4 ms·

The US is still a democracy. It's absolutely ok to oppose war. It is absolutely not ok for "some people to want to hurt" someone who is running a company that

by nl 7mo ago

The US is still a democracy. It's absolutely ok to oppose war. It is absolutely not ok for "some people to want to hurt" someone who is running a company that is vying for contracts from a democratically elected government's defense department. It's also ok to protest that, to boycott it or to refuse to work for or with them for it. But escalating that to physical violence is not ok, and nor should people be "confused that he seems surprised he is now in physical danger" (As an aside, from the statements I've heard so far it seems the person was more an anti-AI, anti-tech person than anti-war)

rrr_oh_man 7mo ago
[flagged]
- trinsic2 7mo ago
  Only an act of congress can make that happen. That hasn't happened. So no, it's still the DOD.
trinsic2 7mo ago
I don't think anyone is saying this is justified. But that doesn't mean it's not going to happen and I can understand why people would do this. ESP people that are pushed beyond the limits they can endure. Right now we have a huge imbalance in the world and more situations like this are going to manifest as we slide further and further into authoritarianism.
- xp84 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - trinsic2 7mo ago
    There is a proper definition for authoritarianism. noun: authoritarianism the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. Both parties are involved in this. Its about taking away peoples freedom to chose.
Arodex 7mo ago
>The US is still a democracy Let's see if that still holds after the midterms...
hax0ron3 7mo ago
>It is absolutely not ok for "some people to want to hurt" someone who is running a company that is vying for contracts from a democratically elected government's defense department. Why though?
- zepolen 7mo ago
  Because government violence is not the same as individual violence!
  - hax0ron3 7mo ago
    But it is the same. Better and more stable for society than individual vigilantism? Yes, generally speaking it is. But still essentially the same thing, just done through a different process.
  - xg15 7mo ago
    I'm getting increasingly creeped out by the mental distinction that people seem to make between "warfare" and other kind of violence, but this is the first time someone argued that explicitly.
    - AlexeyBelov 6mo ago
      I think this was a sarcastic remark
      - zepolen 6mo ago
        You're right but it seems there's no room for sarcasm in a place full of autism...
- davemp 7mo ago
  I’m falling into the Socratic hole [0], but in a modern civil society there is a justice system through which people seek recourse. This has all sorts of desirable effects for societies. Please educate yourself on the basics or at least put more effort in before participating in conversations. [0]: It’s easy to abuse the Socratic method and devolve a discussion into one of first principles. It’s extremely tiresome and a huge waste of everyone’s time.
xp84 7mo ago
I completely agree with all your statements. But I think most people in America have moved on from even trying to operate in the political system we have - because it’s been completely subverted by bad actors on both sides of the supposed 2-party system they see it as pointless. And as such they’ve either become completely irrational (most far left or far rightists), checked out (the rest of us), or fully mentally ill (people like this, or that Gracie Mansion wacko)
MiguelX413 6mo ago
Being able to vote between Moloch and Baʿal is hardly “a democracy”.
- Razengan 6mo ago
  Those were both good deities before the peoples who replaced their worshippers demonized them: Some history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Q9uyFASF0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Q9uyFASF0
  - MiguelX413 6mo ago
    I do know that history actually, I was learning about the Baʿal Cycle last night actually, I'm a huge fan of linguistics and also learning about Semitic Religion. I was using them in the idiomatic sense in which they would usually be understood by the average reader. I mean, I even went through the effort of expressing the pharyngeal consonant. Address the spirit of my message rather than the letter please. I perhaps would've used a better expression if I could've thought about it first.
MiguelX413 6mo ago
Calling it “a democratically elected government's defense department” is extremely generous and not a good point even if the premise were true. Hitler was democratically elected, who cares? The premise doesn't make sense either because it's hardly a “defense department” either. It's been more of a “kill civilians and destabilize other democratically elected governments in Latin America and the Middle East department” for the past half century. It's the same “defense department” that overthrew democratically-electdd Allende in Chile and installed a dictator, killed schoolgirls in Iran (I'm not including Iran in the list of democratic places though), bombed a wedding in Pakistan with a drone, and more. It's a massive “defense department” for a country that hasn't been attacked in ages. The US is hardly a democracy either because a choice between genocide-supporters isn't a real choice, there was no real anti-Zionist candidate.

