/tech/ - Technology

>>545174

You're retarded, you know? Technology can only improve the condition of people intelligent enough to use it. Otherwise it's used to subdue the good goyim with propaganda and petty distractions.

You could argue that it could be used better if people at the top were benevolent. Then I'd say that normalfags should stay in the real life.

tl;dr the internet shouldn't be accessible by everybody. People who couldn't use a computer with only a keyboard, for example.

>>545167

He wasn't wrong.

>>545193

nice non-arguments there, idiot :)

>>545193

bullshit

“Those who are most sensitive about "politically incorrect" terminology are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immigrant, abused woman or disabled person, but a minority of activists, many of whom do not even belong to any "oppressed" group but come from privileged strata of society.”

“It is obvious that [leftists] are not cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality.”

When someone interprets as derogatory almost anything that is said about him (or about groups with whom he identifies) we conclude that he has inferiority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronounced among minority rights advocates, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hypersensitive about the words used to designate minorities. The terms "negro," "oriental," "handicapped" or "chick" for an African, an Asian, a disabled person or a woman originally had no derogatory connotation. "Broad" and "chick" were merely the feminine equivalents of "guy," "dude" or "fellow." The negative connotations have been attached to these terms by the activists themselves. Some animal rights advocates have gone so far as to reject the word "pet" and insist on its replacement by "animal companion." Leftist anthropologists go to great lengths to avoid saying anything about primitive peoples that could conceivably be interpreted as negative. They want to replace the word "primitive" by "nonliterate." They seem almost paranoid about anything that might suggest that any primitive culture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that primitive cultures ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hypersensitivity of leftish anthropologists.)

the luddites were right tbh. industrialization royally fucked their shit and they died long before reaping any of the benefits

ted was a total faggot though.

He seems to have been right in diagnosing some of the problems of our society, but now that the technological Pandora's box has been opened up I don't see any way back.

>>545193

> you use technology you don't understand daily

Never said otherwise. But I understand how to use it, thus I'm not the one used.

The real problem is that consumers don't really benefit from technology. Professionals do, but all the use cases you could find for non professionals are just a consequence of a degenerat world.

>>545374

So you're against convenience is what you're saying?

Genuinely trying to get your position btw.

I mean i get the whole "technology can control you if you're not careful" shtick, hell we're on /tech/ after all, home of botnets and shills.

But it seems to me like you're going on a hunt for a true Scotsman.

Like it or not, most people are professionals; by necessity of living in a capitalist economy.

I just don't get what you're trying to say, are you against the separation of work? are you advocating for craftsmanship and a holistic approach to technology?

Please clarify, this is where it gets interesting.

>>545382

Not him, but I think he's saying that in practice new technology is used for abuse more than it is to enrich the lives of the common man. A lot of the time when I read news about technology more often than not rather than being optimistic I think, "great a new way for corporations and the government to fuck us all over". I think a big part of it is because technology is more accessible to them. They're the ones with the resources and infrastructures. There's a lot of power in untrusted hands.

>Like it or not, most people are professionals; by necessity of living in a capitalist economy.

>I just don't get what you're trying to say, are you against the separation of work? are you advocating for craftsmanship and a holistic approach to technology?

In regards to this I'm not saying specialization is necessarily a bad thing, but it's not necessarily a good thing either. Man's approach has always been to invent something in order to solve a problem, not for the sake of advancement in itself, so transhumanists and the like have a backwards mindset in my opinion. If technology were wiped out tomorrow I doubt the first thing on anyone's agenda is to create a combustion engine. Technology solves problems, but it also creates problems too. Specialization might help to advance society, but I personally wouldn't mind if we had to start from being subsistence farmers again. Basically all I'm saying is the level of technology isn't necessarily equal to quality of life.