Like a broken clock, Senessbenner is kind of right about this. How do you spin off parts of Amazon into their own independent organizations? What would it look like for AWS to be independent of the larger Amazon empire? How would it change things? #breakupbigtech
His AT&T analogy is okay, but the kinds of services that these companies provide cannot easily be broken up in the same ways that AT&T and Bell given that the integration of these structures is necessary to the overall functionality of the platform. #breakupbigtech
Given the integration of these arms of the companies, spinning off parts of these enterprises is a losing battle and you'd likely end up right here. So Sennessbenner is right but wrong: we need to adjust our laws to respond to the changing technosocial context. #breakupbigtech
All of this is to say that we might want to take up Dewey's suggestion re: laws and the testing of the laws in experience to update and restructure them to fit changing contexts. #breakupbigtech

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Dr. Johnathan Flowers, Sword Bisexual

Dr. Johnathan Flowers, Sword Bisexual Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @shengokai

Apr 17
I agree with Helen here and want to go a step further: much contemporary philosophy lacks the tools to do this. Further, many philosophers whose cultural presence could be leveraged to make change lack the political will or the conceptual rigor to do something.
The piece gives a great example with Singer: Singer is famous for saying that the field whose professionalism he is almost directly responsible for, the field of bioethics, should not advocate for people, for partisan interests. Taken as a field-wide position, this is telling.
On this view, bioethics (and the field of philosophy if we’re being metonymic) does not have any moral responsibility to comment on Palestinian genocide, on Sudan, on Trans genocide, on fascism because of the purported neutrality of the discipline re: contemporary events.
Read 6 tweets
May 18, 2023
At some point I hope my colleagues whining about the preservation of academic freedom from students realize that the students who're protesting have long since seen the failures of the academy to foster the kinds of good faith engagements these colleagues assume will be lost.
That is, people have tried refutation in print, they've tried addressing the "merits" of arguments, they've tried pointing out the harms and the bad faith of it all and still nothing changes. So the only recourse left is literally deplatforming bigots.
I mean, how do you even have a "good faith" debate when the context of the debate is your very humanity? How do you have a good faith debate when you7r interlocutor has decided that every piece of scholarship that doesn't support their position is a "mistake?"
Read 5 tweets
May 11, 2023
Truth. Goodness. Beauty. We've given up all chance at objective truth. We've made the life of mind a practical space. We share our dreams with ghosts. We wake up every day to a maxim Pierce wrote 150 years ago from which there's only one conclusion, We're damned for what we do.
Our anger, Our ego, Our unwillingness to do abstract inquiry, they set us on a path from which there is no escape. We yearned to return experience to philosophy without contemplating the cost and by the time we looked down there was no longer any ground beneath our feet.
What do pragmatists sacrifice? We're condemned to use the tools of philosophy to defeat it. We burn epistemology for someone else's future inquiry. We burn objectivity to discover a truth in experience that we know we'll never see.
Read 4 tweets
May 11, 2023
The assumption that some of us have a choice between activism and scholarship is hilarious to me.

For some of us, just being in the room, let alone the discipline, is an activist act or the product of a history of activism. Some of our sub-fields are built on activism.
Not to bring the "privilege" discourse into it, but to assuming multiply marginalized scholars have a fucking choice in whether we become activists in the academy means that they have no idea what our experience is like. At some point every marginalized scholar is an "activist."
I'm using quotes here because the form our "activism" might take is as diverse as we are. Shit, merely publishing something that says "this is my experience and I'm going to theorize about it" is an activist act in some* disciplines.

*I'm talking about philosophy.
Read 5 tweets
May 11, 2023
I am reminded of how Peter Singer has drawn the line between activist and scholar where the activist is unwilling to be moved by argumentation and the scholar is willing to consider every possibility, even those deemed abhorrent, so long as the argument is sound.
There's absolutely no daylight between Singer's scholar/activist divide and HLS's tweet, so I'm going to talk about this as a general principle of philosophy which is used as cover to treat people's humanity as open questions because that's, apparently, what philosphy does.
On Singer's view, the unwillingness of the activist to compromise on certain positions means the work they do, nor matter how well researched, is neither scholarly nor eligible for consideration in scholastic debate. All because the activist's position precludes some questions.
Read 25 tweets
Apr 25, 2023
I really think a lot of senior folks in philosophy underestimate just how much they're showing their asses with this whole Byrne publication thing. Just putting that shit on full display for all the world to see.
Many of these same people gave no thought about the rejection rates of marginalized or non-anglo centric philosophy within the discipline. Worse, a quick trawl through the Daily Nous reveals that these folks are usually the first to push back against expanding the canon.
Further, the way in which they doubt that Byrne's book was rejected on its merits demonstrates their steadfast determination to preserve a status quo, a kind of patronage, where publication can be eased through clout and alignment with the "traditional" form of the discipline.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(