> Maybe computers are "inherently oppressive" but this is about the weakest and most inneffective argument for that I can imagine.
The whole thing was an incoherent mess.
The author didn't even realise that every point he made concerning the "ruthlessness" of the machine, applies to all external natural forces as well.
A storm doesn't ask for permission to destroy a house, a flood cannot be bargained with and indiscriminately drowns people, gravity itself pulls you down and causes your body to be smashed into bits if you fall from too great a height.
Machines are no different from nature in that regard, except that we can take measures to protect ourselves from the perceived "ruthlessness" of the devices we create.
> The author didn't even realise that every point he made concerning the "ruthlessness" of the machine, applies to all external natural forces as well.
The ruthlessness is not only with machines but also with all the natural powers. But in the case of machines that are made by humans, the author specifically created a term called machine-assisted ruthlessness for such behavior, which distinguishes between the two.
> In this way the machine becomes an abstraction and a disguise for human ruthlessness.
That's the key point right there. A machine is nothing but a predictable and designed application of natural forces. This begs the question what the author is even arguing about in this context. Does he argue that collections of levers, gears, or transistors require a benevolent mind in order to not be "ruthless"? Does he honestly require a sentient mind, or as he puts it "a face to talk to" and "brook an argument", in every human-made apparatus?
Demanding to be able to argue with a set of gears, pipes, and wires is exactly like demanding to being to argue with lightning or gravity. Machines are the opposite of an abstraction after all, as an abstraction is - by its very definition - not applied or practical and considered apart from concrete existence.
The author completely turns the definition of a well defined term on its head to artificially construct a difference between natural forces and the effect of machines. A difference that cannot exist unless you consider machines magic - which, looking at his complaint about not being able to reason with them, doesn't seem far fetched.
The whole thing was an incoherent mess.
The author didn't even realise that every point he made concerning the "ruthlessness" of the machine, applies to all external natural forces as well.
A storm doesn't ask for permission to destroy a house, a flood cannot be bargained with and indiscriminately drowns people, gravity itself pulls you down and causes your body to be smashed into bits if you fall from too great a height.
Machines are no different from nature in that regard, except that we can take measures to protect ourselves from the perceived "ruthlessness" of the devices we create.