Monday, December 16, 2019

[Tom Sewell 268]

http://egscomics.com/comic/party-098

[The Old Hack 2,489]

I think we have reached the tail end of this particular subplot.

[ijuin 594]

I think that a lot of us are feeling like Ashley in the second panel.

[mlooney 3,594]

5 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I think we have reached the tail end of this particular subplot.

/me The List is getting a work out today.  Adding a star and a single underline.

[Scotty 1,061]

1/4th scale isn't 1/7th that Rhoda made Catalina, but Grace doesn't know what her limit is so she might be able to got further than this.

And Ashley, are you still just keeping it at "friend-shipping" here?

[Tom Sewell 268]

20 minutes ago, Scotty said:

1/4th scale isn't 1/7th that Rhoda made Catalina, but Grace doesn't know what her limit is so she might be able to got further than this.

And Ashley, are you still just keeping it at "friend-shipping" here?

Well, I think this is the last time we saw Ashley flush like this before. She didn't do it when she saw Nanase in her skimpy fairy costume.

I hope Nanase doesn't notice...

[Scotty 1,061]

59 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

She didn't do it when she saw Nanase in her skimpy fairy costume.

I hope Nanase doesn't notice...

Funny, Nanase's never seen Ashley blush like that, but it seems like what she's got planned might end up making Ashley blush.

I wonder if we'll see Nanase be like "Oh no, I've been seducing my ex boyfriend's girlfriend this whole time!?!"

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

There is a philosophy (with which I disagree) held by many that to train a man, you must break him down completely and then build him back up again as you see fit

This party seems designed to force Ashley to maximum awkweirdness and embarrassment at which point she may finally begin to learn, use, and enjoy magic

[Tom Sewell 268]

43 minutes ago, Scotty said:

I wonder if we'll see Nanase be like "Oh no, I've been seducing my ex boyfriend's girlfriend this whole time!?!"

Possibly after Ellen has a word with Nanase. Also, remember this baseball moment?

 

45 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

There is a philosophy (with which I disagree) held by many that to train a man, you must break him down completely and then build him back up again as you see fit

This party seems designed to force Ashley to maximum awkweirdness and embarrassment at which point she may finally begin to learn, use, and enjoy magic

Been to a boot camp? Or have you seen Full Metal Jacket?

[mlooney 3,594]

2 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

Been to a boot camp? Or have you seen Full Metal Jacket?

Yes and no, but I've seen enough of it to know that just watching a movie doesn't give you the full effect of Basic Training.

[Tom Sewell 268]

 

4 minutes ago, mlooney said:

Yes and no, but I've seen enough of it to know that just watching a movie doesn't give you the full effect of Basic Training.

Full Metal Jacket (A Stanley Kubrick film set in the Vietnam War) does have the best representation of the boot camp experience I've ever seen in a movie. We had three suicide attempts when I went through boot camp. The actor playing the drill instructor was a real U.S. Marine drill instructor.l

[mlooney 3,594]

51 minutes ago, Tom Sewell said:

 

Full Metal Jacket (A Stanley Kubrick film set in the Vietnam War) does have the best representation of the boot camp experience I've ever seen in a movie. We had three suicide attempts when I went through boot camp. The actor playing the drill instructor was a real U.S. Marine drill instructor.l

I knew what FMJ was.  I'm still on the edge of saying that movies don't reflect the reality of what 12 weeks of basic training is like.

 

[Pharaoh RutinTutin 1,619]

Of course a movie intended for popular/theatrical release will never fully capture everything that is the actual experience

With that said, FMJ did a better job portraying the Boot Camp experience than most other movies

Showing my age, but in college I had a friend who had joined the US Air Force right out of High School and went through Basic Training shortly after Stripes was released
The recruits tried to emulate that movie experience
It didn't work

[ChronosCat 158]

Grace managed to calm Ashley down (and then inadvertently(?) work her up again in a different way), so why is she continuing to transform? Does she have a plan, or is she just goofing around at this point?

On a related note, this is clearly relevant to this comic, so I'll put it here instead of the Word of Dan thread: https://twitter.com/elgoonishshive/status/1206659868947554304

Grace has a skewed perception of flirty playfulness, especially in regard to transformation. She’s so used to just playing around with transformation in the company of Tedd, Sarah, and Ellen that her idea of where the “actual flirting” line is wouldn’t match most opinions.

— El Goonish Shive (@elgoonishshive) December 16, 2019

Oh, and yay for bubbly background in panel two! (It's pretty well hidden!)

[hkmaly 490]

9 hours ago, Scotty said:

1/4th scale isn't 1/7th that Rhoda made Catalina, but Grace doesn't know what her limit is so she might be able to got further than this.

Hmmm ... Grace has advantage over Rhoda that she DOES have the squirrel option, she may somehow "cheat" instead of just resizing ... on the other hand, I assumed Rhoda is best at shrinking ...

