Like Peter Thiel, Tech Workers Feel Alienated by Silicon Valley ‘Echo Chamber’

Adding this as an edit: Also, do you work in the Bay Area currently (you mentioned you grew up there)? There is a pretty substantial discrepancy between voicing political views in high school and college vs. when people actually start working. I have met more than an order of magnitude more conservatives and non-liberals in 4 years of university in the Bay Area as compared working in tech there - 25 to 30 in unviersity vs. exactly 1 in industry. Also edited in the fact that I work in the Bay Area in the first sentence, so I realized I didn't mention it until the last.

The company has raised hundreds of millions of dollars and has hundreds of employees. In my experience I didn't notice a single situation in which their conservative views had negative impacts on the company. In fact I think their conservative background helped the company raise money from VCs, who I'd wager are more conservative than average.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBg6hU5zXDA

The endgame hopefully is that intellectually dishonest strategies from all sides become discredited.

Also, the point is not that less conservatives are in tech companies is the issue. I am under no illusion that probably no more than 10-15% of SV tech workers are going to be conservative. This is well within my personal estimate judging from people I met in university (during which they were more open about their political leanings) who went on to go into tech. It's that the conservatives that are (and even centrists and less-extreme liberals) feel the need to put on a facade while at work and that the political environment has become isolated to the extent that even mainstream conservative and even centrist views are considered abjectly racist or wrong.

I'd consider an office with 5% conservatives where those conservatives feel empowered to share their opinion to be a better working environment, as compared to an office with 25% conservatives where all those conservatives put on a facade of liberalism out of fear of repercussion.

However, this isn’t actually the issue - the issue is that the (relatively small) population of conservative-leaning (or just not-entirely-liberal) people in SV and elsewhere cannot expect to speak their minds and also keep their careers. Even relatively milquetoast, vaguely conservative people like Brendan Eich are (evidently) at serious risk.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/california-preside...

However, for conservatives it's an open question of whether they really are underrepresented or they seem underrepresented because they're hiding their viewpoint.

Perhaps a more useful parallel would be sexual orientation a couple decades ago, where there used to be all kinds of policies like "don't ask, don't tell" and you might have gotten an impression that your company or industry has very few gay people while in fact they're there just hiding in the closet.

www.thumbtack.com/

* That affirmative action should be illegal or more heavily restricted.

* That unlawful residents should be removed from the country, even if previous administrations chose not to enforce immigration law.

* That welfare programs should be cut back.

* That taxes should be reduced, even if they're reduced in such a way that the wealthy receive a greater tax cut than the non-wealthy.

* That restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should be kept permissive, and that restrictive local laws (e.g. California's) are unlawful.

* That the US should be more restrictive in allowing foreigners to work in the country (e.g. raising the minimum salary for H1B workers)

* That inequalities in education, employment, and achievement should not be presumed to be indications of bias.

These are just quick examples. Personally, I advise anyone to conceal their political leanings if they agree with any of these statements in my current workplace if they wish to preserve their career prospects, and I think that's a shame. All of these are things that half to 30% of the voting population believes in, and are on the core platform of one of the two major US parties. Any workplace that claims to tolerate conservative views should tolerate these statements.

"Conservative", "liberal", "centrist", etc. are by no means monolithic attributes. I think these labels are better described as broad generalizations of individual positions on issues. For example, I agree with 70-80% of "liberal" positions (maybe closer to 60% if you include San Francisco local issues, but there's arguments to be made that's more "far-left" vs. "left" than liberal vs. conservative). I still consider myself a liberal. That said, I still do censor myself on any non-anonymous forums for the remaining 20-30%.

Maybe it’s not politics that gets you into trouble, it just seems that some people will never be dominant enough for their tastes.

Equality of opportunities/rights for the particular individual wherever they may be, not attempting to get equality of outcomes for the aggregate by harming individual rights or justifying local oppression by some wider goal.

