754
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 May 2025
754 points (99.1% liked)
News
29658 readers
3160 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Fucking even MIT gone mega what fhe fuck.
Desperate to prove their fascist bona fides in the hopes of retaining funding. It will come back to bite them. There's no winning way to play this game but there's and honorable and a dishonorable way.
Is Harvard the only big boy that stepped up? There has to be more, right?
Most schools aren't talking about it or targeted.
MIT owns the majority of the nonvoting shares in Bose. They don't need funding.
Is Bose relevant anymore? Outside of cars I've don't seen any of their systems on sale for a long time
They made $3 billion in 2023, so yeah?
Revenue or profit? What’s the amount if that MIT gets? What’s MITs budget annually? How much comes from federal funds? All questions that might help answer how they reacted,
Is this the same Bose company that makes the standard Bluetooth ANC wireless headphones that everyone and their mother uses if they aren't using earbuds?
I haven't seen them in a long time anymore. QC35 was the last popular model in the masses. Now I see way more SoundCore and Sony Earphones
Why isn’t the slippery politician like position to just say: we are not responsible for the free thought of our graduates or their opinions, nor are we able to bypass the system of accreditation our student earned their education through. Only departments and professors are allowed to award credit for work, and the the administrators do not govern the integrity of their educational success.
They could say it, but I think they realize Trump acts on feelings and not reason, and could cut off their access to funds, so they want to appease him and make him feel good. Basic dictator and appeaser stuff.
MIT is deep in bed with the MIC. Their administration is not friendly towards Arabs unless those Arabs have a line of credit with Boeing or Raytheon.
Whats the MIC?
Military industrial complex
I usually don’t see it in acronym form.
Military Industrial Complex
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex
Edit: No idea how explaining the definition of the acronym "MIC" got 3 downvotes. Real reddit-tier energy on this thread.
Lemmy usually has 1 to 5 bots randomly downvoting, its normal.
Sometime something totally apolitical like cat photos also get random 1-5 downvotes.
Weird
Presumably because you're 10min behind the others, and you posted a raw wiki link. I assume those 3 people got a "just fucking google it" vibe from it.
Atleast what my reddit PTSD tells me it could be.
Most big colleges have helped evict and deport people on studen visas. They cooperate and are complicit.
I'm betting it wouldn't be difficult to find links between MITs research and development labs and weapons and technologies companies involved in Gaza.
Societies are sometimes like big interconnected machines, large parts become complicit in denial, repression, and destruction.
Edit: yep, as expected:
P.S That drone swarm technology is part of why 83% of American doctors who have provided care in Gaza, have reported treating children for being shot in the head. Source: NPR's The American Life.
"War is a racket. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
...
War like any other racket, pays high dividends to the very few. The cost of operations is always transferred to the people who do not profit."
General Smedley Butler - War is a Racket (1935)
I'd argue that health insurance also qualifies.
Yeah pity he didn't have any advice on stopping it.
What the fuck.
It's unreal that they can just say out loud "we design war crimes" like what the actual fuck.
There is a whole lot of terrible shit going on in Gaza, and Israel is committing war crimes all over the place.
However, chasing down and shooting a fleeing enemy combatant is not a war crime. If a russian soldier tries to flee from a failed assault, Ukrainian troops are free to shoot them in the back. The same applies to troops fleeing a position that is being attacked or encircled. They can be hunted down and shot unless they surrender.
I'm pointing it out because it's a common misconception the enemies that are unarmed, wounded or fleeing are "out of bounds", but that's not the case. It's perfectly legal to bomb an enemy camp full of sleeping soldiers, or shoot an unarmed or wounded enemy that hasn't surrendered.
The absolutely horrifying thing with Israel is that they treat starving civilians as if they were soldiers, and shoot unarmed civilian kids in the back.
That is a good shout, withdrawal =/= surrender. You're not wrong to clarify rules of war, as false accusations lead to propaganda reinforcing against the real accusations.
Though my statement does stand - "they design drone technology for war criminals to pursue fleeing targets" is a factual statement.
Plus, we will almost certainly see a new version of the Geneva convention in response to drone warfare in our lifetime.
Oh, they're absolutely selling weapons to war criminals that use them to commit crimes, I 100 % agree.
Just wanted to clarify that "persuing fleeing targets" isn't a war crime, it's the targeting of civilians itself that is. Your statement,
Made it sound like you thought chasing down fleeing targets was itself a war crime, regardless who the target was.
