2 ms·

I'll be honest here, I debated whether or not to reply to this comment. This is now the second time where you completely (and I think deliberately) ignored the

I'll be honest here, I debated whether or not to reply to this comment. This is now the second time where you completely (and I think deliberately) ignored the main points of my argument and instead replied with a nicely formulated version of "LOL!! SELF-OWN XD" together with a sermon that fails to address anything I said. You understand that by "you" I was referring to people who have that perspective right, as highlighted by the fact that I wrote "are perceived and portrayed" before, not "are perceived and portrayed by you"? Should I now tell you that you too managed to construct a caricature of the position telling you that you constructed a caricature? Is that where this series of le epic owns leads? I'll make sure not to include any argument as to why I think it's a caricature either. Maybe I should add some snarky remark as well, now that'd be a good use of both of our time, right?

1attice 4y ago
Please, bring the temperature down. No one is snarking at anyone. We are, however, talking through each other. I'm directly addressing the stance that you have repeatedly taken. I quote: > When someone is aware of the damage they cause, and then they still continue, what would you call that behavior? Because the word "studiously" implies that they are aware of what they are doing. You yourself said that tech workers, or "tech bros" as you so nicely put it, are perceived and portrayed as uncaringly and knowingly destroying peoples life. If you think that that is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations, then you are constructing a caricature. I don't know how to read 'If you think that this is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations" as anything other than a claim that I think you think you mean that I think that this is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations. You seem to be chasing a 'gotcha' moment, where I have to either admit that tech workers know full-well that they are doing something wrong (and are evil, because they keep doing it) or did some bad things, but didn't really know better (those folks in developing countries that we could get to know better but don't.) This seems to miss, on purpose, the possibility of knowing something at one level, and denying it at the other, a basic feature of human psychology that (I took) us to all have understood as a possibility when we started talking. One can be judged for what one refuses to understand. For the understandings that one systemically avoids. > Tech workers - like most people - are unaware of the extent of suffering that they don't directly perceive. You and I know that there are people suffering in third-world countries - but knowing is not understanding or awareness, and if we had to spend some time in the company of these people, our perspective would shift enormously and we would feel a much stronger urge to actually remedy these injustices. First, 'third world' is not a phrase you should be using in 2023. It implies rank ordering, and no sociologist would have touched it in the past forty years. Please tweak your language. > Secondly, Tech workers know that they are displacing workers, but again, knowing is not understanding. Avoiding understanding is precisely what we're talking about. > Hurling insults and making sly accusations is not going to convince anyone that they may lack perspective on this issue. I mean, take a look around this thread, take a look around other discussions - I don't see many people trying to convey their experience without painting the tech crowd as money hungry assholes. No one is hurling anything. I am calmly answering the points you raise as I take you to have raised them. If I have mischaracterized your position, I am genuinely sorry, and it was not intentional. But it sure sounds to me like you want to absolve some folks that I don't think qualify for absolution. We may simply disagree as to what falls within one's personal moral ambit. This is a conversation we can have at length. I'm here for it. <3

1attice 4y ago

Please, bring the temperature down. No one is snarking at anyone. We are, however, talking through each other. I'm directly addressing the stance that you have repeatedly taken. I quote: > When someone is aware of the damage they cause, and then they still continue, what would you call that behavior? Because the word "studiously" implies that they are aware of what they are doing. You yourself said that tech workers, or "tech bros" as you so nicely put it, are perceived and portrayed as uncaringly and knowingly destroying peoples life. If you think that that is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations, then you are constructing a caricature. I don't know how to read 'If you think that this is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations" as anything other than a claim that I think you think you mean that I think that this is a fair assessment of most tech workers motivations. You seem to be chasing a 'gotcha' moment, where I have to either admit that tech workers know full-well that they are doing something wrong (and are evil, because they keep doing it) or did some bad things, but didn't really know better (those folks in developing countries that we could get to know better but don't.) This seems to miss, on purpose, the possibility of knowing something at one level, and denying it at the other, a basic feature of human psychology that (I took) us to all have understood as a possibility when we started talking. One can be judged for what one refuses to understand. For the understandings that one systemically avoids. > Tech workers - like most people - are unaware of the extent of suffering that they don't directly perceive. You and I know that there are people suffering in third-world countries - but knowing is not understanding or awareness, and if we had to spend some time in the company of these people, our perspective would shift enormously and we would feel a much stronger urge to actually remedy these injustices. First, 'third world' is not a phrase you should be using in 2023. It implies rank ordering, and no sociologist would have touched it in the past forty years. Please tweak your language. > Secondly, Tech workers know that they are displacing workers, but again, knowing is not understanding. Avoiding understanding is precisely what we're talking about. > Hurling insults and making sly accusations is not going to convince anyone that they may lack perspective on this issue. I mean, take a look around this thread, take a look around other discussions - I don't see many people trying to convey their experience without painting the tech crowd as money hungry assholes. No one is hurling anything. I am calmly answering the points you raise as I take you to have raised them. If I have mischaracterized your position, I am genuinely sorry, and it was not intentional. But it sure sounds to me like you want to absolve some folks that I don't think qualify for absolution. We may simply disagree as to what falls within one's personal moral ambit. This is a conversation we can have at length. I'm here for it. <3