If a gay person has to hide their orientation, it's bad - not because gays need protection, but because that individual is restricted.

If someone has to hide their religion, it's bad - not because that religion needs protection, but because that person gets restricted.

If someone has to hide their political affiliation - same thing, no matter if it's support of some presidential candidate, legalization or criminalization of some drug, support for or against unions, etc, etc.

"Feeling alienated" because others don't agree with you is a reasonable result; I mean, this is a zero sum game, all viewpoints can't be most popular everywhere. But it crosses the line when it comes to actual discrimination in the workplace, which is bad no matter whether it's done by or against the nationally dominant "tribe". If people have to shut up or face personal consequences (as opposed to getting ignored because the voice of others is considered more sane), then "You have every right to speak" has failed.

If I can say whatever I want but my political opponents (who want to implement evil policies for immoral reasons) can not, then we don't have free speech. Even if someone rabidly opposes free, inclusive, diverse society, says so, and gets punished for that - that's not a free, inclusive, diverse society; just as in that overused "Voltaire" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall) quote.

Political opponents will always consider and label each others policies and arguments as immoral and unacceptable, as you say, extreme and noxious; so unless we allow (in practice, by ensuring that people don't get punished for that by others) speech that seems immoral, unacceptable, extreme and noxious then we ensure that the political opposition doesn't get free speech. People should be able to talk in our workplace about why they like the noxious candidate and why the evil policy is needed (to achieve the immoral reason) without me or the workplace punishing them - otherwise I might not be able to talk in our workplace about why I like my candidate and why I want to have the opposite policy for incompatible moral reasons, which seem immoral and evil to them.

A lot of my colleagues who happily brand themselves as liberal, all think unregulated illegal immigration will cause problem, I don't think there is any chance they will self identify as conservative.

As an individual I might agree with some of the points, but disagree with the rest, like I all for more restrictive gun control and think it is due to an outdated law. It is indeed a problem itself to force people into two buckets and create a us-vs-the-world mentality.

And not too long ago, hell, even currently in some places, it was considered a mainstream conservative view that gays should not have the same rights to marry. If a person holding that view were to work at, say, Grindr, I would absolutely expect them to receive push back on it.

AFDC got replaced with the more restrictive TANF as the primary federal-funded welfare program in the 1990s by the Republican Congress with Clinton’s support, but welfare was not repealed.

Looking at 2016 voting habits in the Bay Area, Donald Trump got double digit election returns in every county. That’s not even factoring "never Trump" conservatives who voted 3rd party or stayed home. So there are a fair amount of conservatives here. For comparison there are more Trump voters in San Francisco than African Americans.

And in case I didn't make this clear, that was just a quick dump of views that I think are generally considered conservative. Real life is much more nuanced than a list of bullet points. I fully agree that there are, for example, people who want tougher immigration laws but otherwise don't consider themselves conservative.

[1] https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ I realize this is just one example, but people on my own company's forums have caught flak for using the word "meritocracy".

Marc Andressen said something similar in an interview, I'm going to dig it up and post it here as an edit. Here it is, the relevant bits are around 28 minutes: https://a16z.com/2017/05/15/andreessen-primack-dc-tech-polic...

The question isn't, or shouldn't be, "Do we have representation of women/conservatives/whatever in proportion to demographics?" Instead, the question should be "Are we treating people unfairly?"

For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems.

The treatment of women in tech is a very well documented issue, to the point where one would have to be willfully ignorant of the issue. The biggest “evidence” of the War on Christmas is a coffee cup, and companies simply acknowledging the fact that many other faiths and cultures have celebrations during that time of year.

It would be weird to feel offended, or more specifically, "discriminated" against, were you to discuss publicly, in the company of other co-workers, your specific actions in the bedroom or bathroom.

For example, I hope no one is arguing for ensuring "our free speech rights" to talk about the details of their bowl movements or bedroom proclivities in a sprint planning meeting.

