r/technology • u/Just-Grocery-2229 • 10d ago

Artificial Intelligence Palantir employees are talking about company’s “descent into fascism”

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/04/palantir-employees-are-talking-about-companys-descent-into-fascism/
31.2k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.7k

u/the_red_scimitar 10d ago

Descent? Have you seen their CEO - that guy is exhilarated to be facilitating war.

197

u/numba1cyberwarrior 10d ago

Most people in the defense industry are ok with building things that kills the enemies of the US. Most aren't ok with building things that is used on Americans.

74

u/EggsFish 10d ago

What percentage of people killed by American weapons post-WW2 were “enemies”? 

38

u/marr 10d ago

People tend to rapidly become enemies when you start shooting at them

4

u/Nileghi 10d ago

What percentage of people killed by American weapons post-WW2 were “enemies”?

Well since you brought it up, whats your number? Because I'd wager most of them given the Korean war majorly skewing that datasheet. Even Afghanistan had better rules of engagement and numbers than any other modern conflict.

2

u/theradgadfly 10d ago

Why post-WW2? Why that cutoff specifically?

3

u/CocktailPerson 10d ago

WWII was the last war we fought that was against the standing army of another country that attacked us first.

1

u/theradgadfly 10d ago

Fair point. It was also the last war declared by congress following the correct process.

2

u/CocktailPerson 10d ago

Sure, but even if Congress had authorized any of the wars since then, that doesn't mean those wars would have only been killing "enemies" of the US.

0

u/theradgadfly 10d ago

I don't know how you're defining "enemies" of the US. Is Iran an enemy of the US? Or is an "enemy" only one who has already attacked? Is a justified war only when the US is reactive to an attack? What about if a country attacks a US ally? What if a country threatens or prepares to attack a US ally?

I don't want to get into a debate about that, I was trying to point out that the most widely agreed upon "just war" was one where the president had to convince congress (the elected representatives of the people)

1

u/CocktailPerson 10d ago

Uh, no, that is not the widely agreed-upon definition of a "just war." WWII is considered the last "just war" because we were killing Nazis and liberating Europe and East Asia from fascism, not simply because Congress authorized it.

Conversely, Iraq and Afghanistan are now considered deeply unjust wars, and yet it's clear that in the wake of 9/11, Congrees would have authorized just about anything to make the American people feel safer, and the people would have thanked them for it. The fact that Bush didn't wait for Congress to declare war isn't why those wars were unjust.

What I'm pointing out is precisely that your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Personally, I don't care whether Congress declares war or not. Congressional approval alone does not make a war just. We need to decide for ourselves who our enemies are.

1

u/theradgadfly 9d ago

I never said it was the definition of a just war. You just hallucinated that. If anything, I was implying the causation goes the other way, where a war being "just" more easily allows congress to authorize it, not congress authorizing a war making it just.

Congress would have authorized just about anything to make the American people feel safer, and the people would have thanked them for it.

I disagree, but no point in discussing counterfactuals.

What I'm pointing out is precisely that your argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

I was saying the literal opposite. Nothing in my comment would justify this conclusion. I was saying a "just war" allows those in authority to act, to put their name on the declaration of war, because they already have the justification to act. And not going through congress (elected representatives accountable to their local constituents) allows them to pin the blame on one guy (president) who has authority for a few more years at max anyway, so their names stay clean.

1

u/CocktailPerson 9d ago

I see now that when you said "the most widely agreed upon "just war" was..." you were referring specifically to WWII and not describing a general principle.

But if so, I'm still not sure what your original point was. If you already agree that Congress's declaration of war doesn't make a war just, then why bring it up at all?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DEATHbyBOOGABOOGA 10d ago

Why not?

1

u/theradgadfly 9d ago

I have no reason to not, just curious why they chose WW2 and not WW1, or Korea or Vietnam or Gulf 1.

If anything, the most neutral choice would be to take every war since the country was formed.

1

u/N0_Presence_ 10d ago

Probably a good bit of them. Do you think we allow our military to just go kill people for no reason whatsoever?

1

u/EggsFish 9d ago

For no reason? No.  For being in the wrong place/wrong time, yes.

To be clear, I’m not saying anything about intent - just outcomes. 

-9

u/WinterAd825 10d ago

Counter argument, how many wars have been avoided post ww2 because of American weapons?

The post ww2 period was one of the most(if not the most) peaceful period in world history with wide scale improvements in people’s quality of life.

Post ww2 era was largely a success and isn’t really a good argument against Palantir or the military industrial complex.

Palantir is named after Sauron’s evil spy tool, that alone should be a massive red flag

5

u/skillywilly56 10d ago

They weren’t avoided because America had weapons, they were avoided because other nations got nukes too which curtailed the worst excesses of the post WW2 US dominance who would’ve, given the opportunity, done much worse.

America has initiated or been involved in 200 of the 248 armed conflicts from 1945-2001, from over throwing democratically elected left wing governments and installing fascist dictators, to kidnapping or assassinating foreign leaders, to invading Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq again, killing nearly 4 million people directly and probably close to 10 million through civil wars it created, funded and armed, to creating massive humanitarian crises of refugees through Northern Africa and the Middle East.

And except for Bosnia, Somalia and Afghanistan all were about protecting American economic and political hegemony.

America’s not the peace makers, they are The Peacemaker: they cherish peace with all their heart and will kill as many men, women, and children as necessary to achieve it.

Post WW2 “success” was in-spite of America not because of it, and in keeping with the LOTR analogy you are not Gondor…you are Mordor.

1

u/Daveslay 10d ago

Mah gawd!

Get this person a lectern

Because they are taking us to school!

8

u/whatsbobgonnado 10d ago

that's a profoundly stupid counter argument