111–120 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This only works when you accept the legitimacy of war as a premise.
Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc. War is real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's easy to mock when it's caricaturized. And, so is the ”War is peace" position when taken to the extremes by perma-hawks, who've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved with an explosion. As often, the solution lies in the middle. We do need strength as deterrent, but over-focus on this leads to an infinitely escalating need for more strength. But let's be clear: war is illegitimate. That we have not found a…
War in self-defense is perfectly legitimate. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to fight back. Note well: I am not saying that all claims of "we're fighting in self-defense" are legitimate.
And, of course, the self-defense bit wouldn't be necessary if not for war.
Most of the push-back I've gotten on my comment that war is illegitimate is essentially some form of, "yes, but war happens". This is circular.
My point was not to deny the current reality of war or the need to reckon with it. It's that if "war is peace" is accepted as the unchallengeable law, then we will naturally have more war.
It's not the only way. It's just the current way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This only works when you accept the legitimacy of war as a premise.
It doesn't work great to consider war illegitimate when rival nations do not.
I'm not suggesting that we just declare it illegitimate and lay down our arms. I'm suggesting that the mantra, "if you want peace then prepare for war" rests on the premise that war is a legitimate way to resolve conflict. And, once you've made that decision, it becomes effectively the only way, and guarantees more war.
OTOH, if you consider that it is not, then it leaves space for prioritizing other approaches.
This does not deny the current reality of war. Think of it as aspirational.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
interesting example because we defeated Germany without nukes...
> we defeated Germany without nukes In part by firebombing them indiscriminately. The way we won WWII would later be technically outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we defeated Germany without nukes In part by firebombing them indiscriminately. The way we won WWII would later be technically outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.
As if dropping the bombs on Japanese civilian population would be allowed by Geneva convention.
Ah, British press. It's a bit sleazy the way the quote was placed in a headline above a photo of the CEO of Palantir, who is certainly a douchebag but did not compare himself to Oppenheimer. That was some other douchebag. There was some useful stuff in the article itself.
That's really looking for problems. The Palantir CEO said things much more extreme: As the moderator asked general questions about the panelists’ views on the future of war, Schmidt and Cohen answered cautiously. But Karp, who’s known as a provocateur, aggressively condoned violence, often peering into the audience with hungry eyes, palpably desperate for claps, boos or shock. He began by saying that the US has to “s…
And what keeps on happening to Palestinians, had that happened to them, what will it be? But I get it, pretty standard for a war monger and profiteer to invoke false narratives on the mission to sell more weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if dropping the bombs on Japanese civilian population would be allowed by Geneva convention.
Did you misread outlawed as allowed ?
> “The peace activists are war activists,” Karp insisted. “We are the peace activists.” They are literally saying, "War is Peace".
No, they are saying that the best option for peace is to make yourself so formidable that nobody wants to go to war with you. The point is NOT to go to war. It's just that the argument isn't disarming, it's the opposite, however counter-intuitive that might seem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's really looking for problems. The Palantir CEO said things much more extreme: As the moderator asked general questions about the panelists’ views on the future of war, Schmidt and Cohen answered cautiously. But Karp, who’s known as a provocateur, aggressively condoned violence, often peering into the audience with hungry eyes, palpably desperate for claps, boos or shock. He began by saying that the US has to “s…
> He said they’d have a hard time on the job market and described their views as a “pagan religion infecting our universities” and “an infection inside of our society”. Really sounds like something right out of the mouth of a certain dead fascist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they are saying that the best option for peace is to make yourself so formidable that nobody wants to go to war with you. The point is NOT to go to war. It's just that the argument isn't disarming, it's the opposite, however counter-intuitive that might seem.
Reciprocally, it's not hard to envision how an overly-zealous military-industrial complex could promote the wrong ideas at-large. The Lavander AI's recent coverage is a good example of why you shouldn't stoke the flames of information-fetishizing warmongers.