Comment by nl
5 days 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)
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)
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.
[flagged]
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.
>The US is still a democracy
Let's see if that still holds after the midterms...
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.
[flagged]
Only an act of congress can make that happen. That hasn't happened. So no, it's still the DOD.
Being able to vote between Moloch and Baʿal is hardly “a democracy”.
Those were both good deities before the peoples who replaced their worshippers demonized them:
Some history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S8Q9uyFASF0
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.
>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?
Because government violence is not the same as individual violence!
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.
2 replies →
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.
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.
I'm a big fan of the justice system. Can't have a functioning civilization without it. And yes, violence that is used by a democratic society following regulations is generally speaking better for society than arbitrary vigilantism motivated by personal beliefs is. But I'm not arguing that it would necessarily be good to kill Sam Altman. I'm just arguing that it's ok to find the idea of his death pleasing. I find the idea of killing all sorts of people pleasing without necessarily thinking that actually doing it would be good for society overall.
4 replies →
No can do, this justice system actually protects war criminals rather than prosecuting them. The US threatened the international justice system by threatening to invade the Hague when it attempted to prosecute American war criminals. It's contradictory to respect the American “justice system” whilest it actively disrespects other justice systems both in other countries and in international law.
2 replies →