> otherwise I might not be able to talk in our workplace about why I like my candidate and why I want to have the opposite policy for incompatible moral reasons, which seem immoral and evil to them.

Why do people expect a different response to, and treatment of, political opinions?

Even if what you would consider a "political opinion" is advertised, circulated or pushed by your employer, your coworkers, "general vibes" - why the expectation that any and all political opinions should be granted the utmost respect, neutrality and objectivity? And most specifically, why this expectation in the workplace? When has the workplace become a "safe space", where, if one political opinion is discussed, all must be allowed to?

Sexual orientation was deemed (ImNAL, my simple understanding) a protected class - in that, we (via our legal system) agreed discrimination against this class is illegal (like age, race).

Are you arguing for not only political affiliation, but political expression to be protected as well?

Should, say, an extremely conservatively run family business be allowed to deny employment to a candidate specifically because they have strong liberal views?

I personally think political opinions and affiliation are nowhere near as fundamentally universal as age and race. For one, opinions are a choice. Therefore, 100% yes, such a business would be well within its rights to deny the candidate employment.

Workplaces are dictatorships, not democracies. If part of that absolute command structure includes the discussion of only one side of a political opinion, it does not follow that all opinions should be given the opportunity to be heard (for fear that it _might_ discourage its existence and expression nonetheless!). I would even go so far as to say perhaps you are too eager to express your own opinions, and too quick to feel threatened by the sound of others. Since politics is an expression of values, are you not holding one set of values, while in the company of what seems to be scores of people who hold no such ones themselves?

Politics is an inherently divisive, generally un-or-misinformed and emotional topic. I have some political opinions not everyone, or even most, will agree with (find me an example of two people who share in common all political opinions!). If I have such an urge to also present those view points, I would then also rationally be prepared for the backlash. My opinions have not been censored, I can go to any street corner, website or pub to discuss any such opinion I might have.

My employment ramifications would be the same as discussing activities of the bedroom or bathroom in those environments; in taste, a private conversation of a sensitive topic. Loudly and publicly; a risk calculation incurred by my employer - one they are allowed to make with any prejudice they desire.

https://youtu.be/agU-mHFcXdw

You can find similar clips from Hillary and Schumer, just not from this decade.

I recall Bush being constantly vilified by the left for having a tiny intellect, for constantly making gaffes like "is our children learning", for the Iraq war (he's a war criminal etc), for drone strikes, for supporting torture, for not caring about the environment at all - especially the shock when a simple minded Texan oilman won out over intellectual climate change activist Al Gore.

There were many people not just in the USA but around the world who felt they could not speak up in support of Bush, outside of rural America.

Seems like time is erasing or distorting these memories. I remember him being just as hated as Trump is today.

Five years ago I felt my political views were pretty mainstream for the tech industry, for the Valley (although I did not live there). I'd have described myself as a centrist or maybe centre-left.

These days my views have shifted, I can feel myself getting more conservative with time. It's not an age thing. It's more that I've started to notice the sort of tactic you used above - faced with someone making conservative arguments you disagree with you didn't bother debating the points he made. Instead you just lied about what he said and then attacked a straw man.

This is consistently how Damore is treated. There are liberal arguments that can be made about what he wrote - people could point out methodological errors in his studies, or logic errors in his arguments. But they never seem to do that. Whether it's in the media (who love calling what he wrote an "anti diversity memo" even though it praises diversity and has ideas for how to increase the number of women in tech), or on Hacker News, the tactic is always the same - pretend he claimed women are worse than men and then viciously attack him on a personal level. And it's just totally false.

The same tactic crops up in other similar contexts. Jordan Peterson being interviewed on Channel 4 is a recent notorious example. The guy made debatable but essentially conservative arguments about how men and women are not the same, the gender pay gap has multiple causes and so on. And Cathy Newman (the interviewer), who clearly isn't really interviewing him at all but rather sees her job as destroying the ideological enemy, just constantly twists his words. The entire interview consists of her exclaiming, "So what you're saying is ..." followed by some absurd straw man that bore no resemblance to what the guy just said.

It got so insane that by the end of the interview, after Peterson made a long and complicated point about the biological roots of social hierarchies using the nervous system of lobsters as an example, she replied "So what you're saying is, we should organise our society along the lines of the lobsters" and the guy doesn't even blink or miss his stride. He just gets right on with correcting her, because by that point the lying and distorting of what he just said has become so predictable:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=26m55s

It's one of the most astonishing TV interviews I've ever seen and that sort of debating "tactic" is everywhere.

Does society not include all the people that voted for Trump?

1. your immigrant coworkers who entered the country on H1B or other visas;

2. coworkers who benefited from affirmative action to get into university;

3. friends/relatives of law-abiding-but-undocumented aliens.

You might think you are just making abstract policy statements. But to your listeners, you are making threats to destroy their livelihood and their families. Of course they react negatively!

How would you react if someone, in the name of abstract policy, argued that people belonging to your demographic group don't deserve jobs or should be kicked out of the country?

Does that sound unfamiliar? If so, it’s probably because you never read what he actually wrote, and instead just accepted unquestioning the media propaganda.

Many news sources also spread the same lie you are, so I assume you’re just parroting the headlines (like many of us are guilty of). The problem is, the dishonesty of this propaganda does real harm.

I see Trump's rise as a response to people on the left who celebrate "the end of men", expel men without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves, unapologetically depict men and white people (and white men most of all) as evil, demand white people "absent themselves", and offer jobs for which white people need not apply. Not "far-left crazies", but major media outlets and universities.

When the media and academic culture is so toxic to any white men who speak up for their own interests, only someone who has no filter, like Trump, dares to speak at all.

For the most part, they ignored Obama's many gaffes (RSPCT, 51 states, "corpse"-man, bring inefficiencies to our health care system, etc...) while endlessly mocking Republicans for similar gaffes.

Is being anti-abortion bigotry & hate?

Whether he may be a conservative or liberal is irrelevant to me and to the discussion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end...

> the rules intended to protect victims of sexual assault mean students have lost their right to due process

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-un...

> professor Bret Weinstein refused to comply with students interested in 'social justice' that demanded a day without white people on campus

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/30/evergreen...

> The ad said the [University of Louisville] Department of Physics and Astronomy “announces a tenure-track assistant professor position that will be filled by an African-American, Hispanic American or a Native American Indian.”

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/12/16/u-l-ripped-h...

Those are only examples to prove these claims aren't "baseless". If you're interested, I'm sure you can find more such incidents yourself.

Also, while it sounds like you downvoted me, I'm not being downvoted (net). Perhaps there are more people out there who are aware of these things than you think.

I could just as easily say that colleges don't support interracial marriage based on Bob Jones University but that would be intellectually dishonest.

I'd be very interested if you could find examples of publicly-funded universities (as these universities are) telling black people not to come to campus or not to apply for a job.

Or a respected mainstream media publication (equivalent to The Atlantic) reviewing a book discussing The End of Women.

> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end....

It's a complete mischaracterization to call that celebrating the end of men. If anything it is worrying about it.

"There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods."

Many Americans think you can collect welfare payments, which are about $300 per person, depending on the state, in perpetuity.

That's just not true.

I still wonder where this 'welfare' system is that people think exist.

It covers both sides of the story, including people who seem to be celebrating.

TheCoelocanth already beat me to it, but this article doesn't do any celebrating about the "end of men". It's very sympathetic about how the changing US economy has gutted many traditionally-male fields. And in so far as support for Trump is driven by the economic uncertainty of men, it does a lot to explain that component. But your original claim is ridiculous. I don't have a lot of free time right now, do any of your links honestly support your argument?

