| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago |
| >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 a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| > 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | atmavatar a day ago | parent | next [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | YZF a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The transport airplanes are also there. Aid has been dropped from them to Gaza and some of it killed people and it was generally a drop in the bucket compared to aid entering via land. Instead of fantasizing about F35s which are a very expensive way of delivering incredibly small amounts of things we should fantasize about getting more trucks to deliver stuff where it's cheap and massive amounts. That's a lot more tractable and achievable. We can also fantasize about what peace looks like and it doesn't look like dropping things from F-35s, that's generally what you do when you gave up on peace (which holds for both bombs and supplies). Since the "ceasefire" about 21,000 tons of medical aid has entered Gaza. The amount of water already delivered is also immense and if you were to replace/complement this with desalinization you need to build a proper desalinization plant or repair the one that was already there. Let's fantasize about what more is needed and working with the different parties to get there. An F-35 can carry about 10 tons. So you'd need 2000 sorties to deliver a similar amount under the most ideal conditions each sortie costing something like $100K. A C-130 about 20 tons and has about x3-5 less operational cost per hour. It's not just about carry capacity it's about systems to deliver them (like parachutes or whatnot) which a C-130 is already fitted with. So for air delivery of stuff (which is ridiculously low volume and expensive) the C-130 is the preferred choice between the two. We also happen to have an inventory of things on pallets that are ready for C-130s. It's still not a great choice anyways. A commercial truck can carry 40 tons and operating costs would be something like $100 and the trucks are also already there and moving. If we need to get more of those that's what we should work on (and for all those options you need to work with the people on the ground and in the region. The problem isn't capacity/capability it's the politics and the situation on the ground. If we're fantasizing maybe start with Lennon's "Imagine no religion" ;) | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | Imagine no warrior narcissist identity. Religions are just a subset of that identity. Warrior narcissists will subjugate any human organization to build their mirror - religion, government, media - anything. Sure, we can discuss the logistics. We, the peace-makers, should be smashing the mirror no matter what it takes. For me, that is efficiently represented by the de-weaponization of all the things, not just the F35. But, still. Use the F35 to drop cluster medical kits. That'd cost a pittance and it would make far more peace than the million dollar GRU or glide kit. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | > Use the F35 to drop cluster medical kits. That'd cost a pittance Your "pittance" and mine must be very different. If you were performing this function on behalf of any charity you would be prosecuted for this type of grossly, objectively inefficient resource allocation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The F35's are already there, they are highly effective means of delivery in emergency conditions, they can get there faster than a C130 Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Operating and maintenance expenses dominate all aircraft expenditures - "already there" is completely false. Putting these aircraft in the boneyard and writing off the R&D expenses is the only logical answer to "peaceful use." An F-35 can get somewhere "quickly" when it's ferried there by a fleet of tankers and logistic support - but at that point, you just fly the C-130 directly to where it is needed. No single day makes the difference in any of the situations you've proposed, and no operation to get a payload-laden F-35 anywhere it needs to be is organized in a day. > 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. There's no expense that justifies keeping these aircraft in operation for any peaceful purpose. Basically every modern cargo or passenger aircraft is better at the tasks you're describing and can do it cheaper. Taxation is inherently backed by violence, so it's amazing how you can casually just suggest "spend a billion dollars" and not see the cognitive dissonance you're spewing. Accomplishing all of this random humanitarian shit costs money (a proxy for human labor output), money comes from somewhere, and it isn't going to be given to your causes voluntarily. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | >There's no expense that justifies keeping these aircraft in operation for any peaceful purpose. Ah, yes there is: the expense of the children with severed limbs dying every single minute under the rubble that was placed upon them by the very F35's you worship. If it was "efficient" and "cost effective" to use the F35 to murder tens of thousands, its even more efficient and cost effective - and urgent - to de-weaponize them and use them to drop cluster medical kits. >humanitarian shit Listen, warrior narcissist, I'm sick of your shit. Smash your own mirror. We paint the F35's pink to make amends for the murder they have caused. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > the expense of the children with severed limbs dying every single minute under the rubble that was placed upon them by the very F35's you worship. Now you are standing on the graves of hypothetical children? Expense is real: you suggested an extremely poor way to allocate finite resources. More hypothetical children could be helped by putting the F-35s in the boneyard and using conventional cargo planes, so by your own twisted logic, are you not part of the problem? > If it was "efficient" and "cost effective" to use the F35 to murder tens of thousands Ignoring the emotional component: even pro-military detractors of the F-35 program argue that it isn't cost effective or efficient to use the F-35 for what it was actually designed to do. Hence why the F-16 keeps getting new avionics, engines, payloads, etc. | |
