131–140 of 150 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yikes, sucks to get permanently blinded. I wonder whether citizens will just flee the cities and let them collapse into crime. It would be a repeat of pretty recent history.
The PDX protests have been relatively peaceful. Despite that, federal agents were dispatched to quell them. So "Moms" came out in support to protect the protestors. Followed by "Dads." And now US Military Veterans.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think to call it almost 100% peaceful is not meeting us in good faith. That’s simply nowhere approaching the truth.
What's your estimate then? I mean... I'm here in Portland. I can drive right by downtown (drove straight through Ground Zero at main and 3rd just this morning). I see the hippies. I don't see violence. Show me the violence. Tell me why I need to support tear gassing these kids every night for two months. No one will. But I see people vote up these posts about "yay lasers!" instead. I'm out of patience here. I can see…
How about shooting commercial-grade incendiaries at an occupied structure and causing injuries? https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/05/us/portland-riots-july-4/inde...
"The fireworks injured several officers when they exploded on or near them, the statement said."
Or the 6 officers injured Friday night: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/07/26/portla...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A grenade blinds temporarily, a laser blinds permanently. FTA: > international law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea... prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to cause permanent blindness.
I didn't know! Thanks! But is permanent blindness actually a moral hazard if you're using that blindness to create an immediate opportunity to shoot the subject? I'm not a soldier so I might be way off but I'm assuming being totally blind for even a few seconds is a massive handicap in an engagement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The PDX protests have been relatively peaceful. Despite that, federal agents were dispatched to quell them. So "Moms" came out in support to protect the protestors. Followed by "Dads." And now US Military Veterans.
If the violence is non-zero, citizens may still vote with their feet.
FWIW: these have been reported to be in active use against the Portland protesters. It's so frustrating that HN chooses the gadget puff piece to push to the top of the front page instead of the actual deployed weapons. Most especially because the much-lower-power pocket laser pointers have been cited by the white house directly as having "permanently blinded" federal agents. (Consumer red/green lasers are extraordina…
Used against Portland protestors? From the videos I've seen, it's the "protestors" using them against the police. https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1286914458032332800
It's a Sarah Jeong tweet, even, making it topical to HN and will no doubt get me double the downvotes!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He works for the military. He’s more open about it recently. I used to watched his videos but now its just advertisement for the military. He seems very happy designing efficient killing machines. He mentioned works on rocket propelled munitions research.
I thought he went back to grad school?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A grenade blinds temporarily, a laser blinds permanently. FTA: > international law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Blinding_Laser_Wea... prohibits the employment of any such system that is deliberately designed to cause permanent blindness.
I didn't know! Thanks! But is permanent blindness actually a moral hazard if you're using that blindness to create an immediate opportunity to shoot the subject? I'm not a soldier so I might be way off but I'm assuming being totally blind for even a few seconds is a massive handicap in an engagement.
Depending on the philosopher or politician, soldier or commander you ask, it's purpose is fairly varied. Resource burn, attrition, making the other poor bastard die for his country... However, in general, the international community has tended to favor diplomacy favoring modalities of war. By diplomacy friendly, of course, it's still lethal, and loved ones are not at all guaranteed to come back home, but it should result in "a warrior's death". It's frankly stupid, but psychologically, to the political classes, and to the civilian classes there is just some grim acceptance of the necessity of conventional warfare and conflict. Conflicts constrained by laws of war seems to be considered somehow "cleaner", and overall more preferable to the industrial scale manufacture of blind, blistered, or diseased cripples out of the young men and women of both sides.
There are, of course, dissenters to this type of thinking, one of which was Lincoln's War Secretary Edwin Stanton if I recall, Douglas MacArthur and Sherman may also have been counted amongst the numbers of those that advocate the practice of no holds barred, total war, where anything and everything goes, since the only moral outcome of an armed conflict is to end it as quickly, brutally, and decisively as possible. To that end, any restraint in application of force is seen as a sin or needless cruelty in prolonging the conflict.
It was and remains a rather controversial view, especially given the destructive potential most first world nations are now sitting on has led to somewhat of a retirement of the philosophy; at least as long as MAD holds out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok so destin works as a scientist for the us gov. He did a video a while ago where he interviewed a general about the cyber domain of warfare. In this interview they discussed that the interview itself was part of that cyber domain, and the access they provide to destin is a part of the US presence in the cyber domain. [0] The pentagon clearly sees smarter everyday as a channel to spread information to a certain audi…
marketing is not propaganda.
https://archive.org/details/bernays-edward-l.-propaganda-192...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
marketing is not propaganda.
State marketing is the literal definition of propaganda...
(The pejorative state sense came out of German First World War influence campaigns.)
https://www.etymonline.com/word/propaganda
The state/marketing usage is predominant today though:
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From friends on the ground in Portland I will say it's largely still aggravated by police presence and the DHS/federal agents. If authorities did not step in with tear gas and kidnapping protests would have continue to be mostly nonviolent. Turns out that when you meet protests against police brutality with police brutality and disappearing citizens, nothing improves. There are small groups and agitators causing issu…
What other protests have anywhere near this much violence? Gay rights movements have had large protests/marches for decades. Same with anti-abortion activists (and pro-choice activists). Hell, even literal neo-nazis have protests that don't get this violent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots
The 1970s generally were rather more violent than is commonly remembered:
https://time.com/4501670/bombings-of-america-burrough/
Going further back, there's the history of police (and military) response to labour organisation, the reason many larger US cities have military armouries:
The proliferation of urban armories—dedicated buildings for National Guard unit training and community functions—dates to the 19th century, according to Army National Guard Lt. Col. Don McFadden, chief of the Strategic Plans and Education Branch. “The Civil War draft riots and labor riots of the 19th century spurred construction,” he says
https://savingplaces.org/stories/a-salute-to-us-armories
As Jeremy Brecher wrote in his labor history Strike! state governments built armories as fortresses in American cities “not against invasion from abroad but against popular revolt at home.”
https://shoeleatherhistoryproject.com/2020/03/12/storm-cente...