Because we're computer geeks. At least, that's why this liberal arts person reads Slashdot.
Some of us even prefer the command line.
Some of us even::gasp:: program.
(I'm probably overreacting... heck, you even used a rant tag... but I just don't see how having broad interests necessarily means that someone's an idiot.)
It seems to me that you're both right, because you're using the word 'right' in two different ways.
When the original poster referred to "the right thing to do", he meant the thing that would be right in an ideal situation. And he was right about this. If I could trust the world with it, I'd much rather give everyone open access to any part of my computer that wasn't specifically private (personal email, etc.) or reserved for something else (say, 2G of disk space that look free, but that I need for the BeOS installation I'm planning). In the absence of misuse (like spamming), an internet of open systems could be used far more efficiently than an internet of closed systems.
On the other hand, you're talking about what's right given the conditions of the real world. This is also a useful thing to consider--indeed, as the original poster seemed to acknowledge (remember, he does lock his house each morning), this is what should guide how we actually behave. When people act as though they're living in an ideal situation, they usually end up hurting themselves and others.
The reason that it's still useful to think about an ideal situation--always remembering that we live in the real world--is that it gives us an absolute standard for how good things could get. If we aren't reaching that standard, we can keep looking for ways to improve the situation.
Just to make things (a tiny bit) more concrete, consider the example of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Ideally, the best strategy should be 'trust always'--if everyone can be trusted to follow this strategy, the total score in the game will be as high as it possibly can[1]. In a random population of different strategies, though, 'trust always' fails miserably. 'Tit for tat' does quite well--probably better than any other general strategy--but still doesn't quite live up to the ideal. The reason to keep the ideal in mind is that it reminds us to keep trying to refine the 'tit for tat' strategy, even though it does better than everything else around, until it can do as well as the ideal of 'universal trust everyone'.[2]
[1] Assuming I'm remembering the scoring correctly. If one player cooperates and the other defects, the sum of their scores is less than it would be if they both cooperated, right?
[2] Such improvements are possible--just not through a change in general strategy. One solution would be to ensure that 'tit for tat' is as widespread in the population as possible. Another would be to change your strategy based on the previous performance of your opponent.
P.S. I've just been reading Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, and I think it's colored how I talk about the Prisoner's Dilemma--anyway, I don't think this talk of 'populations' is natural to game theory. But I hope my point is clear enough, anyway.;)
Actually, when I saw them a couple of years ago (can't remember when exactly... would have been 97 or 98), they opened with just John and John, introducing themselves as "They Might Be Giants '89: The only They Might Be Giants tribute band that really matters."
It was pretty cool... I thought I'd missed my chance to see just the two of them.
From what I understand of it, this is essentially what Java does: compile code for a virtual machine, and then emulate it on different OSes and processors. Of course, there are some obvious limitations to Java, most notably the extra memory it uses and the decreased speed of Java applications, but that's the sort of thing that could be expected in any project like this.
Actually, thinking about the speed limitations of Java... do any of the JIT runtimes optimize code when they translate it? If it works as well as it's supposed to for Transmeta, I'd think the same principle could be applied in Java. Anyone out there know if it's being done, or why it wouldn't work?
Actually, it does seem fair enough to exclude the meaning of life from all this--physics, at least what I know of it, doesn't tend to concern itself too much with why we should do things, just with how the world works. As for the other bits... well, I think I'd have to agree with an earlier poster, who commented that they really sound more like biology than physics.;)
Okay, I'll agree it's silly to claim that physicists are seeking "the meaning, nature and source of life", but to give Newton credit for this borders on absurdity. Certainly the Rules of Philosophizing described in the Principia are a good formal statement of the scientific method, but that method had been developing for at least 200 years before Newton's time. Furthermore, Newton didn't see science as dismissing such questions as the "meaning, nature and source of life"... indeed, toward the close of the Principia he expresses a hope that just those subjects will soon fall within the scope of scientific investigations, and a regret that he has not yet been able to account for them. "Natural philosophy" is a good description of what Newton did, and is (of course) the name he himself used for it.