> Postgenocide Rwanda elected to heal itself by becoming the first country with a majority of women in parliament.

(where female dominance is described as "healing")

> In fact, the more women dominate, the more they behave, fittingly, like the dominant sex.

> she and her girlfriend (played by Beyoncé) kill a bad boyfriend and random others in a homicidal spree and then escape in their yellow pickup truck, Gaga bragging, “We did it, Honey B.”

That's just a few quotes from the article. I agree, it's mostly neutral.

For true celebration, it's probably necessary to look elsewhere...like Beyoncé's song Run The World (Girls).

* Evolution isn’t an atheist fact vs some religious alternate truth; evolution is a scientific fact.

* Personality differences (note: not to be confused with IQ or proficiency!) between male and female isn’t a conservative fact vs some liberal alternate; it’s a scientific fact.

Damore suggested we use these well established cross cultural personality differences to inspire positive improvements to the workplace that will allow women and men alike to more naturally be attracted to this line of work, and to thrive in it!

But because the scientifically uncontrovertial truths he quoted to formulate his argument are not currently considered “politically correct”, he was basically “crucified” and made an example of.

Scientific consensus is not conservative or liberal, religious or atheist, etc. Scientific consensus is the best unbiased reflection of reality we have.

Of course, any use of the words “fact” or “truth” must be qualified with the appropriate level of uncertainty — not even the best scientific establishments can reach fully 100% confidence — but may established scientific “facts” are called such because our uncertainty levels of them can become so incredibly low. The law of gravity, the claim that the world is not flat, and many others are clear examples of this.

We MUST stop politicizing the notion of “fact”, unless you really want to enter a post-truth world where unjustified opinions and feelings hold equal truth to scientific facts established with literal mountains of evidence and broad consensus.

If observing scientific fact creates a “hostile workplace” and is a fireable offense, then we have truly entered an Orwellian age of Wrongthink and Thoughtcrime, where we must all constantly police our own thoughts and utterance so as not to contradict the ideology of The Party.

He wasn’t even quoting scientific fact for hostile purposes; it appears entirely benevolently motivated, out of a desire to create an engineering culture more compatible with feminine personalities (which even many males have, as he points out!)

But because it touched a topic of political sensitivity and quotes a scientific fact that was “politically incorrect”, the truth of his argument, and even the well intentions of it, were made irrelevant. He was crucified, to make an example to all of what truths must never be spoken.

And this is why we can’t have nice things. Now we can’t even speak about making the workplace more suitable to women, because to discuss that would imply that there’s a difference in personality between women and men — and such a thing now can get you fired.

But since you don't, what exactly do you expect me to say here that will convince you in 30 seconds?

I don't agree - there is a subset of people that criticize meritocracy as a concept because they believe the idea of 'merit' is inherently racist and classist - if you start at a different level, it becomes more difficult for you to accrue 'merit' and so that needs to be balanced and taken into account. Some people believe this is much more important than hiring or promoting on 'merit'

Can you find any stats showing that a White male has a harder time in America getting a job, getting a loan, getting a mortgage or lease, getting into college, etc than an equally qualified non White male?

Hillary Clinton said that after the election.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/the-future-is-female-hillary-clin...

If we agree that's a loaded term, perhaps we can also agree that in terms of dividing people by race and gender, Trump isn't so different from many leaders on the left. He's merely the first Republican who plays the game of identity politics that the left has played for so long.

I think it's a terrible shame that the dream of a race-blind, gender-blind society was abandoned...but the left, not Trump, is to blame for that.

It was a Republican, Eisenhower, who sent the army to enforce school integration after the Brown v Board of Education decision. Nixon [often accused of this "Southern Strategy"] was Vice President at the time.

And a much higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in Congress voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409

But the Democrats are certainly good at rewriting history in their favor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ

And you have heard of Strom Thurman haven’t you?

