularly the part of prisons and how they are just a box full of people to learn to be more criminal from. I've never thought prisons to be that useful either. I can't get a good read on their use of corporal punishment though. In one hand it seems like it's used excessively, which would even contradict the part about it being "unusual." On the other hand, when talking about actual people it seems rare. I suppose if they use it for even very small crimes but it's also very uncommon they seem to have nixed small crime even. I think that's part of why I have repeatedly mentioned if there's a hidden dystopia in this world, their crime reduction plan seems to have worked unrealistically well.
The later chapters seem to be a little less philosophical and a little more fun. I have a full Earth Defense Force feeling with the war on bugs. I guess I should say Earth Attack Force, because it was made clear defense is for losers.
The concept of prison is that you are removed from society temporarily as a restitution as well as punishment. As much as scandinavian countries get shit on for the execution of "nice" prisons, they are fundamentally correct. Prison is not meant to be harsh, the day to day suffering is not the punishment, being removed from society is.
You don't need chains and bread to suffer, confinement is harsh enough punishment, just look at Australia's covid quarantine hotels. A gilded cage is still a cage.
Yeah the Scandinavians do seem to get results from their prisons. I think they do a lot of things right there, in that the prison is not designed to destroy one's life while they are confined there. It's almost like grounding a young kid, you're stuck here and can't really do anything you want, but you still have to go to school just like many in Scandinavian prisons still go to work. It's counterproductive to not send a kid to school as part of a punishment (politics of school aside) and it's the same to not send an imprisoned adult to work. I've spent time in that part of the world and I have a lot of respect for those countries myself. They tend to try things because they think it might make sense despite what everyone else does. A lot of their success is due to very homogeneous societies. Sweden is starting to struggle with things a lot more with their influx of muslims.
But yeah, American prisons? Totally broken. It's just what Heinlein says, you're locking them up with criminals to learn more criminal stuff. Totally counterproductive in that US prison leads to nothing but more crime and more prison in the majority of cases.
What do you think Johnny learned from his experience of being flogged?
To read his fiddly little displays properly before letting a nuke off the leash.
There wasn't much higher meaning to it, he got a little cocky and stupid after that march and the letter, and needed to have it beat into him that when you're launching a fukking nuke you do it by the book.
He knew it, his superiors knew it, and the whole mood of it is: "Seriously? You've been here this long and you're still this dumb?"
The section about corporal punishment always gets me thinking. Heinlein makes a reasonable and rational case for corporal punishment, something which I have mixed feelings about. I don't particularly like his point, but I can't see a flaw in his reasoning.
I can't help contrast it to Stefan Molyneux's peaceful parenting philosophy where punishment isn't corporal. Basically it boils down to hitting your kids to teach them only makes sense when you live in a world where saying the wrong thing can get you killed. Eg living under a king or a dictatorship that is run on fear.
If you don't live in that world, then misbehaviour should be solved by reason, you don't do X because it leads to Y.
I would love to see Molyneux directly respond to this book for these chapters specifically.
What do you think Johnny learned from his experience of being flogged?
Did you find any of his experiences through out boot camp to be relatable?
Do you feel that Heinlein did a good job explaining the necessity of discipline in regards to duty and responsibility?
What you wrote is the exact same cringe that I saw with English related assignments like the retarded "how do you feel" type questions, and I literally want to write "it gave me a bonner" to everything.
My (brief, failed) boot camp experience had a discussion of training puppies and how it's the same as training soldiers. Very similar! Including "Do you shoot him for wetting the rug? Bang!"
We also discussed reasonable force, and how the threat of force is useless if the enemy doesn't think you can pull it off.
I learned that in my childcare career: never threaten a kid with a 'consequence' you cannot deliver. Or one they don't understand, it's equally useless. Of course I had preschoolers, maybe school-agers were different.
I've trained a lot of cats over the years too. Getting rid of a bad habit is hard no matter what level of evolution you're dealing with.
Speaking of evolution, there's a charming discussion in Ch.11... for next week.
Here, Johnny shows more integrity than the entire SJW movement combined. He didn't earn the championship, he admits that, and he takes no satisfaction in the fake "award."
But SJWs... SJWs only seem capable of seeing the award itself. They shower themselves in them, and wonder why they still feel so empty. Then, instead of reflecting on themselves for even a moment, they declare that everybody else is keeping them down and hogging all the awards -- never realizing that it's the achievement that's important enough to commemorate, not the award itself.
I've never understood how their twisted brains can like their fake awards at all. I feel the same way as Johnnie. I don't want some participation award. Even back when I finished high school, I would say I didn't care about graduation and it didn't feel like much. A lot of people didn't understand this, you know high school graduation is a big deal and all. The thing is for me, it was compulsory, it was expected--finishing high school was nothing more than meeting the baseline.
