Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
It's pro war? To me it was the first depiction of the horrors of war. It made me think about my support for armed conflict and ultimately against it.
That doesn't necessarily make something pro or anti war.
To me, showing me something horrible is to be against it.
All militarists know that war is horror - they relish the horror of it.
That's why they love movies like Saving Private Ryan (which justifies the horror by ascribing justification to it) while disliking movies such as The Thin Red Line or Catch 22 (which strips any kind of justification away from it).
Ah, I see your point. I didn't relish the horror. I didn't even understand the horror. When I was growing up, I was taught in a way that minimized or disregarded suffering. SPR did not do that. It showcased it and in a horrendous way. While some may relish in that, I didn't and it made me reconsider my childhood support of any armed conflict as justified. I didn't understand the costs involved. While I'm sure the movie didn't capture everything, what it showed was horrendous.
Idk about your point of justification. It's been a while and I don't remember that.
Weaponized masculinity portrays the horrors of war as some kind of "test" of masculinity - you'll see this in a lot of fascist propaganda. It's literally what fascists mean when they spew their "blood and soil" bullcrap. It's pretty sick - I grew up in Apartheid-era South Africa, and they brainwashed us like that.
The problem I have with movies like Saving Private Ryan is that they don't address the central conceit of the vast majority of "war media" - ie, that war is an activity primarily waged by armed combatants against other armed combatants. This is absolutely not the truth - wars are primarily waged by armed combatants against unarmed non-combatants. This is especially true when we discuss colonialist warfare - it is being literally demonstrated right now in Gaza.
You remember Tom Hank's little line about "earning it?" The more you think about it, the sillier it becomes.
Same, it was the first war movie I watched where I was like "wow, being in a war would actually really suck".