• Bamboodpanda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      Remember in the movie when Professor Rasczak was teaching the class about service and the right to vote? The class room is a significant portion of the book and isn’t satirical at all. Heinlein was dead serious about his views.

    • Sanctus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      Heinlein absolutely loved the military. I highly doubt the book is satire. I just read it. Dude seems to think everything really would be chill. All the over the top sauce came from the movie but the movie left out the dope jump trooper suits.

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        I would say so.

        Granted, it’d depend on how you define “issues” for one. If you consider just everyday issues as well, usually it’s easier to agree to trade with someone than violently robbing them.

        If it read “most of hardest social issues impacting entire communities/societies in history were solved with violence”, then I’d prolly have to agree.

        But like usually a dispute with a neighbouring kingdom/clan/town would be easier to manage with some small appeasement or something.

        I’m not saying violence doesn’t solve many issues and is sometimes called for. But literally most? I’d have to disagree.

        • GraniteM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          I’m not saying violence doesn’t solve many issues and is sometimes called for. But literally most? I’d have to disagree.

          Heinlein addresses this, too:

          War is not violence and killing, pure and simple; war is controlled violence, for a purpose. The purpose of war is to support your government’s decisions by force. The purpose is never to kill the enemy just to be killing him… but to make him do what you want him to do. Not killing… but controlled and purposeful violence. But it’s not your business or mine to decide the purpose or the control. It’s never a soldier’s business to decide when or where or how — or why — he fights; that belongs to the statesmen and the generals. The statesmen decide why and how much; the generals take it from there and tell us where and when and how. We supply the violence; other people — ‘older and wiser heads,’ as they say — supply the control.

          It’s really quite a good book.

          • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            22 hours ago

            the statesmen

            That reminds me of an exchange in an old Bloom County cartoon. Opus is asked the difference between a politician and a statesman, and replies with “a statesman is a dead politician. Lord knows we need more statesmen.”

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        It’s not wrong. It’s just stupid. “Settled more issues”. You know, when you genocide an entire people, every issue you had with them is now “settled”.

        It’s not a recommendation for violence as a solution. It’s simply pointing out that it’s a common way to end things, good or bad. Usually bad.