I can see there being some changes to laws of war, or at least interpretation in response to drone warfare. Specifically, there's a law against "causing unnecessary suffering" which prevents the use of weapons designed with the intent to maim rather than kill. Most countries have banned anti-personnel mines, and use this as part of the reasoning (another being the non-directed nature of the weapons, and long-term effects after the war is over).
Drone-dropped grenades have a clear tendency to wound rather than kill, and I can see an argument that when infantry throw grenades they usually follow up with gunfire rather than leaving the enemy in a field. With this in mind, I can see an argument against drone-dropped light grenades. Then again, drone-dropped grenades give such a massively asymmetric advantage that I have a hard time seeing any army giving them up.
Shooting people in the back is a bad look. Especially when the victim is a child.
I wonder if these scientists graduating and working for tech that is used for genocide, do they question their research has resulted in deaths of people or they try to rationalize it
Ever watched Destin from the YouTube channel, SmarterEveryDay - he used to work on weapons systems. As did a guy named Tom Campbell - who now discusses his theory of everything on YouTube.
They don't seem to think about these things.
The philosopher, Robert Anton Wilson, has a movie that touches on this topic, it's called Borders.
they dont want to think about it, because they will feel guilty or they feel they are complicit
MIT didn't "go maga". They are intrinsically tied to government contracts.
Basically all STEM research at the university level is funded by a mixture of corporate and government interests. Even NSF grants (remember when those were a thing...) tend to focus on areas that anyone with a keen eye can see having military applications. One of my favorites was the massive push for graph analytics 10 or 15 years back and people not realizing that was a roundabout way of saying "analyze social media".
MIT in particular is VERY dependent on this because they need to be "elite". Smaller state universities can shuffle money around and focus on other funding sources, to a degree. MIT can't because their staff inherently have good networks and would jump ship the moment their perks start going away.
Contrast that with Harvard where they still get lots of "donations" from rich and powerful lawyers (and politicians) and where the publicity for "fighting the government" can heavily offset all the international students getting put in a concentration camp before their checks clear.
Okay, but on a timeline measured in years instead of quarters, it's really fucking stupid to punish the factory that churns out engineers for your war machines, right? The government funds STEM education, yielding STEM experts, yielding STEM productivity. Stop funding it, stop making STEM experts, vastly reduce STEM productivity. Pair this with massive reductions on immigrants (and torch the economy to lower desire to come here also) and how does this not lead to brain drain dark ages and empire collapse?
Is it more complicated than this? Am I missing something? Because usually when somebody thinks that everybody else is a fucking moron, they are the fucking moron, and I'm worried that maybe I'm just such a dumb fucking moron that I can't see what a dumb fucking moron I am.
No no, you're reading it correctly. What you're omitting is that the Trump administration isn't the one in charge, it's Putin (and some influence from China and other competitors). Putin tells Trump to wreck the US, he does, Russia comes out on top.
A dictator almost wants a weak military, so they can't stage a coup against said dictator. Look at Russia, just installed all loyalists and steal the funding for themselves. China is more of a hybrid, they want better tech to compete with the US, but they are kind of lazy to innovative themselves in some parts of stem, so they resort to industrial espionage and reverse engineering. Just oversimplified this
The ones that already have their phds are already or ready to flee to Europe or another western country. Only the old ones are probably staying
I majored in Anthropology in college. I remember watching a documentary about Napoleon Chagnon's ethnographic study of the Yanomami (a hunting-gathering people in the Amazon) and being surprised about the notice at the beginning stating that his research had been funded by the Atomic Energy Commission. Turns out that many ethnographies from the '50s and '60s were funded by the AEC because they just wanted baseline physiological data on peoples who had not yet been exposed to large amounts of radiation and environmental nuclear byproducts. The actual study of their cultures was a byproduct.
I feel that these ethnographies are an absolutely precious resource as they reveal so much about how our ancestors lived a lifestyle that has completely vanished now, but it's still kind of depressing to think about where they came from.
The Democratic Party platform is explicitly pro-genocide.
It's not like the gop is different
The difference is that the GOP has other policies they actually try to enact. Evil policies, yes. But they actually try to implement them.
Democrats don't implement their (stated) platform when they get into office. Except for the one policy democrats won't abandon.
and the only one that they are 100% bipartisan, on which defense budget, and full military support for israel
No one cares what the gop platform is.
I tend not to ask unserious people (like the gop) questions or care what they think. I did have expectations of democrats though.
You don’t know the half of it…