7 ms·

>Harder than it looks. But maybe easier than it sounds. All technology can be weaponized. It can also be de-weaponized. One of my favorite late-night though

>Harder than it looks. But maybe easier than it sounds. All technology can be weaponized. It can also be de-weaponized. One of my favorite late-night thought experiments, is "what would it take to turn an AK47 or an AR15 into a water pump?" .. the possibilities are endless. "How could a tank be turned into a bicycle factory?", another great one worth the effort to think about. The only difference between peaceful technology and a weapon is the intention of the user. The very real spiritual intention. De-weaponization starts with the human being. Those who think weapons are necessary must always take lesser priority than those who invent technology to make the lives of their fellow human beings better. There are so many examples of the tool-makers winning harder and at greater scale than the bomb-manufacturer. We wouldn't be here now if the balance was the other way - our world is however threatened by having this scale weighed heavily, by those who think murder is the solution to anything. It's a spirit thing. Not spiritu-al, a spirit thing. What is the spirit of the designer? If they want to help humanity, it will be difficult technology to weaponize (although not impossible). It will be easy to de-weaponize, also. We need to focus more on the spirit of help, and less on hurt. Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most. Imagine if they could be used to drop a copy of archive.org, anywhere in the world, in any language. Imagine if those ships were being used to bring power to the villages that need it most. Instead of glide bombs, we have glide libraries. Instead of cluster munitions, we instead drop cluster medical kits! Oh, the glory to be had by those who would do this - the allies in the poor and weak of the world to be found! Imagine this happening, changing the intention from hate and fear, to respect and love. All it takes is the spirit, a bit of imagination, and any and all technology can be de-weaponized. It is the warrior narcissist who stands in the way of this. Disarm them too - smash their mirror: Drop books, not bombs!

