Sometimes, a mistake is a mistake. Sometimes, what seems to be a mistake disguises a hidden intention.
I think you are not understanding that âname callingâ does not require its recipients to be of any sort of marginalized/disadvantaged/whatever group. The definition, as of the linked wikipedia article, includes the argumentation style but does not mention anything about the socioeconomic status of the sides involved. Please correct the article if it is wrong.
Ever heard about the grueling job conditions in e.g. game development? It can get pretty similar in other fields as well. That stuff breaks families and doesnât even pay that well - double so in the areas with way above-average cost of living. Being an engineer is not necessarily a ticket to paradise.
Besides, this part of the discourse is a red herring to the issue of your understanding of âname callingâ.
1 Like
He says to the Silicon Valley engineer still working Friday evening and probably working until Midnight.
Yeah, no one said it was paradise. What I said was that they (we) are not an oppressed minority.
Does âoppressionâ even have some quantifiable definition? Something where you can fill a matrix with variables and coefficients, and get a scalar O-value, or at least a few-dimensional vector that can be compared with other instances? Or is it yet another feel-good/bad/guilty/morally-superior/whatever wishy-washy handwavy word?
Do only things with a quantifiable definition exist, in your opinion?
Here, educate yourself 101: http://boingboing.net/2012/01/16/unpacking-the-invisible-knapsa.html
The essay in question: http://www.uakron.edu/centers/conflict/docs/whitepriv.pdf
1 Like
Every effort should be spent on making at least the contentious issues at least rudimentary-quantifiable.
Look at medicine, for example. Many âsquishyâ concept like the depth of a coma or level of alertness can be quantified by simple, rough and useful scales.
Otherwise you are doomed to the world of handwaving and emotionally-driven discussions and comparing the uncomparable. And more often than not wasting the time and effort on the more visible things over the more fundamental ones.
On the other thought, maybe you like it that way�
No, not really. Thatâs just a distraction from the actual issues. It becomes a whack-a-mole game.
Without even rudimentary quantification, how do you know which issues are the actual ones and which are just high-visibility noise or feel-good filler in comparison? Maybe you go by the oh-so-objective gut feeling?
Are you seeking a quantifiable index of oppression?
Yes, I am.
Yeah, good luck.
I am and you should too. Unless you enjoy the handwaving and the emotionality.
Unlike you, I donât think reality as subjectively experienced by people fits into a quantifiable box and Iâm not willing to dismiss things on that basis if they somehow arenât based on numbers. So, you call it âhandwaving and the emotionalityâ and I call it âsocial interaction amongst humans.â Not everything can be reduced to numbers, indices, and charts.
1 Like
Nice jab at Google Glass embedded in the middle of a generally topical business presentation that a friend of mine posted about:
Google is âlooking at usâ in every way BUT via the camera on Google Glass. Google watches your every digital move, but on any mobile device constantly recording AND streaming your every meatspace move on video would kill your device battery. Besides, unless Google computers can now interpret video footage automatically, there is no way to turn those video streams into a practical, monetizable metadata stream. So the guy was shocked at the privacy backlash for good reason. The camera on Glass is nothing compared to all the cameras that are already watching us and the data mining already being done). Plus, if I want to secretly shoot video of you, I wonât use the camera on my face, Iâll use my iPhone and one of a great many âspy camâ apps available on the app store. Itâs like who ever wrote this blog post lives in a bubble, themselves. I mean, have they even tried using Glass to secretly record someone? It doesnât seem so to me (Iâm a Glass owner).
3 Likes
So, when you walk up wearing Glass, everyone ignores it and no one ever asks you if youâre recording?
Youâre mistaken some list of facts with the perception of glass that the people who see others wearing it have. The backlash is against this perception because, as you know, almost none of these people can afford or own a $1500 eye toy.
Or maybe they have been targeted for violence and are in hiding? I never got a good explaination of how to stop Glass putting lives at risk, but did get plenty of sociopathic ânot my problemâ replies.
Iâm also not a fan of having security cameras everywhere.
I had mentioned before, in my case, nobody has ever asked me. And my old Xybernaut system is a lot more obtrusive looking than a Glass, by far. So I strongly suspect that the main difference is only media spin, from the hundreds of fluff news pieces about how Glasses âcould beâ watching you. While conveniently ignoring the many other systems which actually are watching. As a wearable user, I feel like there are two likely possibilities which concern me for different reasons:
- The upset over Google Glass is a delayed reaction against wearable computers generally, which could eventually effect me with the use of my system.
- The upset really is about Google Glass specifically, which begs the question of why their criticisms apply only to this product and none of the other similar wearable systems.
People having perceptions which donât accommodate facts is what could be referred to as âignoranceâ in some quarters. It is hard to accommodate perceptions when people have already made up their minds about something they donât really know. This does not dismiss their perceptions as irrelevant, but it makes establishing a dialog or making mutual decisions rather difficult, at best. If somebody has a religious injunction against such tech âbecause beliefsâ, then what is my obligation, in light of what they choose to believe about it? Iâd like to think that a reasonable discussion could happen about it, but I am not holding my breath.
1 Like
Yeah, but whatâs the primary use of Google Glass? Hey, letâs ask the guy doing a review of having them for a year and a half:
Short version: photos and video for âlifeblogging.â
How does this one guyâs opinion define the primary or intended use of the device?
I think Google could really play on selling these as a life-blogging camera
He said that they could market it as such, not that they do. Not to cherry-pick, he also describes them as similar to a GoPro camera, and a cell phone. So, again, it is being compared to other similar devices which have none of the same controversy.
I have not followed the Glass very closely, but an early Google talk I watched about them described them as being like a PDA, but more practical. Which also jives with what the reviewer you linked to later said.
1 Like
