Thought a bit more on this. These people (Marky Marc, Stinker, every other tescreature etc.) go around saying “technology makes it better” (paraphrasing), but never perform any critical thinking to argue it successfully.

This manifesto is just a brutish barrage of buzzwords to brain you into buying into it. It’s as if you trained an LLM on Jay Shetty videos and WallStreetBets. Reading it is the equivalent of the Brawndo scene from idiocracy. You could just replace every line with “Technology! It’s what human civilisation craves!” and you’d have the same amount of intellectual content.

I mean at this point I’m more mad that this article is so shit and low effort. Marky Marc could have just written a high school level essay about what “better” means for human civilisation and how technology achieves that, and he probably wouldn’t be getting roasted on HN. Hell, even Stinker at least cherrypicks some metrics when he’s up to his pollyantics.

Why does he even include the first section that handwaves away the real and valid concerns about technology? It makes it sound like the text will discuss those issues, but he never does. I mean sure, this is supposed to be techno-optimist dogma, but right now it’s just scientismic-pollyanna dogshit.