I've also heard of the many racist Southern Democrats who opposed civil rights and remained Democrats after 1964 (many much longer), including: John Stennis, Herman Talmadge, James Eastland, Allen Ellender, Russell Long, John Sparkman, John McClellan, Richard Russell, George Wallace, Lester Maddox, John Rarick, Robert Byrd, and Al Gore, Sr.

But are you really going to defend the Party of Trump as being inclusive?

Are you really claiming that the Southern Strategy didn’t exist despite the words of Lee Atwater?

And the claim that interview with Lee Atwater is talking about Republican strategy makes no sense. It starts with "in 1954 you start out saying n....r, n....r, n....r." But in 1954 the South was solidly Democratic and Republicans were sending troops there to force integration. The quote describes a supposed "southern strategy" beginning in 1954 that bears no relation to reality in 1954. Why should we believe the rest of it when it's wrong from the beginning?

The people who write about these things always say they don't like when the word meritocracy is being used to hide bias.

But, parties change and they try to appeal to enough different coalitions to get elected. The Republican Party use to be about free trade, "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps and not blaming others for your plight in life" and at least give lip service to caring about the deficit. Now they are completely the opposite.

I certainly agree that parties' political positions change. That doesn't mean any particular claim of change is true.

Every politician breaks campaign promises and Trump is no exception. Now if you donate or otherwise contribute a lot of money to a candidate then they will support you. That much is clear and it does not take a lot of money. The only reason we don't have gun control is because the gun lobby has enough votes in Congress.

There is no such thing. If you want to join and meet up with other conservatives, you totally can. There are Republican party offices all over. Hell, in the middle of Silicon Valley there is the huge conservative Hoover Institution think tank.

But if you want to come to work and say a bunch of obviously unpopular things and expect that it's all just going to be cool, it's not. Work is work, everyone thinks before they say things. No workplace is different in this regard. Like the previous commenter said, work is not a debating society, it's really common for people to put up with their coworkers, grin and take it, etc. because that's how teamwork happens. It's not something only conservatives have to deal with.

Do you live anywhere near a University? Get your butt there and count how many white men there are in Professor's chairs. Then count how many of the tenured Professors are white men. Then count how many of the head administrators are white men.

Absolute delusion.

They aren't equal things though. The latter is basically you promoting the idea that people of different backgrounds aren't as welcome in the workplace. Especially if your workplace hires anyone on an H1-B or on any other kind of visa, or anyone from Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the other Muslim ban countries.

I get that in terms of an election they are both equally valid political candidates. But the actual substance of both pieces of clothing is different. One is easily going to divide any workplace where you have employees of foreign nationalities or minorities and the other isn't. There's a reason why what you expect from both scenarios makes sense.

If all you care about is skin color you're missing my point.

Here's another: https://practicaltheorist.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/the-myth-...

Here's a critique stating that the terms aren't defined enough to be said to be 'just'

http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6818.pdf

The last one is the most fascinating, I really recommend you read it if you're interested in these things. Amartya Sen is brilliant.

How many of them were unqualified, but given the job over a more qualified woman, just because they were a man?

I'm sure there are cases of that happening, somewhere. But I can point to multiple examples in the past year alone of jobs being advertised explicitly and in writing as not being open to white men. I do not recall ever seeing jobs being advertised as not open to women.

As it is, you're pointing at a disparity and implying - but not even outright stating - that it must be due to bias, or that white men can't possibly be being attacked or can't possibly fear for their careers, merely because there are a lot of them.

Would you have made the same sorts of arguments about black slaves, on the grounds that there were loads of non-enslaved blacks in Africa at the time of the slave ships, so clearly they couldn't be that oppressed. I mean just look at the quantities. Clearly you would not have made that argument because it'd be bogus. Merely having a common attribute doesn't imply you can't be oppressed.

