S
@mrs_malice @artemis Yes, he absolutely misused the term, and I understand why it is insulting to those exposed to that aspect of Christian mores.
I didn't notice till after I replied that you also picked up on the original sin phraseology, which I thought was also a clever attempt to disarm people's moral agency by claiming they were already tainted via the sin of Shockley, which is also supremely insulting - he does not have a claim to moral authority on that basis, much as he might like.
@mrs_malice @artemis Which, to be clear, does not mean I think he was right to use it - I am sorry you have to hear it over and over now in a context where it doesn't belong to begin with. It's not appropriate.
I just thought the entire thematic structure of the blog was overtly religious, and I'm surprised it isn't being discussed more from that angle. It's definitely odd.
@mrs_malice @artemis I am not convinced he misused it entirely - the blog post is an odd collection of religious motifs:
- creationism; “fruits of the poisoned tree”
- evokes original sin vis a vis Shockley; "all the way down to the silicon chips in your device, which can never be fully disentangled from the odious, paranoid racist William Shockley"
- baptismal motifs; "purging that wickedness by liberating the technology from its monstrous forebears"
- obviously the purity culture reference
I know it's not what you meant, but I do agree with you on what you mean.