I wonder where that anti-military sentiment in U.S. tech stems from? At least in former Soviet bloc, we view your military in quite a positive light. Well, for sure in a more positive light than armies of competing 'superpowers'.
It's been a while since the US was in a war that we looked at afterward (or during, frankly) and said "yeah it was a good and smart thing we did that, worth the costs."
H&K, Anduril, Boston Dynamics, are just a few examples of companies who have entire product lines inaccessible to me, a private citizen who is not military, LEO, or a contractor of either.
Anduril, in particular, rubs me the wrong way because Palmer Luckey talks a big game about being pro-liberty, but his company will only sell to the pigs.
I'm not American, and to me it just seems like a very vocal minority is doing a lot of the talking on behalf of everyone else.
US Tech in the past: "we dislike the military, the government, the military-industrial complex (and generally all authority) because we skew hippy and/or libertarian. Let us be creative and free!"
US Tech today: "we dislike the military, the government, and the military-industrial complex because our particular flavour of cultural identity politics doesn't like it. Let us conform to the moral outrage of the day."
Meanwhile, the best reason IMO -- "we dislike the military, the government, the military-industrial complex because it serves the interests of the wealthy first and foremost (at the expense of the poor)" -- seems to get less discussion.
But all of these are reasons why tech can dislike the military or at least be uncomfortable with it, even while DARPA funding has helped progress tech and many innovations have come out of military-first applications.
Growing up in republican midwest and living in CA later I haven't met someone who just goes "military bad bc political party and moral outrage". I think that is just a twitter thing
"... politics based on a particular identity, such as race, nationality, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social background, social class."
Which is not my association for Hippie politics or classic libertarian politics.
Hippies in my head were known for proposing anti-materialistic lifestyle, less moral looking down on promiscuity, open to drug usage and anti war. None of those target a specific identity group.
Libertarians are a political group who support freedom. Normally that means opposing state intervention, taxes, social nets, restrictions to what you can buy/sell. I don't see this as politics for a special identity group either. (ok maybe for the identity group in the upper social class)
PS: somehow I feel like in the US libertarians seem to be seen as left wing which might be the case, but is not inherent to libertarian politics. You can have right wing libertarian politics like some libertarian parties in other countries show
Maybe this is part of the issue? You're comparing a contemporary social phenomenon through to one you've (probably) only learned about through history books, media and cultural osmosis.
> somehow I feel like in the US libertarians seem to be seen as left wing
That is the polar opposite of my "feeling", which is that US libertarians overwhelmingly skew right. Just look at the most prominent figures who self identify as such : The Pauls [Ron, Rand], Gary Johnson, Thomas Massie - all either current or former Republicans.
Culture war / identity politics -> oppose/support war because that's the current thing