Tech moves fast, but you're still playing catch-up?

That's exactly why 200K+ engineers working at Google, Meta, and Apple read The Code twice a week.

Here's what you get:

All delivered twice a week in just 2 short emails.

Join 200K+ engineers

“Can I See Some ID?”

Identification is more than just a card we carry to provide proof of age. The word “Identity” according to google is defined as “The fact of being who or what a person or thing is”. The distinction between “who” and “what” is significant, because it draws the boundary between how we see ourselves as individuals versus who we actually are (our character). Character is defined once more by google as “The mental and moral qualities that are distinctive to an individual”.

We can define ourselves in many different ways when we talk about where we fit into our families, friendship groups, clubs and more. You can be kind, loving, tender, hateful, intelligent, dim, bold, shy, heroic, anti-heroic, villainous, strong or vulnerable. We can also be seen by others as being the opposite of how we see ourselves, after all, are we not all the heroes of our own stories?

This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Character is made up of our everyday actions big and small, life changing or not. Therefore, we are what we do rather than how we identify ourselves, but it’s worth noting that how we identify and label ourselves is often a reflection of our own self-esteem beyond practical labels like “sister”, “father”, “brother” and so on. Who we are (our self-identification) should be in alignment with what we are (our actions), as much as possible. I think the goal for every human being is to live in a way that is congruent with and fully authentic to their sense of identity.

For example, it would probably be best for a Lesbian to date another Lesbian rather than dating a straight man, because dating a straight man would be to live out of alignment for that particular woman’s identity. Sometimes misalignment does happen and in extreme cases, this results in something called “moral injury”; a situation in which a person’s actions violates their own sense of right and wrong, causing profound and intense shame and self-punishment cycles.

Progress & Historical Oppression

In the case of living according to one’s true self as it relates to being on the LGBT spectrum, there are unfortunately people alive today who have survived through periods of history when being any flavor or style of “Gay” was treated as a psychiatric disorder that needed to be “solved”. A psychological defect that was seen as being predatory for those who were male homosexuals in particular. I happen to be fortunate enough to have befriended someone much older than myself, who happened to have lived during such times.

A man in his mid sixties named Larry who grew up in the 1970’s and 1980’s in Wyoming. He recalls a time when gay conversion therapies were common, when electro shock was a method for eliminating the vile gay away with extreme measures. People were locked away, kept from society and assumed to be a threat to children and even the general population. To avoid significant consequences, it wasn’t uncommon for men and women seeking same sex relations to create a public identity of heteronormativity by conforming to societal expectations.

This was accomplished by dating and marrying members of the opposite sex, strictly to keep up appearances and avoid arousing suspicions. While it maybe reasonable to point out the fact that life isn’t perfect for gay, lesbian and transgender people today, it would be nearly criminal to compare the struggles of modern youths to those who came before them decades earlier. As a matter of fact, I would argue that it seems some people in 2026 are standing on the backs of their ancestors, unaware of the true brutality that they had to endure just to get us to this point. Generational bricks have been laid but we must always remember that there was someone who came before us that created the foundations of progress we are able to enjoy today, before we ever came into the picture. You could say “We are just another brick in the wall”.

The Commercialization And Profiteering Of Identity

As a former Amazon employee who worked at a few different fulfillment center locations over a period of five years, I can tell you that the month of June marked a period of “representation”. Not just at my place of work, but on television ads, online ads and in every storefront from Target, to Walmart and in buisnesses both big and small. June is also when the holiday of “Juneteenth” is.

This has been done in the name of “Visibility” and “Solidarity”, but I must ask why visibility is important. Personally, I believe that this commercialization represents a way in which companies use people’s morality and desire to belong as a sales tactic for buisness purposes. They tap into the trends and on some level, create them in the first place to the point where they catch on. It feels like mass hypnosis. Further, I would argue that those who claim visibility is important, are on some level insecure about themselves and their own identity.

The saying “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes to mind for me. Let’s peel back the layers here for a second so that we can get to the heart of the matter; do you think that a person whose sense of self-worth is being based on what other people think of them would be stable? Would someone with a healthy self-esteem care more about being seen or just being? What does association with a label achieve on a social level for one who is insecure about how they see themselves? It seems logical that an insecure person would have to consistently “prove” to themselves and others that what they want to believe is necessarily true, because on some level they must know they are living a lie.

