Interview: The Woman Who Predicted Tech Fascism
-
@DrALJONES I mean, glorifying control over one's computer can go quite strongly wrong, but "other economically viable" behaviour as a contrast to that seems to construct a very strange context in which to perform a comparison.
(I'm just reacting to the post, FWIW. There is not enough time in the world to watch videos.)
-
Interview: The Woman Who Predicted Tech Fascism
"These technolibertarians make a philosophy out of a personality defect."
There's a lack of human connection; discomfort with the core of what it means to be human; inability to reconcile individual demands with societal demands.
It glorifies being the "solo commander of one's computer in lieu of any other economically viable behavior."
Computers are more controllable than any human will ever be.
RE: https://mastodon.social/@electric_gumball/116548276098168910
ableism:
i. it characterizes sociopaths as being essentially autistic while citing the supposed 'awareness' society /now has/.
ii. invalidates our lived experience for the sake of her critique of a (convenient and) dangerous libertarian personality type.
iii. It posits an ideal world where /meaningful/ social contribution is antithetical to autistic inclusion in society.
iv. ignores context and culture of anti-autism hype and at once describes a "journalism" challenging "power". -
@DrALJONES I mean, glorifying control over one's computer can go quite strongly wrong, but "other economically viable" behaviour as a contrast to that seems to construct a very strange context in which to perform a comparison.
(I'm just reacting to the post, FWIW. There is not enough time in the world to watch videos.)
I'm not exactly sure what Borsook was thinking, but I guess I don't find it as strange as you do.
But then, I have watched the interview....
-
RE: https://mastodon.social/@electric_gumball/116548276098168910
ableism:
i. it characterizes sociopaths as being essentially autistic while citing the supposed 'awareness' society /now has/.
ii. invalidates our lived experience for the sake of her critique of a (convenient and) dangerous libertarian personality type.
iii. It posits an ideal world where /meaningful/ social contribution is antithetical to autistic inclusion in society.
iv. ignores context and culture of anti-autism hype and at once describes a "journalism" challenging "power".I imagine Borsook has received critique.
I agree with some points you make, disagree with others, & don't understand some. So not sure that I can say anything of use.
As far as commenting on neurodivergence, imo, it's essential to help ppl recognise the harm committed by the Trumps, Musks, Thiels, et al. who highly likely have narcissistic psychopathy (of course, not all commit harm).
-
I imagine Borsook has received critique.
I agree with some points you make, disagree with others, & don't understand some. So not sure that I can say anything of use.
As far as commenting on neurodivergence, imo, it's essential to help ppl recognise the harm committed by the Trumps, Musks, Thiels, et al. who highly likely have narcissistic psychopathy (of course, not all commit harm).
All I am really saying is that the piece is exclusionary and benefits from prevailing misconceptions of autism.
-
All I am really saying is that the piece is exclusionary and benefits from prevailing misconceptions of autism.
I like to be much more specific about what I disagree with and why. I disagree, eg, with tarring an entire lengthy interview on tech fascism with the same brush as i would tar certain comments on, eg, autism neurotype.
The thing about tech fascism is the fascism, not its mooted underpinnings.
-
All I am really saying is that the piece is exclusionary and benefits from prevailing misconceptions of autism.
To clarify further, she supposes to be bashing the fascists and yet advances key fascist rhetoric about the dangers of autistic people and the way they interpret the world or socialize. I guess, the presentation was, at least, a great demonstration of the paradoxical nature of fascism.
I heard this presentation on Mastodon and I don't care if she has been critiqued - her ableism is being amplified /here/.
-
To clarify further, she supposes to be bashing the fascists and yet advances key fascist rhetoric about the dangers of autistic people and the way they interpret the world or socialize. I guess, the presentation was, at least, a great demonstration of the paradoxical nature of fascism.
I heard this presentation on Mastodon and I don't care if she has been critiqued - her ableism is being amplified /here/.
I take some of your points, though I'd probably characterise them a little differently.
As to amplification, imo, mastodon users are, on average, smart enough to take what's edifying from a piece & critique/discard what's not.
I don't agree with cancelling an hour's important information on the basis of 5 mins of stuff I disagree with.
-
To clarify further, she supposes to be bashing the fascists and yet advances key fascist rhetoric about the dangers of autistic people and the way they interpret the world or socialize. I guess, the presentation was, at least, a great demonstration of the paradoxical nature of fascism.
I heard this presentation on Mastodon and I don't care if she has been critiqued - her ableism is being amplified /here/.
I can offer only so much assistance. If you agree with any of the above criticism (or do not understand) and believe she is controversial, then please provide sufficient warning. That's all.
-
I can offer only so much assistance. If you agree with any of the above criticism (or do not understand) and believe she is controversial, then please provide sufficient warning. That's all.
I don't believe that "controversial" per se warrants a warning.
There's nothing more I can add.
-
R relay@relay.publicsquare.global shared this topic