If you really want to see where physics came from, first take a look at Archimedes and Ptolemy, and maybe even a little Aristotle, and then read Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler and try to see what they're doing differently. Then, if you're up for something a bit more comprehensive, take a look at Francis Bacon's New Organon, which has as good a claim as any to founding the scientific method. Then, maybe, you'll be ready to tackle Newton.
(Sorry for that little outburst, I just hate to see intelligent people accepting the kind of oversimplified rubbish that passes for history in the schools. And yeah, I really would suggest reading all those things if you want to understand science, just as I'd suggest taking the time to learn your operating system thoroughly)
This was my first reaction as well, but the impression I have from reading the article is that Rees is actually interested in changing our way of asking the question so that it can be addressed by physics. It seems important to him that the multiverse theory should become something that makes real, measurable predictions. To quote from the article:
Rees admits that, at present, the premises upon which many multiverse calculations rest are "highly arbitrary," but he is confident that they need not remain so. "Within the next 20 years," he says, "we may be able to put the multiverse on a firm scientific footing or rule it out."
This is really not an unusual occurence in science. Think of the discovery of the atom, for example: what started out as a purely metaphysical question ("is there an ultimate, indivisible unit of matter?") turned into a purely physical one ("can we find smaller units from which matter is composed?"). The question was changed in the process, of course, but thinking about it led to some great insights.
Similarly with multiverses: it sounds like a philosophical question about other possible realities, but in fact it simply expands the scope of the reality which we can practically deal with.
It seems like our thinking about user interface problems in open-source software would be clearer if we distinguished between two different possible problems, both of which this article seems to accuse it of:
1) It is said that most open-source software is difficult to use for most typical users, as opposed to programmers, or even hackers generally.
2) It is also said that open-source software tends to have badly designed user interfaces overall--interfaces inadequate to the goals of the software.
The first problem seems like it is partially political: someone who wants open-source to become the standard approach to software design will respond to it very differently from someone who simply prefers open-source as a way to develop their own tools. Those of us who see open source as a way to develop software for ourselves tend to find arguments about the greater mass of end-users irrelevant. Open-source software is designed by programmers for themselves, so it will reflect what they want in an interface, and like it or not, hackers want different things from most end-users, simply because we spend more time using our computers.
If someone uses a computer rarely, casually, or only for a few tasks, they'll have certain needs from their interface:
It should be easy to learn: Most people use computers for tasks they once did by hand, so if it's not fairly easy to migrate to a computer they have no reason to change.
It should be consistent: Unless all programs have substantially similar interfaces, learning a new program is a task just as serious as getting a computer in the first place.
It should be as simple as possible: Extra options just make an interface more cluttered, so they make it harder to learn even if they lie unused.
Someone who tends to spend a lot of time dealing with a computer, and knows how it works, tends to have different requirements for their interface:
It should be as usable as possible, even if this requires a longer learning curve: The classic example for this is text editors. I love vi (and others love emacs) because it lets me do what I need to do with only two or three keystrokes. Notepad is easier to learn, but slower to work with.
It should be suited to the purpose of the program: Consistency is nice, but hackers don't tend to demand any more similarity between a web browser and a graphics editing program than they would between a radio and a paintbrush. They see different programs as different tools, and expect different interfaces to them, rather than seeing the computer as one tool with one interface.
It should be as powerful as possible: Consider a find command in a text editor. Users will usually only search for a word or phrase, so more capabilities are usually just clutter. Hackers tend to take tools to their limits. Its worth my time to learn to use regular expressions because I will use them again and again.
On this side of things, I'm perfectly happy to say that open-source people should ignore userly UI virtues in favor of hackerly ones. Open-source is not hackers designing for users, it is hackers designing for themselves.
