zlacker

The problem with defining toxic tech culture, as the authors have done, as "those that demean and devalue you as holistic, multifaceted human beings, (...) those that prioritize profits and growth over human and societal well being, [and] (...) those that treat you as replaceable cogs within a system of constant churn and burnout" is that it captures a wide range of behaviors that are undeniably unpleasant, but widely occur in other labor markets, and as such, aren't exclusively attributable to tech. Nor do they single out populations that the authors (and others) would consider to be 'marginalized'.

In fact, reading the essay from beginning to end, it's difficult to pinpoint a specific complaint; the cult mentality, the intentionally-skewed work-life balance, the flare-ups of self-awareness amidst lingering self-doubt identified as warning signs and symptoms are the tradeoffs of a lifestyle that everyone in tech self-selects. What, then, is the abuse here, the toxicity, when participation in this environment is a labor transaction?

There are numerous instances of awful, toxic behavior that has occurred in the field of tech, and exacerbated by this environment that could have been called out position this essay against behaviors that are abhorrent and should never be tolerated. But conjecturing an equivalence between a driven, but self-selecting labor environment and the plight of marginalized groups is a stretch, but the writing suggests that that link is self-evident to their target audience. If that's true, the conversation has already lost its nuance, and can't be refuted without collateral damage, making it a rhetorical trap.