9 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

9 hours ago, Scotty said:

And Ashley, are you still just keeping it at "friend-shipping" here?

Well, I think this is the last time we saw Ashley flush like this before. She didn't do it when she saw Nanase in her skimpy fairy costume.

As if Ashley had any say in how she's feeling ...

8 hours ago, Scotty said:

I wonder if we'll see Nanase be like "Oh no, I've been seducing my ex boyfriend's girlfriend this whole time!?!"

I wonder what will GRACE do when she realizes she's seducing Ashley.

16 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

Grace managed to calm Ashley down (and then inadvertently(?) work her up again in a different way), so why is she continuing to transform? Does she have a plan, or is she just goofing around at this point?

On a related note, this is clearly relevant to this comic, so I'll put it here instead of the Word of Dan thread: https://twitter.com/elgoonishshive/status/1206659868947554304

I would say either goofing around or not being sure if she calmed Ashley sufficiently.

7 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

There is a philosophy (with which I disagree) held by many that to train a man, you must break him down completely and then build him back up again as you see fit

There are two ways to disagree with this philosophy: one is to claim that it's not necessary. Second is to acknowledge the efficiency but complain that it's evil thing to do.

7 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

This party seems designed to force Ashley to maximum awkweirdness and embarrassment at which point she may finally begin to learn, use, and enjoy magic

"Designed" implies intent. I don't think anyone intended that. Nevertheless, it seems to be direction where it's heading ...

[mlooney 3,594]

2 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Showing my age, but in college I had a friend who had joined the US Air Force right out of High School and went through Basic Training shortly after Stripes was released
The recruits tried to emulate that movie experience
It didn't work

I was in the army when Stripes came out.  The term "ARMMMMY TRAINING" was grounds for instant extra duty for a while after that.

[ChronosCat 158]

48 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

"Designed" implies intent. I don't think anyone intended that. Nevertheless, it seems to be direction where it's heading ...

No one in-story, anyway. Dan, on the other hand, may intend it...

[The Old Hack 2,489]

52 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

There are two ways to disagree with this philosophy: one is to claim that it's not necessary. Second is to acknowledge the efficiency but complain that it's evil thing to do.

I really doubt it is efficient. 'Breaking down' is often used as an excuse for abuse and cruelty, which should never be part of any training program that is intended to produce healthy, sane soldiers. Of course, if the intention is to produce brainwashed automatons, you might be on to something.

Hard training which pushes the recruits to their limits, on the other hand, is different. From my time in Basic I recall that the point of pushing us so hard was to show us that we could do a lot more than we thought we were capable of. It certainly worked for me. I would say that this is more about building a soldier up than tearing them down, though.

[hkmaly 490]

24 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

"Designed" implies intent. I don't think anyone intended that. Nevertheless, it seems to be direction where it's heading ...

No one in-story, anyway. Dan, on the other hand, may intend it...

Oh. In that case yes.

17 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

There are two ways to disagree with this philosophy: one is to claim that it's not necessary. Second is to acknowledge the efficiency but complain that it's evil thing to do.

I really doubt it is efficient. 'Breaking down' is often used as an excuse for abuse and cruelty, which should never be part of any training program that is intended to produce healthy, sane soldiers. Of course, if the intention is to produce brainwashed automatons, you might be on to something.

I'm afraid that most armies will stop needing brainwashed automatons for grunts only when they switch to real robots. Meanwhile, sanity is only advantage for soldier when he retires from army.

However, the true question is which way will produce better special ops soldier and/or unit leader: someone who follows orders, but is capable of independent thinking inside the limits of those orders during mission as it's not possible for him to be in contact with command all the time.

As a proponent of free will and critical thinking, I would really like to think that you can't have independent thinking without the possibility of questioning the orders ... but I'm not sure if it's truth or just optimism.

26 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Hard training which pushes the recruits to their limits, on the other hand, is different. From my time in Basic I recall that the point of pushing us so hard was to show us that we could do a lot more than we thought we were capable of. It certainly worked for me. I would say that this is more about building a soldier up than tearing them down, though.

Proper hard training is however harder for the "trainers" (sergeants I suppose) to do. Abuse and cruelty is easy.

[Scotty 1,061]

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

I wonder what will GRACE do when she realizes she's seducing Ashley.

"It's only fair I let Tedd seduce Elliot then."

Maybe not exactly that but hey, it's gotta be something that allows for Super Hero Science to be canon right?

 

[The Old Hack 2,489]

Just now, hkmaly said:

However, the true question is which way will produce better special ops soldier and/or unit leader: someone who follows orders, but is capable of independent thinking inside the limits of those orders during mission as it's not possible for him to be in contact with command all the time.

As a proponent of free will and critical thinking, I would really like to think that you can't have independent thinking without the possibility of questioning the orders ... but I'm not sure if it's truth or just optimism.