On the other hand, I believe that the author of this article has a slightly stronger point: many open-source projects have bad user interface records even on hackerly grounds. Because we find it easier to deal with computers generally, and because we tend to have harder technical demands, improving technical capabilities is usually a higher priority than making a cleaner interface. Besides which, most tools are written only when a need for them is felt, so filling the need quickly is more important than designing the best interface. Once an interface is made, people usually prefer to stick with what they know, so a better one isn't developed.
So, while it would be silly for people working on Linux, or even the GIMP, to start listening to focus groups and user feedback instead of their own needs, I do think it would be good for our software if more of us would start thinking of the user interface as something that's worth dealing with. I love vi, but just imagine how nice it would be with all of its (rather obvious) shortcomings fixed and its advantages improved on. It would start to be really WORTH the time it takes to learn it. If we could do something like that, then even some of the users might start to see it our way!
Okay:
Do some humans have even a marginally more difficult time breeding than others?
Does this happen for reasons other than pure random chance?
Very well, then, we've got natural selection. Just because one especially successful gene happens to incline us towards helping the weak, sick, and moronic (and thus, preserve more copies of itself), doesn't mean we "don't have natural selection". Natural selection doesn't select genes for maximum toughness (just ask a fly), it selects the genes that can reproduce themselves the most, for whatever reasons.
Not that I'm entirely convinced of Katz's point myself (any article that uses words like Regulon and Semiosphere is a bit suspect), but this doesn't even come close to refuting it.
Well, I suppose there's still the faint possibility that somebody might find another bug in it, after all these years, but it's not getting any new features, and it hasn't changed in years.
First, while it's somewhat original to have it in a specifically Christian context, it occurs to me that fighting demons, and generally fighting on the side of morality, isn't that new as a way to make violent games more palatable. Remember Wolfenstein (it's okay, you're killing Nazis) and Doom (demons and devils have taken over the bodies of the people on your ship, so you HAVE to shoot them)? Is there really any reason to be more disturbed by this game doing it than by id having done it years ago?
Second, I'm baffled by the idea that the main argument for freedom of speech is to claim that speech will never have any effect on people. It's just common sense that constant exposure to violence in the media makes it seem less repulsive: that's why propaganda is such an important part of a war effort. We need free speech IN SPITE OF this because there's no way to regulate such things that doesn't also stifle human thought. As for such things as CyberNanny, I'm sure we're all as horrified as Mr. Katz at the idea that innocent children are being kept from their pornography, but there's no issue of freedom here: we're quite capable of choosing whether to install such software, aren't we? Meanwhile, I see no cause for Katz's predicted confusion: Christian gore is as worthy of being blocked as any other kind, and just as innappropriate for young children.
After what Katz had to say about the interview, I'm certainly less inclined to a charitable reading of some parts of the article myself (to say the least). It now seems that the article was indeed saying, in essence, "Middle-class white kids have no business whining", which drastically underrates the problem.
Still, it may just be my own cynicism, but it seems to me exactly right that "'geeks' can stop being oppressed by denying their own interests". I think I saw the basic principle as early as 6th grade: They will hate you and abuse you unless you pretend to be as stupid as they are and to like the same stupid things they like. The problem is that it is indeed intolerable to pretend such things, and most of us fail even if we try. The author said only that life is harder for those who don't pretend--this seems plain enough, and it's just as plain that this needs to be changed.
Come to think of it, we've been doing awfully well overall with sci-fi prophecies the past couple of weeks. What with Sony being practically halfway to Real Anthropoid Househould Robots (well, they've got a dog anyway), a flying car due out this year, and now warp drive a step closer to reality, the future is starting to look like the future again. Personally, I'm thrilled: Cyberpunk SF is all very well and good, but I want a galactic empire, dammit.
Note: This is actually a response to a few different comments, but it is a response, so in the interest of not multiplying threads innappropriately I've placed it as a reply to what seems one of the most important of the comments to which I am responding.
I think a number of people have misunderstood Ms. Dark's point. Specifically, the perception that she was dismissing people's pain as 'mere politics', considering their pain irrelevant because of their races, or (as in the comment above) claiming that they were to blame for not trying to fit in.