Sharp racial divisions began taking hold as many who belonged to minority racial groups began to argue that white people had “Privilege”, meaning that as the majority of the population, they held power and dominance over racial minority groups in dating, the job market, opportunities and how they were treated in everyday life. The topic of “reparations” became heavily promoted to repair historical disparities which had long since affected them. Immigration became a hotly contested topic by people who self-identified as “Progressives” or “Leftists” (previously referred to as “Social Justice Warriors”, but in more modern day vernacular, simply referred to as “Woke”).

Two Categories Of Transgender And Gay People

I believe there is a serious problem with large amounts of people not knowing who they really are and the movement began with Millenials. LGBT in the last decade has become a trend of social validation and we know this when we see people react to the supposed sin of “misgendering”. Imagine undergoing a surgery in which your ability to ever enjoy having sex again had been permanently altered, among other irreversible changes-not to mention possible complications that could arise. Then imagine realizing that the transition you underwent wasn’t what you thought it would be.

I think there would understandably be a reaction of intense denial and justification for having gone under the knife. Who could psychologically cope with such a mistake without lying to themselves? Who would be brave enough to admit that maybe they had gone past the point of no return without self-destructing? I do believe that there are legitimate transgender people, but I also believe that they are buried underneath heaps and mountains of people we might call “Trans Trenders”. For these individuals, they must do all that they can to protect themselves from the truth. It is simply too painful to face, so they must always be acknowledged.

They bury their heads in the sand. They are victims of a culture of “inclusion” which had promised them relief from their confusion but only managed to deliver more self-doubt than they could ever know how to handle. The Trans Trenders should not be pittied, hated or mocked, but instead should be seen as a case study for what happens when a culture and its people perpetuate a lie with real life altering consequences. At least in the case of the trendy gays, they trade their time away but can easily make a solid U-turn at any point. Some of the others unfortunately, do not have this luxury afforded to them. An angry overreaction to any of this is a sure sign that you have activated a self-doubt that had already existed deep down inside, long before you ever “offended” them. They offend themselves by remaining inauthentic with each day that passes by.

Nevertheless, out of compassion I would never advise anybody to push that giant red “self-destruct” button inside of another human being. No good can come from it and though you are not responsible for the actions of another, your conscience will hurt you and the legions of liars and self-deceivers will reinforce that feeling. Every person’s journey is their own, it is not necessary for you to sort out what is true for another person and what is not. The best we can do when combating dangerous ideas is simply not to perpetuate them. Of course not everyone will agree what constitutes as “harmful” or even what the correct way for dealing with dangerous ideas even is.

Identity Over Character

What happens when a person places their sense of self (their identity) as being more important than their actual character? Maybe a better question would be “What happens when a person makes their identity their whole character?”. I would argue that this is a solid example of pathology. You are basically saying (subconciously) “What I do doesn’t matter because who I see myself as is more important!”. In other words, their identity becomes their claim to morality, so if you question them, then you question morality itself. The cart comes before the horse, in fact, the cart is the horse. It is better to have your self-esteem based on positive, moral behavior than to assume that you are inherently positive and moral because of who you think you are. Key word here is think. How far does one have to fall to reach this point? Is this a sign of a personality disorder? I have neither the experience nor the expertise to say one way or the other. From my perspective, it could go either way, but the more frightening possibility still has to be considered.

There seems to have been a prevalence of minority groups in general whether they be racial, LGBT, Gender or Sex related minorities gaining a certain type of “privilege” that they hadn’t previously enjoyed until recent years. Having spent eons “under the boot” of majority oppressors, many of them are now drunk with the institutional power granted to them through media as a result of various highly publicised tragedies and abuses. With each high profile incident from George Floyd, to Alex Pretti, to Jordan Neely and all of the way back to Travyvon Martin and so many more, these incidences have been the cause of so much societal division. A growing tension between two ideological sides has been brewing for years.

As someone who has sat back and watched how mainstream culture as evolved over the last fourteen years, I personally believe the cultural shift began when a media critic known as Anita Sarkeesian began getting death threats online. Her perspective and concern (as I understand it) was that representation of various demographics was missing from video games, television shows and other types of entertainment. Further, she disliked how women were portrayed as “Damsels In Distress”. The internet (being what it was at the time), not only disagreed with her, but harassed and bullied her online. While it is likely true to some extent that the behavior of her critics had crossed a line, I do believe to some extent she weaponized victimhood in order to gain support. She was no longer an idiot with ridiculous ideas, but the treatment and abuse she had received (in a way) gave her the ability to use sympathy as both a weapon and shield.

