7 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2022
    1. For that matter, he admits, “It’s struck me that, actually, polemic very rarely changes people’s minds about anything.” He says so as a former columnist? “A recovering former columnist, yes.” He laughs. “It’s not just that polemic doesn’t change people’s minds. It says nothing about the texture of lived experience. People are complex and nuanced, they don’t live polemically.”

      Something to keep in mind about everyday life.

  2. Jul 2021
    1. The statement helped set in motion a way of thinking that places the struggle for justice within the self. This thinking appeals not to reason or universal values but to the authority of identity, the “lived experience” of the oppressed. The self is not a rational being that can persuade and be persuaded by other selves, because reason is another form of power.

      The struggle for justice can be found within the self (rather than the group).

      Reason is another form of power.

      How does the idea of justice and self in the first connect (or not) to the Woodard's idea of self with respect to God in the Protestant evangelical America?

  3. Aug 2019
  4. Jul 2018
    1. er. Each of these choices reflect power dynamics and conflicting tensions. Desires for ‘presence’ or singular focus often conflict with obligations to be responsive and integrate ‘work’ and ‘life

      Are these power dynamics/tensions: actor or agent-based? individual or technical? situational or contextual? deliberate or autonomous?

    2. How do we understand such mosaictime in terms of striving for balance? Temporal units are rarely single-purpose and their boundaries and dependencies are often implicit. What sociotemporal values should we be honoring? How can we account for time that fits on neither side of a scale? How might scholarship rethink balance or efficiency with different forms of accounting, with attention to institutions as well as individuals?

      Design implication: What heuristics are involved in the lived experience and conflicts between temporal logic and porous time?

    3. rid. The apparent equivalency of thesetime chunksmask the affective experiences and emotional intensities of lived temporality

      Lived experience spotlights the tension/stress between managing chunkable time vs accepting spectral time.

      How to accommodate unequal units of time? Or units that have different contextual meanings?

    4. What would it look like to more explicitly acknowledge power dynamics in information and communication technologies? In the tradition of critical and reflective design [50], how might CSCW scholarship think about designing technologies that ‘protect’ users from temporal obligations and render messiness and disorganization a possible way of engaging with time?

      Design implication: What if porous time was considered a feature not a bug?

      How to better integrate personal agency/autonomy and values into a temporal experience?

      How could a temporal artifact better support a user flexibly shifting/adapting temporal logic to a lived experience?