The author perceives an unjust smear against historical Luddites, and protests the way that this cuts off critical thinking about the issue of technology in our

The author perceives an unjust smear against historical Luddites, and protests the way that this cuts off critical thinking about the issue of technology in our lives. They highlight that historical Luddites had noble and relatable motives, like wanting better wages to feed their families. They entreat us to think with nuance on the issue. A good and fair point. But then, just paragraphs later, the same author casually throws out two of the most charged smears in modern discourse: "In the midst of recent years that have shown the sorts of racist and misogynistic biases that are often endemic in the tech world...". There is no explanation or justification of what is meant by this. There is certainly no nuance. This seems endemic to modern discourse. We want a fair hearing of our own beliefs. We feel persecuted when others smear us. But we see no problem tossing around harsh judgments of others, with no nuance or recognition of other people's potentially noble goals. I wonder if this author would be willing to give a fair and nuanced hearing towards people who are conservative on immigration (for example). Worry about immigrants taking jobs is one of the top reasons people give for opposing immigration. So the original Luddites and people who are conservative on immigration have something in common. I think this paragraph from the article takes on new meaning if you substitute "immigration" and "xenophobia" for "technology" and "technophobia". I wonder if the author would still support the argument: > And I must report that it seems quite obvious that terms like “anti-technology” and even “technophobia” are just signs of lazy thinking, they say far more about the person using those terms than the people being accused of being “anti-technology.” In the vast majority of cases when you actually consider what these so-called “anti-technology” folks believe you realize that they don’t oppose “all” technology but (brace yourself) particular technologies, being used in particular ways, in a particular context. This is not to pretend that genuinely “extreme” cases don’t exist, but to claim that someone who thinks Facebook has become too big wants us all to go back to living in the woods is patently absurd. Yet it is the type of absurdity that becomes common in a society that has lost the ability to think critically about technology. My goal overall isn't to shame the author though. I want to argue that we should apply this charity towards everyone making arguments, not just the people who align with us.