360
Pentagon AI more ethical than adversaries’ because of ‘Judeo-Christian society,’ USAF general says
(www.defenseone.com)
this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2023
360 points (95.7% liked)
Technology
59711 readers
5789 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a term invented and popularized by racist people to make racist policies (yes even Orwell - "Shooting an Elephant" is sus af) . There is already a term that refers to all three Abrahamic religions! By specifically excluding Islam, they are able to exclude the Arab world and all those nonwhite Muslims and make them into an Other. It's an underpinning ethical framework for shit like the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, overthrowing Ghaddafi and the Muslim Brotherhood and plunging North Africa into chaos, and ethnically cleansing Palestine.
It needs to fucking stop.
So people can never refer to judism amd christianity by them selves?
People should be able to talk about them in any combination of one, two, or three that they want. Thats how open intellectual shit happens.
I think your passion has clouded your logic and debate.
You are glossing over the question of why they would be choosing to refer to only 2 out 3 related religions.
Do the brain thing yourself before you judge people for it. Some people talk big about debate and intellectuality even though they are the first to disengage and dismiss others' arguments.
Yours is the side telling people they cannot use the term or even consider the concept jnown as 'Judeo-Christian' without being an irredeamable racist.
I judge people who tell me what things i can and cannot think about and what words i can use.
I call them facists.
Here we have it, that's just an emotional outburst. Before considering reasons and examples, you are making it into a threat, lumping people into "sides" and trying to flip a perceived accusation around, one that wasn't even aimed at you, mind you, but you are taking the pains as if it were.
Nevermind that you didn't even bother to elaborate on this connection exclusively between judaism and christianity.
It seems like you just want to argue that you can say and think it, which is not the same as that being valid or correct. Yeah, you sure can say whatever you want, and it just might be nonsense.
But really? Calling someone racist means they are a fascist? You are aware that racist people do exist, right? Just because you may make the association innocently, that doesn't mean the same applies to everyone. And pointing it out is not the same as throwing them in jail for it.
"You" are the one arguing in support of control over thoughts and ideas. That is pretty damn facist in my head.
If people cant consider things in order of understanding, the intentions, the structure of claims, the flaws, etc. the people will just be ripe for the next populist rhetoric scam.
Racists exist in all races. Patriots from.a nations. Fans for every team. Stans for every car brand. Etc.
Time, experience, and age usually sort shit out better than outlawing thought.
And yes, arguments have sides.
Yeah, I'm sure in your head you have a whole made-up horror scenario and a whole strawman costume for me. You aren't even talking about the argument anymore, but just the made up concerns from your head.
Nobody is outlawing thought. We are talking to each other right now. Who are you even talking about who wants to outlaw thought?
The biggest irony is that your response to your perception that using the label of "racist" is "outlawing thought" is to use the label "fascist" to shut down discussion. It's funny how certain topics of discussion lead to this immediate backlash. Some say thoughts and ideas ought to be free, except when someone wants to talk about "racism", in which case they must be disregarded and opposed immediately. What selective view of freedom and logic.
Meanwhile we could have been talking about the differences between judeo-christian vs abrahamic and why one might use one over the other, but that was not so important apparently.
People are one thing, but the fucking Pentagon shouldn't be talking about it! There's nothing intellectual about this shit.
Yeah, the Pentagon kills just about as many innocent people as God did in that Old Testament this General masturbates to.
Well, to be fair, the Pentagon never wiped out the entire human race and forced it to restart from a single family.
So, God? More evil than the Pentagon.
That was done out of Love.
You can't despise Him for that. You just can't fully comprehend the meaning of Love because it is capitalized, like He said.
He hurts us because he Loves us!