It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…
Where things stand with the Department of War
741–750 of 862 posts
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#742Earlier quoted context omitted.
The exercised their rights not to vote. The “losing” side always thinks that higher turnout would have led to them “winning” which of course is a cry of a sore loser. The fact remains, 2024 election had the highest voter turnout ever and people have spoken (till the next one when we might get a chance to elect some adults to fix this shit)
When you don't vote, you're really just voting for "whoever happens to win". So I count the non-voters among (R) supporters, or at least as "OK with Trump". Otherwise, they would have voted.
Abstentions can seem the laziest vote sometimes, but that doesn't diminish their power nor their responsibility. It is a freedom to be allowed to cast an abstention. Real democracy needs to allow for abstentions, especially explicit abstentions.
(In recent primaries there have been races where I have explicitly cast an abstention. No one will have read my "I don't care who wins this primary, I care who wins the general election" statements, but they are statements to be made. Right now some of the "strategy" in the US two-party system is one-party poisoning the primary vote of the other party by inflaming it with in-fighting in ways that leak into the general election. You have a harder time to win general elections when your candidate is already on fire coming out of the primary. "It doesn't matter who wins, let's stop in-fighting," is a message I can try to write on the ballot, even if not enough people hear it, it feels like the more powerful and responsible vote.)
The goal shouldn't be to get to 100% of people voting in every election, the goal should be to educate people that not voting is tacitly accepting the results of other people's votes. The goal should be teaching people that abstentions are a freedom, a right, a privilege, and should be treated as powerful and treated with responsibility.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#743Is the term "warfighter" new? I had never hears it until recently. Sounds like "soldier" would be the usual terminology.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#744It is incredible how far the overton window has moved on this issue. When I graduated in 2007, it was common for tech companies to refuse to let their systems be used for war, and it was an ordinary thing when some of my graduating classmates refused to work at companies that did let their systems be used for war. Those refusals were on moral grounds. Now Anthropic wants to have two narrow exceptions, on pragmatic an…
Ever since I was young I was fairly divided on the subject. I've dealt with some highschool students affected by the downed aircraft MH17 and that lead to lots of grief among students. It usually lead to strong anti-war sentiments but some also felt a need to "do" something with it. If no one works on defence systems then all the things we have could become jeopardized, perhaps not this week but in 5 years. Therefore…
I am not saying this line of thinking is completely absurd. But I think every individual considering this should reflect a lot. (1) Is your country using its ""defense"" systems wisely? (2) Won't the technology be replicated by adversaries anyways? (3) etc..
Overall, the number of people and resources spent on Weapons R&D is probably significantly more than people working on things like diplomacy, ethics, or activism for international human rights (assuming human rights violations are the only legitimate reason for war).
It's significantly safer for individual nations and humanity as a whole if we're not all armed to the teeth constantly on the brink of large conflict, and instead are more or less ethically aligned, all respect basic human rights, and respect other nations.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#745Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If no one works on defense systems then all the things we have could become jeopardized The reality is that the US government has not historically been engaged in defense. They have been engaged in offense. If you live in the united states and work on "defense," you are working on offense. If even if you are designing something like missile interceptors, they have historically been used primarily to protect US asse…
Perhaps you'd like to know how well interceptor missiles fare today. They are rapidly being made obsolete. Offense is still the best defense.
That's a psychotic thing to say about starting new wars and aiding genocides. The only thing that's being defended are the profits of western oligarchs.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#746Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gen-X was making the popular new art at the time. It was a strong reflection of the feelings of our generation. I posted this in a thread about the 90's film 'Hackers'..... In the 1990's and for us Gen-X'ers, the worst thing you could do was to sell out; to take the mans money instead of keeping your integrity. Calling people and bands 'sell outs' (sometimes without justification!) was to insult them. With the rise…
Ethics are easy when you can afford food. Post 2000s there has been a pretty fundamental change in the US economy. Things like rent and food were far cheaper. There was also a lot of potential income to be made by individuals by connecting buyers and sellers. Typically if you wanted to sell something like a car, you either went to a dealer that screwed you, or you put and ad in the local paper. If you watched around…
American centrism strikes again.
I'm not American.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#747Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"Boomers will be happy as long as not a single dollar is spent on housing" Not sure what boomers you are talking about. I for one am disgusted at what is happening with the things in general and with the housing in particular. I do not want my house to appreciate Ad infinitum. I do not want to have ever growing class of have-not's so that few jerks can own the governments and half of the world.
Just so we're on the same page, the GP was reeferring to "baby boomers", as in people born 1945-1965. Maybe you know that and that's when you were born. I don't know. But "boomer" has taken on a slang meaning the latest few years for someone who's simply not tech-savvy or is otherwise out-of-touch. Generational politics has definite limits and isn't absolute but it's also true that the Baby Boomer generation as a who…
They do need social security and Medicare. Studies show even with social security and Medicare half or more might struggle in retirement due to insufficient savings.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#748Is the term "warfighter" new? I had never hears it until recently. Sounds like "soldier" would be the usual terminology.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#749Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reply chain is talking about newspeak but the parent of the comment I was replying to was > DoW is newspeak. Thats not it's name. I understood that comment I was replying to was responding to was replying to the latter part of the comment. Discussions and threads can evolve. They are not static.
I'm confused... now you were talking about newspeak? How odd.
Re: Where things stand with the Department of War
#750Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your opinion seems to suggest that unless someone has the same moral view as you they must not have any morals at all? What if their morals are “I am not responsible for how my products are used?” You may not agree, but it’s a valid ethical stance to hold.
No, that isn’t what my comment suggests at all, on any level. I don’t think you can have intelligent ethical opinions if you disparage and ignore the field that studies ethics (philosophy.) Seems pretty straightforward to me. I think there are definitely many positions with which I disagree, but are nonetheless well-thought through and coherent. But it seems pretty clear that the people making these decisions haven’t…