One reason for the German Army's terrifying efficiency during WW2 was its doctrine, which allowed unit leaders a great deal of latitude in interpreting their orders right down to squad level. This allowed German forces unparallelled flexibility but, as you say, also permitted them to question their orders. The Nazis sought to overcome this weakness by saturating their soldiery with propaganda and visions of patriotism that would make them less likely to raise such questions.

It worked, but not perfectly. Hence why you keep discovering examples of individual units refusing to participate in atrocities, usually by following their orders perfunctorily at best or directly disobeying them at worst. The increase in flexibility was accomplished but had a concomitant loss of atrocity.

(There is a possibly apocryphal tale of one unit on the Eastern Front told by their commander to execute a dozen local farmers 'as an example'. They followed orders by having the captives dig a mass grave, fired their rifles into the air and then told the captives to run and hide. Then the soldiers filled in the 'mass grave' so it looked like they had carried out their orders.)

(Supposedly one of the captives asked what to do if they were noticed and received the reply, "Try to look shot." Though personally I do not believe it would have mattered that much. How would anyone have been able to tell them apart from any other random villager, once they had escaped the immediate vicinity of the 'execution site'?)

[hkmaly 490]

8 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

21 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

However, the true question is which way will produce better special ops soldier and/or unit leader: someone who follows orders, but is capable of independent thinking inside the limits of those orders during mission as it's not possible for him to be in contact with command all the time.

As a proponent of free will and critical thinking, I would really like to think that you can't have independent thinking without the possibility of questioning the orders ... but I'm not sure if it's truth or just optimism.

One reason for the German Army's terrifying efficiency during WW2 was its doctrine, which allowed unit leaders a great deal of latitude in interpreting their orders right down to squad level. This allowed German forces unparallelled flexibility but, as you say, also permitted them to question their orders. The Nazis sought to overcome this weakness by saturating their soldiery with propaganda and visions of patriotism that would make them less likely to raise such questions.

It worked, but not perfectly. Hence why you keep discovering examples of individual units refusing to participate in atrocities, usually by following their orders perfunctorily at best or directly disobeying them at worst. The increase in flexibility was accomplished but had a concomitant loss of atrocity.

It's weird to use WW2 Germans as optimistic example - but I guess the contrast makes it more obvious.

 

[The Old Hack 2,489]

43 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

It's weird to use WW2 Germans as optimistic example - but I guess the contrast makes it more obvious.

You have to remember that they were only human, for good and for ill. Nazis planned to exterminate all Danish Jews, including my family. But it was a German who leaked the advance warning that allowed so many of us to escape to Sweden, some a mere hair's breadth ahead of the round-up operation.

[Darth Fluffy 338]

2 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I really doubt it is efficient. 'Breaking down' is often used as an excuse for abuse and cruelty, which should never be part of any training program that is intended to produce healthy, sane soldiers. Of course, if the intention is to produce brainwashed automatons, you might be on to something.

Hard training which pushes the recruits to their limits, on the other hand, is different. From my time in Basic I recall that the point of pushing us so hard was to show us that we could do a lot more than we thought we were capable of. It certainly worked for me. I would say that this is more about building a soldier up than tearing them down, though.

While I want to agree with you, and wish things worked that way, my experiences say that a fair amount of harsh training is necessary to get the target demographic of 18/19 year olds in the prime of their rebellious years to conform. I had a tour essentially babysitting said "young adults" typically two or three years into their commitment, and these were allegedly the cream of the crop; well, most of them could be counted on to do their day to day work. What happened in the dorms after hours does not compare favorably to high school. Or, as it is frequently put, "What is the difference between the Boy Scouts and the military?" "Adult supervision."

Now, if you could go back to the roots and educate citizenship into the culture as a whole, your idealistic vision might be applicable. We definitely are not there in the US.

 

[Darth Fluffy 338]

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I'm afraid that most armies will stop needing brainwashed automatons for grunts only when they switch to real robots.

Real robots are at this point still very overrated.

 

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Meanwhile, sanity is only advantage for soldier when he retires from army.

However, the true question is which way will produce better special ops soldier and/or unit leader: someone who follows orders, but is capable of independent thinking inside the limits of those orders during mission as it's not possible for him to be in contact with command all the time.

As a proponent of free will and critical thinking, I would really like to think that you can't have independent thinking without the possibility of questioning the orders ... but I'm not sure if it's truth or just optimism.

Having a moral compass is very important for a soldier, although that's my opinion, and obviously not every world leader agrees with me. How your soldiers behave is extends to how your culture will be viewed. When your post teens do stupid $#!% worldwide, it tends to make enemies for you.

 

2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Proper hard training is however harder for the "trainers" (sergeants I suppose) to do. Abuse and cruelty is easy.

At least in the US, training instructors do not get a lot of training how to be one; months. Also, they tend to be the top tier - of the ones that did not qualify for a skilled need.