Survivalists annoy me.

[Burst]

Without this getting too political, I get their stance from a pragmatic point of view. It's smart and sensible to be prepared for any conceivable situation, but what I disagree with is a lot of their presentation and how they carry themselves.

A lot of Survivalists I've encountered are downright painfully smug, in the sense of "Well, I know who's going to die when the s*** hits the fan, and it ain't me. Sucker." They're the ones that are convinced that their 'compound' is going to be the only bastion of civilization when their fantasy scenario plays out, and that anybody that's so much as 50 miles from even a medium sized city is just waiting to be cannibal meat for desperate city dwellers, because apparently we're all going to turn into mindless fire ants whenever this proverbial scenario plays out.

I've noticed that a lot of times this also overlaps with a very nihilistic worldview from their POV, where not only do they carry additional smug superiority of thinking that they know something that all of the sheeple walking around them don't, but they take pride in denigrating people for NOT being miserable about their lives since don't you know civilization is going to crumble when X happens and Y follows?

I swear there's almost a perverse pleasure on their parts, seemingly hoping that civilization falls so they can play out their fantasy and so that all the regular sheeple will be miserable and dead and suffering and whatever.

Sorry, had to rant, again. I'm not against a reasonable survivalist mentality, again, I'm just against annoying Survivalists.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Ya nailed it; they WANT shit to go down so they can be Mad Max.

Best thing to do when faced with one of them is to follow Lord Humongus's advice.

[Zero Orchestra]

I feel sorry for them, rather than let them annoy me. They're perpetually awaiting some massive, cataclysmic disaster than really doesn't seem to be on the horizon. I would rather take each day as it comes, rather than live in constant worry that it's all going to come crashing down.

[FUNK_US/BRODUS]

Nerds.


The world isnt ending for a long ass time.

[Hit Girl]

All survivalists would die if the apocalypse they think is coming actually occured.

Wearing military clothes, hiding in the forest and stocking up on canned food wouldn't help them much.

Once they lose access to medicine, they are toast.

[Cela]

Jun 29, 2011 20:55:11 GMT -5 Kevin Hamilton said:

Ya nailed it; they WANT s*** to go down so they can be Mad Max.

Best thing to do when faced with one of them is to follow Lord Humongus's advice.

Give gasoline?

[Jingus]

Jun 29, 2011 22:33:07 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

All survivalists would die if the apocalypse they think is coming actually occured.

Wearing military clothes, hiding in the forest and stocking up on canned food wouldn't help them much.

Once they lose access to medicine, they are toast.

Yeah. There's a reason that life expectancy rates are so much higher now than ever before. Something as simple as a broken leg or a case of the flu can easily turn deadly if you can't go to a doctor. And even the best-stocked basement bunker will usually run out of food within a couple of years, and many of these guys never seem to realize that they'll need some kind of waste-disposal system to get rid of their poo and pee.

Along the same lines, I've never understood the survivalist types who claim that they need to own guns in order to protect themselves from the government in case it ever turns bad. If somehow America does turn into a 1984-ish tyrannical police state, do you really expect your personal sidearms to save you? The enemy has main battle tanks and nuclear submarines and stealth bombers. You've got a few pistols and rifles. Good luck!

[The Booty Disciple]

Yeah...those stereotypical "survivalists" described above are hardly indicative of the majority of people preparing for a myriad of catastrophes. Not everyone is running around awaiting Mad Max scenarios, nor do they have a presumption that they'll be able to stop an onslaught of natural disasters if the world "ends."

The idea is simply to give one's self a better chance at surviving, not assuming that you'll be able to withstand everything. Something on the lines of earth-wide catastrophe isn't in the cards with most of the planning. Social and political upheaval leading to a breakdown in societal function is the far more worrisome situation, and while that's not nearly as good for Hollywood or sensationalized news channels, it's a far more realistic situation at present.

