Hacker News Reader

Comment by arethuza | Hacker News Reader

Eistein apparently wrote that in 1931 - but in 1939 when faced with the appalling prospect of a nuclear armed Nazi Germany he co-authored a letter to FDR with Leo Szilard recommending that the US research atomic weapons.

I'm not disagreeing with your sentiment, war is literally hell and the people I know who feel this more strongly are combat veterans, but outright pacifism in the face of a relentless aggressor like the Nazis would have achieved nothing but utter disaster and a "sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age".

Edit: From my own perspective I think our potentially fatal weakness as a species is how easy we are to lead. With a powerful enough leader people will do anything - good or bad.

View on HN

> he co-authored a letter to FDR with Leo Szilard recommending that the US research atomic weapons.

That should clue you in about how this has nothing to do with "pacifism". It would be more pacifistic to not express disgust than to express it, and it would be more pacifistic for me to not comment. Yet here we are.

To oppose death and its apprentices, you do NOT have to march in rank and file, and you DON'T need "heroism on command". You have to organize, but there is nothing there that cannot spring from strength and cooperation. It doesn't have to be weakness and obedience under the guise of "leadership" and "team spirit".

but leadership doesn't demand obedience, it earns it. A good leader sets an example that others want to follow, they don't shout orders at people with no justification for following them. In fact, one of the traits mentioned in the article is that an effective leader tells their people why they are doing what they are doing, which is much more humanistic than the """leadership""" expressed in most large organisations (which is really just superficial authority, rather than leadership).

> You have to organize, but there is nothing there that cannot spring from strength and cooperation

Even spontaneous militias (and civilian groups) have leaders.

> A good leader sets an example that others want to follow

So does any random decent person, no leadership or subordination required.

> one of the traits mentioned in the article is that an effective leader tells their people why they are doing what they are doing,

Except they don't. They are repeating the rationalizations and their weak-ass half-truths that were hammered into their head. I doubt this guy told his men that they're there to control oil and whatnot.

> Even spontaneous militias (and civilian groups) have leaders.

Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool."

I think your hostility towards the military is getting in the way of discussing these ideas as they would apply outside the military. Just because the failure mode of a military leader isn't the same as a civilian leader, doesn't mean that advice for actually-beneficial leadership in the military doesn't apply to civilian life.

> I think your hostility towards the military is getting in the way of discussing these ideas

No, your unwillingness to address something like this does:

> Except the second they're unfit, they have nothing to say anymore. Because it arises naturally. Compare to the military where disobeying orders doesn't result in "Oh well, I should have made you want to do this, it's my fault you don't want to do it. Don't worry, we're cool."

My hostility doesn't keep me from speaking my mind, it's your excuse to not respond to it, and you're welcome to it. I'm hostile to water so I can look fire in the eye.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjxcWKa4sow&t=22m40s

You can pry my connection to the innocent from my cold, dead hands, and I will not sabotage it by being too friendly to those who lick boots.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com