I'll consider the last point first, as it is the simplest to clear up. The comment
Sucks to be a kid. Sucks especially if you decide against--or never learn--the moves for playing along with the popularity game.
was taken by many as saying something like: "of course it sucks, but it's your fault for not trying hard enough to be popular." But, especially in light of the following sentence:
I know it from experience, and I believe it in reading through all this material.
it seems clear that the author sees reasons to decide against playing the popularity game (after all, she did so herself) and is simply acknowledging that life can be harder if you do what you love or what you believe in or just what you want rather than whatever is popular or cool. In the same sense, she might indeed have said: "It's hard to be black in America, especially if you decide against--or never learn--the way to pass as white." But I think she would agree--as I know both you and I would--that some things are more important than ease and comfort, that ease and comfort had by such means would be worse than pain and hardship.
The accusation that the article is racist is based on such comments as this:
It's the soliloquy of identity politics, as familiar and inflexible as any holy writ or talk-show guest. Only this time, for the first time in history, the group stepping forward to take its rightful place at center stage in the drama of marginalization and oppression looks exactly like the big ballers and shot callers that identity politics developed in reaction to.
Clearly, geeks are being told that they have no business complaining, because they're a bunch of white kids just like their oppressors. But is this so clear? Certainly she is struck by the novelty of the situation, of a group of people that is (let's face it) largely (of course not entirely) white and male complaining of oppression in the same language as more 'traditionally' oppressed groups. But consider her language: "the group stepping forward to take its rightful place", "looks exactly like... [those]...that identity politics developed in reaction to."
The observation here is that people who are being oppressed are, for their own defense, seeing themselves as a united group set against a group of oppressors, as has been done many times before, but that this time the two groups are not set apart by obvious differences of race, class, or sex--that, in fact, both the oppressors and the oppressed 'look like' those who had traditionally been the oppressors only.
This brings us to the third misreading, according to which people's statements are felt to be dismissed as 'merely political'. All I can say to this is that Ms. Dark does not appear to view politics as such in a negative light. To observe that what is being done here is political is simply to say that it hopes to have a large-scale effect in society. To react against oppression by posting on Voices from the Hellmouth is different from just trying to keep out of trouble (this would be 'merely' personal, as opposed to political), or from boldly defying the oppressors and going on being a geek (this is the sort of thing she calls "just abstractly noble"). It is different in that it actually calls out to people "Listen to me! Something is wrong here! Something has to be done!". Thus, to call it 'political' is not to dismiss it, but to recognize it for what it is, and in fact the first time the word is used it is said approvingly ("the outpourings [are] politically progressive").
Now, I don't deny that the article does express some doubt as to the possible dangers of using this particular political tactic (identity politics) in this way, but I do think that if we read it carefully and with an open mind we can see that it is not half so damnable as some of the responses might make it appear.
Slashdot Mirror
My, that was a yummy slime mold!
--Moss
This is a
Now there are two of them.
Because we're computer geeks. At least, that's why this liberal arts person reads Slashdot.
Some of us even prefer the command line.
Some of us even
(I'm probably overreacting... heck, you even used a rant tag... but I just don't see how having broad interests necessarily means that someone's an idiot.)
--Moss
This is a
Now there are two of them.
It seems to me that you're both right, because you're using the word 'right' in two different ways.
;)
When the original poster referred to "the right thing to do", he meant the thing that would be right in an ideal situation. And he was right about this. If I could trust the world with it, I'd much rather give everyone open access to any part of my computer that wasn't specifically private (personal email, etc.) or reserved for something else (say, 2G of disk space that look free, but that I need for the BeOS installation I'm planning). In the absence of misuse (like spamming), an internet of open systems could be used far more efficiently than an internet of closed systems.
