4 ms·

> I shouldn’t have been surprised by anything I saw or heard at this conference. But when it ended, and I departed DC for home, it felt like my life force had b

by pc86 2y ago

> I shouldn’t have been surprised by anything I saw or heard at this conference. But when it ended, and I departed DC for home, it felt like my life force had been completely sucked out of my body. > More specifically, it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death. The vast majority of people there fell into group one. > I walked out of the panel in a quiet daze. > It was, frankly, jarring to hear a recent top US official defend Israel’s mass killing of Gazan civilians by invoking wartime massacres that not only preceded the Geneva Conventions, but helped justify their creation. > On the evening on the first day, Palantir had a social event with free drinks. The only options were two IPAs, and I had one called “the Corruption”. It was, bar none, the worst beverage I’ve had in my entire life. I stopped reading here about 2/3 of the way through but is this what passes for journalism? What hyperbolic nonsense.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death Seriously. What a juvenile way to frame war. War is absolutely about contest and strategy—and yes, money—and it also causes death. It’s always horrible, more horrible than the belligerents imagined at the outset. But it’s part of reality, like sickness and disease, and while I think we’ll eventually conquer it (as with those) it’s not something everyone can stick their heads in the sand about because it makes them uncomfortable.
- throw9474 2y ago
  Honestly the world would be better off if everyone "stuck their head in the sand" regarding warfare. Like quarantining disease, everyone just needs to calm down.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Like quarantining disease This is the opposite of sticking your head in the sand about disease. It's doing something about it, even at personal cost.
    - throw9474 2y ago
      The ideas are the virus.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  > it’s not something everyone can stick their heads in the sand about because it makes them uncomfortable. That's a strawperson and you know it; IMHO that argument is sticking one's head in the sand to avoid the unconfortable issues raised in the article and by others: Many extreme warmongers are out there now; there's a powerful tide of embracing violence and hate, and we know where that leads.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Many extreme warmongers are out there now; there's a powerful tide of embracing violence and hate Sure. But that still violates the author's dichotomy: a hateful warmonger wants death. If you're an amoral war profiteer, your fodder are folks who want death. Dividing the audience into people who care about money only and people who care about death (presumably the good guys in the author's view) makes no sense.
    - wolverine876 2y ago
      I think it's a strawperson, a distraction, to take it literally and criticize it. That's not the main issue or point of the article. They can't flesh out every point in detail.
- hedora 2y ago
  If I had to divide this war into two groups, it'd be the people that stoke fear and hatred by committing war crimes in order to consolidate the personal power and wealth, and the people having the war crimes committed against them. Note that both groups are spread pretty evenly across Israel and Palestine.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > this war I was commenting generally. In respect of the Israel-Hamas war, I agree with your characterisation.
lukev 2y ago
What are you objecting to? The way the journalist is using tone and centering their subjective feelings? Or the account of how some government and industry leaders regard large-scale death as a profitable enterprise and are entirely unconcerned with ethics or the human cost? Because the latter point seems highly relevant to good journalism. The first is a matter of style.
RACEWAR 2y ago
This style of journalism is storied and well-documented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism. The fragments you chose don't sound hyperbolic, they sound like a subjective account. I'm curious how you made it so far without being able to get a feel for why the author would describe the event how they did.
subjectsigma 2y ago
I believe we call this “crafting a narrative”

by pc86 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> it divided attendees into two groups: those who see war as a matter of money and strategy, and those who see it as a matter of death Seriously. What a juvenile way to frame war. War is absolutely about contest and strategy—and yes, money—and it also causes death. It’s always horrible, more horrible than the belligerents imagined at the outset. But it’s part of reality, like sickness and disease, and while I think we’ll eventually conquer it (as with those) it’s not something everyone can stick their heads in the sand about because it makes them uncomfortable.

throw9474 2y ago
Honestly the world would be better off if everyone "stuck their head in the sand" regarding warfare. Like quarantining disease, everyone just needs to calm down.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Like quarantining disease This is the opposite of sticking your head in the sand about disease. It's doing something about it, even at personal cost.
  - throw9474 2y ago
    The ideas are the virus.
wolverine876 2y ago
> it’s not something everyone can stick their heads in the sand about because it makes them uncomfortable. That's a strawperson and you know it; IMHO that argument is sticking one's head in the sand to avoid the unconfortable issues raised in the article and by others: Many extreme warmongers are out there now; there's a powerful tide of embracing violence and hate, and we know where that leads.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Many extreme warmongers are out there now; there's a powerful tide of embracing violence and hate Sure. But that still violates the author's dichotomy: a hateful warmonger wants death. If you're an amoral war profiteer, your fodder are folks who want death. Dividing the audience into people who care about money only and people who care about death (presumably the good guys in the author's view) makes no sense.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    I think it's a strawperson, a distraction, to take it literally and criticize it. That's not the main issue or point of the article. They can't flesh out every point in detail.
hedora 2y ago
If I had to divide this war into two groups, it'd be the people that stoke fear and hatred by committing war crimes in order to consolidate the personal power and wealth, and the people having the war crimes committed against them. Note that both groups are spread pretty evenly across Israel and Palestine.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > this war I was commenting generally. In respect of the Israel-Hamas war, I agree with your characterisation.

lukev 2y ago

What are you objecting to? The way the journalist is using tone and centering their subjective feelings? Or the account of how some government and industry leaders regard large-scale death as a profitable enterprise and are entirely unconcerned with ethics or the human cost? Because the latter point seems highly relevant to good journalism. The first is a matter of style.

RACEWAR 2y ago

This style of journalism is storied and well-documented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Journalism. The fragments you chose don't sound hyperbolic, they sound like a subjective account. I'm curious how you made it so far without being able to get a feel for why the author would describe the event how they did.

subjectsigma 2y ago

I believe we call this “crafting a narrative”