We talk about how America’s constitution has remained for a long time relative to many constitutional democracies—but not the dialectical antipode to that, which is that structures can evolve covert control through a culture of internalized disenfranchisement as a persistence strategy.

If all we do on social media is pick a color shirt to wear and only say "Rah rah [COLOR] Boo [OTHER COLOR]" on essentially everything ... why are we even on here?

Really, I see so extraordinarily little genuine epistemic *motion* on here—every conflict is ossified and immutable. Where's the *life*?

I find it so unbelievably boring to have a median dissent of zero in every social graph cluster on every issue. And as a result, when you do think individually about something, the tribe-centric ego-defense tends to wildly misattribute the dissent, with no mechanism for tribe-level change. +

I don't mean any of this as like a new or unique observation for the world—many people have talked about feeling this way for years. Just ... life's too short to have such boring uniformity in the tribes. +

This is of course a general phenomenon in human social structures—it's hard in almost any sphere to be genuinely committed to "I'm in no camp", and people are so used to those who claim it lying that, interestingly, I over and over again experience friends being shocked that I really am that way. +

I find the dynamics of other people on social media (that isn't long-form writing) bizarre and inscrutable, and largely come away from interactions feeling like people come to join teams and delocalize agency to the team.

As someone deeply committed to intellectual anarchy, I ... just don't lol. +

I've realized this many times before, but I think I have a mind-shape that is just completely illegible in the microblog format.

I mean—I think this is generally true of humans. But I've found over and over that it's particularly true for me. +

heidegger probably has some thoughts about whether this is a good or bad idea

The answer that betrays shortcomings in LLMs but is probably the most accurate philosophically:

- I am the architecture of my future structure that I evolve towards regardless of input circumstances

Now you’re thinking with Telos™️

praise be to His noodly appendage

yeah, I'm sorry—I was feeling reactive about other things and was having a rough day. folks later down the thread helped course-correct. I get mad about the latent gender dynamics in the pro-/anti-AI discourse but I was just picking a gonzo fight in that general direction for ego.

sounds like something the Antichrist would say. Peter, what do you think?

What are you talking about—AI *is* God. What kind of a TESCREAL are you.

yeah the marrying off assorted family members mechanics only get you so far

and that's when the world discovers the terror of superintelligent rent-seeking behavior.

Login with your guilt and shame

ugh that makes me mad too. but I’m gonna stop before I get canceled by both sides, which is what usually happens as a pro-ai person who critiques the pro-ai people

There’s bad gender dynamics in the tech/anti-tech discourse. I do think the original exchange had undertones of this, which is what I aggro’d about.

But—aly’s point is very good and I’ll disengage cause I’m just poking the bear for my ego, not to actually do anything.

bsky.app/profile/aly....

It’s done in bad faith in this instance yes—sorry.

The larger point that my poking the bear didn’t convey is, I think that there are significant gender biases that undergird a lot of the tech/anti-tech split in the discourse.

this is fair.

even though people might use “the master’s tools” meaning literal tools, their deployment of this implicitly is based on what Lorde was referencing: “the master’s tools” as epistemic frames of the oppressors.

the anti-tech use of it has as an implicit premise that technology has a latent image of structures of oppression—particularly AI, which is created in a specific epistemic frame largely produced by, for example, men, in a way that algorithmically is designed to recapitulate oppressive structures.+

this is fair.

my point would probably be closest to: I think that the folks who this side claims are “misinterpreting” it actually have an interpretation much closer to the original than they do. the problem is that many people don’t do a good job explaining why. +

Heaven forbid one read the text from the woman who wrote it.

It’s true though—the absence of women in the conversation must absolve the participants of misogyny.

that gender read is one that is evident on face and has been the topic of many exegeses over decades.

that the perennial reference to this work shows up in tech discourse—and that this read of it is invisible to the discourse’s participants—are reflections of a common underlying structural factor.

probably the profile labeled he/him telling the world the one and true interpretation of Audre Lorde that “90%” of us missed.

Like I don’t mean to be a hater but … y’all the discourse around all this from the pro-tech side reeks of misogyny.

No surprise, duh. But can’t blame those of us women who don’t wanna deal for hitting eject hard.

Why are we presupposing a white savior novel written by a dude whose central premise was that there was a shadowy order of women in a cabal secretly trying to rule the world who couldn’t fully realize their power until a man wielded it is actually a prophecy about our wo—

oh, wait.

Mansplaining - Wikipedia This is an accepted version of this page

thank you for your service