Post 9wCPZBrsNg54gFsO4e by interru@social.interru.io
(DIR) More posts by interru@social.interru.io
(DIR) Post #9wCPYuaEe0rv4cUYiW by jine@todon.nl
2020-06-17T12:38:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It is crucial to understand and make people understand that technology is a social relationship and not just an application of physical-mathematical principles.It is contradictory when some tech-bros argue that terms in a programming language should not be changed because the language is not ‘human‘. It is because of its artificiality that changes won’t throw the whole thing over the top and everything will still function.The request to change terms because of their connotations alone is too much ‘human’ huh?
(DIR) Post #9wCPZ8kfxzXT13U5w0 by jine@todon.nl
2020-06-17T13:06:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The prevalent culture of technology is driven by the idea of control and domination. Sold as ‘efficiency’ and marketed as making the world a better place. Which world? Whose world?In the nineteenth century a machine was defined as a combination of bodies so arranged that “by their means the mechanical forces of nature can be compelled to do work” (Franz Reuleaux). https://archive.org/details/kinematicsmachi00kenngoogThis is the so-called modernity: A piece of technology works perfectly when it subjugates forces. It is still in the heads and also in the circuits.
(DIR) Post #9wCPZ998V36YEuvd3o by jine@todon.nl
2020-06-17T13:26:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Ubiquitous Computing and Physical Computing, everything wearable, tangible, kinesthetic etc. invokes an abstract body that is de-raced, rendered race-less. Working with the idea of an universal body in tech is grounded in its white eurocentric history. Also Ubiquitous Computing can be considered as an imperialistic endeavor. The global Internet of Things sits on a prior network of things, ”the international network of land, resources, and enslaved humans as objects […] situated in a colonized periphery constituted by colonizing human subjects situated in ‘the core.’”See Syed Mustafa Ali’s Introduction to Decolonial Computing https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2930886
(DIR) Post #9wCPZ9PRWQ9H3UYeTg by jine@todon.nl
2020-06-17T13:44:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
There is so much work to be done. It is not just about ethics in tech. Is is about a whole mindset and a history of thought. It starts with the question what we understand as a technical invention.The tech-bros who insist that a programming language is not ‘human’ to defend it against marginalized voices have to go! Jeff Bezos has to go! Decolonize technology!
(DIR) Post #9wCPZBCOrsu6bcTGQS by jine@todon.nl
2020-06-17T13:59:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Dismantle the whole idea of “high tech”. Why isn’t a sewing machine considered as high tech? How many tech-bros are able to handle a sewing machine? How many woman were and are fabricating protective masks for the pandemic by operating a sewing machine? How many provide clothes for the whole planet since centuries? Not only the work is undervalued but also their technical skills.
(DIR) Post #9wCPZBrsNg54gFsO4e by interru@social.interru.io
2020-06-18T05:40:44.133598Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@jine Diversity and inclusion at it finest: "Remove those 'tech bros' from technology. Their thoughts are wrong in our culture they shouldn't exist."Don't you realize that you are currently categorizing other humans and perceiving them as a enemy?
(DIR) Post #9wEaEirUci4wM47mYy by mia@nazrin.moe
2020-06-18T12:16:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interru @jine yes, that is precisely what feminism and social justice is all about with its postmodern identity politics: hate, hate, hate, and the atomization of society. it is a tool for criticizing just about anything, even if it means rejecting consistency and observable truth, without having to present any positive vision.i wouldn’t waste time trying to argue with a person whose way of theorizing about politics is completely removed from anything real.
(DIR) Post #9wEaEjDTIzexSEPKoy by farhan@social.farhan.codes
2020-06-19T07:46:16.913745Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mia @interru @jine I agree with this, but there need to be more academic, sufficient response to post-modernist thought. Right now its just appealing to the outcome, which is irrelevant and can be dismissed as "just your truth, but not THE truth"."but biological sex is real", you sayThis kind of response demonstrates a lack of understanding in the post-modernist argument. ANY pattern in nature, they argue, is a construct of the mind. As Shaykh Hamza Yusuf once put it, "they believe any particular tree exists, but the concept of a tree is made-up". The same can be applied to sex. If you don't understand that, you're just saying "sex is realYou have to make an appeal to capital T truth, which requires a belief in an All-Knowing entity that knows that a pattern/form/essence does indeed exist. If they ask "where, what is its nature?" you can respond with "we can work with a concept even if we do not understand its particulars, just as we can work with X in algebra, even if we do not know what its value is"
(DIR) Post #9wEbvxHcypQlUMWm3c by farhan@social.farhan.codes
2020-06-19T08:05:21.432555Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mia @interru @jine I agree with this, but there need to be more philosophically sufficient response to post-modernist thought. Right now it's just appealing to outcomes, which is a fallacy."But biological sex is real and demonstrable!!!", you say...This kind of response demonstrates a lack of understanding in the post-modernist argument. ANY pattern in nature whether a sex or a species or anything, they argue, is a construct of the mind. Shaykh Hamza Yusuf once summarized their argument as "they believe a particular tree exists, but the concept of 'Tree' has no existence" - its a pattern we see and then impose on the world, its a lower-case T truth. If someone chooses to see a different pattern we have no way to determine its validity. It's impossible for us to know, they argue, because we are ultimately ignorant of the nature of reality.To defeat them you have to make an appeal to capital T truth -- and that requires breaking their argument of our ignorance. That requires a belief in an All-Knowing entity that knows that a pattern/form/essence does indeed exist. If they ask "where, what is its nature?" you can respond with "we can work with a concept even if we do not understand its particulars, just as we can work with X in algebra, even if we do not know what its value is."That is the only way to defeat this demonic philosophy.