On the other hand, you're talking about what's right given the conditions of the real world. This is also a useful thing to consider--indeed, as the original poster seemed to acknowledge (remember, he does lock his house each morning), this is what should guide how we actually behave. When people act as though they're living in an ideal situation, they usually end up hurting themselves and others.
The reason that it's still useful to think about an ideal situation--always remembering that we live in the real world--is that it gives us an absolute standard for how good things could get. If we aren't reaching that standard, we can keep looking for ways to improve the situation.
Just to make things (a tiny bit) more concrete, consider the example of the Prisoner's Dilemma. Ideally, the best strategy should be 'trust always'--if everyone can be trusted to follow this strategy, the total score in the game will be as high as it possibly can[1]. In a random population of different strategies, though, 'trust always' fails miserably. 'Tit for tat' does quite well--probably better than any other general strategy--but still doesn't quite live up to the ideal. The reason to keep the ideal in mind is that it reminds us to keep trying to refine the 'tit for tat' strategy, even though it does better than everything else around, until it can do as well as the ideal of 'universal trust everyone'.[2]
[1] Assuming I'm remembering the scoring correctly. If one player cooperates and the other defects, the sum of their scores is less than it would be if they both cooperated, right?
[2] Such improvements are possible--just not through a change in general strategy. One solution would be to ensure that 'tit for tat' is as widespread in the population as possible. Another would be to change your strategy based on the previous performance of your opponent.
P.S. I've just been reading Dawkins's The Selfish Gene, and I think it's colored how I talk about the Prisoner's Dilemma--anyway, I don't think this talk of 'populations' is natural to game theory. But I hope my point is clear enough, anyway.
--Moss
Actually, when I saw them a couple of years ago (can't remember when exactly... would have been 97 or 98), they opened with just John and John, introducing themselves as "They Might Be Giants '89: The only They Might Be Giants tribute band that really matters."
It was pretty cool... I thought I'd missed my chance to see just the two of them.
--Moss
Funny, that's exactly what I wondered when I got my first Macintosh.
--Moss
From what I understand of it, this is essentially what Java does: compile code for a virtual machine, and then emulate it on different OSes and processors. Of course, there are some obvious limitations to Java, most notably the extra memory it uses and the decreased speed of Java applications, but that's the sort of thing that could be expected in any project like this.
Actually, thinking about the speed limitations of Java... do any of the JIT runtimes optimize code when they translate it? If it works as well as it's supposed to for Transmeta, I'd think the same principle could be applied in Java. Anyone out there know if it's being done, or why it wouldn't work?
--Moss
Actually, it does seem fair enough to exclude the meaning of life from all this--physics, at least what I know of it, doesn't tend to concern itself too much with why we should do things, just with how the world works. As for the other bits... well, I think I'd have to agree with an earlier poster, who commented that they really sound more like biology than physics. ;)
--Moss
Okay, I'll agree it's silly to claim that physicists are seeking "the meaning, nature and source of life", but to give Newton credit for this borders on absurdity. Certainly the Rules of Philosophizing described in the Principia are a good formal statement of the scientific method, but that method had been developing for at least 200 years before Newton's time. Furthermore, Newton didn't see science as dismissing such questions as the "meaning, nature and source of life"... indeed, toward the close of the Principia he expresses a hope that just those subjects will soon fall within the scope of scientific investigations, and a regret that he has not yet been able to account for them. "Natural philosophy" is a good description of what Newton did, and is (of course) the name he himself used for it.
If you really want to see where physics came from, first take a look at Archimedes and Ptolemy, and maybe even a little Aristotle, and then read Galileo, Copernicus, and Kepler and try to see what they're doing differently. Then, if you're up for something a bit more comprehensive, take a look at Francis Bacon's New Organon, which has as good a claim as any to founding the scientific method. Then, maybe, you'll be ready to tackle Newton.
