Treading Carefully: As far as I can see the core problem of the U/Acc - R/Acc debate is unfortunately due to free floating definitions. With this said, let's define:
-
-
beyond the alleged “gadgetry,” which pretty conveniently disregards “meaningful” tech progress made in the past 30 years. Regardless this is so far the most concrete set of ideals I’ve seen put forth for L/acc.
-
Though even here admits to a lack of concrete systems beyond the “how to achieve control” phase. This is in line with the baseless optimism of modern communists. It’s just another call to action without specifying any actionspic.twitter.com/dqucx2kkdn
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Finally got around to reading this. This argument seems to rely heavily on the idea that capitalism is stifling the potential of tech growth, but never specifies how, or a better system. The authors’ issue is with the lack of impetus culturally to produce effective tech (1/2)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.