It's the same in the work world too, at least if you're in a corporate job. They will do these little awards things, and it's always given out to one person who was the one vocal person of a project, sucking on the teet of management to get recognition. Since I'm sort of competitive mindset, I tend to just set my own goals to be the best at whatever work. Maybe it goes back to when I ran my own business. Recognition of the feat isn't even required, because the fact that I know I "won" is the important part.
These chapters start to get into the meat of how Federation society is different from ours. Corporal punishment is used, with effectiveness, in both the military and among civilians/citizens (to both adults and minors). Adults with responsibility for minors can be compelled to share in their punishment, not merely be held responsible for any restitution owed. While the people (both civilians and citizens) of the federation share many ideals with those who founded western civilization, they don't share their philosophies. We will get further glimpses of this as the book progresses, so I won't go into more detail on this bit unless someone wants to discuss it specifically, but suffice it to say that while the philosophy presented in the book seems to be more grounded in reality than that of our current society, the results of implementing this philosophy, as shown in the book, are likely a fair bit more utopian than would occur if they were implemented in our society.
As an aside, I think this is the first time we get any hard numbers on exactly how difficult M I training is, and what portion of recruits actually manage to get through it, which sheds some light on roughly what portion of the populace are Citizens vs. civilians. Over 90% of those who started at Camp Arthur Currie with Johnny failed to graduate, with almost 1% of those being due to death, and an unknown number more due to other casualties. Now, transfers are mentioned and there are other modes of service which likely have higher (or lower) rates of retention than M I, and at least some people fail to show up to even start their service, but this would certainly an estimated bound for the portion of the populace of the federation which have citizenship in the lower quadrant (the other services are supposed to be equally difficult, if more or less selective, after all.)
This leads us to an accusation frequently leveled against Heinlen, this book, and the Federation: "That's Fascist". It's fairly easy to see why those raised in a modern, libertine society would take offense at one which institutes corporal punishment for a variety of crimes, and permits the 'right' to vote and run for office to anything less than "the entire law-abiding adult population" (particularly when the author takes efforts to justify the logic of such a society, and portrays it as downright utopian compared to our own.) To those raised on the ideal of "Universal Suffrage*" and a belief that corporal punishment is abusive, a society where such punishments are meted out by schools, parents, and the government, and where that government is made up entirely of former members of the military, and whose civilian laws are superseded by military law when and where the military has jurisdiction, would seem Fascist without question (insert Orwell quote about 'Fascism' being a useless term.
To bring up a fairly current, relevant comparison, let's suppose that the Federation took over the US government in 2020. How do you think Antifa and BLM would have been treated? This question is not (entirely) rhetorical, but I'll give my opinion all the same. The riots would have been swiftly broken up, and those participants who could be apprehended would be swiftly brought before the court. In general, minors would receive sentences of (public) corporal punishment, along with their parents/legal guardians. Those adults who had 'merely' caused property damage would also receive corporal punishment and likely be required to provide some form of restitution, and I imagine some would receive prison sentences if the court felt further rehabilitation was necessary. Those who committed violence against civilians would receive more severe sentences of corporal punishment, and in more severe cases, would be hanged. Those who committed violence against police or military would receive short, swift trials, and the majority, being unable to provide reasonable justification for their actions, or mitigating circumstances, would receive sentences of death. I'll leave it up to discussion if this would be better or worse (generally) than our current system, or whether I or Heinlen have left out some detail which would change the outcomes discussed.
*I think this is possibly the most damaging element of modern western political theory/philosophy. Heinlen equates voting to violence, though I cannot find in my text the most succinct quotation that covers this. Allowing anyone, merely by virtue of their residence and age, to enact violence on the level of a state is a recipe for disaster, as we have seen over the past decades.
OOPS! I thought this week included Chapter 11, which is quite long.
Edited them out :p
The discussion of badly raised children becoming like animals, seeking gangs to survive? Heinlein ain't seen nothing like the 21st century has to offer. Entire generations of undisciplined, uneducated and immoral 'children' facing NO consequences at all for abhorrent criminal behavior. No respect, no ambitions, no role models except drug dealers and violent rap artists.
The first battle of Klendathu was like firing a gun in DayZ.
The History and Moral Philosophy class segments are very blatantly authorial self-insertion in order to preach the philosophy that comprises the backbone of the story. However, they're well done and I agree with
HeinleinDubois overall. Some of it is almost prescientMatches pretty well with what we see in today's urban youth, with pretty much the same causes.Public schools seem more like warzones today, especially in diverse areas. Though I suppose prescience might be giving Heinlein a bit too much credit, as I'm sure there were similar issues arising in the 60s as well. He describes the failings in the modern penal system very well. Delinquents, if charged at all, live in relative comfort among others of a similar mindset, learn more delinquency and are back on the streets until they commit an act heinous enough to warrant death or permanent confinement.