ff317 2mo ago
> Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most. Except we can (and do!) accomplish that with much simpler airplanes. The staggering costs and complexities of an F35 (the thrust:weight, maneuverability, and stealth) don't make sense for any "peaceful" application.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - adrianN 2mo ago
    „We spent money on weapons, let’s use them“ is actually a frighteningly common argument.
    - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
      Yes, it is the refrain of the warrior narcissist, a heinous human mental virus condition, which can see no value in human life worth more than to simply build a bigger mirror for them to stare and admire their own identity at the cost of so much human life.
  - atmavatar 2mo ago
    I believe the point is that doing supply drops with C130s and C17s is vastly more efficient than any hackjob you could do with F35s, both in terms of throughput and cost. With that in mind, if you were to say the US should spend more on cargo planes and humanitarian aid drops and less on fighters like F35s and starting unnecessary conflicts around the globe, I'm totally with you.
    - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
      The F35's are already there, they are highly effective means of delivery in emergency conditions, they can get there faster than a C130, why not de-weaponize them and use them to drop high tech water desalination devices on the beaches of Gaza? Why not? Because there are too many in power who think that their identity is more valuable than human life. That power is perpetuated by the tip of the spear that is the F35. So, not only do we _take that power from them by turning the F35 into a Real Peace Machine™_, we do it with haste in order to address the current immense crimes the warrior narcissists have already committed. Spend a billion dollars to make these devices, de-commission the F35's from the task of bomb dropping, paint it pink and turn off its stealth, and have them drop the cluster medical kits immediately. Oh, of course this is a fantasy, but what means of peace didn't start out as a fantasy, eh kids? The point is not just to turn the F35's into peace-making devices - but to remove their potential future use by warrior narcissists to commit more heinous crimes against humanity. Two factors: save the children. Stop the warrior narcissists from further atrocities. Full-scale de-weaponization of everything. No exceptions.
15155 2mo ago
What is this word salad? "Spirit?" Intention? Disarm the "warrior narcissist?" Good luck - this flies in the face of the entirety of human history. > "what would it take to turn an AK47 or an AR15 into a water pump?" As someone who has manufactured these from billet: why would you do this? (hence "word salad") Why does one thing at all relate to the other? Why not just manufacture a pump from the same raw resources? Why not both? > Those who think weapons are necessary must always take lesser priority than those who invent technology to make the lives of their fellow human beings better. Did the Allies in WWII not "make the lives of their fellow human beings better" using violence? Why didn't they just ask mean old Hitler: "Hey, be nice! Have a good spirit!"? The world has finite resources, inherently making anything often denies those resources (your time, actual materials, etc.) to other causes. "Better" is subjective. > There are so many examples of the tool-makers winning harder and at greater scale than the bomb-manufacturer. These organizations are often one in the same. > We wouldn't be here now if the balance was the other way The balance is already the other way regardless of your citation-free assertion. You're using the internet to proliferate this tripe - famously a DARPA invention. > Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most. Why is a high-performance stealth aircraft required for this? Why does one thing have anything to do with the other? What peaceful purpose does stealth capability serve? > Imagine if those ships were being used to bring power to the villages that need it most. No need to imagine, this already happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powership > Disarm them too. With what? Words? Precisely how do you non-violently disarm someone who is willing and demonstrated to use violence to prevent you from disarming them? Again, the world's resources are finite, and control of these resources inherently requires violence. Your ability to spread these "ideas" are rooted in violence: taxation, freedom generally. Freedom isn't free, and the price is paid in blood.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  [dead]
  - 15155 2mo ago
    > Do you not know how to use a dictionary, human? What words did I seemingly misunderstand or misuse? I'll wait. Where does the dictionary come into this discussion? > It is the unknown human peace-makers who have made it possible for you to sit in your chair and type such hate spew. Is DARPA full of "human peace-makers?" Is calling someone a "warrior narcissist" not "hate spew?" Genuinely curious here how you split this. > I'd do it to make one less murder weapon in the world Why would someone who has weapons let you? What power do you have specifically? Remember: you can't use violence (and I'd argue that extends to basically every means of sanctions - including your "shunning" garbage.) > Did you carve that billet for profit - did it feed you? Yes. Now what? > Because de-weaponization is more important than your identity. OK but how does that involve AR-15s and AK-47s? Why do I need to take a manufactured object and somehow Rube Goldberg it into something else instead of just melting it down? And at that point, the raw resources should've just been used for that purpose and there's no point in mentioning rifles. > Because it is there Again with it is "there." No, it is not "there." Does it just operate itself for free? > hey learn each others language! Ok: what happens when two nations speak the same language but declare war? Does war just magically go away because of linguists? Why the fuck does spoken language in 2026 have anything to do with political ideals here? LLMs exist, Google Translate has existed for decades: clearly this arbitrary "speak the language" nonsense is not helping. > Your identity is not worth more than life. I'm not going to stop, now what? What are you going to do?
esseph 2mo ago
> Those who think weapons are necessary must always take lesser priority than those who invent technology to make the lives of their fellow human beings better. And then a group that prioritizes weapons over human-life-improving-tools kills the group that prioritizes life and takes your resources. This is like the larger group version of suicide by cop. We've been playing this game for as long as human beings have existed.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  There have always been a greater group of humans which de-weaponize (make peace) than those who make war. Always. The evidence is very clear: there are far, far, far more humans in the world not-killing each other than there are, killing each other. >And then a group that prioritizes weapons over human-life-improving-tools kills the group that prioritizes life and takes your resources Only for as long as those who make peace, don't pay attention to the prioritization of weapons - and that group of warrior narcissists whose identity is more important than human life must never be allowed to be bigger than the group who make peace - as is happening today at a pace far too great - because otherwise, we all die. >We've been playing this game for as long as human beings have existed. Yes, humans have been making peace at far greater scale than those limited few who make war. You just don't see them because a) you have your own warrior narcissist mirror obscuring your view, and b) those people are not narcissists, and are living human lives instead of primping their warrior narcissist identities...
  - 15155 2mo ago
    > There have always been a greater group of humans which de-weaponize (make peace) than those who make war. Always. What are you talking about? We're in the most peaceful period in human history by every objective measure and we spend almost a trillion dollars annually on defense. "Always" is objectively incorrect by basically every measure you use. > Only for as long as those who make peace, don't pay attention to the prioritization of weapons - and that group of warrior narcissists whose identity is more important than human life must never be allowed to be bigger than the group who make peace - as is happening today at a pace far too great - because otherwise, we all die. Word salad. > Yes, humans have been making peace at far greater scale than those limited few who make war. You just don't see them because a) you have your own warrior narcissist mirror obscuring your view, and b) those people are not narcissists, and are living human lives instead of primping their warrior narcissist identities... More word salad.
bit-anarchist 2mo ago
Other comments have pointed out this: how are you going to stop the "warrior narcissist" if you disarmed/de-weaponized the peace-makers? Even if de-weaponize after you erase all the current "warrior narcissists", how will you prevent new ones from rising up and re-weaponizing? Surely, you know that war is not the default state, so this isn't a theoretical. Also, I think your description of "warrior narcissists" as a shallow description of the spirit of these people. You mentioned something about "identity" in later comments, and I cannot help but wonder what do you mean by that. I don't think Putin's main motive is his self-image, nor do I think Israel's leadership is murdering Palestine's populace to appear heroic. It would also help to not assume the motives of people criticizing your ideas by presuming them to be "warrior narcissists" themselves. Elevate the discussion, not downgrade it. I'll always appreciate the spirit of pacifism and collaboration, but your comments seem quixotic, and not in a good way.
- MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
  The police state exists entirely to maintain its own identity - and thus control - over that of its subjects. It is a warrior - controlling the lives of others or killing them - and it is doing it narcissistically, to maintain its own image of itself. All current war theaters are the result of a police state and these police states only function because of technology. The subject is de-weaponization of technology. First, you separate the technology from the person using it correctly - i.e. not to create a police state. Then, the person using it incorrectly in a police state. In this case, the person you don't want to have using technology to murder/do harm/violate the actual human rights of others, is the warrior narcissist. So, as a technologist, I do not let my technology be used by someone who is only going to use it on others, for actual war-fighting/warrior purposes, for the purposes of protecting or promoting their identity over the life of others. Because that is what good technology is - something which gives all users, equal rights. An equal, new identity, with each new form of technology. So, de-weaponization means, disconnecting the user from using technology in destructive ways. Constructive ways are easier, such as I demonstrated with extreme prejudice, such as the notion of the pink F35, dropping cluster medical supplies, water desalination pods instead of child-maiming fertilizer bombs, or indeed - fertilizer in the right place, with emergency seed-bombs for a 3 month re-supply of the landscape, food-wise, etc. All current war theaters are the result of a police state and these police states only function because of technology. These are parables I'm dramatizing, with intent. I do know there is no chance in hell of turning off all the weapons - I for sure know that there is a way to use technology to make sure a police state doesn't happen in the first place. (Because I've been doing exactly that with technology for decades.) Putin is an identity of someone you don't actually know, but yet, you think you know the warrior narcissism in Putin - but it is actually the identity, not the individual, that I am talking about. I rate Putin among all the other war criminals of the world - they are there, because they have the technological might of their people - or indeed the ignorance of their people in spite of this might, or indeed even collective agreement on scale, to perpetuate that identity. And lest it not be clear, I find that in order to be a good pacifist, you have to allow for new identity, always. It is the use of technological power to gain mass identity and exploit it for war, which I am specifically calling the playground of the warrior narcissist. Those who would murder to maintain their own identity. Drop books not bombs, is legitimately the simplest pacifist view I can express. I see far, far more peace to be had in the world with the concept of dropping a complete archive.org gardening section from the pink F35, you know .. "turning the pistol into a pump" ... >It would also help to not assume the motives of people criticizing your ideas by presuming them to be "warrior narcissists" themselves. Elevate the discussion, not downgrade it. Apropos quixotic. You might notice that I am manifesting the very thing I am resisting. That is by design. For every excuse for murdering 'those people over there', I have and can spot a greedy instance of technological mis-use. There is no longer any good, legitimate reason for war - technologically. It happens, because technologists don't confront the warriors. So I'm targeting warrior narcissism intentionally, and yes in a way guaranteed to create a cloud of smoke on the horizon, because .. after all .. dang himself, could prove the value of my point by switching me off right now.

