3 ms·

Understanding the Tech Right

4 points by blueridge 3y ago

082349872349872 3y ago
I'm sure Rockefeller and Morgan and their circle also told themselves they were in favour of "big projects that can move humanity forward" — what distinguishes the "Tech Right" from the "Oil Right" or the "Bank Right" or the "Steel Right"?
hax0ron3 3y ago
>Successful tech entrepreneurs at first mostly stayed out of politics. Around 2010, they were generally associated with the left, as Bill Gates began to be involved in areas like climate change and education reform. Then came the Great Awokening. Before that point, a reasonable person could ignore politics and assume that the people in charge were mentally stable and knew what they were doing. I wouldn't go that far. There were plenty of other breaks with reality in American life before the Great Awokening. For example, the whole saga of how US elites decided to invade Iraq in 2003 and managed to get a pretty large subset of the US public to go along with it. There is also the whole decades-long war on drugs, which is based on the idea that it is ok for the government to decide what substances a man can and cannot put into his own body and, oddly, is most heavily supported by the same people who think that it is not ok for the government to prevent a man from owning firearms. And then there is the US' support for all kinds of brutal dictators overseas during the Cold War while preaching about liberty at home. So yes, the Great Awokening is an example of a break with reality in US psychopolitical life, but it is far from the first one.
johnklos 3y ago
The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. Flourishes are the right of all opinions and writing, but "cancel those with views they disapprove of", "effeminate and conformist" intellectuals (who, incidentally, aren't worth "winning over" by discourse and persuasive argument), "make sure AI doesn’t say anything politically incorrect", "shutting down woke activism", show that this author has substantially more names to call than articulable arguments. Also, the idea that there's an argument to be made that the "tech right" is somehow legitimized by a collection of tech bros who happen to lean that way isn't the compelling argument the author might think it is. The author doesn't improve from there. This article appears to offer little more than emotional reasoning for justifying ridiculous assertions, sometimes in stark and direct opposition to the actual world (embracing gender spectrum is actually part of transhumanism and extropianism, not discouraged by it - duh!). The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. In other words, it doesn't go anywhere and lacks any real content.
- the-printer 3y ago
  I don't agree with the author's motives, but some of his observations are valid. In general, this piece is articulate and "goes somewhere". Albeit, it does suffer from being a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming navel-gazey in a way that most Substack articles are. I'm under the impression that you may be in denial of the direction that it points favorably toward (the appeal and potential of the "Tech Right" in the US). > The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. This argument is often tossed in the opposite direction. > The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. The irony of this statement is that whether the full sentence, "Traits like intelligence and work ethic, in fact all traits, indeed have a strong genetic basis," is advocating for eugenics can be interpreted as an attempt to "put words and intent" into someone else's mouth.

4 points by blueridge 3y ago

I'm sure Rockefeller and Morgan and their circle also told themselves they were in favour of "big projects that can move humanity forward" — what distinguishes the "Tech Right" from the "Oil Right" or the "Bank Right" or the "Steel Right"?

hax0ron3 3y ago

>Successful tech entrepreneurs at first mostly stayed out of politics. Around 2010, they were generally associated with the left, as Bill Gates began to be involved in areas like climate change and education reform. Then came the Great Awokening. Before that point, a reasonable person could ignore politics and assume that the people in charge were mentally stable and knew what they were doing. I wouldn't go that far. There were plenty of other breaks with reality in American life before the Great Awokening. For example, the whole saga of how US elites decided to invade Iraq in 2003 and managed to get a pretty large subset of the US public to go along with it. There is also the whole decades-long war on drugs, which is based on the idea that it is ok for the government to decide what substances a man can and cannot put into his own body and, oddly, is most heavily supported by the same people who think that it is not ok for the government to prevent a man from owning firearms. And then there is the US' support for all kinds of brutal dictators overseas during the Cold War while preaching about liberty at home. So yes, the Great Awokening is an example of a break with reality in US psychopolitical life, but it is far from the first one.

johnklos 3y ago

The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. Flourishes are the right of all opinions and writing, but "cancel those with views they disapprove of", "effeminate and conformist" intellectuals (who, incidentally, aren't worth "winning over" by discourse and persuasive argument), "make sure AI doesn’t say anything politically incorrect", "shutting down woke activism", show that this author has substantially more names to call than articulable arguments. Also, the idea that there's an argument to be made that the "tech right" is somehow legitimized by a collection of tech bros who happen to lean that way isn't the compelling argument the author might think it is. The author doesn't improve from there. This article appears to offer little more than emotional reasoning for justifying ridiculous assertions, sometimes in stark and direct opposition to the actual world (embracing gender spectrum is actually part of transhumanism and extropianism, not discouraged by it - duh!). The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. In other words, it doesn't go anywhere and lacks any real content.

the-printer 3y ago
I don't agree with the author's motives, but some of his observations are valid. In general, this piece is articulate and "goes somewhere". Albeit, it does suffer from being a hop, skip and a jump away from becoming navel-gazey in a way that most Substack articles are. I'm under the impression that you may be in denial of the direction that it points favorably toward (the appeal and potential of the "Tech Right" in the US). > The more I read things written by right leaning people, the more I realize that they stopped caring about facts and correctness (a term they've made derogatory to the extent that it's difficult to use it literally) and instead think that emotion and name calling are all the response any discourse require. This argument is often tossed in the opposite direction. > The author tries to rationalize eugenics ("strong genetic basis" for things that have been proven precisely the opposite), and repeatedly attempts to put words and intent in others' mouths. The irony of this statement is that whether the full sentence, "Traits like intelligence and work ethic, in fact all traits, indeed have a strong genetic basis," is advocating for eugenics can be interpreted as an attempt to "put words and intent" into someone else's mouth.