Lastly, not all survivalists are extremists. Many, in fact, MOST are sane and civil individuals who have managed to take on this particular eccentricity and study the applicable information. There are many EXCELLENT methods of preparing for an unforeseen and widespread catastrophe, many of which do not involve home made bunkers (and with the right investments, those are perfectly viable situations as well), wearing camo and stockpiling arms.

However, that sort of stereotypical view certainly helps, since it keeps better methods from being well known. In a catastrophe, there are few things more important and powerful than information.

[Deleted]

(Think there's a language warning. Not sure.)

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

For the international posters here, do you get much of this type of phenomenon? Or is it tied more into our gun culture? I know some European countries have a thriving gun culture (Switzerland, for example), but I was under the impression that they were the exception to the general rule of a lack of firearms.


The vast majority of people who I know who are survival enthusiasts are more of the outdoorsman type who actually COULD use some of those skills if something goes wrong. Granted, I also know a friend of a fried owns an AK-47 with two magazines taped together in case "the s*** hits the fan and the s take to the streets", so I guess they come in all sorts of flavors.


I generally don't care for survival shows either, with the exception of I think Dual Survival - one is a modern hunter type, and one tends to use more traditional native American type techniques and never wears shoes.

EDIT: Well that's the best filter ever.

[Jingus]

Jun 30, 2011 10:19:18 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

Granted, I also know a friend of a fried owns an AK-47 with two magazines taped together

Even before you got to the racism, this alone is enough to prove he's an idiot. You should never tape the magazines side-by-side like that. There's far too much risk of accidentally banging it into something and bending the fragile little metal lips on the top, so that the bullets won't load.

[The Booty Disciple]

Jun 30, 2011 14:53:59 GMT -5 Jingus said:

Jun 30, 2011 10:19:18 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

Granted, I also know a friend of a fried owns an AK-47 with two magazines taped together

Even before you got to the racism, this alone is enough to prove he's an idiot. You should never tape the magazines side-by-side like that. There's far too much risk of accidentally banging it into something and bending the fragile little metal lips on the top, so that the bullets won't load.

Indeed. Complex weaponry is not a trademark of survival equipment. Simplicity is generally a better idea.

[Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan]

Jun 30, 2011 1:33:51 GMT -5 Jingus said:

Jun 29, 2011 22:33:07 GMT -5 Hit Girl said:

All survivalists would die if the apocalypse they think is coming actually occured.

Wearing military clothes, hiding in the forest and stocking up on canned food wouldn't help them much.

Once they lose access to medicine, they are toast.

Yeah. There's a reason that life expectancy rates are so much higher now than ever before. Something as simple as a broken leg or a case of the flu can easily turn deadly if you can't go to a doctor. And even the best-stocked basement bunker will usually run out of food within a couple of years, and many of these guys never seem to realize that they'll need some kind of waste-disposal system to get rid of their poo and pee.

Along the same lines, I've never understood the survivalist types who claim that they need to own guns in order to protect themselves from the government in case it ever turns bad. If somehow America does turn into a 1984-ish tyrannical police state, do you really expect your personal sidearms to save you? The enemy has main battle tanks and nuclear submarines and stealth bombers. You've got a few pistols and rifles. Good luck!

I'm not a survivalist, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what average people can accomplish in the face of a tyrannical government or an invading nation.

[YAKMAN is ICHIBAN]

Jun 30, 2011 16:00:26 GMT -5 Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan said:

Jun 30, 2011 1:33:51 GMT -5 Jingus said:

Yeah. There's a reason that life expectancy rates are so much higher now than ever before. Something as simple as a broken leg or a case of the flu can easily turn deadly if you can't go to a doctor. And even the best-stocked basement bunker will usually run out of food within a couple of years, and many of these guys never seem to realize that they'll need some kind of waste-disposal system to get rid of their poo and pee.

Along the same lines, I've never understood the survivalist types who claim that they need to own guns in order to protect themselves from the government in case it ever turns bad. If somehow America does turn into a 1984-ish tyrannical police state, do you really expect your personal sidearms to save you? The enemy has main battle tanks and nuclear submarines and stealth bombers. You've got a few pistols and rifles. Good luck!