I described the argument as a straw man because it is one. Damore verifiably did not say he thought women at Google were inferior. I'm not surprised you're tired of people saying "straw man!" in discussions about Damore: as I note, nobody seems to be able to argue that he's wrong, so they just attack things he didn't say, and then other people have to point that out. If you dislike that, then point out strawmen yourself. Perhaps eventually people who dislike Damore's perspective will then stop strawmanning him.

I doubt very seriously that people are opposed to bringing back jobs to America. What politician has a platform of "we want to send jobs overseas"?

Ronald Reagan was all for gun control in the 60s as was the NRA when the Black Panther Party started legally walking around with guns in California (the Muliford Act). You want to see gun control? Start encouraging as many minorities as possible to apply for open carry permits.

Though I suppose it's easier to dismiss complaints about bias when we pretend those complainers just hate our meritocracy.

Of course, I might be wrong, so please feel free to show me the many leaders who've opposed globalization and the receptive responses of the institutions they work for.

There is a company called Softwear trying to brIng clothe manufacturing back to the US. But they plan to automate everything and hire a very few engineers. How does that help the “working class”?

The ship on globalization has sailed. Republicans use to believe in the free market that was back when manufacturing jobs were strong. But now that the “working class in middle America” is hurting, they like “big government” interfering with the free market. and more regulation because it helps them.

It reminds me of all of the issues in the Ferguson shooting. Instantly we had "Hands up, Don't shoot" and "Criminal" being called by both sides. The stuff that is divisive goes viral and people on both sides shout about it.

Alas, because it was imperfectly said by Damore, it is no longer safe to openly discuss if the gender gap in tech might be influenced by biology.

I'm not sure how to parse your last sentence. Could you clarify what you mean?

Women outnumber men in college by 50%, and almost nobody sees a problem with that. Men vastly outnumber women among the homeless, prisoners, accidental deaths, etc, and nobody cares about that either.

Nobody in power cares enough about less fortunate men to support any studies that might show what obstacles they face.

And the ship hasn't sailed on globalization. China is bringing protectionism back whatever we do.

Will protectionism raise prices? On manufactured goods, perhaps. But manufactured goods are a small portion of our expenses compared to rents, food, and energy, and if protectionism also raises wages it will mean more Americans can afford to live well.

http://time.com/4064665/women-college-degree/

If nothing is done to increase male enrollment, the statistic you quoted (% of population with college degrees) will change to match this inequality fairly quickly.

I thought conservatives were against forcing people to pay taxes and "big government" and we should let the free market decide - or do they just feel that way about health care?

All wages won't rise because of manufacturing jobs. Just those for manufacturing. It's basically "redistributing" money from those who aren't in the manufacturing industry to those who are. I also thought that conservatives were against "redistribution", or are they for it when it helps "working class Middle America"?

56% to 44% as of this past fall, and projected to reach 57% to 43% by 2026. [0] That's a little over 25%, not 50%.

> almost nobody sees a problem with that.

Lots of people see it as a symptom of a major problem.[0, again]

> Men vastly outnumber women among the homeless

This is, IIRC, basically entirely because virtually the entire set of homeless veterans is male, and homeless veterans are a full third of the homeless. Again, homeless among veterans (which, again, is basically the entire source of the overrepresentation of men among the homeless) is widely perceived as a serious problem.

> prisoners

Well, white people might not care about this; but the imprisonment of black men and what it has done to the black community has been an intense concern of that community.

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/why-me...

Why not? Leftists want equality of outcome, right? Why does that exclude college enrollment, unemployment, dangerous work, etc?

Response to below: Would people on HN really be all over these studies? Or would they be censored as I have been?

And I just posted a study for you in our other comment chain, since you demand it so persistently. I hope you're reading these edits...

Not really, no.

Leftists are, however, less inclined than those on the opposite side of the political spectrum to dismiss wide discrepancies in outcome as being results of differences in free uncoerced choices rather than inequality of opportunity (which the right didn't even accept as a value until the left made it popular enough that they invented the "opportunity vs. outcome" argument to adopt in name while dismissing it in substance).