(Sorry for that little outburst, I just hate to see intelligent people accepting the kind of oversimplified rubbish that passes for history in the schools. And yeah, I really would suggest reading all those things if you want to understand science, just as I'd suggest taking the time to learn your operating system thoroughly)
--Moss
Similarly with multiverses: it sounds like a philosophical question about other possible realities, but in fact it simply expands the scope of the reality which we can practically deal with.
--Moss
1) It is said that most open-source software is difficult to use for most typical users, as opposed to programmers, or even hackers generally.
2) It is also said that open-source software tends to have badly designed user interfaces overall--interfaces inadequate to the goals of the software.
The first problem seems like it is partially political: someone who wants open-source to become the standard approach to software design will respond to it very differently from someone who simply prefers open-source as a way to develop their own tools. Those of us who see open source as a way to develop software for ourselves tend to find arguments about the greater mass of end-users irrelevant. Open-source software is designed by programmers for themselves, so it will reflect what they want in an interface, and like it or not, hackers want different things from most end-users, simply because we spend more time using our computers.
If someone uses a computer rarely, casually, or only for a few tasks, they'll have certain needs from their interface:
Someone who tends to spend a lot of time dealing with a computer, and knows how it works, tends to have different requirements for their interface:
On this side of things, I'm perfectly happy to say that open-source people should ignore userly UI virtues in favor of hackerly ones. Open-source is not hackers designing for users, it is hackers designing for themselves.
On the other hand, I believe that the author of this article has a slightly stronger point: many open-source projects have bad user interface records even on hackerly grounds. Because we find it easier to deal with computers generally, and because we tend to have harder technical demands, improving technical capabilities is usually a higher priority than making a cleaner interface. Besides which, most tools are written only when a need for them is felt, so filling the need quickly is more important than designing the best interface. Once an interface is made, people usually prefer to stick with what they know, so a better one isn't developed.
So, while it would be silly for people working on Linux, or even the GIMP, to start listening to focus groups and user feedback instead of their own needs, I do think it would be good for our software if more of us would start thinking of the user interface as something that's worth dealing with. I love vi, but just imagine how nice it would be with all of its (rather obvious) shortcomings fixed and its advantages improved on. It would start to be really WORTH the time it takes to learn it. If we could do something like that, then even some of the users might start to see it our way!
Okay:
.sig.
Do some humans have even a marginally more difficult time breeding than others?
Does this happen for reasons other than pure random chance?
Very well, then, we've got natural selection. Just because one especially successful gene happens to incline us towards helping the weak, sick, and moronic (and thus, preserve more copies of itself), doesn't mean we "don't have natural selection". Natural selection doesn't select genes for maximum toughness (just ask a fly), it selects the genes that can reproduce themselves the most, for whatever reasons.
Not that I'm entirely convinced of Katz's point myself (any article that uses words like Regulon and Semiosphere is a bit suspect), but this doesn't even come close to refuting it.
--Moss
This is a
Now there are two of them.
Well, I suppose there's still the faint possibility that somebody might find another bug in it, after all these years, but it's not getting any new features, and it hasn't changed in years.
.sig.
--Moss
This is a
Now there are two of them.
I've got a couple of responses:
First, while it's somewhat original to have it in a specifically Christian context, it occurs to me that fighting demons, and generally fighting on the side of morality, isn't that new as a way to make violent games more palatable. Remember Wolfenstein (it's okay, you're killing Nazis) and Doom (demons and devils have taken over the bodies of the people on your ship, so you HAVE to shoot them)? Is there really any reason to be more disturbed by this game doing it than by id having done it years ago?
Second, I'm baffled by the idea that the main argument for freedom of speech is to claim that speech will never have any effect on people. It's just common sense that constant exposure to violence in the media makes it seem less repulsive: that's why propaganda is such an important part of a war effort. We need free speech IN SPITE OF this because there's no way to regulate such things that doesn't also stifle human thought. As for such things as CyberNanny, I'm sure we're all as horrified as Mr. Katz at the idea that innocent children are being kept from their pornography, but there's no issue of freedom here: we're quite capable of choosing whether to install such software, aren't we? Meanwhile, I see no cause for Katz's predicted confusion: Christian gore is as worthy of being blocked as any other kind, and just as innappropriate for young children.
