• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    There was someone who worked in Washington who made a proposal that the nuclear launch codes should be printed on a little capsule that was surgically implanted inside a man who would travel around with the president, in kind of the same way that the briefcase or whatever-it-is travels around with him under the current system.

    The deal was, if the president wanted to launch a nuclear strike, he had to take a big knife and kill the man to cut him open to get to the capsule. Kind of come to grips on an individual level with what he was dealing with, and what it meant on at least some level, instead of just pushing some buttons in an air conditioned office.

    I don’t think this was ever meant as a serious proposal. The person who invented it was just trying to make a point. But it did get relayed to at least one person who worked in the Pentagon who got very upset at the idea and started arguing against it. What if, he said, the president looks at what’s in front of him and can’t do it. That would be terrible.

    • pivot_root@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      6 months ago

      What if, he said, the president looks at what’s in front of him and can’t do it. That would be terrible.

      If the president can’t kill one single man without a guilty conscience, he/she probably shouldn’t be obliterating the entirety of our species.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The deal was, if the president wanted to launch a nuclear strike, he had to take a big knife and kill the man to cut him open to get to the capsule.

      There are too many Presidents in history who would have done that gleefully for me to believe it would function as a deterrent.

      What if, he said, the president looks at what’s in front of him and can’t do it. That would be terrible.

      I’m less worried about the President who hesitates than I am the President who doesn’t.

    • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      Sounds like a plot element from Metal Gear Solid.

      However: I think this would weaken nuclear deterrence, wouldn’t it?

    • daltotron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I dunno I mean it’s a pretty different proposal to logically come to the idea of like. oh something that’s an existential threat needs to be nuked, whether that be like, godzilla, which is NOT a good idea, or like, just ensuring MAD because fuck it, I guess, or like, north korea or something, right, there’s a difference between that, which should probably be a pretty cold and calculated decision, and like, killing someone, presumably that you know quite well after travelling with them for you know, at most, eight years, and then rooting through their corpse to find a little code with what’s probably a time critical objective. I think probably, as another commenter pointed out, you would want to elect the president that can’t kill a person. That’s a better president, than the one that can, probably.

      Bigger hole than all that, though: the president would probably just ask the secret service to do it, and the secret service would probably comply.

  • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    69
    ·
    6 months ago

    Errr yeah but it doesn’t count as genocide, it only went over a small fraction of the people. It’s not genocide until it’s all of them! I am very smart.

    /s

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      6 months ago

      According to the trolley operator, one in three people tied to the tracks is Hamas.

      Why would you sympathize with Hamas? They’ve been trying to blow that trolley up for years. If we don’t run them over now, they’ll just try to do it again.

    • lugal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 months ago

      My thought exactly. Instead of talking if it’s right or wrong and if it should stop, be should focus on more important questions like is it genocide and is it antisemitic.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      if we’re “uhm akshuallying” here, technically genocide is a past tense term judging by its common contextual use, and any other use case of it is grammatically incorrect.

      Mass murder/mass homicide would be more accurate, or perhaps a different term altogether. Genocidal is a different form of it so it doesnt count under this, though it could technically apply here as well.

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Jew is both a genealogical ethnicity and a religious designation. Islam is a different religion. So, never?

      • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Semite: “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs” So, how is it anti-semitic to be pro-palestine?

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          23
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Yes, that is the etymology. Queer no longer means odd, and literally now also means figuratively.

          Antisemitism is the belief or behavior hostile toward Jews just because they are Jewish. It may take the form of religious teachings that proclaim the inferiority of Jews, for instance, or political efforts to isolate, oppress, or otherwise injure them. It may also include prejudiced or stereotyped views about Jews.

          It is not antisemitic to be pro-Palestine if you ask anyone other than Netanyahu. I know many Jews that resent him for using that term in defense of his actions, and the actions of the IDF.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            6 months ago

            Queer no longer means odd

            Yeah it does. It has additional meanings, but it also retains that one.

            literally now also means figuratively.

            Over my dead body! Just because an authority says something unacceptable is acceptable doesn’t make it so. See also: the Israeli government committing genocide.

            It is not antisemitic to be pro-Palestine

            Correct.

            if you ask anyone other than Netanyahu

            Frustratingly, he’s far from the only Zionist demagogue spreading that particular lie. It’s become less effective recently, but it’s been used to shut down any criticism of the apartheid regime for decades…

            • Belastend@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              literally now also means figuratively.

