Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hit men aren't what you think

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 311 posts

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#231

Post by vouaobrasil »

chomskyole wrote: post #230
vouaobrasil wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? Of course it is. This topic has already been covered ad nauseum by philosophers and social critics, e.g. Slavoj Zizek, Mark Boyle, etc.

Sure. I'm fairly certain you can find discussions going back millennia on this. Just still feel it hasn't landed. Somehow we still disguise certain types of violence...

No, it hasn't landed because that is the intentional feature of the system. We disguise violence and call it peace, but in reality the "peace" is really control. Of course, all societies have rules and customs for peace that sometimes require the sacrifice of the individual, but one must look at the ultimate aims.

The ultimate aim for a primitive society really is relative order and safety. The ultimate aim of modern technological society is the advancement of technology and the creation of a large workforce to keep the unsustainable machine going. That is what mutates custom into violence and law into subjugation.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#232

Post by chomskyole »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #226
chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

> We don't like violence. Why not? Violence is a tool like any other, and our entire western society is predicated on it. We are cogs in a corporate-run state and if we don't like it, there is the police force. If we get evicted, the police is there to tell us to stop sleeping on the bench. If we don't listen, they have the guns. The underlying systemic violence of our society is rampant. Personally, while I neither…

I agree with your overall assessment.

The narrative is that we decide on rational reasons (which doesn't excludes violence as such) mixed with a moral superiority (which excludes violence).

I think saying that we don't like violence is just sharing the moral common sentiment and hoping that it leads to some understanding/highlighting of the contradictions. The reality is that people will fight for life when you push them. What is "violent" is generally defined by those who are more powerful I'd say.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#233

Post by vouaobrasil »

chomskyole wrote: post #232
vouaobrasil wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We don't like violence. Why not? Violence is a tool like any other, and our entire western society is predicated on it. We are cogs in a corporate-run state and if we don't like it, there is the police force. If we get evicted, the police is there to tell us to stop sleeping on the bench. If we don't listen, they have the guns. The underlying systemic violence of our society is rampant. Personally, while I neither…

I agree with your overall assessment. The narrative is that we decide on rational reasons (which doesn't excludes violence as such) mixed with a moral superiority (which excludes violence). I think saying that we don't like violence is just sharing the moral common sentiment and hoping that it leads to some understanding/highlighting of the contradictions. The reality is that people will fight for life when you push…

That is true, I'd agree. It's exactly the reason that the most successful news organizations are precisely the ones that push the prevailing narrative and focus on the immediate, physical violence and equate it to terror, whereas providing large missiles to fund wars is called "aid".

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#234

Post by chomskyole »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #231
chomskyole wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. I'm fairly certain you can find discussions going back millennia on this. Just still feel it hasn't landed. Somehow we still disguise certain types of violence...

No, it hasn't landed because that is the intentional feature of the system. We disguise violence and call it peace, but in reality the "peace" is really control. Of course, all societies have rules and customs for peace that sometimes require the sacrifice of the individual, but one must look at the ultimate aims. The ultimate aim for a primitive society really is relative order and safety. The ultimate aim of modern…

I think the ultimate aim of modern society is to make 20% +x growth. And the background to that is that this one guy can say that they scored more points than his rich friend.

It's an absurd point system. And yes, it is underpinned by an absurd amount of hidden violence. I'm certain that it will change, since it is absolutely unsustainable. The amount of propaganda though is insane and we need to push back against it.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#235

Post by vouaobrasil »

chomskyole wrote: post #234
vouaobrasil wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it hasn't landed because that is the intentional feature of the system. We disguise violence and call it peace, but in reality the "peace" is really control. Of course, all societies have rules and customs for peace that sometimes require the sacrifice of the individual, but one must look at the ultimate aims. The ultimate aim for a primitive society really is relative order and safety. The ultimate aim of modern…

I think the ultimate aim of modern society is to make 20% +x growth. And the background to that is that this one guy can say that they scored more points than his rich friend. It's an absurd point system. And yes, it is underpinned by an absurd amount of hidden violence. I'm certain that it will change, since it is absolutely unsustainable. The amount of propaganda though is insane and we need to push back against it…

You are right...in a sense. And I do agree with you that this sort of thing might change, but only because the capitalistic system may not remain the most efficient system for advancing technology. However, we must also be careful because a change away from the current system may just mean a change to a new system that is even more equitable for technological growth, which implies that human beings will be even more like cogs in a machine.

