Which is why they want everybody dependent upon AI to do their thinking for them. They can simply rewrite history once and that’s all anybody who doesn’t know any better will ever know. This shit needs to be banned except for narrowly defined uses like programming where there’s virtually nothing political involved.
Don’t agree. Computing is no more inherently political than a knife is inherently a murder weapon. It’s a tool, and can be used for many things, including political use (or misuse, nowadays).
Considering that politics is about the exchange of ideas between people so a society can be governed (by whatever system applies) and laws can be enacted to make that government functional, I would consider political basically the political process itself, laws, philosophy, maybe history (which informs the other ones and usually has some inherent biases), maybe literature (the same) and a few other disciplines. Mostly things that are by nature subjective and can’t be measured in an objective way (like math, or engineering in general can).
That doesn’t mean that the latter can’t be “contamined” by politics, especially the disciplines which are a mixed bag of objectivity and subjectivity, like architecture or the economical sciences. But that’s why the key word here is “inherently”: those disciplines are not inherently political, they’ve been co-opted by interest groups precisely because of that subjectivity.
It seems like we’re just getting stuck on the word ‘inherent’. If you prefer, I submit that everything is contaminated by politics, and anything newly created is also quickly contaminated by pervasive political interests and pressures, if not created largely as a consequence of political processes already in motion.
Which is why they want everybody dependent upon AI to do their thinking for them. They can simply rewrite history once and that’s all anybody who doesn’t know any better will ever know. This shit needs to be banned except for narrowly defined uses like programming where there’s virtually nothing political involved.
I think more and more that computing is inherently political.
Always has been. Richard Stallman is a fucking creepy shitbag, but he was also right about a lot of things regarding software and software freedom.
Everything is inherently political
Yes, but the means of production is especially political
Yes
Don’t agree. Computing is no more inherently political than a knife is inherently a murder weapon. It’s a tool, and can be used for many things, including political use (or misuse, nowadays).
Outside of the actual political process, is there anything that do you consider inherently political?
Considering that politics is about the exchange of ideas between people so a society can be governed (by whatever system applies) and laws can be enacted to make that government functional, I would consider political basically the political process itself, laws, philosophy, maybe history (which informs the other ones and usually has some inherent biases), maybe literature (the same) and a few other disciplines. Mostly things that are by nature subjective and can’t be measured in an objective way (like math, or engineering in general can).
That doesn’t mean that the latter can’t be “contamined” by politics, especially the disciplines which are a mixed bag of objectivity and subjectivity, like architecture or the economical sciences. But that’s why the key word here is “inherently”: those disciplines are not inherently political, they’ve been co-opted by interest groups precisely because of that subjectivity.
It seems like we’re just getting stuck on the word ‘inherent’. If you prefer, I submit that everything is contaminated by politics, and anything newly created is also quickly contaminated by pervasive political interests and pressures, if not created largely as a consequence of political processes already in motion.
Knives, obviously. Et tu Brute?
How are you obviously as intelligent as you are but don’t see how software is obviously political. Just like everything