We've been going back and forth for days but you still haven't posted any latitudinal studies to back your claims of the oppression of the White Male. There are plenty of conservative think tanks that would have been all over studies that showed such data if it existed.

I would think that HN being full of engineers and other left brain types would actually take the time to read such studies and give them a fair shot.

We already pay subsidies for all kinds of things. Why not pay one to help the working class?

----

Response to below: I do think any injustice is immoral but subsidies aren't injustice. We pay lots of subsidies. I never said subsidies are immoral.

And don't confuse manufacturing with "rural America". There are lots of working class people in the cities who once found employment in manufacturing. Farm subsidies do nothing for them.

And if you only want to read a study (and will consider no other facts) here's a study showing men receive much longer prison sentences than women for the same crime:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

----

> What should we "believe" other than studies?

Statistics?

Like the statistics on male victims of domestic violence vs the legal protections and shelters available to men.

Or the statistics on boys vs girls expelled from preschool, boys medicated, the number of male vs female teachers, etc.

And have you read that study yet? You seemed so insistent to read a study, I thought you might have some comments about it.

But all you have to do is post a study showing statistical evidence of discrimination against the White Male and I promise I'll read it with an open mind. I have somewhat of a background in statistics and economics and I enjoy reading about those subjects.

But if "I only want to read a study and consider no other facts". What should we "believe" other than studies? A few anecdotes? If there are some systemic issues caused by government policies - and there are plenty with the criminal justice system - I'm all for reform. Reforming the criminal justice system is about less government not more.

Do these questions come up in Presidential campaigns? Are they debated in Congress? Is there any funding to address these issues? Are there massive organized protests calling for change?

The wage gap is smaller than the education gap, and in that case the answer to all these questions is "Yes".

There are some people working to bring attention to these issues, but they've had limited success and face quite a bit of opposition.

But you haven't just been talking about unfairness in the criminal justice system. You have also been arguing that the white male is being discriminated against in other parts of society - including the education system and the labor market.

But now you are claiming that there is discrimination against men because there are fewer male teachers? Most of the studies and surveys show women make less men partially because they choose professions that are more conducive to raising a family - like teachers. Most women I know who are teachers cite that as a reason that they became teachers - because their work schedules are aligned with their children's school schedules. Including having summers off.

Again, you are pointing to outcome without showing any links to a correlation between discrimination and the outcome. If you really want to change policy based on statistics and outcome, you would be arguing more in favor of wealth being redistributed to minorities and women - no I'm not arguing that.

I'm also arguing that working class men of all races, not only white, are suffering because manufacturing jobs have left America. In fact, whole communities, men and women of all races suffering because of that. Meanwhile we see how much the presence of manufacturing jobs in China is fueling whole communities.

I think both of those factors contributed to Trump's success.

The conversation also strayed to systematic discrimination against men in education, the justice system, and social support, but I don't think this has much to do with Trump's success.

Typically these are studies that are trying to find bias against women, by anonymising hiring processes. Replacing names on CVs, even voice masking. What they discover instead is that anonymising hiring makes outcomes better for men not women, and then the studies and the anonymisation is canned.

Like here:

http://blog.interviewing.io/we-built-voice-modulation-to-mas...

But there are others. There were some studies in Australia on this. You can search for them quite easily.

If not, what you just said is pure whataboutism.

It's also incorrect. People on this very page are arguing that conservative speech shouldn't be protected because of the existence of those extremists.

If you can find studies showing - that controlling for all other variables - that white males are being discriminated against and that it is caused by discrimination, I'm all eyes.

Just like I said about the wage gap between men and women. Most of the studies I've seen reported even by places with a more liberal bent is that the wage gap can in large part be attributed to women choosing less demanding careers that allow them to spend more time taking care of kids. It's not being caused by disctimination.

Can you show from studies that the outcomes you described are being caused by discrimination?