You are reading content from Scuttlebutt
Feed of @Dan Hassan

dan hassans weird cypherspace home of tricks and treats

ssb gensis was a cyphernova

:zap: :telescope: :mag: :8ball: :raised_hands: :children_crossing: :space_invader: :kimono: :pisces: :zap:

he/him :: queer descendent of indian indenture :: coder active in autonomous cooperatives & blockchain r&d :: &

“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin

"Astro-infinity music is beyond freedom. It is precision, discipline. It is not just freedom. It is coordination and sound interdependence." Sun Ra

On Earth

  • Current: Melboune, Australia
  • Previous: Suva, Fiji
  • Permanent: London, UK
  • Occasional: Berlin, German

Around Web 2.0

If you are a keybase user you'll find my files, images, texts and other fora here:

keybase fs ls /keybase/public/danielsan

i maintain a list of ssb folx on twitter. go here if you'd like to be added:


Around SSB Cypherspace

you'll almost certainly find me at one of the chess tables

#dark #blockchain #money #mutualcredit #commons #conceptart #parenting #offline #low-bandwidth #podcasts #feminism #gender* (+ more)

Podcast in Cypherspace: The Local Gossip

i started a podcast from within the 'verse. checkout #the-local-gossip

It has a DAT site!


Ongoing Topics


everything on the #discwoman lable or in the field of #technofeminism

lrg_grass.gif lrg_grass.gif lrg_grass.gif sm_grass.gifsm_grass.gifsm_grass.gif med_grass.gif dandelion_gold.gif lrg_grass.gif

@Dan Hassan
Voted ## Useful idea: "Abuse Audit" I noticed that Funkwhale (a federated Soundc
@Dan Hassan
Wrote something private
@Dan Hassan
Wrote something private
@Dan Hassan
Voted [@peg](@vEJe4hdnbHJl549200IytOeA3THbnP0oM+JQtS1u+8o=.ed25519) and I have be
@Dan Hassan
Followed @Elio Qoshi
@Dan Hassan
Re: %ICz7CjzRE

:warning: This thread is intended for posting excerpts from the book for reference. If you would like to discuss, please create a fork.

pg. x

This book is unapologetically rooted in identity politics. I am white and am addressing a common white dynamic. I am mainly writing to a white audience; when I use the terms us and we, I am referring to the white collective. This usage may be jarring to white readers becasue we are so rarely asked to think about ourselves or fellow whites in racial terms. But rather than retreat in the face of that discomfort, we can practice building our stamina for critical examination of white identity - a necessary antidote to white fragility. This raises another issue rooted in identity politics: in speaking as a white person to a primarily white audience, I am yet again centering white people and the white voice. I have not found a way around this dilemma, for as an insider I can speak to the white experience in ways that may be harder to deny. So, though I am centering the white voice, I am also using my insider status to challenge racism. To not use my position this way is to uphold racism, and that is unacceptable; it is a "both/and" that I must live with. I would never suggest that mine is the only voice that should be heard, only that it is one of the many pieces needed to solve the overall puzzle.

People who do not identify as white may also find this book helpful for understanding why it is so often difficult to talk to white people about racism. People of color cannot avoid understanding white conciousness to some degree if they are to be successful in this society, yet nothing in dominant culture affirms their understanding or validates their frustrations when they interact with white people. I hope that this exploration affirms the cross-racial experiences of people of color and provides some useful insight.

This book looks at the United States and the general context of the West (United States, Canada, and Europe). It does not address nuances and variations within other sociopolitical settings. However, these patterns have also been observed in white people in other white settler societies such as Australia, New Zeland, and South Africa.

:warning: This thread is intended for posting excerpts from the book for reference. If you would like to discuss, please create a fork.

@Dan Hassan
Re: %ICz7CjzRE

:warning: This thread is intended for posting excerpts from the book for reference. If you would like to discuss, please create a fork.

pg. ix


The United States was founded on the principle that all people are created equal. Yet the nation began with the attempted genocide of Indigenous people and the theft of their land. American wealth was built on the labor of kindnapped and enslaved Africans and their descendents. Women were denied the right to vote until 1920, and black women were denied access to that right until 1964. The term identity politics refers to the focus on the barriers specific groups face in the strugglefor equality. We have yet to acheive our founding principle, but any gains we have made thus far have come through identity politics.

The identities of those sitting at the tables of power in this country have remained remarkably similar: white, male, middle- and upper-class, able-bodied. Acknowledging this fact my be dismissed as political correctness, but it is still a fact. The decisions made at those tables affect the lives of those not at the tables. Exclusion by those at the table doesn't depend on willfull intent; we don't have to intend to exclude for the results of our actions to be exclusion. While implicit bias is always at play because all humans have bias, inequity can occur simply through homogeneity; if I am not aware of the barriers you face, then I won't see them, much less be motivated to remove them. Nor will I be motivated to remove the barriers if they provide an advantage to which I feel entitled.

