Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I think the attacks in Yemen were also horrible.
And yes, I was very overdramatic.
Again, sorry. I shouldn't have posted that. My Berserk Button is not your responsibility to deal with.
[head bowed in submission]
I'm not afraid of war with Russia in Syria in the slightest but I was very skeptical of Hillary Clinton's plans to continue the War on Terror the way it was previously being fought by Obama, which showed no sign of going anywhere any soon. A state of continuous low level warfare all across the globe struck me as a very very bad thing.
edited 14th May '18 7:43:51 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.As M84 said, drones aren't robots.
Secondly, the majority of countries that the US conducts drone strikes in are countries that invited the US military in. Whether we should have accepted those invitations is one thing, but we work with the support of their governments. As I said before, Pakistan is the only country that has a claim to its sovereignty being violated.
They should have sent a poet.While I'm aware they're not robots...the point is that there's no difference between it and a missile strike.
The issue isn't whether Skynet is killing people, it's the issue of how many people are being killed in causally ordered wetwork.
Edit:
Also, are people actually talking about whether it would matter if it WAS robots or not? I mean, even if they did program a drone to go bomb someone, what would be the difference? It would still be X number of dead people.
I don't believe A.I. is actually possible.
edited 14th May '18 7:46:34 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.![]()
People get killed like that all the time. Drones are no different at all.
edited 14th May '18 7:45:59 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country![]()
![]()
You're right, there's no difference between a drone strike, or a missile strike, or an airstrike or artillery bombardment or any of the other things we do during war. Drones aren't some uniquely evil phenomenon, we've been killing people by remote control since the end of WW 2.
edited 14th May '18 7:47:01 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.BREAKING NEWS: The Criminal Charges against Gov. Eric Greitens (R-MO) have been dropped,
due to Greiten's request to call Kim Gardner (the Prosecutor) as a witness were accepted by the Circuit Court Judge. The Prosecution plans to immediately refile the charges, with the hope of getting a Special Prosecutor to replace Gardner.
What a terrible move, especially on the Judges part. Who the hell would accept the demand that the Prosecuting Attorney be put as a witness? And of course, the fact that the case was dropped at all (not just because of what appears to be an incredibly corrupt move) will just fuel speculation that the whole case is bogus (which it absolutely isn't). Hope Greitens' gets the maximum penalty (although considering this judge apparently sides with him already, I doubt he will).
Then don't call them fucking robots.
Is it really something that matters?
AI doesn't exist and never will exist.
(I'm a believer in Roger Penrose's consciousness work)
edited 14th May '18 7:52:11 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.@Ambar: I dont know where you teach, but the University of Alberta's Student Code of Ethics is considered something of a benchmark, so IMHO it would be helpful to view it as representative of the kind of approach Canada expects of professional, ethical instructors. You can find a copy here
.
It's useful to examine some of the highlights:
Section 30.1.1 States that "Any Student who has been accused of having committed an offence under this Code has the right" [followed by a list of rights, including]: "to be presumed not to have commi tted an offence until their commission of an offence has been established on the balance of probabilities, before an impartial and unbiased decision- maker;
Section 30.3.2 "Inappropriate Academic Behavior" lists the following: Plagerism, cheating, misuse of confidential materials, research and scholarship misconduct, and Inappropriate Behaviour in Professional Programs.
Section 30.3.4 lists "Inappropriate Behaviour towards Individuals or Groups" and includes: disruption, discrimmination, Dissemination of Malicious Material, retaliation, unfounded allegations, violations of safety or dignity, hazing,
Section 30.3.5 lists examples of Inappropriate Use of University Property and Resources
and Section 30.3.6 lists a variety of Other Offences mostly having to do with the abuse of alcohol and other drugs.
Now, we could debate whether or not holding a particular set of political views, however offensive and wrong, constitutes a violation of any of these behaviors defined as unacceptable behavior under this code. I will admit that I do not know enough about Canadain jurisprudence to say how the expression of fascist beliefs in a classroom would be defined with respect to a code like this. I would imagine it would depened on what the topic of the course was. In the context of a course on political science it might seem topical, in a course on geometry not so much.
But it doesnt matter, because even if fascist views are deemed unacceptable in Canada, the actions that the instructor is to undertake in the event of any of these behaviors is clearly spelled out:
Under section 30.4.1 "General Provisions" which members of the university have the authority to decide if a student is in violation of the code is spelled out—instructors are not listed.
Section 30.4.2 "Types of Sanctions" lists the types of disciplinary actions that can be undertaken in response to a code violation—ignoring a student, not asking them questions or otherwise excluding them from classroom discussions is not included. "Exclusion" and "Expulsion" are, as I noted from my experience as an American college instructor.
