when is it r/acc and when is it l/acc? if a stance/policy is considered both, would it be considered u/acc? who decides these things, anyway?
-
-
Replying to @authorpaulhunt
L/acc implies steering tech advancement towards socially progressive ends, r/acc was initially a reaction against that, supporting the acceleration of technocapital regardless of those social implications but it later developed in the direction of wanting to preserve....
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed @authorpaulhunt
politically stable structures that were seen as a necessary basis for acceleration to occur and also preserving some forms of traditional social organisation. U/ACC was a reflection on anti-praxis, how acceleration is making political action ineffective or unworkable so doesn't..
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed
the political structure as a foundation supporting technological development... but doesn't this limit potential of development? can only build so much on a given base, why not tech to remake political structure?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @authorpaulhunt
I'm not exactly advocating or defending any of these positions here I should point out
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ParadiseDelayed @authorpaulhunt
But I think the idea is that if acceleration leads to increasing chaos it will come off the rails into complete breakdown, yes what you're saying is consistent with r/acc, using tech to create new stable political structures.......
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The contrast is with U/ACC which had an easygoing glee about how acceleration would proceed and l/acc which was too tied to traditional leftist conceptions
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.