4 ms·

'People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.' Orwell

boomboomsubban 8y ago
Though that wasn't his quote, he says something broadly similar about an extreme form of pacifism where all fighting is intolerable. It doesn't really apply here as it's hard to argue that our safety is really threatened if the US wasn't involved in various wars.
- growlist 8y ago
  If this satisfies you better then: "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf." I suppose the problem with taking a position that says 'I'm not going to work for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy' is that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no?
  - maze-le 8y ago
    I think thats a bit far fetched... Pacifism because of the reasons you just described(I'm not going to work for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy) is a perfectly valid stance. The problem could only arise if everybody was on the same side and taking the same action. That is highly unlikely in a pluralistic society. The software development community is not a monolithic homogeneus block.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    When you quote someone, it's best to do it accurately. >that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no? No, or unlikely. Any foreseeable threat is mutually assured destruction, and someone would need to discover a way to disable all nukes they don't control simultaneously for the US to be behind their for. Not only does that seem implausible, actively pursuing the technology would likely cause war.
    - growlist 8y ago
      Who's to say your opponent will always be sane, or have something to lose? It's remarkably blasé to just say meh, MAD. Also there are many threats that could significantly degrade the US without destroying it, for example anti-satellite, cyber, to name a couple of obvious examples.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        Nothing you've mentioned changes the fact that every truly existential threat ends up being mutually assured destruction. It's true even with desperate, insane foes that try a non nuclear attack first.
dionidium 8y ago
I think the sentiment here is roughly consistent with Orwell's views, but he probably never said these exact words: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/

boomboomsubban 8y ago

Though that wasn't his quote, he says something broadly similar about an extreme form of pacifism where all fighting is intolerable. It doesn't really apply here as it's hard to argue that our safety is really threatened if the US wasn't involved in various wars.

growlist 8y ago
If this satisfies you better then: "Those who 'abjure' violence can do so only because others are committing violence on their behalf." I suppose the problem with taking a position that says 'I'm not going to work for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy' is that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no?
- maze-le 8y ago
  I think thats a bit far fetched... Pacifism because of the reasons you just described(I'm not going to work for the military because I disagree with current US foreign policy) is a perfectly valid stance. The problem could only arise if everybody was on the same side and taking the same action. That is highly unlikely in a pluralistic society. The software development community is not a monolithic homogeneus block.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  When you quote someone, it's best to do it accurately. >that if/when an existential threat does arise the US might find itself far behind its foe, no? No, or unlikely. Any foreseeable threat is mutually assured destruction, and someone would need to discover a way to disable all nukes they don't control simultaneously for the US to be behind their for. Not only does that seem implausible, actively pursuing the technology would likely cause war.
  - growlist 8y ago
    Who's to say your opponent will always be sane, or have something to lose? It's remarkably blasé to just say meh, MAD. Also there are many threats that could significantly degrade the US without destroying it, for example anti-satellite, cyber, to name a couple of obvious examples.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      Nothing you've mentioned changes the fact that every truly existential threat ends up being mutually assured destruction. It's true even with desperate, insane foes that try a non nuclear attack first.

dionidium 8y ago

I think the sentiment here is roughly consistent with Orwell's views, but he probably never said these exact words: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/ https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/