Talk:Mall ninja/Archive1
No, it's not Jack Thompson-ness on my part, it's a trend in their attitude.[edit]
Often they are fans of guns, warfare, and combat who profess to be experts, or even claim combat expertise without ever being able to deal with situations that soldiers have to train to deal with. And often end up not being able to deal with, resulting in PTSD and emotional scars. Killing another person, for many, is not exactly an easy experience, and that's often totally discarded by these guys. It's a lack of perspective. ±
KnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 05:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Just one thing[edit]
I understand that this article is about people who confuse fiction with facts when bragging about their weapons knowledge and combat expertise, but what about random fans of fictional combat who don't claim to be real life combat experts, and only collect "fake" swords and guns for fun (or maybe LARPing) because they appeal to them aesthetically (just like some people may find cars or dinosaurs cool), but acknowledge that they wouldn't be able to deal with a combat situation in real life? It's just a matter of personal taste, and I don't see anything wrong with that. Woodgod (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- Those people aren't problems, and so this article is about them. Anybody who has a full understanding of what they're doing has my support. But the people discussed here aren't those people. To me, mentioning them here is sort of like going to the Massage article and devoting a whole section to 'and there are some people who just get massages because they like them' when the focus of the article is about how it doesn't actually cure diseases. ±
KnightOfTL;DRjust shut up already 18:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Misleading statements about katanas & samurai[edit]
The section on Japanese swords is rather flawed, especially this bit:
- ". . . the popularity of the katana is not entirely reflective of the full combat repertoire of the historical samurai; swords were often secondary weapons to long spears, bows, and other weapons, none of which bear the glory of the katana and accompanying blades (wakazashi, etc.) in modern times. Katanas were like pistols, used by samurai mainly for one-on-one dueling rather than open combat, or as a last resort weapon if it came to that."
Swords were of crucial importance to samurai, who would usually wear them at all times while people below the samurai class were forbidden from owning them (during the Tokugawa shogunate). Samurai were trained to master firearms, bows, spears etc. as well as swords and unarmed combat techniques, and might use these other weapons in a pitched battle or for guarding, but swordsmanship was regarded as the most vital & prestigious martial art. "Other weapons existed" isn't a good argument since they didn't "bear the glory of the katana and accompanying blades" at the time as well as in the modern age.
I don't think the quality of traditional Japanese swords is overstated either. They are regarded as among the world's finest swords not just because of arbitrary theatrics like cutting through large items, but because of the forging technique of folding and layering steel to concentrate the hardest (and otherwise brittlest) steel in the blade and reinforce it with surrounding layers of softer and stronger steel (see WP:Japanese sword construction#Forging). This produces a more powerful combination of sharpness and strength than would be possible with a sword made from a single consistency of steel (like a mass-produced reproduction katana). Damascus steel was made with a somewhat similar layering technique. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 19:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I agree, they were of crucial importance to samurai, but they were hardly primary warfare weapons, but much much much more dueling and symbolic weapons. It's just that this pride in the symbol of samurai-hood and in the end japan itself is often confabulated into 'katanas are magical' when their great meaning and important is just as much a cultural artifact as it is a martial combat artifact. Other cultures also valued swords in this way, when spears, flails, and other weapons were by far the more deadly weapon in actual warfare (several periods in medieval Europe) and missile weapons more deadly than that (archery ranks and crossbows being some of the more deadly things in a time when all people could not afford full body armor) and yet, the sword is what is remembered about medieval knights... it's the same with Japanese samurai. I agree that this section needs an edit: the point being that these people don't really understand the cultural context of the things they treasure and instead attribute it to a magical 'betterness.' Not that katana and other Japanese blades somehow aren't of very good quality; no incredibly symbolic and incredibly important object would be trash. It's just that the mystical awe they are attributed with by these people is an artifact of a culture that's not theirs and they don't understand. ±KnightOfTL;DRlongissimus non legeri 19:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