After what Katz had to say about the interview, I'm certainly less inclined to a charitable reading of some parts of the article myself (to say the least). It now seems that the article was indeed saying, in essence, "Middle-class white kids have no business whining", which drastically underrates the problem.
Still, it may just be my own cynicism, but it seems to me exactly right that "'geeks' can stop being oppressed by denying their own interests". I think I saw the basic principle as early as 6th grade: They will hate you and abuse you unless you pretend to be as stupid as they are and to like the same stupid things they like. The problem is that it is indeed intolerable to pretend such things, and most of us fail even if we try. The author said only that life is harder for those who don't pretend--this seems plain enough, and it's just as plain that this needs to be changed.
Come to think of it, we've been doing awfully well overall with sci-fi prophecies the past couple of weeks. What with Sony being practically halfway to Real Anthropoid Househould Robots (well, they've got a dog anyway), a flying car due out this year, and now warp drive a step closer to reality, the future is starting to look like the future again. Personally, I'm thrilled: Cyberpunk SF is all very well and good, but I want a galactic empire, dammit.
Note: This is actually a response to a few different comments, but it is a response, so in the interest of not multiplying threads innappropriately I've placed it as a reply to what seems one of the most important of the comments to which I am responding.
I think a number of people have misunderstood Ms. Dark's point. Specifically, the perception that she was dismissing people's pain as 'mere politics', considering their pain irrelevant because of their races, or (as in the comment above) claiming that they were to blame for not trying to fit in.
I'll consider the last point first, as it is the simplest to clear up. The comment
was taken by many as saying something like: "of course it sucks, but it's your fault for not trying hard enough to be popular." But, especially in light of the following sentence: it seems clear that the author sees reasons to decide against playing the popularity game (after all, she did so herself) and is simply acknowledging that life can be harder if you do what you love or what you believe in or just what you want rather than whatever is popular or cool. In the same sense, she might indeed have said: "It's hard to be black in America, especially if you decide against--or never learn--the way to pass as white." But I think she would agree--as I know both you and I would--that some things are more important than ease and comfort, that ease and comfort had by such means would be worse than pain and hardship.The accusation that the article is racist is based on such comments as this:
Clearly, geeks are being told that they have no business complaining, because they're a bunch of white kids just like their oppressors. But is this so clear? Certainly she is struck by the novelty of the situation, of a group of people that is (let's face it) largely (of course not entirely) white and male complaining of oppression in the same language as more 'traditionally' oppressed groups. But consider her language: "the group stepping forward to take its rightful place", "looks exactly like... [those]The observation here is that people who are being oppressed are, for their own defense, seeing themselves as a united group set against a group of oppressors, as has been done many times before, but that this time the two groups are not set apart by obvious differences of race, class, or sex--that, in fact, both the oppressors and the oppressed 'look like' those who had traditionally been the oppressors only.
This brings us to the third misreading, according to which people's statements are felt to be dismissed as 'merely political'. All I can say to this is that Ms. Dark does not appear to view politics as such in a negative light. To observe that what is being done here is political is simply to say that it hopes to have a large-scale effect in society. To react against oppression by posting on Voices from the Hellmouth is different from just trying to keep out of trouble (this would be 'merely' personal, as opposed to political), or from boldly defying the oppressors and going on being a geek (this is the sort of thing she calls "just abstractly noble"). It is different in that it actually calls out to people "Listen to me! Something is wrong here! Something has to be done!". Thus, to call it 'political' is not to dismiss it, but to recognize it for what it is, and in fact the first time the word is used it is said approvingly ("the outpourings [are] politically progressive").
Now, I don't deny that the article does express some doubt as to the possible dangers of using this particular political tactic (identity politics) in this way, but I do think that if we read it carefully and with an open mind we can see that it is not half so damnable as some of the responses might make it appear.