However, under section 30.4.3(1) "Minor Sanctions" it notes that instructors can dismiss a student from class for "disturbing, disrupting or otherwise interfering with a Class." We can debate whether or not the expression of certain specific political views constitutes interfering with a class, if you wish.
Note that I do include haranging, harassing, monologuing, overspeaking, speaking off topic and similar behaviors as actions that constitute interference. But sharing a political belief, however offensive, just once or in response to a question or in the context of a discussion on political beliefs, in my opinion, would not. Moreover, I hold that haranging and harassing and so forth would be inteference regardless of the specific views espressed, however, even if they were generally deemed socially desirable or progressive. This seems completely consistend with the Code, at least as I read it. Perhaps you have a different interpretation?
Online classes, I admit, have a different set of dynamics governing participation. At least in most courses I have participated in, most interaction consists of text, and so the written word carries more weight than it would in a face to face classroom setting. I don't believe that changes the essential nature of what constitutes interference with the class, however.
In any event, regardless of any of the above, in all cases of unacceptable behavior by students, the process begins in the same way. According to section 30.5.1 "The General Rules of Discipline and Appeal" instructors always makes a recommendation to the Dean—that step begins the formal disciplinary process.
Therefore, I hold that if one takes your previous statements as posted here literally, the actions you espouse would appear to be in violation of at least one Code of Conduct in Canada. Of course, it might be that your institution does not seek to uphold its instructors to the same professional standard as the University of Alberta (or colleges in the United States), but obviously I cant know that. If you think that Alberta's code is inappropriate, you can make that case.
Regardless, "ignoring them" in the hope that the other students wont be bothered by their offensive views does not appear to be considered a prescribed approach.
Teach 'em or boot 'em.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
It's almost as if words mean something. But then again, given how you've misused "warmonger" and "technocrat", I shouldn't be surprised.
Well, I would love a defense for how you think Hillary's policy (assuming it followed the one she recommended to Obama and he followed) was actually a good thing. Mostly, I've heard warmonger called out and technocrat and robot but no actual statement any of it was a good thing.
I wouldn't bet any money on that.
Possibly.
edited 14th May '18 7:53:40 PM by CharlesPhipps
Author of The Rules of Supervillainy, Cthulhu Armageddon, and United States of Monsters.Being a fascist counts as like, half of them.
edited 14th May '18 7:55:45 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country@Charles Phipps: Well, if you want to make the point that targeted assassination by executive order is a violation or progressive values, then I think you should spell out your case. Because not everyone agrees with you. I would be curious to know when you think the President has the authority to use lethal force overseas, if ever.
@Kazuya: How, exactly?
edited 14th May '18 7:58:06 PM by DeMarquis
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
x6 I've found that betting against science is a bad proposition.
But as to whether targeted killings and expanding the war on terror were good choices, it's hard to say. There really wasn't any good choice in that situation, so in many ways those choices were the best available choices while still not being good. And it's hard to debate the merits of something, when the only criticism you've leveled against it so far is "too robotic".
edited 14th May '18 7:57:58 PM by archonspeaks
They should have sent a poet.(I'm a believer in Roger Penrose's consciousness work)
There's a lot of issues that hard AI faces, but Penrose's arguments are pretty iffy
Though in relation to the discussion this doesn't really matter, since warbots are being actively worked on and don't actually need true conciousness to function
Disruption: Maybe not necessarily but the rest?
Discrimmination (easy trait of any neo fascist)
Dissemination of Malicious Material (fascist views count as dangerous per se)
Retaliation (high chances that it will happens against a minority)
Unfounded allegations (racist love doing this)
Violations of safety or dignity (I need to explain this?),
edited 14th May '18 8:03:57 PM by KazuyaProta
Watch me destroying my country"American tries to lecture person from another country on their internal policies. News at ten."
I'm not in Alberta, De Marq. And even if I was, all you're doing is quoting words from a document. You've got no real concept of what they mean, because even in Alberta, the single most reactionary province in the country (so nice work on that front), the open expression of fascist views generally isn't tolerated.
Maybe whatever part of America you live in has set in stone rules demanding that neo-Nazis be given a chance, consequences to the other students be damned. But those rules don't even apply to the rest of America, let alone foreign countries.
Nothing I've done violates any part of the ethics rules. I've been commended for my performance in fact. So if you want to let your resident neofascists keep talking, you go right ahead and do that. Me, I'll keep doing what I'm doing so that the other 99 percent of the students can get the full benefit of the education they paid for.

Until your recent post clarified it was drone strikes you were on about, nobody had a clue what you were talking about, and "Hillary is an evil warmonger" is an accusation that 90 percent of the time is followed by accusations about "wanting a war with Russia." Had you been hear during the election and just after, you'd know that.
"Murder by executive order." That's so hyperbolic I don't even know how to begin addressing it.