4 ms·

Regardless of what the Trump administration will tell you, that's not it's name. The executive branch is not empowered to unilaterally change the name of a depa

Regardless of what the Trump administration will tell you, that's not it's name. The executive branch is not empowered to unilaterally change the name of a department.

Ritewut 6mo ago
Regardless of what the name legally is, they are in fact initiating war against other nations and Palantir is one of the main players in those wars.
Panda4 6mo ago
Even by ignoring the name change, that is its function. Even if it was called department of defense, it's actually department of war.
Planktonne 6mo ago
If it's what they call themselves and what they're currently doing, how much does it matter what the official name is?
- thewebguyd 6mo ago
  Because soft power is a real phenomenon and by going along with the illegal name change, we are giving legitimacy to an illegitimate act. Its anticipatory obedience. Do not obey in advance. It signals to the regime how much power they actually have.
  - Planktonne 6mo ago
    I'd agree in principle, but they're already killing people. The worst-case scenario has been happening for a while; treating this as a procedural stance rather than a description of reality is blinkered.
    - thewebguyd 6mo ago
      If we adopt their language because things are already bad we are saying that their power is now the only reality that matters, we are giving up any form of resistance. We killed people under the name of Department of Defense too. Giving them the name is giving them the legitimacy to continue to justify the violence, and signals to the rest of the population that no one is coming to help and the new order is absolute. Mind you, this is mostly the fault of complicit media going a long with the name change rather than individuals here on HN, but whether its a true description of reality or not isn't important, whats important is any form of resistance to stop giving legitimacy to the regime.
      - Planktonne 6mo ago
        As a non-American, I think that Americans treating concrete problems as less important than linguistic games does an awful lot more to legitimise the violence.
        collingreen 6mo ago
        I don't think parent claimed that simply using certain words is more important than dealing with the real problems. You sound frustrated with the American situation. I am too but that doesn't mean someone saying "resist" is somehow condoning or ignoring the important issues. I think the message of "don't submit in advance" is a great one and it actually makes sense to me to include that ethos in all things, including your speech. I think we all agree that speech alone is not enough.
        ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
        As a third party to your discussion, I observe that you are both engaged in exactly the same "linguistic game" with each other, if you prefer to use that dismissive terminology, and I'll add that writing is not mutually exclusive with action.
        quickthrowman 6mo ago
        Controlling language changes the way people think, and therefore act. Both of the things you mentioned are bad, glossing over real problems and the attempt to control language, they are not mutually exclusive. Just (re)read 1984 and focus on Newspeak, controlling language controls the way people think and act. The body of water that borders Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and other states along with Mexico is the Gulf of Mexico. The US cabinet-level department responsible for the military is the Department of Defense.
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
blipvert 6mo ago
It’s not empowered to unilaterally declare war without approval from congress, either. But here we are.
- krapp 6mo ago
  The president isn't empowered to declare war, but as Commander in Chief he is empowered to send the military anywhere he wants and start whatever "conflict" he wants, for whatever reason he wants, including no reason whatsoever. After which Congress can retroactively declare it a war if they so choose. But the US hasn't fought a declared war since WW2, because declarations of war don't really mean anything when the missiles have already been fired and the bombs have already been dropped. I hate Trump as much as anyone with a moral core should, but the President's capacity for creating arbitrary military violence and expenditure has always been unchecked.
  - stasomatic 6mo ago
    If that’s true, that’s insane. Forgive me, I’m not a PolSci scholar. Nobody in the cabinet can speak up and overrule his whimsy? It always annoys me when the headlines are “Trump invaded this …” or “Trump slapped a tariff on…” while effectively it’s the US government that’s doing that, they are letting him to do as he pleases? Then the fault lies not with him. He’s not a king but surely seems to have absolute discretion if you believe the headlines.
    - pineaux 6mo ago
      Its because the president used to have a modicum of respect for the house and the Senate. So the president did have the sole right to send military anywhere on the planet and even launch nukes without any need for congressional permission. This is by design. But the other presidents were a bit less crazy so we never noticed.
    - nkingsy 6mo ago
      The movie "vice" covers this nicely. The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent.

