4 ms·

Computer People for Peace

58 points by ehudla 8y ago

UntypedOpinions 8y ago
I think every reasonable person should be "for Peace". But not for peace at any cost.
- zandl 8y ago
  It’s just hypocritical anyway, just telling people to be peaceful doesn’t address the underlying causes at all and the same people aren’t “peaceful” in their personal live either. They’re confused and in fact reject any clear understandings of what actually causes peace to begin with.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    This group would have been founded specifically against the Vietnam War, which America entered on the flimsiest of pretexts[1] with no clear national interest beyond "fuck Communists", and which killed tens of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians. I don't see how it could possibly be clearer. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
    - zandl 8y ago
      Did they solve peace? AFAIK there have been wars since, and having grown up with these people I know first hand they’re anything but peaceful.
      - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
        > Did they solve peace? Nobody claimed they did. You seem to be arguing with anecdotal figures from your childhood. I'm sorry the people you grew up with were hypocrites, but if you want to claim that reflects on either Computer People for Peace or the peace movement in general, you'll need to give us more details.
        zandl 8y ago
        The problem is that the core issue is the mind and these “peace” type arguments date back thousands of years, even in 340s AD in China’s Annals of Lu Buwei you find these same people not addressing their own minds and preaching “peace” or passivsem. The reality is if you bring up reasonable things they can do, such as not promoting egotism or having a materialistic views of everything which directly lead to a lack of what they feel is “peace”, it just goes over their head and they get angry. Again this is has been going on with these people for thousands of years now. So rather than some fake form of peace that doesn’t work, how about addressing the underlying causes of suffering for everyone instead and stop rejecting them?
  - jefurii 8y ago
    Do you have a clear understanding of the "causes of peace" that you'd like to share with us? Regardless, did you read any of the newsletters to give you a basis for your claims? > It’s just hypocritical anyway... Yeah, we're all hypocrites--get over it. It's true that almost nobody can be completely peaceful in all areas of their lives, but it shouldn't stop people from trying. You gotta start where you are.
davidy123 8y ago
Super interesting to see the 1973 issue featured a database of concentrations of power. From what I can tell, successive projects like Sunlight Foundation came on with such vigour, but these projects have such little mainstream impact, instead all these tools get turned against individuals.
- simplecomplex 8y ago
  Sunlight foundation got the laws passed so GPO could provide legislative data to the public. AFAIK they are the reason GPO/govinfo.gov bill data exists. Congress having an API is their doing. https://sunlightfoundation.com/press/success/ https://sunlightfoundation.com/press/success/ Many people use this data, from consumer non-profits to lobbyists. OpenStates is a spin-off of a Sunlight Foundation project as well.
  - pc86 8y ago
    OpenStates is a godsend if you're doing any kind of multi-state action with state legislatures, as each legislature's website is different (obviously), most are horribly broken (obviously), and many are outdated (only slightly less obviously).
AllegedAlec 8y ago
> the group originated as “Computer Professionals for Peace”; in October 1970 “Professionals” was replaced with “People” because members “felt that the ‘Professional’ label limited the potential scope of the group and smacked of elitism.” What?
- ehudla 8y ago
  I think the following interview will give you useful context for understanding these publications. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938917
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Seems clear enough. They wanted to include students, hobbyists, and general nerds, not just people who made a living with computers. (A small group, at the time.)
- d883kd8 8y ago
  I agree with what you quoted completely. What part don't you understand?
  - ben509 8y ago
    Why is elitism implied to be a bad thing in this context? Professional standards and ethics are something we should strive for, right? For those to work, you have to discern between people who uphold those standards and people who don't. There are places where egalitarianism is most appropriate, e.g. in tallying political interests, and where elitism is most appropriate, e.g. no one wants an amateur surgeon. Even if they want to open the group to hobbyists, as a professional I have more in common with a hobbyist who actively maintains a software project than one who doesn't actively contribute; specifically, if you're having a discussion about software you're largely on the same page with the former. That's ultimately the point of association, it's to improve conversation by gathering people who have a shared understanding.
    - cat199 8y ago
sampleinajar 8y ago
Interesting to see point 3 of the "Resolution' in 1969. "We oppose the establishment of mass data banks which pose a threat to our privacy and concentrate power in the hands of a few."
cat199 8y ago
given the overtly marxist ideological bent and direct, targeted calls to specific actions wouldn't be surprised if this were related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_... https://medium.com/@JSlate__/how-the-soviet-union-helped-shape-the-modern-peace-movement-d797071d4b2c https://medium.com/@JSlate__/how-the-soviet-union-helped-sha... queue the downvotes!