ff317 2mo ago

> Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most. Except we can (and do!) accomplish that with much simpler airplanes. The staggering costs and complexities of an F35 (the thrust:weight, maneuverability, and stealth) don't make sense for any "peaceful" application.

MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
[flagged]
- adrianN 2mo ago
  „We spent money on weapons, let’s use them“ is actually a frighteningly common argument.
  - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
    Yes, it is the refrain of the warrior narcissist, a heinous human mental virus condition, which can see no value in human life worth more than to simply build a bigger mirror for them to stare and admire their own identity at the cost of so much human life.
- atmavatar 2mo ago
  I believe the point is that doing supply drops with C130s and C17s is vastly more efficient than any hackjob you could do with F35s, both in terms of throughput and cost. With that in mind, if you were to say the US should spend more on cargo planes and humanitarian aid drops and less on fighters like F35s and starting unnecessary conflicts around the globe, I'm totally with you.
  - MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
    The F35's are already there, they are highly effective means of delivery in emergency conditions, they can get there faster than a C130, why not de-weaponize them and use them to drop high tech water desalination devices on the beaches of Gaza? Why not? Because there are too many in power who think that their identity is more valuable than human life. That power is perpetuated by the tip of the spear that is the F35. So, not only do we _take that power from them by turning the F35 into a Real Peace Machine™_, we do it with haste in order to address the current immense crimes the warrior narcissists have already committed. Spend a billion dollars to make these devices, de-commission the F35's from the task of bomb dropping, paint it pink and turn off its stealth, and have them drop the cluster medical kits immediately. Oh, of course this is a fantasy, but what means of peace didn't start out as a fantasy, eh kids? The point is not just to turn the F35's into peace-making devices - but to remove their potential future use by warrior narcissists to commit more heinous crimes against humanity. Two factors: save the children. Stop the warrior narcissists from further atrocities. Full-scale de-weaponization of everything. No exceptions.