Regardless of what the Trump administration will tell you, that's not it's name. The executive branch is not empowered to unilaterally change the name of a department.

Ritewut 6mo ago

Regardless of what the name legally is, they are in fact initiating war against other nations and Palantir is one of the main players in those wars.

Panda4 6mo ago

Even by ignoring the name change, that is its function. Even if it was called department of defense, it's actually department of war.

Planktonne 6mo ago

If it's what they call themselves and what they're currently doing, how much does it matter what the official name is?

thewebguyd 6mo ago
Because soft power is a real phenomenon and by going along with the illegal name change, we are giving legitimacy to an illegitimate act. Its anticipatory obedience. Do not obey in advance. It signals to the regime how much power they actually have.
- Planktonne 6mo ago
  I'd agree in principle, but they're already killing people. The worst-case scenario has been happening for a while; treating this as a procedural stance rather than a description of reality is blinkered.
  - thewebguyd 6mo ago
    If we adopt their language because things are already bad we are saying that their power is now the only reality that matters, we are giving up any form of resistance. We killed people under the name of Department of Defense too. Giving them the name is giving them the legitimacy to continue to justify the violence, and signals to the rest of the population that no one is coming to help and the new order is absolute. Mind you, this is mostly the fault of complicit media going a long with the name change rather than individuals here on HN, but whether its a true description of reality or not isn't important, whats important is any form of resistance to stop giving legitimacy to the regime.
    - Planktonne 6mo ago
      As a non-American, I think that Americans treating concrete problems as less important than linguistic games does an awful lot more to legitimise the violence.
      - collingreen 6mo ago
        I don't think parent claimed that simply using certain words is more important than dealing with the real problems. You sound frustrated with the American situation. I am too but that doesn't mean someone saying "resist" is somehow condoning or ignoring the important issues. I think the message of "don't submit in advance" is a great one and it actually makes sense to me to include that ethos in all things, including your speech. I think we all agree that speech alone is not enough.
      - ImPostingOnHN 6mo ago
        As a third party to your discussion, I observe that you are both engaged in exactly the same "linguistic game" with each other, if you prefer to use that dismissive terminology, and I'll add that writing is not mutually exclusive with action.
      - quickthrowman 6mo ago
        Controlling language changes the way people think, and therefore act. Both of the things you mentioned are bad, glossing over real problems and the attempt to control language, they are not mutually exclusive. Just (re)read 1984 and focus on Newspeak, controlling language controls the way people think and act. The body of water that borders Texas, Florida, Louisiana, and other states along with Mexico is the Gulf of Mexico. The US cabinet-level department responsible for the military is the Department of Defense.
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]

blipvert 6mo ago

It’s not empowered to unilaterally declare war without approval from congress, either. But here we are.

krapp 6mo ago
The president isn't empowered to declare war, but as Commander in Chief he is empowered to send the military anywhere he wants and start whatever "conflict" he wants, for whatever reason he wants, including no reason whatsoever. After which Congress can retroactively declare it a war if they so choose. But the US hasn't fought a declared war since WW2, because declarations of war don't really mean anything when the missiles have already been fired and the bombs have already been dropped. I hate Trump as much as anyone with a moral core should, but the President's capacity for creating arbitrary military violence and expenditure has always been unchecked.
- stasomatic 6mo ago
  If that’s true, that’s insane. Forgive me, I’m not a PolSci scholar. Nobody in the cabinet can speak up and overrule his whimsy? It always annoys me when the headlines are “Trump invaded this …” or “Trump slapped a tariff on…” while effectively it’s the US government that’s doing that, they are letting him to do as he pleases? Then the fault lies not with him. He’s not a king but surely seems to have absolute discretion if you believe the headlines.
  - pineaux 6mo ago
    Its because the president used to have a modicum of respect for the house and the Senate. So the president did have the sole right to send military anywhere on the planet and even launch nukes without any need for congressional permission. This is by design. But the other presidents were a bit less crazy so we never noticed.
  - nkingsy 6mo ago
    The movie "vice" covers this nicely. The only thing stopping US presidents from acting like kings is precedent.