Where have I seen that before? Surely not in the black communities of the US, that would be racist to notice. Though I suppose Starship Troopers would be dodeca-ultra-secret canceled for fascist thought if Heinlein was ever of a racial mindset.
I think Heinlein does sum up the necessity of discipline in order to instill a sense of duty very well. Resonates today. We have so many people told they have rights, but they have no sense of why. It's how things get perverted to the right to kill your unborn child, the right to whore around with no consequence, the right for Kangs to take reparashuns from whitey. Haha, we're not officially at the last one yet, but last year's looting spree is a good precursor. Duty is the adult virtue, and we have so many people today without the slightest consideration of it. They were never taught it as children, whether because of a lack of spanking or whatever you want to assign the cause to, the end result is the same. Our modern culture is hopelessly infantilized. People unironically talk about "adulting" as if it's something you do, rather than something you are. No media must be allowed to make anyone uncomfortable, things are described with the monosyllabic speech of babies, even in supposedly reputable media outlets, "gross", "icky", "mean", etc. I think the final bit of Dubois's speech is poignant as we all live through the slow collapse of the West
I really enjoyed Heinlein's description of the power armor. Just enough to be interesting, just enough that it makes sense, but not too much that the proposed mechanisms it works by would fall flat in a modern day sci-fi. Very well done to be able to write future tech in the 60s and still have it be plausible 60 years later.
Johnnie's experience with combat is well paced, and continues driving home the points Heinlein made earlier about duty and responsibility. MI takes care of their own, no matter what. You saw that in Chapter 1, which chronologically must take place after 10, with Flores. And it's continued here with Johnnie trying to save a dead man when everything's fubar on Klendathu, with the Lieutenant saving 2 others, purposefully left unnamed. It drives home the importance of duty for a citizen in the novel's universe, that you need to be able to put others ahead of yourself without thinking. You need to be able to be, without thinking, the mother cat dying to save her kittens to truly be a moral adult.
I couldn't help but feel like the History and Moral Philosophy class was not substantially different from the inserted government coursework we see a lot today (e.g. CRT, gender studies, etc.). Maybe it was from Johnnie's father's comment early on about it being something like propaganda. Sure, the content of the class was different, but it was still government inserted education. Can I really say it's good to insert indoctrination into education because I agree with the content?
Seems true as well, that those segments are Heinlen's way of inserting his own viewpoints without being totally direct about it.
You're right in that I'm very attuned to seeing the pushing of political ideology into kids. I wasn't really having an emotional response, but more of noticing this in the book and thought it would make a good discussion point. I am a bit torn on it, but that's mostly from being calloused from seeing the garbage ideology being pushed in our own schools. The fact of the matter is if they were to teach good ideology in schools today, I'd most likely celebrate it.
Your many points regarding correct opinions did make me think of Yuri Bezmenov and his talks/writings on Soviet subversion. The "medicine" he suggests for this is essentially "correct" subversion. Subversion of truth. I don't think he says it directly, but essentially is speaking to the necessity to teach good ideology as a shield against the bad.
It's not education in general, just the History and Moral Philosophy part I'm pointing out. It's just inserted curriculum to teach the kids what to think. It's not described as just a general history class even, but as a government inserted course. So my point being that while I tend to agree more with what it's teaching, is that the only difference between History and Moral Philosophy versus something like Black History or Critical Race Theory?
It's more of a food for thought type question, as I can't decide for myself. Part of me says "yeah, it's good to teach" while the other questions my own hypocrisy.
Fundamentally it's a necessary evil. You have to teach the next generation how to act otherwise the society will fail. The only way to make sure everyone is taught the same thing is to apply it via society in the form of curriculum.
The society didn't just happen by accident, and it requires "maintenance" to continue to function and retain that form. It's a fair point that "education" and "indoctrination" are not discrete categories, they blur together.
It was funny how Johnnie being punished almost felt... like a much smaller event because of the way it was framed by the other two.
Like the first guy, that was drawn out by the fact he didn't seem to know he was wrong and how the others tried to help him kind of understand he fucked up.
The third guy, that was really huge and he wasn't even there for a long time. He wasn't really part of the group.
But Johnnie just fucked up real quick, got his punishment and in a way, it was the least shocking to read, at least to me. Almost like it just had to happen eventually.
A lot of his experiences are very... understated. The thing with the skull earring, for example. He gets it and then it doesn't even matter anymore, because he is in a new group now and it's not a thing they do there.
Really works well with the way some things are written; like how he just ended up enlisting. Things just happened that way.
Right? I mean it makes sense, what Johnnie in specific did had no malice. He was a bit retarded is all.
I was a little behind this week as I was really busy, but I'll probably be ahead next week as I have a lot of free time coming up. Finally through chapter 10 now.