by nl 7mo ago

rrr_oh_man 7mo ago

[flagged]

trinsic2 7mo ago
Only an act of congress can make that happen. That hasn't happened. So no, it's still the DOD.

trinsic2 7mo ago

I don't think anyone is saying this is justified. But that doesn't mean it's not going to happen and I can understand why people would do this. ESP people that are pushed beyond the limits they can endure. Right now we have a huge imbalance in the world and more situations like this are going to manifest as we slide further and further into authoritarianism.

xp84 7mo ago
[flagged]
- trinsic2 7mo ago
  There is a proper definition for authoritarianism. noun: authoritarianism the enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom. Both parties are involved in this. Its about taking away peoples freedom to chose.

Arodex 7mo ago

>The US is still a democracy Let's see if that still holds after the midterms...

hax0ron3 7mo ago

>It is absolutely not ok for "some people to want to hurt" someone who is running a company that is vying for contracts from a democratically elected government's defense department. Why though?

zepolen 7mo ago
Because government violence is not the same as individual violence!
- hax0ron3 7mo ago
  But it is the same. Better and more stable for society than individual vigilantism? Yes, generally speaking it is. But still essentially the same thing, just done through a different process.
- xg15 7mo ago
  I'm getting increasingly creeped out by the mental distinction that people seem to make between "warfare" and other kind of violence, but this is the first time someone argued that explicitly.
  - AlexeyBelov 6mo ago
    I think this was a sarcastic remark
    - zepolen 6mo ago
      You're right but it seems there's no room for sarcasm in a place full of autism...
davemp 7mo ago
I’m falling into the Socratic hole [0], but in a modern civil society there is a justice system through which people seek recourse. This has all sorts of desirable effects for societies. Please educate yourself on the basics or at least put more effort in before participating in conversations. [0]: It’s easy to abuse the Socratic method and devolve a discussion into one of first principles. It’s extremely tiresome and a huge waste of everyone’s time.

xp84 7mo ago

I completely agree with all your statements. But I think most people in America have moved on from even trying to operate in the political system we have - because it’s been completely subverted by bad actors on both sides of the supposed 2-party system they see it as pointless. And as such they’ve either become completely irrational (most far left or far rightists), checked out (the rest of us), or fully mentally ill (people like this, or that Gracie Mansion wacko)

MiguelX413 6mo ago

Being able to vote between Moloch and Baʿal is hardly “a democracy”.

Razengan 6mo ago
Those were both good deities before the peoples who replaced their worshippers demonized them: Some history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Q9uyFASF0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Q9uyFASF0
- MiguelX413 6mo ago
  I do know that history actually, I was learning about the Baʿal Cycle last night actually, I'm a huge fan of linguistics and also learning about Semitic Religion. I was using them in the idiomatic sense in which they would usually be understood by the average reader. I mean, I even went through the effort of expressing the pharyngeal consonant. Address the spirit of my message rather than the letter please. I perhaps would've used a better expression if I could've thought about it first.

MiguelX413 6mo ago

Calling it “a democratically elected government's defense department” is extremely generous and not a good point even if the premise were true. Hitler was democratically elected, who cares? The premise doesn't make sense either because it's hardly a “defense department” either. It's been more of a “kill civilians and destabilize other democratically elected governments in Latin America and the Middle East department” for the past half century. It's the same “defense department” that overthrew democratically-electdd Allende in Chile and installed a dictator, killed schoolgirls in Iran (I'm not including Iran in the list of democratic places though), bombed a wedding in Pakistan with a drone, and more. It's a massive “defense department” for a country that hasn't been attacked in ages. The US is hardly a democracy either because a choice between genocide-supporters isn't a real choice, there was no real anti-Zionist candidate.