After all, the reason we have capitalism is because it is the most efficient system to exchange goods for technological creation. But now that we are developing AI, a new centralized control may eventually emerge as more efficient. However, we will become even more expendable and while the transition may be beneficial in the short term for some, I doubt it will be very pleasant for humanity since technological development itself is inherently unsustainable (requires mining, energy usage, habitat destruction, etc).

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#236

Post by glimshe »

chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

Letting somoene die to make more money is violence. But letting a hospital go bankrupt, which will eventually lead to others dying, would be no better.

We still struggle with the life and death decisions related to allocating capital do healthcare. Even single payer systems have this problem.

We can start by looking at what profit margins and administrative expenses are reasonable for health businesses. The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.

Then we can find out how to best allocate the remaining money to maximize health outcomes while ensuring that the businesses are sustainable.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#237

Post by chomskyole »

glimshe wrote: post #236
chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

Letting somoene die to make more money is violence. But letting a hospital go bankrupt, which will eventually lead to others dying, would be no better. We still struggle with the life and death decisions related to allocating capital do healthcare. Even single payer systems have this problem. We can start by looking at what profit margins and administrative expenses are reasonable for health businesses. The free mark…

> The free market generally solves these questiins, but it's notoriously deficient when it comes to healthcare.

Can you please elaborate on this part? I don't see how this could be solved by market forces.

EDIT: Making healthcare for profit, would always put someone's life against someone else's new yacht. Is this how we want to assess these situations?

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#238

Post by magicalhippo »

ablation wrote: post #211
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hilarious how bad the media is about guns, but understandable when gun people for the most part are also bad about guns. It looks to me like a subcompact with no booster in the can. He is already dropping the gun to rack after the first shot, he knew it would need it, but it isn’t the welrod’s twist and pull. Good for B&T sales though.

You seem to know what you’re talking about. I have no clue or idea whatsoever about firearms. Why is he racking it each time? I’ve never seen that before in my extremely limited knowledge of guns.

Here's my understanding. Semi-automatic pistols predominantly rely on recoil to cycle the action, in one way or another.

If you are firing subsonic ammunition, to avoid the loud supersonic crack, then you typically get less recoil[1] compared to a firing supersonic ammunition due to the reduced speed of the bullet.

In some firearms you can replace parts such a recoil springs to get the weapon to cycle reliably with subsonic ammunition, but if that is not done you will need to manually operate the action[2].

A few firearms even supports disabling the semi-automatic action, as the sound of the action cycling can actually be quite loud in comparison to a suppressed subsonic shot.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Classical

[2]: This can be more error-prone, if the action partially cycles.

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#239

Post by [deleted] »

glimshe wrote: post #236
chomskyole wrote: post #215

I really think we need to have a discussion around what we consider acts of violence. It is clear that violence was used in this instance. We don't like violence. Killing someone is an act of violence. That is easy. But how about ruining someone financially? Is this an act of violence? Could it be an act of violence under certain conditions? How about letting someone die in order to make more money? Let's say the dec…

Letting somoene die to make more money is violence. But letting a hospital go bankrupt, which will eventually lead to others dying, would be no better. We still struggle with the life and death decisions related to allocating capital do healthcare. Even single payer systems have this problem. We can start by looking at what profit margins and administrative expenses are reasonable for health businesses. The free mark…

[deleted]

Re: Hit men aren't what you think

#240

Post by acdha »

sky_rw wrote: post #23
nirav72 wrote: post #7

The shooter used a rare weapon with an integrated suppressor (or "Silencer" as the article indicates). A British made station six 9. I wonder if that will be the focus of investigators, since its an highly unusual weapon.

There is an absolute zero chance that he used a B&T Station 6. The media, as usual, is 100% wrong.

Your rage is misattributed: the media stories were based on what the police were saying. The reason they were at that gun shop in Connecticut is because _they_ thought it might be an unusual type of gun which would be extremely useful for narrowing down a suspect pool measured in millions.

That doesn’t mean it was a serious theory - if you have the resources of the NYPD, you might have a couple officers working on any possible angle for a case this high-profile – and it certainly wouldn’t be the first time “sources” was someone spouting off to impress a reporter.

Post reply on HN