Genuinely curious what makes you see those sets as disjoint? YMMV but
as an older person I've always associated socially and politically
advanced thinking with the mindset of the "original" pioneers in
tech. Shallow money-grubbing, fame obsession, fragile egos... that
archetype came much later.
Cheers, ok, but I couldn't locate a link between generation and
outlook that satisfied me. The essay is a nice blast of pop psychology
about "types of people", a worthy attack on political persecution,
rabid ideology and hive-minds, intolerance, and a weaker attack on the
idea of "performativeness" (so avoiding a frontal attack on "social
justice"). But in this way Graham divides "wokeness" from the virtues
of thoughtful system-theorists and original tech-optimists I
mentioned, bracketing out "woke" as mere despicables and rebels
without a cause. Any admirable social justice aims just evaporate in
this treatment. But isn't this what we're in now, just with a pendulum
swing? All the new-breed technofascists just want to "make the world a
better place", right?
In 2007 the average person on HN was considered progressive or left leaning because they generally felt that same sex marriage should be legal.
Those same people in 2025 are now considered "far right" by the left because they believe that women have a right to say they feel uncomfortable being exposed to penises in the locker room when playing college sports.
Might his have someothing to do with those hacker events actively excluding those with dissenting opinions. That many social institutions have been taken over by the woke crowds isn't news.