              Over my dead body! Just because an authority says something unacceptable is acceptable doesn’t make it so. See also: the Israeli government committing genocide.

              Maybe this isnt the right place to interject here: but yes, it now also means figuratively. Not because an authority said so, but because a sizable portion of native english speakers use it to mean figuratively. Thats how language works.

                • Belastend@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  The OED is, again, descriptive. They observe the change in meaning and update their description accordingly.

              • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                That’s a textbook appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because many people make the same mistake doesn’t mean it becomes correct.

                The most popular electric car brand is Tesla. That doesn’t mean that Teslas don’t have the build quality of a 1980s Yugo and the price tag of a brand new Jaguar.

                Don’t use other people being stupid as an excuse to be stupid, is what I’m saying.

                • nieminen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  This is a bad comparison. Language absolutely works as described in the previous comment. While certain trends such as using “literally” to mean “figuratively”, are personally super annoying, that doesn’t change the fact it’s 100% correct when enough people do it.

          • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            6 months ago

            So, arguable, anti-semitism is also bigotry toward Arabs, we just have to wait for the language to catch up, got it.

            • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              6 months ago

              You have that reversed. Etymology is the study of the origin of words and the way in which their meanings have changed throughout history. The origin of Semite no longer applies to the word as it is used today.

              The only reason it’s unique to Jews is because it’s both a form of racism and religious persecution. One can be genealogically an Ashkenazi Jew but not practice Judaism, or vice-versa.

                • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  It’s possible. Language evolves. You’re likely not going to get it to catch on with root awareness. That’s hardly how English has evolved for the last century.

      • Kashif Shah@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        6 months ago

        Final comment for ya (always happy to continue chatting in our deeper thread though - that was lovely).

        A lot of people conflate Islam with Arab, nowadays (maybe you’ve heard of brown-folks be described as Islamics before, for example)

        So, maybe someday?

        if the dictionary ever updates Islam to mean also mean “a Muslim”.

        • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Oxford defines a Muslim as a person who follows the religion of Islam. That’s accurate. The ethnicity of Palestinians would be Levantine, or Broadly Arab, according to genetics websites. Based on my comment, I think you may be comparing it to the ethnicity of Jews. There actually is a scientific difference, one is a religion, while the other is a religion and a genealogical ethnicity, and it absolutely can be confusing.

          My ex and I both did DNA testing a few years ago. Hers came back as 99.8% Ashkenazi Jew. Her family emigrated from Russia when the Jews were chased out by the Bolsheviks. Some may consider that Russian ancestry. Scientifically, it’s not. She’s genealogically Jewish. It even has bearing on efficacy of certain medical treatments and hereditary health.

          https://blog.23andme.com/articles/ashkenazi-ancestry-and-health

          So someone could be genealogically Jewish and not practice Judaism, like 45% of Israeli Jews who are non-secular, or someone could practice Judaism without being of Jewish ethnicity. I hope that helps clarify some of the confusion.

          Always down for a pleasant, healthy, and civil conversation. Sorry I fell asleep on you. Haha

  • PugJesus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    6 months ago

    If you encourage the authority to pull the lever, though, you’re complicit in the atrocities already committed, so you should definitely just sit this one out. /s

  • HarbingerOfTomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Incredibly oversimplified.

    Edit: I was going to add more detail to my comment and speak to both sides but why should I have to? The cartoon endeavors to simplify the most complex issue of the last fifty years, why should I have to add more context to a comment on one post, on a small community, on a small social network?

  • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    is the trolley named atrocity? Or is it actively committing an atrocity? Or is it’s name atrocity, which is why it’s committing an “atrocity” but actually it could be tongue in cheek so it may actually be both of them.

    also what happens if you just pull it yourself, is that not antisemitism? Seems like a loop hole to me.

  • electric_nan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 months ago

    Asking or telling the authority to stop, is the same as voting (in 6 months) for a new authority who will (probably) drive the trolley a bit faster. Will there still be children on the tracks by then? Who knows!

    • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 months ago

      “Thank you for calling 911. We care about your emergency and will respond as soon as we vote on who will answer the phone. Our next election will take place in three days. Please hold.”