[logicprog]

I don't think that's true at all. You are taking classical liberal ideas to an absurd extreme — and far too literally — and it's handicapping your conceptual capabilities.

It isn't necessarily identity politics to talk about groups of people, nor does it necessarily preclude discussing real solutions either — it depends on the relevancy of the group being mentioned. If the group being mentioned is a subculture or philosophical tendency or whatever the defining characteristics of which are relevant to the subject at hand, then it's perfectly fine to refer to such a group. It's only if you are bringing in groups that aren't actually relevant to a discussion, whose defining characteristics aren't provably related to the characteristic you are trying to apply to them, does talking about groups become a problematic thing. Barring that, being able to talk about groups of people that have different approaches or attitudes or beliefs or behaviors regarding a subject, even if it's to speak derogatorily about them, is basically necessary to have a functional discussion about certain topics whatsoever.

In this case, we are having a discussion about attitudes towards technological solutions and technological progress, and one of the major cultures that influence discussions around that stuff and the direction things actually take are 'tech bros.' If we band the ability to speak about such a group that would just give them free reign to do anything they wanted without being criticized.

To define the group, it is a specific subset of the people who work in tech whose attitude towards tech is characterized by a sort of brash, prideful belief that you can solve everything with technological solutions and that the human (qualitative) factor of things just isn't relevant — or is even harmful because it's "unquantifiable" and it needs to be specifically perfected out of our considerations.

This is a real type of person and attitude in tech that we can discuss.

[freetime2]

I really think you're going to bat too hard for the term "tech bros". The very term itself is derived from a stereotype, as per this definition from merriam webster:

> bro - a young male who is part of a group of similar male friends stereotypically characterized as hearty, athletic, self-confident, party-loving, etc.

Are there no women who have the same attitude towards tech that you ascribe to tech bros? Or older, unathletic, unconfident, or introverted men?

I also don't think your definition is universal. As evidence you need look no further than a sibling comment to your own which implies that I am a tech bro even though I don't hold the beliefs/attitude in your definition (I believe that technological solutions do exist - but don't think they are the solution to every problem. I also think that qualitative human factors, like happiness, are very important indeed).

I also disagree that this joke is as conducive to constructive conversation as you seem to think it is:

> I don't necessarily like tech bros but I like talking with tech bros and at tech bros because they're easy to upset. The main way you upset them is by asserting either their humanity or everyone else's humanity.

Is it constructive to take pleasure in "upsetting" people? If he were really out to change peoples' minds rather than simply preach to the choir, I think it would be more effective to adopt a more respectful tone towards people who disagree with him.

> This is a real type of person and attitude in tech that we can discuss.

Is it though? Can you give me an example of anyone who self-identifies as a tech bro according to your definition, let alone a enough people to call it a "major culture"? Or is it just a harmful stereotype that gets applied to people to discount their opinions instead of engaging with what they actually believe? Because my experience is that most people tend to hold more nuanced beliefs than what you are describing.

[wpietri]

So if even you don't believe that anybody self-identifies as a tech bro, why are you calling this "identity politics"?

I'll also note that is a red herring, as it's not necessary for anybody to identify as an X for X to exist and be a problem. Indeed, some of the most prominent problems today involve people in that space. Exhibit A would be Elon Musk. But most bigots know that openly identifying as a bigot doesn't work out well for them. You might also read Mills or Manne or Bancroft for a look at how and why not identifying as X is part of the game.

[freetime2]

> it's not necessary for anybody to identify as an X for X to exist and be a problem.

I actually tend to disagree with this. Solving problems generally requires consensus. If a term like "tech bro" is too reductive, divisive, and imprecise for people to agree on, we should throw it out and come up with a better way to describe the problem.

For example, a major attribute that people tend to associate with tech bros is being overly optimistic. Most people in tech (even Elon Musk) would readily admit to being overly optimistic at times, and willing to discuss the risks, mitigation, etc. To me this is much more constructive than just labeling someone a "tech bro".

[wpietri]

Your example of somebody we could have a constructive dialog with is... Elon Musk? I think that's absurd. The guy obviously does not give two shits about consensus.

I think the biggest problem with Elon Musk is a lot of credulous people, helped by credulous tech media, treated him as a serious person. But he's obviously not interested in dialog with anybody who doesn't kiss his entire ass. Having a convenient contemptuous label like "tech bro" is absolutely helpful in undermining that unearned and dangerous false respect.

And I'd say the second-biggest problem here is people valuing civility above all else, which allows toxic narcissists like Musk to run rings around everybody that's supposedly pursuing consensus with people in positions in power. Strangely, you never see those people working very hard to get consensus with the less powerful people that they harm. Coincidence, I imagine.

[freetime2]

Tesla just negotiated a deal with rivals Ford and Rivian to allow access to Tesla's charging network. I don't know the extent to which Musk was personally involved in negotiations, but I see this is as pretty clear proof that yes, even Elon Musk is willing to work toward consensus with his rivals given the right conditions. The deals were seen as mutually beneficial to all three companies, and as someone who is generally for increased adoption of EVs in the US, I see it as a good thing too.

To be clear I am in no way defending everything that Musk has said or done. But I think that people are complicated, no one is either all good or all bad, and Musk has some traits that I admire and others that I detest.

Is "people valuing consensus above all else" really a thing? Can you give a specific example where you feel "people valuing civility above all else... allows Musk to run rings around everybody that's supposedly pursuing consensus with people in positions in power"? I'm sure you have something in mind, but I'm just not sure what you're referencing.

I certainly put a high value on consensus - but if consensus can't be reached then I can be supportive of more strong-armed approaches in order to achieve a desired outcome. Name-calling just doesn't seem that necessary or useful to me though. Hearing someone call Musk a "techbro" doesn't really do anything to convince me that Musk is a bad guy - if anything it makes me think "here's a fairly extreme and quite-likely biased opinion that I should approach with extra skepticism." Rather, the thing that has sullied Musk's reputation for me in recent years is simply reading the things that he himself has said and done... the facts, clearly stated, are more than sufficient in Musk's case.

Unfortunately I can't deny that name-calling does seem to influence people more than I would like. Democrats and Republicans seemingly engage in ever more name-calling and stereotyping for one-another, and yeah I suppose it gets people engaged and out to the polls to vote (or out to the capitol building for an attempted coup). But it's such a shallow form of debate, and over time the rhetoric tends to drift pretty far from reality as echo chambers form. There are probably a number of important things that people could agree on (like the bi-partisan infrastucture bill) if they weren't so caught up in name-calling and squabbling about (often) irreconcileable differences. This is the feeling that I got when originally watching the video and subsequently reading your comment that I initially responded to.

Speaking of shallow debate, I have read a number of your comments now about how Musk and techbros are ruining the world - and I honestly don't understand where you are coming from. Our frames of reference are different enough that when you say "techbro" it apparently conjures a different image in your head than it does in mine - and the word itself is not enough to convey your intended meaning, only your sentiment gets through. You haven't referenced a specific real-world problem or event that I can say "yeah I agree with that" or not - just a description from "tv tropes" that I maintain is only a stereotype and doesn't accurately reflect reality. (Is there some truth in it? Sure, but in reality people are not that one-dimensional).

I'm open to at least considering how people in the tech industry or even I myself am doing something harmful that I'm not aware of. I may even already be in agreement with you. And yet here we are somehow stuck debating whether stereotypes, name-calling, and consensus-building are good or bad.