The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
bayareacurrent.com
The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#2[flagged]
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#3"Fascism doesn’t just exist in the marketplace of ideas, but in actual persons living in our cities, funding and constructing their visions for our collective future." said the man in the brownshirt, unaware of his own uniform
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#4[dead]
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#5> Samo assures me, he counts Karl Marx among his personal influences, and says Palladium has in fact published a Marxist. What he doesn’t mention is that they prefer to publish monarchists and white supremacists.
Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America. Not nonexistent but.. Can these claims be substantiated or am I reading breathless hyperbole?
Rated as centrist: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/palladium-magazine-medi...
Rated as right-center: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palladium-magazine-bias-and-c...
(No idea if either of those are credible; they're just what DDG gave me. I did skim the headlines on Palladium's website and it looks like center-right pretentious slop to me.)
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#6[flagged]
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#7> Samo assures me, he counts Karl Marx among his personal influences, and says Palladium has in fact published a Marxist. What he doesn’t mention is that they prefer to publish monarchists and white supremacists. Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America. Not nonexistent but.. Can these claims be substantiated or am I reading breathless hyperbole? Rated as centrist: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/palladium…
>Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America.
That was true once. Today Yarvin is massively influential. (I'm not explaining it, just reporting it.)
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#8Part of this is just class interests. We now have a bunch of billionaires who--shock, horror--align with billionaire interests. The days of the maverick operating out of their garage are long over.
But another part of this is transhumanism, which is a weirdly popular movement in tech circles.
The core tenet is transhumanism is that humans will eventually transcend their current form and becomes who knows what exactly? Some view this as the singularity, which in part explains the AI hype.
But part of this is the latest incarnation of the prosperity gospel, an early (and now pervasive) idea that wealth is a demonstration that you are favored by God. Another version of this is the myth of meritocracy under capitalism. So if you're wealthy, it's because you're better than all "the poors", by definition.
How does this relate to transhumanism? Well, if you're better than everyone else, you think your genes should be passed on to this ultimate transhumanist future by, say, having a ton of children. Even if you're a completely absent father, it doesn't matter. You believe in the supremacy of your genetic heritage.
Another way to put all this is simply eugenics.
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#9This seems like a reach:
> Print inevitably precipitates a face-to-face community, giving it the capacity to represent and in turn catalyze real-world movements.
I've never gone to a people-who-read-$PERIODICAL party. Ever. Maybe it's common for pro-union zines that the author used to contribute to, but Popular Science, Newsweek, or the like don't have any corresponding community associated with them. There's no Architectural Digest-affiliated underground interior decorating scene.
I think the author far overestimates the importance niche zines like the one they were a part of, or Palladium for that matter, have in the national dialogue.
Re: The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia
#10> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities
Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at all? Is it just that EAs make people feel guilty about their own charitable giving? Is there even a reasoned critique here, or is the author just picking up on a vibe against EA and going with it to give an air of smug knowing sophistication? A little wink and nod to the audience, who will of course have heard of EA, I mean who the hell is supposed to be reading this piece?
I stopped reading there. So frustrating.