4 ms·

I was wondering why The LA Times would publish a story that seems intent on somehow linking 1970s threats of violence with the recent SVB issue. It was only aft

I was wondering why The LA Times would publish a story that seems intent on somehow linking 1970s threats of violence with the recent SVB issue. It was only after reading the article did I see the author has a book coming out on a "tech backlash". Of course there are complaints against tech companies and of course it comes from left, right and center. That's because tech is now woven into our personal and corporate lives. But suggesting any large numbers of persons advocating violence seems a real reach and could be seen by many as plain irresponsible.

Teever 4y ago
> Of course there are complaints against tech companies and of course it comes from left, right and center. That's because tech is now woven into our personal and corporate lives. You seem to be minimizing these 'complaints' with your second sentence. Do you feel that criticisms levelled by people outside of silicon valley are valid, and how do you think these people should best go about seeking redress for these criticisms?
uejfiweun 4y ago
I hate it when you start reading an article and then suddenly the author starts talking about their new book. It becomes immediately clear that the article's entire purpose was to advertise the book and that you have just wasted your time. So thank you for doing the scout work for me here.
thewildginger 4y ago
Acknowledging the historical power of violence is not "irresponsible" and neither is acknowledging every day violence perpetuated by institutions we are all beholden to. Building the weapons of war to improve military intelligence in the form of targeting and operational capability with computers at the forefront is described in the article. People violently opposed the violence being pointed at someone else. This is a fact, one conveniently ignored for the contradictions it brings up (a point of the article). This isn't advocating violence, it is a plain explanation of the nature of the historical events. It is uncomfortable and not fun to acknowledge, and goes against what many are taught I will give you that.

Teever 4y ago

> Of course there are complaints against tech companies and of course it comes from left, right and center. That's because tech is now woven into our personal and corporate lives. You seem to be minimizing these 'complaints' with your second sentence. Do you feel that criticisms levelled by people outside of silicon valley are valid, and how do you think these people should best go about seeking redress for these criticisms?

uejfiweun 4y ago

I hate it when you start reading an article and then suddenly the author starts talking about their new book. It becomes immediately clear that the article's entire purpose was to advertise the book and that you have just wasted your time. So thank you for doing the scout work for me here.

thewildginger 4y ago

Acknowledging the historical power of violence is not "irresponsible" and neither is acknowledging every day violence perpetuated by institutions we are all beholden to. Building the weapons of war to improve military intelligence in the form of targeting and operational capability with computers at the forefront is described in the article. People violently opposed the violence being pointed at someone else. This is a fact, one conveniently ignored for the contradictions it brings up (a point of the article). This isn't advocating violence, it is a plain explanation of the nature of the historical events. It is uncomfortable and not fun to acknowledge, and goes against what many are taught I will give you that.