i do not 100% agree but i do 100% understand why someone would make this critique. they don't do the *actual* work which is much harder
-
-
Replying to @scrivenix
This tweet is against the code of conduct of my replies section.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
see, you can't help it! if codes of conduct did not exist they would have to be invented (i think that is my actual position) (?). it's good to have a standard you can point to. it's bad to think so doing is going to magically set norms or build community or organization1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @scrivenix
I have the perfect reaction gif to argue against this but I don’t want to do the hard, organization building work of finding it
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @vgr
see, the standard stands, then
#winningthebattlenotthewar1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @vgr

i still maintain you are now reacting to an externally codified standard rather than an interpersonally negotiated agreed-upon protocol2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @scrivenix
Venkatesh Rao Retweeted Venkatesh Rao
Venkatesh Rao added,
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
The sign relation is the special species of the representing relation that obtains whenever the first interpretant (and consequently each member of the whole infinite sequence of interpretants) has a status that is mental, i.e. (roughly) is a cognition of a mind...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @scrivenix @vgr
In any instance of the sign relation an object is signified by a sign to a mind. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peirce/ (translation: mutual understanding is very, very hard)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
-
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.
