As thinkers, we live in the wake of the continental tradition’s unwillingness to offer positive positions in both ethics and politics, especially in regards to technology. There are of course exceptions and caveats, but as a rule, anything more detailed than a call for openness, generic resistance, or to await the event is seen as either naïve or hubristic. Both the left and right wings of the tradition embrace this, from Adorno and Horkheimer’s negative dialectics which sees the activity of the thinker as entirely critical, to Heidegger’s claim that only a god can save us and for this we must await the next revealing of Being. In the post-structuralists, it mutates into a near total ethical commitment. Foucault in particular makes this explicit in his view of the role of the intellectual, his aim to write in such a way not to prescribe any action but to make the present feel intolerable, or when he suggests that the response when asked what to do instead should be “it is not up to us to tell you the sauce with which we want to be eaten,” (Foucault 2018, 194). In the fields which carry on the work of these thinkers, their retreat from norms became a norm of retreat. This left a vacuum in public intellectual conversation, especially in the United States, which is currently being filled by the political fever dreams of a few tech bloggers and venture capitalists. Worse yet, many of these “thought leaders” are themselves making use of these very theorists for their constructive project. A picture of Foucault hangs on the wall at Peter Thiel’s Palantir and venture capitalists now cite Deleuze and Guattari via Nick Land. While I appreciate the humility refraining from prescription, I find the present moment intolerable.