Nuclear power is s great example! What happened when physical laws were used to political means? We invented a bomb. What happened when the same scientists just did their job to do their part in society regardless of politics? We got a solution to fill every home in the world with electricity with very few polluting side effects (there are ways to avoid almost all risks with nuclear power, but this isn't the place). What happened when we made it political again? We kept burning coal for 30 years and stopped the progress of nuclear power because of fear mongering.
But the collective "we" that you use as a rhetorical tool is only that, a rhetorical tool.
No, I had a specific "we" in mind. I'm not trying to drive you to action, but if I were it would be the rhetorical we.
Does a government and the laws it makes not imply a we that makes an follows those rules?
I'd argue that there is never not a "we" unless you're so far on the fringes of society that you do not rely on the set of commonalities the rest do.
No, it doesn't because there are conflicting interests that create groups, or classes and so unless you are a high level government agent involved in energy policies, or in an executive position in an energy company, etc. calling yourself a "we" in that context is just rhetorical.
Good, so you admit it's pointless to be political because there is no need to associate interests we have as individuals with interests of the whole? Because your argument seems to be that I'm conflating my decisions with the high level government's decisions?
Given that, the only solution is to write broken software or apolitical software, as you are arguing that there is no "we" in our democratic beyond action/event level input from our votes. This means that simply being an apolitical cog in the wheel of society with no societal conscious is the only valuabe position one can aspire to?
On the other end, if your argument is that I'm not a nuclear scientist, so I shouldn't be talking about nuclear energy, then I would argue that no occupation knows what's best for all of society in relation to their field and that their motives should generally be considered antithetical to society as a whole as they, when acting in a group, will try to gain the largest share of resources possible for their group.
Basically: everything looks like a nail when you are a hammer.
Here is a summary of my points:
• Everything in tech is political
• There is no global "we" that makes decisions
Then you can identify groups and further their interests by, for ex. unionizing in tech/strengthening tech consumer groups/ etc.
Okay, not trying to beat a dead horse, but what is you reasoning that everything in tech is political? Do you think that, say carpentry, is always political or is it some unique trait in tech?
Do you mean the fact that sharing speech is political? Freedom of speech is a basic human right and by definition not political, even if someone politicizes it.
I agree there is no collective we beyond the we that is self imposed. By participating in society you impose some variant of "we" on yourself and the group you choose as your "we" in a specific context is the one that best suits that context. Any other explanation would be mentueua.
I answered your first question in my first reply to your comments. Please see above.
Regarding freedom of speech, it is defined as a basic human right because of a massive amount of political work in the 17th and 18th century. Before that it was not even on the radar.
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.