I found the Chapter 8 parts interesting. Most of the chapter was taken up with the parts about punishment, learning from it, etc. The first point I find interesting is I couldn't help but see some of today's world in the descriptions of the bad world of the past in the book. I have to take from it that even as far back as 1959, Heinlen saw what was coming in the real world and put parts of it in the book. So is it because every generation sees the same thing in the younger generation? Or just because he could really see how much shit we were getting ourselves in as a world?
I seem to share a lot of the thoughts on criminal justice anyway. Particularly the part of prisons and how they are just a box full of people to learn to be more criminal from. I've never thought prisons to be that useful either. I can't get a good read on their use of corporal punishment though. In one hand it seems like it's used excessively, which would even contradict the part about it being "unusual." On the other hand, when talking about actual people it seems rare. I suppose if they use it for even very small crimes but it's also very uncommon they seem to have nixed small crime even. I think that's part of why I have repeatedly mentioned if there's a hidden dystopia in this world, their crime reduction plan seems to have worked unrealistically well.
The later chapters seem to be a little less philosophical and a little more fun. I have a full Earth Defense Force feeling with the war on bugs. I guess I should say Earth Attack Force, because it was made clear defense is for losers.
The concept of prison is that you are removed from society temporarily as a restitution as well as punishment. As much as scandinavian countries get shit on for the execution of "nice" prisons, they are fundamentally correct. Prison is not meant to be harsh, the day to day suffering is not the punishment, being removed from society is.
You don't need chains and bread to suffer, confinement is harsh enough punishment, just look at Australia's covid quarantine hotels. A gilded cage is still a cage.
I live in Australia, that's my daily existence "for my safety"
Yeah the Scandinavians do seem to get results from their prisons. I think they do a lot of things right there, in that the prison is not designed to destroy one's life while they are confined there. It's almost like grounding a young kid, you're stuck here and can't really do anything you want, but you still have to go to school just like many in Scandinavian prisons still go to work. It's counterproductive to not send a kid to school as part of a punishment (politics of school aside) and it's the same to not send an imprisoned adult to work. I've spent time in that part of the world and I have a lot of respect for those countries myself. They tend to try things because they think it might make sense despite what everyone else does. A lot of their success is due to very homogeneous societies. Sweden is starting to struggle with things a lot more with their influx of muslims.
But yeah, American prisons? Totally broken. It's just what Heinlein says, you're locking them up with criminals to learn more criminal stuff. Totally counterproductive in that US prison leads to nothing but more crime and more prison in the majority of cases.
To read his fiddly little displays properly before letting a nuke off the leash.
There wasn't much higher meaning to it, he got a little cocky and stupid after that march and the letter, and needed to have it beat into him that when you're launching a fukking nuke you do it by the book.
He knew it, his superiors knew it, and the whole mood of it is: "Seriously? You've been here this long and you're still this dumb?"
"Sir, yes, sir!"
I choose not to elaborate because it would be tainted by knowing about Ace's conversation with Rico over R&R on Sanctuary.
The section about corporal punishment always gets me thinking. Heinlein makes a reasonable and rational case for corporal punishment, something which I have mixed feelings about. I don't particularly like his point, but I can't see a flaw in his reasoning.
I can't help contrast it to Stefan Molyneux's peaceful parenting philosophy where punishment isn't corporal. Basically it boils down to hitting your kids to teach them only makes sense when you live in a world where saying the wrong thing can get you killed. Eg living under a king or a dictatorship that is run on fear.
If you don't live in that world, then misbehaviour should be solved by reason, you don't do X because it leads to Y.
I would love to see Molyneux directly respond to this book for these chapters specifically.
What you wrote is the exact same cringe that I saw with English related assignments like the retarded "how do you feel" type questions, and I literally want to write "it gave me a bonner" to everything.
Maybe a 'highlights' of topics?
Johnny's flogging
a realistic boot camp experience?
morality and discipline in society.
Like that? No feelings involved 😅
My (brief, failed) boot camp experience had a discussion of training puppies and how it's the same as training soldiers. Very similar! Including "Do you shoot him for wetting the rug? Bang!"
We also discussed reasonable force, and how the threat of force is useless if the enemy doesn't think you can pull it off.
I learned that in my childcare career: never threaten a kid with a 'consequence' you cannot deliver. Or one they don't understand, it's equally useless. Of course I had preschoolers, maybe school-agers were different.
I've trained a lot of cats over the years too. Getting rid of a bad habit is hard no matter what level of evolution you're dealing with.
Speaking of evolution, there's a charming discussion in Ch.11... for next week.
Sounds like you're leading a colourful life, friend.
u/DomitiusOfMassilia
Don't forget to pin the new thread, I think the last one is still pinned.