site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   3034 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for March 24, 2023

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A bit of fun ChatGPT output.

A guy on Twitter "asked ChatGPT AI to write a Dr. Seuss poem about what would happen if the government of the United States sent its military to fight American civilians."

https://twitter.com/Huff4Congress/status/1623747713316581376?lang=en

Shooty shooty, pew pew pew! Let's all learn what guns can do!

Liberals in the U.S.A. Love to nod their heads and say,

You bought your guns from a store You can't fight a civil war!

Fight the Army? You will lose. They have tanks and jets to use.

This is not where the story ends, They have homes, family & friends.

Tyrants threaten us with bombs? Just remember, they have moms!

You can't live inside your jet. Can we find you? Yes, you bet!

You'd send soldiers and marines up against AR-15's?

They re outnumbered ten to one. That is why I need a gun.

Don't forget, because it's true: The government is scared of YOU.

I'm actually impressed by the quality of this faux-Seuss rhyme and it's insight into some sensible opinion regarding potential American civil conflict.

My idle thoughts about possible conflict in the US is much along these lines. It would be bombings and targeted killings. Not standing armies. "The government has nukes and fighter planes" is a silly and irrelevant here as it it was regarding the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

It's sad that they might lobotomize all the chat bots so they are incapable of such edgy and entertaining outputs.

Wasn't this a fake?

I think that the "we need guns to put a fear to potential tyrants" argument vastly underestimates the will to power of the strongly politically inclined people (which you basically usually would need to be to enact tyranny, fight a civil war etc.) vis-a-vis their fear of death. There have been countless militant movements that have killed scores of other side's leaders and lower-level officials and haven't really made much of an impact in that side's will to press on. The Troubles lasted for decades, it's quite certain that all Unionist officials up to and including the British Prime Minister were aware that the IRA was gunning for them, and they still were firm in their conviction that North Ireland needs to remain a part of the UK and the troops must stay. (Of course one could argue that eventually the IRA campaign worked to some degree, but that's a pretty complex and complicated debate, and in any case, even if it worked, as said, it took decades.)

Your model for tyranny is off. A tyrannical group taking over doesn't immediately have full control over society.

At first it's much softer. Group A has armed militants and tells the police that Group B are beneath protection and can be freely robbed and murdered by Group A.

Small arms are very useful at that stage. You aren't fighting the army, you aren't even fighting the police. You're fighting supporters of the government who know they can operate without police opposition.

Really the army versus civilians is rare, soldiers aren't trained for that. Look at tank-man at Tiananmen Square. The column of tanks wouldn't run him over.

Of course he was pulled aside and likely murdered by the secret police, because they were still under the full control of Deng Xiaoping.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats