![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Reposted with permission.
The following is a conversation had between some folks, which I have reposted with the permission of the relevant folks so I can show the funny to Certain People who would appreciate it; one of the people has requested anonymity and the text has been altered solely to remove their username.
- CW: I am going to start telling $company_founder that he is "too geonormative"
fnord: *snerk*
fnord: yes
fnord: we should strive for greater geodiverse inclusivity
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
raxvulpine: Our data presentation needs to be more inclusive of transspatial information.raxvulpine: "Location is just performative anyway"fnord: exactly. Heather can have two latitudes!
fnord: plus I really think we ignore the liminality of geonames
fnord: who's to say you can just "disambiguate" them? how arrogant is that!
raxvulpine: What about places that define themselves as clusters of points? They are othered from our discourse by the repressive X,Y system.raxvulpine: Disambiguating geonames takes away their essential right to locational ambiguity.fnord: exactly. it's time they felt free to venture out of the geospatial closet.
fnord: we can no longer say that the cartographic majority has the right to determine what a "location" is, or even if there is such a thing at all.
raxvulpine: Indeed, it is well past time to separate the concepts of "location" and "place."fnord: no longer will we tolerate this war against the geodissident
raxvulpine: Smash the gazetteerarchy!
no subject
<snerk>
(Also amused by "the liminality of geonames".)
no subject
*brain explodes*
no subject
no subject
(Or so it seems to me.)
no subject
no subject
no subject