| ▲ | Libcat99 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Frankly, this is insanity. You would choose helping save 100 children so you can paint an aircraft pink rather than 10,000 for the same resource allocation. |
|
| |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | mylies43 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I mean, with limited resources sure, but in your example if we use F35s to drop these supplies we can only drop half or a quarter as much as the supplies. Then we will also need spend a time, money, and resources into maintaining the F35 instead of using those to create and distribute more helpful resources. Its horribly ineffecient and you want to help, you gotta use your resources wisely instead of dropping water pumps from F35 because its cool and already there, Im sure the people in the area would rather 12 hours and get 50 water pumps instead. Then you could also drop in people to help install the water pumps( or doctors if we talking medical supplies). There is a finite amount of time and resources, we shouldnt be wasting them just to make a point. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | a) use the fastest means possible to save the human lives that were smashed into obvious by <insert weapons system here>, and b) de-weaponize all the things - take the mirror from the warrior narcissist immediately - and "paint those F35's pink" (its a metaphor, relax) - disable their stealth, and have them and their pilots serve the human beings whose lives they have spent years obliterating, as amends to the rest of the human species whose lives they are making utterly miserable with their actions ... But yeah, your ideas are cool too. I'm waxing philosophical because we all know, the bombs are going to continue to drop, no matter what we peace-makers say and do on HN .. |
| |
| ▲ | cindyllm a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | Libcat99 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | While I would much rather see medical kits distributed to Gaza today than bombs, this could (and should) be accomplished not by converting F35s. Dismantle the F35s, and drop supplies with a C130 or other military transport capable of airdrop, which will be VASTLY more cost/fuel efficient, thus allowing you to do a lot more of it than you ever could with a fleet of F35s. Which I'm 95% certain is exactly what the other folks you're arguing with are suggesting. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | Dismantle the F35's: sure. Once the victims they created are safe. But if the F35's were used to murder, they can be used to rescue, too. So do that as fast as possible. In fact, turning the F35's into medical-supply dropping devices immediately would have another very, very important impact: it would be making amends for all the death and calamity their warrior narcissist pilots, who have spent their lives learning to murder efficiently, have been causing. We paint the F35's pink to make amends for the murder they have caused. | | |
| ▲ | Libcat99 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | So you, when given the choice. 1. Save/heal/supply as many people as possible.
2. "Make Amends" by painting aircraft pink. You choose 2. This is where you and I disagree. | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > In fact, turning the F35's into medical-supply dropping devices immediately In your scenario, how many people are dying as a result of the carbon impact of this foolish waste of fuel and other resources as opposed to using the right tool for the job? |
|
| |
| ▲ | hansvm a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > you can't possibly be saying XYZ...rant about XYZ, among other things No, obviously that's not what they're saying. There must be some reasonable interpretation then, right? Let's look at the chat thread and see what we can find. > be very cautious about evil uses of seemingly safe technology when developing initial capabilities >> that's super hard since most things can be repurposed >>> (your other comment) it's actually easy though, just look at how we could repurpose these death machines >>>> (their comment) but...that's wildly inefficient The subtext to their answer is going an entire opposite direction to your rant. People are saying that turning anything into a killing machine is easy, and their comment is saying that doing so is sometimes Pareto-suboptimal, and so wildly so that no semi-rational-at-least-a-little-bit-sometimes military is going to bother trying to weaponize your silicone basting brush or what have you. They're not saying that you should mass-murder people, as you, yourself speculated. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | >No, obviously that's not what they're saying. It is what they are saying, because they have misunderstood the point: You talk about 'efficiency' while there are children dying, limbs severed, bombs still falling. The F35 is there, it has one purpose: murder. Turn that immediately into another, singular purpose: life. Nobody is saying "manufacture new F35's that only drop pansies". The point is, de-weaponize. That can be done with far greater ease than anything else. And that is the only point that matters, while limbless children are dying by the minute. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | All of this random F-35 shit is completely missing the point. The F-35 isn't "there" - no aircraft is "there" because the costs to operate them far eclipse their acquisition costs, always. If you said "scrap the F-35s, spend money on humanitarian purposes" - you'd have a cogent (albeit naive) point. "Use one of the most expensive per-flight-hour aircraft in the world to do a mission it can't do and wasn't built for" is not intelligent. Roughly, just considering fuel: the F-35 burns ~10,000 lbs/hr of JP-8 and can haul just 18,000 lbs of relatively small/multiple payloads. A 747 burns ~20,000 lbs/hr and can haul over 300,000 lbs of palletized loads. See the issue? | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | We paint the F35's pink to make amends for the murder they have caused. You know, amends. One of those spiritual concepts you can't eat, since you don't know what salad is and you're too busy serving yourself lines off The Mirror™ you made from some billet somewhere ... | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | "Spiritual" concepts don't feed people, and the dumb idea you've suggested actually harms people more than whatever abstract/intangible spiritual victory you're achieving. With this incorrect vehicle, you cannot move as much food, desalination equipment, or whatever other nonsense you think will help. You are suggesting something that will objectively result in fewer resources being given to those in need - why would anyone donate to your cause? Is the propaganda victory of "making amends" somehow worth the lives of the people you want to "help?" |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | adrianN a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | „We spent money on weapons, let’s use them“ is actually a frighteningly common argument. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | esseph a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | 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 a day ago | parent [-] | | > 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 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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 > 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. |
| |
| ▲ | rpdillon a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a real problem with governments that invade other countries and attack civilians, and we're in a particularly hot time right now. That gives many current examples, though: should Ukraine prioritize manufacturing water pumps? Or do they mostly need weapons to fight back in the war? I get that folks don't like war. I hate war. I've seen much more evidence that deterrence produces peace more readily than disarmament. On the flip side, more destructive weapons may be used more rarely, but they kill more people when they are used. I'm not sure what the optimal approach is, but it almost certainly requires nations to arm themselves in case they are attacked. "Provide for the common defense" was not specified idly. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | Ukraine should prioritize making peaceful relationships, as should the Russians and Americans and British - and the rest of the world should be making sure they do so. That they have not made that priority, choosing instead to prioritize their nations' collective warrior narcissist identities rather than valuing the human life of each, is why those nations are on the brink of destroying each other. Warrior narcissism is infectious and contagious and insidious. You can see it at an individual scale and you can see it at nation scales, too. The solution is to smash the mirror: deny any and all of the identities involved their right to their own identities, until they see, underneath it all, the true value of human life. There is no American/Russian/Ukrainian/British identity worth more than the human lives in each state. There is no Israeli/Palestinian identity worth more than the human lives in either state. The fact that one identity is held as more valuable/important/special than the other, is what gives each the justification (not right) to murder the other. If the rest of the world had shunned the Russians and the Ukrainians and the British and the Americans at equivalent levels until their identities were no longer of any perceived value, the conflict would not have perpetuated. The fact that Russians clung to the identities of the Russian-speaking humans in the Donbas, the fact that Ukraine nationalist identity took higher priority over respect for human life, the fact that Americans gloat over their own cultural identity of warriors, as do the Brits - is why we have the conflict. >I've seen much more evidence that deterrence produces peace more readily than disarmament. Bullshit. Deterrence did not stop a single human life being murdered in any of the current conflicts. "Deterrence" is just warrior narcissist speak for "I've got my mirror, it's bigger than <theirs>, and that is all that matters". | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > Ukraine should prioritize making peaceful relationships Ok, let's steel man this thing. Russia is not going to be peaceful regardless of your idealism - this isn't a disputable fact. Now, how does Ukraine "prioritize making peaceful relationships?" Specifically, what concrete actions should Ukraine take to prevent violent incursion by an outside actor? No word salad: if you are the benevolent dictator of Ukraine today, what do you do? Counting on third parties to "shun" is out, it's not an effective option (and it arguably already happened with sanctions, but still.) > Deterrence did not stop a single human life being murdered in any of the current conflicts. What would Ukraine look like absent any donated war materiel from third parties? Why does Russia not own Kiev in that scenario? | |
| ▲ | rpdillon 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Prioritize making peaceful relationships" is entirely unhelpful along the lines of saying "Do the work". The way you're writing so dismissively of other people's analysis of this topic demands that you provide something far more specific than you are. As it is, you're writing seems completely divorced from reality. |
|
| |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [dead] | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | > 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? |
| |
| ▲ | aa-jv a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] | | |
| ▲ | Brian_K_White a day ago | parent [-] | | I could say the same thing of you for this very comment. And you have just joined in the fighting and the othering in the finest and noblest tradition. Textbook. | | |
| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | parent [-] | | So you're in the camp that would rather murder than learn another language, then? "Nice identity there. Be a pity if someone smashed it." The only real enemy is the warrior narcissist, whose identity means more to them than another human life. Try not to look too hard into that mirror, it will consume you. | | |
| ▲ | scarecrowbob a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I love your line of thinking here. Just pure, unadulterated bat-shit craziness. There is no world where the globe-spanning, petroleum based colonialist empire that produces F35 is going to somehow, out of the goodness of it's oil-pumping heart go swords to plowshares. I mean, of all the many folks displaying cluster-b disorders on this site, you're quite expressive of certain trends. You're unable to look past your own identity within the hegemonic order to understand how absolutely out of touch with the material world your positions are. Congratulations or outdoing so many other folks here in expressing the most radically contradictory and simultaneously un-self-aware positions. | | |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | | > many folks displaying cluster-b disorders on this site I would argue this is more Cluster A (schizotypal) than B. Cluster B disorders can at least be logically rationalized using some framework - this is something else entirely. | | |
| ▲ | aa-jv 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Classic warrior narcissist response. Look it up, its just as real as your claim. I'm with the OP. Its time to resist this heinously hate-filled culture that justifies the murder of innocents because they are inferior. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > So you're in the camp that would rather murder than learn another language, then? What happens if I already know the language of the people I have conflict with? What's the next cheat code? > "Be a pity if someone smashed it." Can you see the irony in calling people "warrior narcissists," decrying violence, and then talking about "smashing" things? What are you "smashing" them with? Feelings? | | |
| ▲ | aa-jv 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | >What happens if I already know the language of the people I have conflict with? What's the next cheat code? Lived there for a while? Eaten their food? Done your best to improve conditions in their lives? >What are you "smashing" them with? Feelings? Its a metaphor, a kind of an advanced thought where you create an analog of something - an idea - and smash it. Exactly the opposite of smashing actual childrens' limbs, and always a better choice to make instead of you know, dropping bombs. And after that, the cheat code is, you don't do any more physical harm, because .. you know .. you've expanded your mind well enough that you do actually respect the people you once thought you had to bomb, or else their Bad People would hurt you. | | |
| ▲ | scarecrowbob 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | One of the problems for me is that the people I disagree with are the white supremacists who operate the empire. I know them pretty well. It actually has been quite difficult to extricate my thinking from that culture which raised me and I still struggle to do that work. I know they are incredibly violent. Hoping that you could take their firearms manufacturing and get them to shoot flowers isn't just dumb, it's a dangerous misreading of the structure. F35s aren't going to start dropping aid packages. Thinking they might is dangerously naive because it misses the structural forces that create them in the first place. And further, that kind of "the miliitary could be used for good if we just use the power of our minds to levitate the pentagon" style thinking is what leads folks to develop vicious technology without worrying how it may be used. The folks with the guns and the empire often hold a belief that the technology that they produce has not underlying system or ethical structure that produced it, so it could be use for "good" just as easily as the violence to which it will enviably be put. The US liberals and conservatives who hold these views generally think that if we just have more [trans/well-trained] bomber pilots or [black/class-transitioning] billionaires, all the violence in the world could be put in the bottle and chucked into the sea. When I write that the person who is creating all this text is a fucking nut, this is the kind of thing that I am talking about: "de-weaponization means, disconnecting the user from using technology in destructive ways". You can't. Thinking that you can is dangerous and just hides the problems. Thinking that somehow the teleology of the technology can be reduced to a single person's motivations for using it is the exact same structure that the folks who are using it for violence think. It destroys any hope of understanding the social structures that lead to folks using technology for violence. It's what has led to the IMF, World Bank, and WTO doing so many crimes. It's lynch pin that allows folks in the US to think somehow their thoughts and prayers for how all the tech they produce just needs to be tweaked a bit and somehow that will stop the ecocide of the planet. "Sorry we destroyed your economy and caused massive instability, but you were holding it wrong". I mean, I have in the past "expanded my mind" to understand that none of the terrible violence inflicted by this empire is necessary- you're right that it is not, but the problem is that anything I do after that is "all in my head". The material reality, though, is that either we're not doing anything material at that point (which is certainly a kind of narcissism in its own right) or more typically we don't fully understand the deep violence maintained by something such as the US capitalist world order, which is (as far as I can tell) even more narcissistic and violent. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