What I think is so fascinating was how (in my opinion anyway) she used people’s emotional instability and outrage to gain support. After all, why should she or anyone for that matter, be threatened for simply having an opinion? Gradually over time, opposing movements began to form; those in support of Anita and her brand of Feminism versus “The toxic masculine gamers” and “serial harassers”. A sharp line of division soon followed as the two ideological groups battled for cultural supremacy, with each one becoming increasingly radical over time. The movement which Anita had started began creating unique vocabulary associated with their ideology such as “Mansplaining” (any time a man explained anything to a woman), “Manspreading” (the act of a man spreading his legs while sitting down), “Toxic Masculinity” (The toxic expectations of regarding how men should behave) and eventually an evolved understanding of gender and ethnicity. This would include creating multiple identities such as “Gender Fluid”, “Non-Binary” and so forth.

Eventually, Anita’s movement (at one point the members of which were once referred to as “Social Justice Warriors” but now simply labeled as “Woke”) began to become synonymous with adopting ideologies such as Communism and Feminism. The opposite side, broadly referred to as “Conservatives” but in many cases considered “Trump Supporters” or more harshly labeled as “Nazis” also became more extreme in their pursuit of defying the opposing side. I believe that the election of Donald J. Trump was the result of built up tension between the two sides spanning over a decade, finally boiling over. What was once an elephant in the room now had become a battlecry of defiance from “The Right”, who would more traditionally be considered “Classical Liberals” by the standards of the previous decade.

Victimhood As A Weapon

One thing you might notice consistently between the Left and The Right as it relates to heavily debated current events online, is how both sides argue. “The Right” or “Conservatives” tend to argue for what they see as the truth with emotion largely removed from the picture, with the narrative of black and white thinking. “The Left” or “The Woke”/”SJW’s” tend to argue from a passionate and empathetic perspective, with the narrative of victimhood and oppression.

When Greta Thunberg was criticized by The Right, it seemed that The Left accused them of “Bullying” a young girl. From my perspective, Greta Thunberg was a red herring of the media and she was used to create a sharper divide amongst the people. Nearly every memorable tragedy in recent history has been used as “moral fodder” to promote the “moral rightness” of The Left and The Cold Logic Of The Right. Greta was used as “Ragebait” and like any type of shield, she served her purpose well of intensifying the divide between the two sides, whether that was the reason why she was propped up in the public space or not.

Ragebait in politics is a nasty little trick and is easy to fall for. A person is used as a source of agitation and whenever one side reacts, they are criticized for being “immoral”, “sociopaths” or “dishonest”. When the other side attacks or insults, they are accused of being unreasonable and unstable. A human shield is intended to produce sympathy by provoking one side to act as a defender and the other side as an offender. After all, standing up for the weak and the vulnerable in society is a noble cause. Most people seek to protect those who have been beaten down and targeted unjustly. “We must say something!” they feel, as they take on their opponents on Twitter and through social media.

Tertius Gaudens

In the original Pirates Of The Caribbean movie, Captain Jack Sparrow’s character and personality is initially established when he hilariously manages to pit two dock workers against each other. He exploits the situation by turning what should be an alliance into a rivalry and uses this as momentum to distract the two guards so that he can slyly slip away, free of consequence. I see the mainstream media (which in my opinion now includes many online commentators) as the instruments of (if not themselves) the new mainstream, in addition to television networks like Fox News and CNN.

You’d assume then that I’d be strong or smart enough to not fall for these perceived traps myself, but in reality I still feel strongly compelled to defend one side over the other, thus contributing to the conflict myself. Does this make me a hypocrite? Does it make me a bad actor? Does it just mean that I’m human? Does it make me stupid? Does it mean I don’t have a strong enough desire to enforce social cohesion? The truth is I really don’t know the answer to any of these questions. I’m not a very political person, I simply feel drawn into the conflict against my will, because so many of these conversations about ethics and politics permeate society so prevalently that ignoring them or not taking a position feels impossible.

This seems to be a case where the only way to win the game is simply not to play. But since ideas have consequences (and because some of those consequences I don’t like have shown up), “the game” feels more important than ever! As my own participation only furthers the divide between the two sides, I try to step back but all I see behind me is a giant cliff for me to fall off of. Backed into a corner whether real or imagined, I find myself in an unusually tight spot. Resentment clouds my judgment, years of built up tension consumes me. My emotions are high and I am losing perspective. Caught off balance, it seems that all it would take is one wrong move to fall into the trap of the box I would be categorized into against my own will. My own humanity and emotions are a trap.