Disregard my mangled post:(
Should read:
Court of Appeals
540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse
100 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: 513-564-7000
Well, I knew he's a hardcore-conservative born-again Christian and I saw the recent story where he sent pictures of hot gay sex to the court, and not in a "hey, check out this hot, hot gay sex" way. So I allowed myself a little speculative license.
Since I'm relatively unfamiliar with Thompson's history, I went and read his Wikipedia page, and I have to give him this: he certainly pursued his goal singlemindedly. I figured he would be in some right-winger's pocket or something, but the guy really went after EVERYONE. It's not often you see someone who sincerely doesn't care about anything except the axe he's grinding.
If you're looking for your classic sci-fi to be apolitical, you're basically looking for bad science fiction. Wherever science fiction depicts the future, it comments on the present.
It's insane how many people are replying to this news with, "Well of course we do this in war, why is anyone surprised." That's not the point.
Nobody is surprised that special forces with no oversight will do immoral things to accomplish their objectives. Yes, everyone knows that these sorts of things - suspension of habeas corpus, employment of terrorists, and so on - happen in the world, and are sometimes done by Americans.
What's outrageous is that there's official documentation recommending, even instructing, special forces soldiers to engage in this shit. This is morally repugnant for two reasons.
First, there's the problem of sanctioned behavior. It's bad when a special ops guy tortures a prisoner in Nicaragua. It's worse when the American government, nominally the spokesperson for the American people, tells him it's okay to do that. Would torture still occur at the hands of special ops forces without higher-ups in Washington condoning it? Absolutely. But at least the people torturing others, without orders to do so, would have to take full responsibility if they were ever found out.
Second, it calls up an important question that would otherwise go unasked. We naturally assume that these sorts of atrocities must happen during wartime (and apparently some of you assume they must happen during peacetime as well, if we have a burning desire to prop up a dictator). But if orders and directions to do these things came to individual operatives from their bosses... well, authority is a complex and powerful force. How can we say that these atrocities are bound to happen in wartime when they are mandated by an authority figure? Can we really assume that special ops guys would consistently breach fundamental human rights in these ways if they weren't being expressly directed to? Isn't it possible that, without a directive to engage in propaganda or illegal search and seizure, some operatives would avoid doing those things because they're wrong?
At the very least, they COULD avoid doing those things if they chose. Which I'd say is a damned sight better than using a government directive as a moral compass.
Slashdot Mirror
you say this now, but wait until the smartcar you're in gets caught in an infinite loop!
Yall do understand that a lot of people can't afford a smartphone right?
Disregard my mangled post :(
Should read:
Court of Appeals
540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse
100 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Phone: 513-564-7000
Court of Appeals 540 Potter Stewart U.S. Courthouse 100 East Fifth Street Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: 513-564-7000
Well, I knew he's a hardcore-conservative born-again Christian and I saw the recent story where he sent pictures of hot gay sex to the court, and not in a "hey, check out this hot, hot gay sex" way. So I allowed myself a little speculative license.
Since I'm relatively unfamiliar with Thompson's history, I went and read his Wikipedia page, and I have to give him this: he certainly pursued his goal singlemindedly. I figured he would be in some right-winger's pocket or something, but the guy really went after EVERYONE. It's not often you see someone who sincerely doesn't care about anything except the axe he's grinding.
If you're looking for your classic sci-fi to be apolitical, you're basically looking for bad science fiction. Wherever science fiction depicts the future, it comments on the present.
It's insane how many people are replying to this news with, "Well of course we do this in war, why is anyone surprised." That's not the point.
Nobody is surprised that special forces with no oversight will do immoral things to accomplish their objectives. Yes, everyone knows that these sorts of things - suspension of habeas corpus, employment of terrorists, and so on - happen in the world, and are sometimes done by Americans.
What's outrageous is that there's official documentation recommending, even instructing, special forces soldiers to engage in this shit. This is morally repugnant for two reasons.
First, there's the problem of sanctioned behavior. It's bad when a special ops guy tortures a prisoner in Nicaragua. It's worse when the American government, nominally the spokesperson for the American people, tells him it's okay to do that. Would torture still occur at the hands of special ops forces without higher-ups in Washington condoning it? Absolutely. But at least the people torturing others, without orders to do so, would have to take full responsibility if they were ever found out.
Second, it calls up an important question that would otherwise go unasked. We naturally assume that these sorts of atrocities must happen during wartime (and apparently some of you assume they must happen during peacetime as well, if we have a burning desire to prop up a dictator). But if orders and directions to do these things came to individual operatives from their bosses... well, authority is a complex and powerful force. How can we say that these atrocities are bound to happen in wartime when they are mandated by an authority figure? Can we really assume that special ops guys would consistently breach fundamental human rights in these ways if they weren't being expressly directed to? Isn't it possible that, without a directive to engage in propaganda or illegal search and seizure, some operatives would avoid doing those things because they're wrong?
At the very least, they COULD avoid doing those things if they chose. Which I'd say is a damned sight better than using a government directive as a moral compass.
Does the study account for the possibility that skilled players tend to choose the red team?
Not really, only Mages and Paladins are heavily reliant on INT.
It's so fun to watch a cartel devour itself.