Where things stand with the Department of War • Hacker News Board

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#541

Post by Phemist » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:13 AM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #528

hax0ron3 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character w…

I was absolutely disgusted by stuff like 24 and zero dark thirty when it came out. "If you cut the throat of the terrorist's son he'll break down and tell you where the bomb is" - they expected the audience to treat that as plausible narrative, and a lot of them clearly did. A lot of the war propaganda from back then is also depressingly similar to what gets pumped out now: you can't argue with success, you don't wan…

Similarly in the pilot episode of Designated Survivor. "Let's nuke Teheran" was seen as a valid, and brilliant, tactical move in order to get negotiations with Iran to go Kiefer Sutherland's way.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#542

Post by ap99 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:15 AM UTC

DesaiAshu wrote: post #53

simonw wrote: post #12

Raised an eyebrow a little at this sentence: "Anthropic has much more in common with the Department of War than we have differences."

The Department of Defense was named as such after the detonations of the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki We - as a humanity - collectively recognized the weight of our creation, and decided to walk back Discussing “AI alignment” in the same breadth as aligning with a “Department of War” (in any country) is simply not an intellectually sound position None of the countries we’ve attacked this year pose an existen…

Nazi Germany and Hitler didn't pose an existential threat to Europe until they did pose a threat.

And even then you had politicians like Chamberlain in the UK who wanted to make peace because the UK wasn't directly threatened (this is after much of Europe was under siege).

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#543

Post by throwaway132448 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:17 AM UTC

sumedh wrote: post #535

throwaway132448 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just be mindful that you filled in the gaps between the lines with what you wanted to read, not necessarily what's true.

Has Dario been to the whitehouse?

You seem to be implying that would mean something. Sounds naive/desperate.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#544

Post by donkeybeer » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:18 AM UTC

jadar wrote: post #299

fadesibert wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are waiting until undergraduate level to take ethics, it's far too late to matter anyways. Doubly so for "business ethics" classes which became à la mode in the post-Enron era. They attempt to teach fundamental ethics, when at most it should be a very thin layer on top of a well founded internal moral framework and well-accepted ethical standards inculcated from day 1 of kindergarten. Morals are taught 0-9 [0]…

[flagged]

First prove yhwh. Then prove your favorite book is a direct transmission from yhwh. Disprove the claims of other peoples favorite books, there is a lot of competition there.

Demonstrate the telephone line by which this so called yhwh communicates his words and prove how and why it no longer does.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#545

Post by intended » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:19 AM UTC

jadar wrote: post #380

godelski wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea of teaching some sort of “secular” ethics has never made sense to me … An intro ethics class won't shy away from religion, it comes up a lot. You'll most likely even discuss differences in different sects of Christianity. You should also have the discussion of if morals are universal (and if so, which ones) or are all made up. Secular just means you discuss more than one viewpoint. The idea of teaching mor…

[flagged]

sorry, perhaps I misunderstand, but dont you /wouldn’t you take the best from others as well? Is that outside of consideration for some reason?

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#546

Post by donkeybeer » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:21 AM UTC

jadar wrote: post #369

yoyohello13 wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of our current leaders as using God to justify their terrible actions. So religion doesn’t seem to be very good at teaching morals either.

Either god is me (secularism) or god is something outside me (Christianity). One is going to be better than the other. It matters which one. Everyone has an answer, and it affects your morals. Whether or not you are consistent brings you back to that same question: “who says?”

Option C: God doesn't exist as far as is currently known

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#547

Post by laserlight » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:26 AM UTC

qsera wrote: post #489

laserlight wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know of any instance where modern warmongers fight wars based on subjective grounds. They all have “objectively true” reasons.

Imagine you are stranded in your home with all your loved ones, and you get a call from your "warmonger" president and the matter is urgent; he says "We have received intel regarding a enemy plan to bomb your house in 30 mins. This report is only x% reliable, but we have the exact location of the enemy and we have birds in air that can hit them in 5 mins. This might escalate into a larger conflict, Do you want us to…

I don't get the point. What does objectivity have to do with the value of x?

Your example seems to validate my point of view: warmongers disguise their subjectivity by basing their actions on “objective” models.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#548

Post by anentropic » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:27 AM UTC

hamdingers wrote: post #69

CurtHagenlocher wrote: post #34

Nothing brings home the Orwellian nature of USA 2026 more for me than the word "warfighter".

I continue to be surprised how many people haven't heard term until now, it's been in common use in the US for 20+ years. To me the most Orwellian thing is everyone using the newspeak name for the DoD.

Arguably the original name was the newspeak and the new name is more honest

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#549

Post by wartywhoa23 » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:29 AM UTC

dhosek wrote: post #458

pjmlp wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Gen-Xer I fully agree, I don't get the way things are with obedience, the rediculous situation that American families can lose their kids by having them playing alone in the garden, how everyone sells out for money (Punk would not happen today), the always smile and say no negatives at work being rediculous false (this one really drives me crazy),....

And yet Gen X is the demographic that fell hardest for Trump.

Gen X is the demographic that doesn't believe that elections are anything else but a clown show.

Re: Where things stand with the Department of War

#550

Post by Rzor » Fri, Mar 06, 2026, 11:30 AM UTC

vintermann wrote: post #528

hax0ron3 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The late 90s were full of media that questioned reality and authority - like X-Files, The Matrix, Dark City, all sorts of websites about conspiracy theories and UFOs, etc. The zeitgeist was full of speculation about hidden truths. The cultural mood was defiant and sardonic. There was rap, rap-rock, Beavis and Butthead, Fight Club, Office Space... One of the most popular pro wrestlers in the world played a character w…

I was absolutely disgusted by stuff like 24 and zero dark thirty when it came out. "If you cut the throat of the terrorist's son he'll break down and tell you where the bomb is" - they expected the audience to treat that as plausible narrative, and a lot of them clearly did. A lot of the war propaganda from back then is also depressingly similar to what gets pumped out now: you can't argue with success, you don't wan…

To give 24 some credit, it showed some Americans as complicit in the terrorism or corruption in the story. ZDT also touched on how torture wasn't as effective as assumed. I agree that the broader themes often feel biased/propagandized, framing the anti-hero, who's basically acting as a proxy for the government, as justified at almost any cost.