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

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.

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.

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).

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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 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"?

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.

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?