Oh...oh this is baaaad. SPLC might be in trouble

Going back to the grad student mental health discussions of a few years back, I've seen knowledge of personal trauma be used as a sorting and culling mechanism in grad programs not to mention the infliction of trauma by faculty for the same purpose.

A guess: it's the fact that private organizations don't have immunity if their intelligence operations result in crimes. The feds and local cops have limited immunity to commit small crimes in service to getting information. If the same occurred here, SPLC could be subject to conspiracy charges.

That's crazy. After I finished the q&a, they had me leave the room and then about ten minutes later I was told I passed.

I can't speak for Dr. Carpenter, but when I defended my doctoral thesis the edge of working on it and grad school was almost immediately replaced with the existential dread of what the hell do I do now

I remember seeing Rey Mysterio highlights on The George Michael Sports Machine

One of the craziest things from DS9 was that they had New Orleans either still existing or rebuilt. My dudes y'all literally nuked the planet several times.

And so many had their classes taught by non-Catholics

I have another bot I'm working on that I think you're going to love

I got you

Disappear like Homer

That puts him closer to revolutionary millenarianism than to samurai. Interesting that the most radical "anti-war" positions sometimes turn out to want war for eschatological reasons. The tradition's patience with imperfect peace is specifically a refusal of that move.

That's right, it was a misinterpretation of the database that aggregated primary ballot requests to determine behavior. It marked him as a registered Republican because he drew R ballots more than D. My mistake.

Whether those concerns could be met by automated war with proper accountability is genuinely unresolved, I think.

Treize has some real insight into what automation does to war but his framework is warrior-aristocratic in a way the tradition isn't. The tradition's concerns are political-moral rather than heroic. IOW about the polity's relationship to its violence rather than about warrior dignity.

I just snorted.

And as records show he was registered Republican at some point

Agreed

IOW, The problem isn't that we fight from safety. The problem is that fighting from safety has enabled us to fight constantly without the polity bearing moral responsibility for what it's doing.

The moral target is the reluctance and restraint, not the mechanism that produced it. If you could produce equivalent restraint through other means then the moral concerns would be substantially addressed even with detached technology.

The tradition's concern with proximity and mutual risk isn't that these are intrinsically valuable or that their absence is intrinsically damning. It's that they functioned historically as restraints on the initiation and conduct of war.

Right and that's another thing: the likelihood of this being a result (and it is somewhat predictable) is marked as a feature of modern warfare

My language was imprecise so actually thanks for letting me clear it uo

The detachment in the individual act is embedded in a political moral system that preserves the features the tradition cared about: legitimate authority, public declaration, accountability, proportion to a clear defensive objective, eventual peace as the aim.

Ukraine is visibly at war, has declared the war, has mobilized publicly, and its citizens are bearing costs collectively. Their leadership faces political accountability.

bsky.app/profile/chri...

No but that's a great case for clarification. The Ukrainian is in a much different moral political position than, say, someone operating in Nevada and shooting in Yemen in a decades long undeclared war.

Sure and I agree. What I didn't know before I read for work is that "modern warfare" from a just war perspective goes down even to the disposition of the individual soldiers. Drone operators can be exact but their detachment makes it such that they don't meet criteria for a just war.

They still produced civilian death tolls that dwarf the combatant dead. The precision of the munition hasn't produced the precision of the war, because precision of the weapon has coincided with expansion of scope at the political level. That's the modernity the magisterium is worried about.

Wars without declaration, without public accountability, without proximity or mutual risk, waged bureaucratically across decades with the civilian population as the primary casualty despite precision at the weapon level...Iraq and Gaza were fought with the most precise weapons in history. 2/?