15155 2mo ago

What is this word salad? "Spirit?" Intention? Disarm the "warrior narcissist?" Good luck - this flies in the face of the entirety of human history. > "what would it take to turn an AK47 or an AR15 into a water pump?" As someone who has manufactured these from billet: why would you do this? (hence "word salad") Why does one thing at all relate to the other? Why not just manufacture a pump from the same raw resources? Why not both? > Those who think weapons are necessary must always take lesser priority than those who invent technology to make the lives of their fellow human beings better. Did the Allies in WWII not "make the lives of their fellow human beings better" using violence? Why didn't they just ask mean old Hitler: "Hey, be nice! Have a good spirit!"? The world has finite resources, inherently making anything often denies those resources (your time, actual materials, etc.) to other causes. "Better" is subjective. > There are so many examples of the tool-makers winning harder and at greater scale than the bomb-manufacturer. These organizations are often one in the same. > We wouldn't be here now if the balance was the other way The balance is already the other way regardless of your citation-free assertion. You're using the internet to proliferate this tripe - famously a DARPA invention. > Imagine if those F35 mounting pylons were used to drop field-portable water-purification systems directly where they are needed most. Why is a high-performance stealth aircraft required for this? Why does one thing have anything to do with the other? What peaceful purpose does stealth capability serve? > Imagine if those ships were being used to bring power to the villages that need it most. No need to imagine, this already happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powership > Disarm them too. With what? Words? Precisely how do you non-violently disarm someone who is willing and demonstrated to use violence to prevent you from disarming them? Again, the world's resources are finite, and control of these resources inherently requires violence. Your ability to spread these "ideas" are rooted in violence: taxation, freedom generally. Freedom isn't free, and the price is paid in blood.

MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
[dead]
- 15155 2mo ago
  > Do you not know how to use a dictionary, human? What words did I seemingly misunderstand or misuse? I'll wait. Where does the dictionary come into this discussion? > It is the unknown human peace-makers who have made it possible for you to sit in your chair and type such hate spew. Is DARPA full of "human peace-makers?" Is calling someone a "warrior narcissist" not "hate spew?" Genuinely curious here how you split this. > I'd do it to make one less murder weapon in the world Why would someone who has weapons let you? What power do you have specifically? Remember: you can't use violence (and I'd argue that extends to basically every means of sanctions - including your "shunning" garbage.) > Did you carve that billet for profit - did it feed you? Yes. Now what? > Because de-weaponization is more important than your identity. OK but how does that involve AR-15s and AK-47s? Why do I need to take a manufactured object and somehow Rube Goldberg it into something else instead of just melting it down? And at that point, the raw resources should've just been used for that purpose and there's no point in mentioning rifles. > Because it is there Again with it is "there." No, it is not "there." Does it just operate itself for free? > hey learn each others language! Ok: what happens when two nations speak the same language but declare war? Does war just magically go away because of linguists? Why the fuck does spoken language in 2026 have anything to do with political ideals here? LLMs exist, Google Translate has existed for decades: clearly this arbitrary "speak the language" nonsense is not helping. > Your identity is not worth more than life. I'm not going to stop, now what? What are you going to do?

esseph 2mo ago

> Those who think weapons are necessary must always take lesser priority than those who invent technology to make the lives of their fellow human beings better. And then a group that prioritizes weapons over human-life-improving-tools kills the group that prioritizes life and takes your resources. This is like the larger group version of suicide by cop. We've been playing this game for as long as human beings have existed.

MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
There have always been a greater group of humans which de-weaponize (make peace) than those who make war. Always. The evidence is very clear: there are far, far, far more humans in the world not-killing each other than there are, killing each other. >And then a group that prioritizes weapons over human-life-improving-tools kills the group that prioritizes life and takes your resources Only for as long as those who make peace, don't pay attention to the prioritization of weapons - and that group of warrior narcissists whose identity is more important than human life must never be allowed to be bigger than the group who make peace - as is happening today at a pace far too great - because otherwise, we all die. >We've been playing this game for as long as human beings have existed. Yes, humans have been making peace at far greater scale than those limited few who make war. You just don't see them because a) you have your own warrior narcissist mirror obscuring your view, and b) those people are not narcissists, and are living human lives instead of primping their warrior narcissist identities...
- 15155 2mo ago
  > There have always been a greater group of humans which de-weaponize (make peace) than those who make war. Always. What are you talking about? We're in the most peaceful period in human history by every objective measure and we spend almost a trillion dollars annually on defense. "Always" is objectively incorrect by basically every measure you use. > Only for as long as those who make peace, don't pay attention to the prioritization of weapons - and that group of warrior narcissists whose identity is more important than human life must never be allowed to be bigger than the group who make peace - as is happening today at a pace far too great - because otherwise, we all die. Word salad. > Yes, humans have been making peace at far greater scale than those limited few who make war. You just don't see them because a) you have your own warrior narcissist mirror obscuring your view, and b) those people are not narcissists, and are living human lives instead of primping their warrior narcissist identities... More word salad.

bit-anarchist 2mo ago

Other comments have pointed out this: how are you going to stop the "warrior narcissist" if you disarmed/de-weaponized the peace-makers? Even if de-weaponize after you erase all the current "warrior narcissists", how will you prevent new ones from rising up and re-weaponizing? Surely, you know that war is not the default state, so this isn't a theoretical. Also, I think your description of "warrior narcissists" as a shallow description of the spirit of these people. You mentioned something about "identity" in later comments, and I cannot help but wonder what do you mean by that. I don't think Putin's main motive is his self-image, nor do I think Israel's leadership is murdering Palestine's populace to appear heroic. It would also help to not assume the motives of people criticizing your ideas by presuming them to be "warrior narcissists" themselves. Elevate the discussion, not downgrade it. I'll always appreciate the spirit of pacifism and collaboration, but your comments seem quixotic, and not in a good way.

MomsAVoxell 2mo ago
The police state exists entirely to maintain its own identity - and thus control - over that of its subjects. It is a warrior - controlling the lives of others or killing them - and it is doing it narcissistically, to maintain its own image of itself. All current war theaters are the result of a police state and these police states only function because of technology. The subject is de-weaponization of technology. First, you separate the technology from the person using it correctly - i.e. not to create a police state. Then, the person using it incorrectly in a police state. In this case, the person you don't want to have using technology to murder/do harm/violate the actual human rights of others, is the warrior narcissist. So, as a technologist, I do not let my technology be used by someone who is only going to use it on others, for actual war-fighting/warrior purposes, for the purposes of protecting or promoting their identity over the life of others. Because that is what good technology is - something which gives all users, equal rights. An equal, new identity, with each new form of technology. So, de-weaponization means, disconnecting the user from using technology in destructive ways. Constructive ways are easier, such as I demonstrated with extreme prejudice, such as the notion of the pink F35, dropping cluster medical supplies, water desalination pods instead of child-maiming fertilizer bombs, or indeed - fertilizer in the right place, with emergency seed-bombs for a 3 month re-supply of the landscape, food-wise, etc. All current war theaters are the result of a police state and these police states only function because of technology. These are parables I'm dramatizing, with intent. I do know there is no chance in hell of turning off all the weapons - I for sure know that there is a way to use technology to make sure a police state doesn't happen in the first place. (Because I've been doing exactly that with technology for decades.) Putin is an identity of someone you don't actually know, but yet, you think you know the warrior narcissism in Putin - but it is actually the identity, not the individual, that I am talking about. I rate Putin among all the other war criminals of the world - they are there, because they have the technological might of their people - or indeed the ignorance of their people in spite of this might, or indeed even collective agreement on scale, to perpetuate that identity. And lest it not be clear, I find that in order to be a good pacifist, you have to allow for new identity, always. It is the use of technological power to gain mass identity and exploit it for war, which I am specifically calling the playground of the warrior narcissist. Those who would murder to maintain their own identity. Drop books not bombs, is legitimately the simplest pacifist view I can express. I see far, far more peace to be had in the world with the concept of dropping a complete archive.org gardening section from the pink F35, you know .. "turning the pistol into a pump" ... >It would also help to not assume the motives of people criticizing your ideas by presuming them to be "warrior narcissists" themselves. Elevate the discussion, not downgrade it. Apropos quixotic. You might notice that I am manifesting the very thing I am resisting. That is by design. For every excuse for murdering 'those people over there', I have and can spot a greedy instance of technological mis-use. There is no longer any good, legitimate reason for war - technologically. It happens, because technologists don't confront the warriors. So I'm targeting warrior narcissism intentionally, and yes in a way guaranteed to create a cloud of smoke on the horizon, because .. after all .. dang himself, could prove the value of my point by switching me off right now.