- I always understood that any superiority in the case of the katana was more due to economic factors. European smiths could make extremely good weapons but the lower price of iron in europe meant that there was more of a market for cheaper not so good weapons.Geni (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- I was reading a recent article on Cracked (so take it as you will, but they are pretty good about sourcing their material) which actually discussed the differences in actual sword-making compared to how it is portrayed in popular media. For it, they interviewed an actual sword-smith from Austin, TX. I can't get the article pulled up while I'm at work, so I'm running mainly from my memory of the article, so YMMV with what I'm about to relate. As best I can recall, the traditional sword-smithing techniques used to make katanas were sub-par compared to European methods. The reason was the reliance on what is essentially pig-iron to make most of the katana. The high-carbon steel was strong, but brittle. The reason for the katana being such an effective weapon was because samurai studied for years on proper sword technique. In the hands of a novice, even attacking something like a wooden block could be enough to shatter a traditional katana (as evidenced on YouTube), and they were only effective when one had been properly trained in their use. The reason for folding the metal was to remove some of the carbon to reduce how brittle the metal was, but it was rarely folded more than 4 to 8 times, because removing too much of the carbon would leave the sword too soft to be effective. These stories about how the best swords were folded "over 1000 times" that some people pop off with is complete bunk, because the sword would be too soft to even hold an edge. Just my 2-cents.Reverend Lucifer (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- To understand the utility of the Japanese swords is to understand the combat methods in use at the time. Arrows from a long distance, similar to European methods and for intermediate "picking off" approaching forces. Spears used largely as pikes as the forces meet. Then, when the forces mingle to an extend, it's melee time for shorter swords. The wakizashi was utilized in close quarters, the katana more in dueling, but there was also a "super katana", whose name escapes me currently. That was largely for use against cavalry, to literally remove the horse's legs.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- I was reading a recent article on Cracked (so take it as you will, but they are pretty good about sourcing their material) which actually discussed the differences in actual sword-making compared to how it is portrayed in popular media. For it, they interviewed an actual sword-smith from Austin, TX. I can't get the article pulled up while I'm at work, so I'm running mainly from my memory of the article, so YMMV with what I'm about to relate. As best I can recall, the traditional sword-smithing techniques used to make katanas were sub-par compared to European methods. The reason was the reliance on what is essentially pig-iron to make most of the katana. The high-carbon steel was strong, but brittle. The reason for the katana being such an effective weapon was because samurai studied for years on proper sword technique. In the hands of a novice, even attacking something like a wooden block could be enough to shatter a traditional katana (as evidenced on YouTube), and they were only effective when one had been properly trained in their use. The reason for folding the metal was to remove some of the carbon to reduce how brittle the metal was, but it was rarely folded more than 4 to 8 times, because removing too much of the carbon would leave the sword too soft to be effective. These stories about how the best swords were folded "over 1000 times" that some people pop off with is complete bunk, because the sword would be too soft to even hold an edge. Just my 2-cents.Reverend Lucifer (talk) 01:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
- I agree, they were of crucial importance to samurai, but they were hardly primary warfare weapons, but much much much more dueling and symbolic weapons. It's just that this pride in the symbol of samurai-hood and in the end japan itself is often confabulated into 'katanas are magical' when their great meaning and important is just as much a cultural artifact as it is a martial combat artifact. Other cultures also valued swords in this way, when spears, flails, and other weapons were by far the more deadly weapon in actual warfare (several periods in medieval Europe) and missile weapons more deadly than that (archery ranks and crossbows being some of the more deadly things in a time when all people could not afford full body armor) and yet, the sword is what is remembered about medieval knights... it's the same with Japanese samurai. I agree that this section needs an edit: the point being that these people don't really understand the cultural context of the things they treasure and instead attribute it to a magical 'betterness.' Not that katana and other Japanese blades somehow aren't of very good quality; no incredibly symbolic and incredibly important object would be trash. It's just that the mystical awe they are attributed with by these people is an artifact of a culture that's not theirs and they don't understand. ±
Best of the Best[edit]
Praise thee, O RatWiki, for thee doth always bring to my attention the very best of the crazy... --
16:24, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Battlefield 2 (console version)[edit]
This game had tons of random quotes in the gameplay that I've identified as "military wannabe" as in someone who picks up an airsoft gun and walks around in a "tactical" way but gets shot immediately. One of the quotes was "eliminate them quickly and just as quickly." That being something that "sounds cool" when you say it but is totally meaningless. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 07:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, if I were to ever break down and play that stupid nonsense, I'd leave the wannabe for last. It's likely the idiot can't shoot and hit a target, so I'd engage those who move like they have a purpose and are firing accurately. Now, here's the fun part. I personally own an M7 and M9 bayonet, both in rather new condition. Had them for years. The difference between these people and myself is, those were bought along with a full field set (pack, LBV, helmet and cover, etc) for inspection. What I wore in the field was issued, what was inspected was new and never left home, save on inspection day. Today, they're utility knives, with the M9 being dedicated to garden work, as that is about the only damned thing it's good for, save as an improved and insanely expensive tent stake. The likelihood of me ever attending paintball or airsoft is unlikely. The real deal sucked a lot, why try to bring back those memories in depth?Wzrd1 (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)