> they have been more than capable to support the industry and take credit for it's successes
Well let's face it, we're all getting a huge break from the government right now in a ton of different ways, so they do get some credit for making the laws incredibly lax around here.
Even Trump's government gets credit until it screws up this
sweet deal we're on. And if you wanna see how sweet it really gets, go into fintech. All your opponents with lots of cash on hand are basically operating blindfolded with both hands tied behind their back.
Regulators literally have no idea what to make of us in that space. They largely leave us alone so long as you have even semi-competent legal advice. If you have good legal advice? Well you end up recreating financial institutions in all but name and without any regulation (e.g., Digit).
> simultaneously demonize tech workers as unempathetic racists, sexists, and gentrifiers
I wanna get to the rest of your post, but I just can't leave this alone. I'm sorry to shift the focus here, but we really don't need any external help on this though, do we?
The racist part of the story has legs because folks like the "unnamed" google engineer writing screeds about how no, actually, it's the rich conservatives in the majority who are unsafe. Because tech conferences argue they're a safe space for men who's primary ideological focus for their publications is proving black people thrive under slavery. Because a constant dribble of stories like Kixeye exist to support population statistics that are... statistically unlikely by pure chance..
The sexist part of the story? Gosh maybe if our industry stopped doing so many things that enable abuse of women, the narrative might not be that we enable the abuse of women. Similarly, if we paid women more or less equally within rank and gave them equal opportunity in the workforce... This problem might exist to a much lesser degree. Uber's ripping itself apart not because some women choose to speak out; it's because the public is discovering obviously unethical and probably illegal behavior.
Tech gets special attention, I grant. It's outsized, growing fast, and is consuming and reformatting other INDUSTRIES as its primary fuel source rather than more traditional business models.
> I would definitely consider him to be part of the Democratic establishment.
This is an excellent example of a perception gap. See, I've always seen him as fringe because of his views on transgenderism, his decision that racial slurs are free speech he should exercise, etc.
Unlike, say, Clinton or Obama who've obviously changed their opinions on this subject (or decided to portray an image largely indistinguishable from someone having changed their image) Maher has continue to expand upon it. Maybe he was center-left when he started, but it's difficult to say he's on the left side of the cultural equation these days.
But that guy at Google is very much in the minority, as are all of the people causing problems with various *isms. But that doesn't stop people from continuing to paint us specifically with too broad a brush, and I don't think that's just an accident, I think it's because they have an issue with us personally, and that's probably due to negative stereotypes about "geeks".
> But that guy at Google is very much in the minority, as are all of the people causing problems with various -isms.
Can you prove this? I'm curious. I don't entirely disagree, but I sure would love verification.
I think that whole thing about "unconscious bias" is very real, and it's quite fair to rigorously examine our biases and accept constructive criticism of them. There's also a matter of perception lagging behind reality, and reality being difficult to assess because of availability biases.
> But that doesn't stop people from continuing to paint us specifically with too broad a brush,
Deep apologies for going so far on a tangent here, but I'd like to encourage you to step back from these for a moment.
Firstly, don't be that person and allegations aimed at said people don't really apply to you? If you accidentally behave in a way that lines up with these allegations, then
own it, accept the censure, identify what steps you'll take to correct yourself then execute on them.
> I think it's because they have an issue with us personally, and that's probably due to negative stereotypes about "geeks".
I'm sure that there is a bit of this still lingering in the world, but by-and-large the stereotyping about "geeks" has ended. Geeks rule the damn world. Geeks dominate the news cycle. In terms of combating anti-intellectualism? We're winning that handily.
Here's the part where I sorta agree with your previous statement, even if I wouldn't bet the whole farm on it:
One of the reasons that the extreme-conservative-and-extreme-liberal rhetoric is amplifying so much lately is that fact-and-experiment-driven flexibility is actually gaining so much cultural mindshare from more dogmatic methods of thinking. This empirical method is decried by both sides of the aisle as "centrism" or painted as anti-humanist. I don't believe it is, but such is the defense mechanism of those those thoughts. Examine the rhetoric of a "nationalist" or a "monarchist" or even a "communist"; exclusion is baked into their doctrine. It's why these ideas are so tenacious.
As these more dogmatic groups get backed further and further into corners, they seem outsized cultural impact more and more desperately to avoid the perception that they are in decline.
To this end, enduring slings and arrows while focusing on doing the right and fair thing, with an eye towards incremental improvement, is exactly what folks attacking our community hate us doing. Part of the reason they're eager to amplify our failures at self-policing is because they're flustered by the fact that for the most part the valley has calmly agreed that the current situation is in fact illegal and untenable and started taking steps to correct it.
These steps can't happen overnight, nor can they be "one simple thing." We both know that. But dogmatic thought thrives on the notion that if you just listen and do whatever they say (often without any pre-planning at all) then it'll all go away.
Looping this all back around to the topic, it's up to us to figure out how to use the power-disparity we're developing (and that's precisely what a difference is technology is) to make the world a better place. Criticism needs to be in our lives to remind us that we're shaping things that can affect generations and generations to come.
Well let's face it, we're all getting a huge break from the government right now in a ton of different ways, so they do get some credit for making the laws incredibly lax around here.
Even Trump's government gets credit until it screws up this sweet deal we're on. And if you wanna see how sweet it really gets, go into fintech. All your opponents with lots of cash on hand are basically operating blindfolded with both hands tied behind their back.
Regulators literally have no idea what to make of us in that space. They largely leave us alone so long as you have even semi-competent legal advice. If you have good legal advice? Well you end up recreating financial institutions in all but name and without any regulation (e.g., Digit).
> simultaneously demonize tech workers as unempathetic racists, sexists, and gentrifiers
I wanna get to the rest of your post, but I just can't leave this alone. I'm sorry to shift the focus here, but we really don't need any external help on this though, do we?
The racist part of the story has legs because folks like the "unnamed" google engineer writing screeds about how no, actually, it's the rich conservatives in the majority who are unsafe. Because tech conferences argue they're a safe space for men who's primary ideological focus for their publications is proving black people thrive under slavery. Because a constant dribble of stories like Kixeye exist to support population statistics that are... statistically unlikely by pure chance..
The sexist part of the story? Gosh maybe if our industry stopped doing so many things that enable abuse of women, the narrative might not be that we enable the abuse of women. Similarly, if we paid women more or less equally within rank and gave them equal opportunity in the workforce... This problem might exist to a much lesser degree. Uber's ripping itself apart not because some women choose to speak out; it's because the public is discovering obviously unethical and probably illegal behavior.
Tech gets special attention, I grant. It's outsized, growing fast, and is consuming and reformatting other INDUSTRIES as its primary fuel source rather than more traditional business models.
> I would definitely consider him to be part of the Democratic establishment.
This is an excellent example of a perception gap. See, I've always seen him as fringe because of his views on transgenderism, his decision that racial slurs are free speech he should exercise, etc.
Unlike, say, Clinton or Obama who've obviously changed their opinions on this subject (or decided to portray an image largely indistinguishable from someone having changed their image) Maher has continue to expand upon it. Maybe he was center-left when he started, but it's difficult to say he's on the left side of the cultural equation these days.