zlacker

I agree that there is intellectual dishonesty in this conversation, but I disagree that I'm the one who is being dishonest.

What exactly is there to subvert if everyone is included?

>>mcdonj+(OP)
Yes, because we all know that's all that's going on with this subject.

>>tb_tec+p9
Insinuation is not an argument. Please make one.

>>mcdonj+(OP)
You're being dishonest by implying that discussion of technology is inherently not inclusive and that an effort needs to be made to be inclusive by allowing people who feel oppressed (whether they are or are not) to play in the "oppression olympics" by creating tangential opinionated discussions regarding policy or ethical guidelines that have nothing to do with the technology or the problem the technology is trying to solve.

Technology is inherently apolitical and inclusive. Anyone who claims otherwise is just trying to stir up useless internet flame wars. If you want to uselessly rant about politics on the internet you can go to Reddit.

>>gray_c+Sn
> allowing people who feel oppressed (whether they are or are not) to play in the "oppression olympics" by creating tangential opinionated discussions

Prior to your comment, nobody in this thread has said anything about any of this. This is all stuff that you seem to have read into things people have said that don't actually say anything of the sort.

>>sander+Qx
Correct, hence the accusation of dishonesty.

>>gray_c+hA2
You believe that an effective way to discuss things is to manufacture views that your interlocutors never expressed, and then consider it dishonest that they never expressed those views you manufactured for them?

I, for one, consider it very dishonest that you have yet to say a single word in this thread about your belief in leprechauns with pots of gold at the ends of rainbows. Why are you hiding your views? Just be honest!