I'm not a survivalist, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what average people can accomplish in the face of a tyrannical government or an invading nation.

If we've learned anything in the last decade, its the fact that asymmetrical warfare is a BITCH for the bigger party.

[CaptainFall]

Jun 30, 2011 10:19:18 GMT -5 YAKMAN is ICHIBAN said:

For the international posters here, do you get much of this type of phenomenon? Or is it tied more into our gun culture? I know some European countries have a thriving gun culture (Switzerland, for example), but I was under the impression that they were the exception to the general rule of a lack of firearms.

From my personal experience and to the best of my knowledge there isn't much of a survivalist movement in the UK. You're probably right in that it's linked to gun culture. I would imagine the kind of people who are attracted to guns and the outdoors probably live in big, posh houses out in the country.

Another thing is where would a survivalist movement in the UK take place? All the woods and forests are national parks and someone will come and stop you from setting up a permanent shelter there. America's a much bigger place for someone to get lost in if they want to.

[Jingus]

Jun 30, 2011 16:00:26 GMT -5 Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan said:

I'm not a survivalist, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what average people can accomplish in the face of a tyrannical government or an invading nation.

Yeah, but it's not that simple. What I mentioned is something that I've seen claimed a lot: that Americans might need their guns to defend themselves against the government someday, and that's why the 2nd Amendment is important. That's the worst possible anti-gun-control argument. We're already banned from owning military-style weapons that would actually be needed in such a conflict. The kinds of things you need to fight military forces, like bombs and machine guns, are illegal anyway.

Also, guerrilla warfare can only work against an opponent that cares about the civilian population and doesn't want to hurt them deliberately. If we'd treated Afghanistan or Iraq with the same kill-em-all attitude that we had towards, say, Japan in WWII; well, those wars would've gone much differently. And in the hypothetical "American government turns heel and becomes an oppressive police state" situation, then we're dealing with an opponent who clearly doesn't give a crap about killing innocents. They're probably willing to blow up an entire building just to kill one armed guy inside, no matter how many noncombatants they wipe out along with him. In circumstances like that, street-legal small arms would be practically worthless. Once again, it's pistols and semi-auto rifles versus tanks and jets.

[Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan]

I never said it'd be simple. But to just go "Eh, it's some pistols and guns versus the US military, easy squash" is unrealistic on many levels.

Jun 30, 2011 17:32:51 GMT -5 Jingus said:

Also, guerrilla warfare can only work against an opponent that cares about the civilian population and doesn't want to hurt them deliberately.

You don't think US soldiers care about the civilian population of the US? I find it extremely hard to fathom that the soldiers themselves would go along with such harsh tactics even if the government was willing to go that far.

[Jingus]

Jun 30, 2011 17:49:46 GMT -5 Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan said:

You don't think US soldiers care about the civilian population of the US? I find it extremely hard to fathom that the soldiers themselves would go along with such harsh tactics even if the government was willing to go that far.

Yes, exactly, which strengthens my case. Such a situation where the government has become so wicked that you'd need to take up arms against it is unlikely, for reasons like that.

[Chinny Reckon]

Jun 30, 2011 17:49:46 GMT -5 Mr. Emoticon Man, TF Fan said:

I never said it'd be simple. But to just go "Eh, it's some pistols and guns versus the US military, easy squash" is unrealistic on many levels.

Jun 30, 2011 17:32:51 GMT -5 Jingus said:

Also, guerrilla warfare can only work against an opponent that cares about the civilian population and doesn't want to hurt them deliberately.

You don't think US soldiers care about the civilian population of the US? I find it extremely hard to fathom that the soldiers themselves would go along with such harsh tactics even if the government was willing to go that far.

Pretty sure there were plenty of Chinese folks with friends / family who were in the military who thought like that until they sent the tanks into Tianemin Square.

[Hit Girl]

If we've learned anything in the last decade, its the fact that asymmetrical warfare is a BITCH for the bigger party.

If the bigger party wants to pacify the smaller party then yes

If the bigger party simply wants to exterminate them, it would be no problem.