I mentally replace "-punk" with "-schtick" and it makes sense. Steam-punk? Steam-schtick, everything is steam powered. Cyber-shtick, usually a bitter critique of consumer culture, with a protagonist that's heavily invested in the internet. Meso-shtick, they put a light veneer of classical Aztec culture on what is basically a detective novel in space.

Which books or authors have these problems?

It's interesting that it's almost 'punk' to be anti-punk - anti-inclusionary, etc. People always have reasons, but I think we recognize the form, tone, and conclusions of so many of these arguments.

> it's almost 'punk' to be anti-punk - anti-inclusionary, etc.

I see the most dull, buttoned-up conservatives claim this, but I think they're lying or delusional. Major hegemonic institutions have capitulated only superficially to the trappings and the suits of "punk," or liberalism, and certainly not in the slightest to the threads of Marxism/Socialism that demand a dictatorship of the proletariat, ie worker ownership, ie DIY.

The argument that conservatism is "punk," delusional as it is, is less based on any superficial capitulation to leftism but the premise that the mainstream power base of modern society (particularly American society) is leftist |"wokeist"|feminist|anti-white|anti-Christian, what have you, which they claim places them in the position of underdog rebels fighting against the establishment.

It's a weird phenomenon I've noticed within the right of claiming the identity and language of oppressed and minority groups in order to subvert them and claim whatever political and cultural power they have for their own, despite they themselves still being the most politically powerful and culturally influential demographic by orders of magnitude.

Yes, agreed. A couple things I've observed:

People naturally rebel against institutions. To a degree, it's healthy. As you say, a certain form of liberalism is institutionalized.

At the same time, the reactionaries (the right) has highly strategic, effective messaging: As you say they portray themselves as the oppressed; white people in the US are oppressed! A recent poll by CBS or Pew supported that it was a widely held view, at least on the right.

Also, they use the same tactics very frequently, in lost of situations:

First, just follow basic military tactics and stay on the attack; always keep the initiative and remain inside the enemy's OODA loop; force them to respond and reorient rather than plan and attack. You can see their attacks are often completely absurd, but it doesn't matter - they stay on the attack, keep the initiative, force you to respond rather than do anything effective. And their supporters love it, even knowing it's lies - they are winning the fight ('owning the libs').

One way they do it is to find their own biggest weakness (e.g., racism) and accuse the other side of it. Not only does it follow the tactics above but it disorients the enemy, and it floods the public space with so much BS that you can't talk about the topic. Try talking about racism, for example.

You are right. "A certain form of liberalism is institutionalized," and that's enough of a machine for millions of Americans, Europeans, and Brazilians to "rage against," as it were without too much self-delusion. I feel like there's a much wider world out there—especially given all historical context—which dwarfs today's liberal movement a thousandfold, but of course some people can't see the forest for this tree. Some people's Overton Windows are more like Overton peepholes. Can't say for sure I ain't such a person, myself.

Absolutely absurd to think of as fundamentally "woke" a government under the sway of the Heritage and Hoover Foundations, or the Cato and American Enterprise Institutes.

> "Punk" wasn't political; GenX teenagers were into skateboarding and being cynical, not politics.

This seems like a very narrow view: the war on drugs, offshoring jobs or otherwise hammering working class employment, and, of course, rights for anyone who wasn’t a straight white dude were kind of prominent - an awful lot of punks were vocal about full rights for women, ending gay bashing, ending police brutality, etc.

> "Punk" wasn't political; GenX teenagers were into skateboarding and being cynical, not politics.

This is a strongly political position to hold. DIY aesthetics, too, deeply political. Not in the "electoral politics" sense, of course, but in terms of a country's distribution of power and determination of civic priorities.

Punk predates Generation X.

You don't see how it's cool and rebellious to reject diversity, inclusion, etc.? It's on HN all the time. All the kids love Musk and Rogan. Etc.

How does it "require too much information" for a writer to have knowledge of their own culture?

No one is putting a gun to "ethnic writers'" heads and making requirements of them, or forcing them to "represent", all that's happening here is that more non-Anglo authors are choosing to write science fiction from other than the default cultural perspective of the genre, and more publishers are publishing it. I don't understand what your objection is.