All progress we have made in the realm of civil rights has been accomplished through identity politics: women's sufferage, the American with Disabilities Act, Title 9, federal recognition of same-sex marriage. A key issue in the 2016 presidential election was the white working class. These are all manifestations of identity politics.

Take women's sufferage. If being a woman denies you the right to vote, you ipso facto cannot grant it to yourself. and you certainly cannot vote for your right to vote. If men control all the mechanisms that exclude women from voting as well as the mechanisms that can reverse that exclusion, women must call on men for justice. You could not have had a conversation about women's right to vote an men's need to grant it without naming women and men. Not naming the groups that face barriers only serves those who already have the access; the assumption is that the access enjoyed by the controlling group is universal. For example, although we are taught that women were granted sufferage in 1920, we ignore the fact that it was white women who received full access or that it was white men who granted it. Not until the 1960s, through the Voting Rights Act, were all women - regardless of race - granted full access to sufferage. Naming who has access and who doesn't guides our efforts in challenging injustice.

:warning: This thread is intended for posting excerpts from the book for reference. If you would like to discuss, please create a fork.

@Dan Hassan
Re: %oPumH5i1F

RE: the community post, that was actually something I have been wondering since reading some of the posts here: %+t4W3r+...

@Dan Hassan
Re: %oPumH5i1F

@elavoie nearly there :) asking these questions was about surfacing the landscape of values and #reality-tunnels . I've grabbed a few quotes for you from a few of the threads.

Before spending time in a space many folx will want to assess what range of views and values exist in the space before determining if they are likely to be subject to targetted harassment. Asking people how they think about things, rather than what they think provides the clearest view. Some things were said after the christchurch shooting which had a number of people I had just onboarded asking me for help in navigating that.

A concurrent impetus was @w asking for help understanding Alanna's position on something. He asked for help figuring out the hidden puzzle piece.

The crew I was onboarding feel better informed about this space now - which was the primary aim of last weeks topics.


The big assumption I have made starting this conversation is if you’re open to it! If you are, then I am also interested in expanding on this at the moment as it leads quite well into the #meandwhitesupremacy work book a few of us will be doing in May.


The reason I ask this is that I often notice an indirect way that people try to shut down a conversation is by bringing in completely new topics/regions rapidly. So for example bringing in China and Uganda when we had previously been speaking about USA, NZ, AUS, UK.


it occured to me whilst I was hanging my washing that my answers could have been interpretted as being directly towards/at you. Just wanted to reassure that they weren’t at you - but more general honest feelings about this stuff :smiley:
There is also this tension with RTFM behavior - which is an issue - like I don’t think creating the early hostile nature of learning tech is something to nessecarily aim for. The complexity is that for many, many of these things are a matter of life or death / survival - and so sometimes having reactions which are “hostile” / have teeth, is actually a super important component of establishing the seriousness of the matter at hand (esp. for those for whome these things are not personally a matter of life and death).


The interesting thing here, which is why I’ve been asking you questions and the like is that whilst i see that there is not a bunch of overlap with large stretches of our tunnels I also get the sense that some of our desired aims are quiet similar (at least the aims I think I am seeing you communicate). The sense I am getting is that our tunnels are actually quite close, and perhaps overlapping, but just in parallel universes if that makes sense. It’s feels to me like we want to get to similar end points (peace, tranquility as you put it) - but due our differing diagnosis of the “problems” means it seems to each of respectively (correct me if you don’t actually think this) feel that the actions of the other person are moving us in the opposite direction of the similar end points.


I’d also like to throw this onto the logs for clarity of intention. My pinging you @dangerousbeans is not meant in an antagonistic spirit. Honestly speaking (as I have labored to mention before) my communication around my values, thoughts and politics are not in an internal form within myself that I can really succinctly communicatet them. I think for example @Emmi is an example of someone who has developed that skillset through practice.
That we have been butting heads, but also that I sense we’re not seemingly at odds on the “end aims” (at least not that I can currently see) gives a productive tension around which I am challenged to communicate this stuff more clearly.
No hard feelings if you’re not up for that - I just wanted to make it really clearly I have no #beef with you as a human or individual - and none of this is meant personally.


also RE: debating - yeah, @bob has me penciled right - as I have mentioned else where I am not interested in changing your mind about anything @dangerousbeans, I am most interested in your think processes and which data/facts/etc you feed into your processes to arrive at your positions/opinions etc . This is in the interests of understanding. there is no winning/losing etc

@Dan Hassan
Voted Thanks [@dan hassan](@NeB4q4Hy9IiMxs5L08oevEhivxW+/aDu/s/0SkNayi0=.ed25519)

Show whole feed
Join Scuttlebutt now