Here are the links to parts one and two.
To say that the discussions around military SF can become somewhat fraught as a result of the conflict generated amongst the readers is probably an understatement.
Hence this series of blog posts to raise these issues, and address them. Especially the opinion that people who read military SF are in some way bad, and that those authors who write the stories have a conservative political agenda.
Taking the latter point first.
While some authors do write from a conservative perspective, not all writers do. Therefore to make such an argument is to fall into the trap that has a number of different logical fallacies.
As for readers of military SF being somehow bad, from a notion that they have been brainwashed by right wing propaganda, and will therefore end up as sociopaths, I can only sigh.
I repeat again that this argument is based on logical fallacies that do not stand up to scrutiny; the psychological research on the subject of the influence of media on the behaviours of people can at best show correlation, and correlation is not causation.
The difference between the two being that it's easy to correlate connections between events, but that doesn’t mean that one caused the other.
This is as a result of how we think by using heuristic analysis to come to conclusions.
The research into thinking processes has revealed that we have a large number of cognitive biases, and that the beliefs and opinions we hold are more likely to be wrong than right.
Let me repeat that.
Our beliefs and opinions that we hold are more likely to be wrong than right.
People tend to believe that they come to hold their opinions from looking at the evidence, but the research shows that people form opinions, and then look for evidence that supports their choice.
Furthermore, people tend to discount evidence that challenges their beliefs.
So, if anything I've said has caused a strong emotional response, that's a clue that an underlying assumption has been triggered. The thing about emotions is that they should serve you, not you serve them.
War is the ultimate expression of conflict. And just because some authors write about conflict in ways trigger a strong negative response, doesn't mean that writing about war is wrong.
What the research into reading and playing games about warfare shows is that the assumptions being made about what that does to people is flawed.
Conflict is at the heart of the human condition and avoidance does not serve us well.