The funny thing is that discourse here isn't particularly rational and is only tends towards dispassionate because a little hint of passion makes lots of people click the ▼.

I agree. The article makes it sound like logic and humanity are disjointed, and like the most loved arguments people make here are based on impersonal data without considering ethics. I think this place is exactly the opposite. Try a logical argument in a popular reddit thread, or find the humanity in random communities. More often, arguments without focusing on what's logical creates biases and hurts a lot more feelings.

Yes, this is the point I was trying to make. The article criticizes the nature of the discussion here, and I think it is fair to say that the criticism is tied to negative stereotypes about engineers. Often this is framed as "punching up", because engineers have a lot of financial potential and business influence, but it ignores the fact that in "middle class" society (most people reading the New Yorker are probably in the top 10% wealth distribution) it is the perceived moral high ground that people seek most, and it is often inherited social, cultural and financial capital which enables people to take positions as journalists or op-ed writers from which they demean the cultural and moral depth of engineering culture.

All this despite the fact that CP Snow's observations about the Two Cultures still hold: it's far easier to find an engineer who will give you an interpretation of Hume than a New Yorker writer who can write fizzbuzz.

The biggest issue I have with the article is a lack of fair comparison. Is there non-tech site with an open commenting system where the discussion is civil, rational, and kind? It seems to me most of them disable comments altogether to forestall the inevitable shitshow.

Bogleheads is the only other I can think of, and interestingly they too have strict rules around political discussion.

Seems like an accurate assessment, wouldn't you say? I mean it also describes the New Yorker perfectly too for that matter

I didn't read anything dripping fear and contempt for tech culture in the article, much less the excerpt you quoted. It seems accurate to me.

Yes but it does have a tone like the authour is treating HN as the ”other”, and trying to view it from outside with some bemusement.

To be fair, I've seen people here regard "mainstream" non-tech culture with bemusement (and plenty of contempt) fairly often.

I think the way it describes discussions here could be described as "dripping fear and contempt", slightly poetic though that wording is.

Consider these quotes (I posted some above too):

A recent comment thread ... yielded a response likening journalism and propaganda

users combed through her code on GitHub in an effort to undermine the weight of her contributions

The site’s now characteristic tone ... masks a deeper recklessness

Ill-advised citations proliferate; thought experiments abound; humane arguments are dismissed as emotional or irrational.

Logic, applied narrowly, is used to justify broad moral positions. The most admired arguments are made with data, but the origins, veracity, and malleability of those data tend to be ancillary concerns.

(the last part of this quote seems to contradict the other accusations, but we can't check what she means by the veracity of data being an ancillary concern because ironically she provides no data)

Hacker News readers who visit the site to learn how engineers and entrepreneurs talk, and what they talk about, can find themselves immersed in conversations that resemble the output of duelling Markov bots trained on libertarian economics blogs

In the span of just one paragraph the journalist has:

- Dehumanized us (we sound like bots)

- Cast us as a weird outgroup (learn how they talk)

- Dismissed logic and thought experiments as legitimate

- Argued we aren't interested in "humane" arguments

- Accused the community of ignoring the truth of data

- Called us reckless

If you really think all that stuff is accurate, why post here at all?

>If you really think all that stuff is accurate, why post here at all?

One can find a community and its discourse valuable while also accepting the quirks and flaws of its culture.