#problemism — Public Fediverse posts

@mfamelis how lovely. In 2022! Thank you for reading this so we don't have to.

This brings to mind Feenberg: "the differentiation of specializations gives specialists the illusion of pure, rational autonomy [which] masks [that] they represent the interests which presided over the underdetermined technical choices that lie in the past of their profession" (1999)

(and of course, #problemism)

@mfamelis how lovely. In 2022! Thank you for reading this so we don't have to.

This brings to mind Feenberg: "the differentiation of specializations gives specialists the illusion of pure, rational autonomy [which] masks [that] they represent the interests which presided over the underdetermined technical choices that lie in the past of their profession" (1999)

(and of course, #problemism)

@mfamelis how lovely. In 2022! Thank you for reading this so we don't have to.

This brings to mind Feenberg: "the differentiation of specializations gives specialists the illusion of pure, rational autonomy [which] masks [that] they represent the interests which presided over the underdetermined technical choices that lie in the past of their profession" (1999)

(and of course, #problemism)

@mfamelis how lovely. In 2022! Thank you for reading this so we don't have to.

This brings to mind Feenberg: "the differentiation of specializations gives specialists the illusion of pure, rational autonomy [which] masks [that] they represent the interests which presided over the underdetermined technical choices that lie in the past of their profession" (1999)

(and of course, #problemism)

@mfamelis how lovely. In 2022! Thank you for reading this so we don't have to.

This brings to mind Feenberg: "the differentiation of specializations gives specialists the illusion of pure, rational autonomy [which] masks [that] they represent the interests which presided over the underdetermined technical choices that lie in the past of their profession" (1999)

(and of course, #problemism)

The paper emphasizes that "To decide the solution is to decide the stakes". In #InsolventBook, I argue that the stakes are often decided even before: in the articulation of the problem to be solved. #solutionism relies on #problemism even without solutions. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

The paper emphasizes that "To decide the solution is to decide the stakes". In #InsolventBook, I argue that the stakes are often decided even before: in the articulation of the problem to be solved. #solutionism relies on #problemism even without solutions. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

The paper emphasizes that "To decide the solution is to decide the stakes". In #InsolventBook, I argue that the stakes are often decided even before: in the articulation of the problem to be solved. #solutionism relies on #problemism even without solutions. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

The paper emphasizes that "To decide the solution is to decide the stakes". In #InsolventBook, I argue that the stakes are often decided even before: in the articulation of the problem to be solved. #solutionism relies on #problemism even without solutions. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

The paper emphasizes that "To decide the solution is to decide the stakes". In #InsolventBook, I argue that the stakes are often decided even before: in the articulation of the problem to be solved. #solutionism relies on #problemism even without solutions. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

@luis_in_brief @natematias @mmitchell_ai gross. And that they frame such things explicitly as if it was a “problem” (I.e. solvable) is insidious and at the same time, so typical. It’s a symptom of a way of thinking that is incapable of paying back the ethical debts owed to this planet and it’s societies.

A classic case of #problemism. I wrote about that here https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

@luis_in_brief @natematias @mmitchell_ai gross. And that they frame such things explicitly as if it was a “problem” (I.e. solvable) is insidious and at the same time, so typical. It’s a symptom of a way of thinking that is incapable of paying back the ethical debts owed to this planet and it’s societies.

A classic case of #problemism. I wrote about that here https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

@luis_in_brief @natematias @mmitchell_ai gross. And that they frame such things explicitly as if it was a “problem” (I.e. solvable) is insidious and at the same time, so typical. It’s a symptom of a way of thinking that is incapable of paying back the ethical debts owed to this planet and it’s societies.

A classic case of #problemism. I wrote about that here https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

@luis_in_brief @natematias @mmitchell_ai gross. And that they frame such things explicitly as if it was a “problem” (I.e. solvable) is insidious and at the same time, so typical. It’s a symptom of a way of thinking that is incapable of paying back the ethical debts owed to this planet and it’s societies.

A classic case of #problemism. I wrote about that here https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009

@luis_in_brief @natematias @mmitchell_ai gross. And that they frame such things explicitly as if it was a “problem” (I.e. solvable) is insidious and at the same time, so typical. It’s a symptom of a way of thinking that is incapable of paying back the ethical debts owed to this planet and it’s societies.

A classic case of #problemism. I wrote about that here https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/14668.003.0009