58 points by ehudla 8y ago

UntypedOpinions 8y ago

I think every reasonable person should be "for Peace". But not for peace at any cost.

zandl 8y ago
It’s just hypocritical anyway, just telling people to be peaceful doesn’t address the underlying causes at all and the same people aren’t “peaceful” in their personal live either. They’re confused and in fact reject any clear understandings of what actually causes peace to begin with.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  This group would have been founded specifically against the Vietnam War, which America entered on the flimsiest of pretexts[1] with no clear national interest beyond "fuck Communists", and which killed tens of thousands of American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese civilians. I don't see how it could possibly be clearer. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
  - zandl 8y ago
    Did they solve peace? AFAIK there have been wars since, and having grown up with these people I know first hand they’re anything but peaceful.
    - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
      > Did they solve peace? Nobody claimed they did. You seem to be arguing with anecdotal figures from your childhood. I'm sorry the people you grew up with were hypocrites, but if you want to claim that reflects on either Computer People for Peace or the peace movement in general, you'll need to give us more details.
      - zandl 8y ago
        The problem is that the core issue is the mind and these “peace” type arguments date back thousands of years, even in 340s AD in China’s Annals of Lu Buwei you find these same people not addressing their own minds and preaching “peace” or passivsem. The reality is if you bring up reasonable things they can do, such as not promoting egotism or having a materialistic views of everything which directly lead to a lack of what they feel is “peace”, it just goes over their head and they get angry. Again this is has been going on with these people for thousands of years now. So rather than some fake form of peace that doesn’t work, how about addressing the underlying causes of suffering for everyone instead and stop rejecting them?
- jefurii 8y ago
  Do you have a clear understanding of the "causes of peace" that you'd like to share with us? Regardless, did you read any of the newsletters to give you a basis for your claims? > It’s just hypocritical anyway... Yeah, we're all hypocrites--get over it. It's true that almost nobody can be completely peaceful in all areas of their lives, but it shouldn't stop people from trying. You gotta start where you are.

davidy123 8y ago

Super interesting to see the 1973 issue featured a database of concentrations of power. From what I can tell, successive projects like Sunlight Foundation came on with such vigour, but these projects have such little mainstream impact, instead all these tools get turned against individuals.

simplecomplex 8y ago
Sunlight foundation got the laws passed so GPO could provide legislative data to the public. AFAIK they are the reason GPO/govinfo.gov bill data exists. Congress having an API is their doing. https://sunlightfoundation.com/press/success/ https://sunlightfoundation.com/press/success/ Many people use this data, from consumer non-profits to lobbyists. OpenStates is a spin-off of a Sunlight Foundation project as well.
- pc86 8y ago
  OpenStates is a godsend if you're doing any kind of multi-state action with state legislatures, as each legislature's website is different (obviously), most are horribly broken (obviously), and many are outdated (only slightly less obviously).

AllegedAlec 8y ago

> the group originated as “Computer Professionals for Peace”; in October 1970 “Professionals” was replaced with “People” because members “felt that the ‘Professional’ label limited the potential scope of the group and smacked of elitism.” What?

ehudla 8y ago
I think the following interview will give you useful context for understanding these publications. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938917 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18938917
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
Seems clear enough. They wanted to include students, hobbyists, and general nerds, not just people who made a living with computers. (A small group, at the time.)
d883kd8 8y ago
I agree with what you quoted completely. What part don't you understand?
- ben509 8y ago
  Why is elitism implied to be a bad thing in this context? Professional standards and ethics are something we should strive for, right? For those to work, you have to discern between people who uphold those standards and people who don't. There are places where egalitarianism is most appropriate, e.g. in tallying political interests, and where elitism is most appropriate, e.g. no one wants an amateur surgeon. Even if they want to open the group to hobbyists, as a professional I have more in common with a hobbyist who actively maintains a software project than one who doesn't actively contribute; specifically, if you're having a discussion about software you're largely on the same page with the former. That's ultimately the point of association, it's to improve conversation by gathering people who have a shared understanding.
  - cat199 8y ago

sampleinajar 8y ago

Interesting to see point 3 of the "Resolution' in 1969. "We oppose the establishment of mass data banks which pose a threat to our privacy and concentrate power in the hands of a few."

cat199 8y ago

given the overtly marxist ideological bent and direct, targeted calls to specific actions wouldn't be surprised if this were related https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_influence_on_the_peace_... https://medium.com/@JSlate__/how-the-soviet-union-helped-shape-the-modern-peace-movement-d797071d4b2c https://medium.com/@JSlate__/how-the-soviet-union-helped-sha... queue the downvotes!