> Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.
> Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role.
> Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race
> Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap.
> males are biologically disposable
> We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression.
> political correctness, which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause
Copy/paste any of those into an r/MensRights thread and you'll fit right in.
[0] https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-di...
Well... https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6sa9f6/google_f...
EDIT: Actually, it's unfair to say "the internet at large." HN, reddit, and twitter all seem to be taking the news in unique ways.
Person A thinks X.
Person B who belongs a group the blue tribe hates also thinks X.
Therefore person A is a bad person because they agree with person B about X.
We have failed to prove that the group person B belongs to is actually bad and not just an exercise in signaling and we are also trying to smear person A by saying they agree with some other completely unrelated person who may belong to a distasteful group. Additionally X can still be correct and both people can be distasteful, but it wont change the fact that X is correct.
Sorry if I am not being clear, it's been a long day.
Basically, you might think about one thing as 'moral fashion' and another as 'social good', but you are really comparing two fashions and pretending to be objective.
To make a concrete example out of the situation in front of us: if there is proof that diverse companies perform better (https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter) then his reasoning about how diversity initiatives are wasteful must be incorrect.
So to say that he is 'correct' means to turn your back on empirical argument, and to base things in identity politics.
In answer to the rest of your comment, it's anybody's guess and nobody agrees why. Maybe the stat is wrong, maybe the sexism is just that rampant, maybe the women-only candidate pool is inadequate (small), maybe there is a performance difference, etc.
Absolutely not true. There are many other possible reasons for such a correlation. A few examples:
It's possible better-performing companies could attract more non-white applicants.
Or, that better-performing companies could be have extra resources, which they then spend on diversity initiatives, where poor-performing companies are desperate to survive.
Or the independent variable: Being in the Valley makes companies perform better, and also makes them want to hire more non-whites, but these are both independent outcomes simply caused by being in the Valley. In this scenario, it's even possible that diversity harms performance, but the effect is more than compensated for by being in the Valley.
Or, it could be random chance; outcomes are dominated by a few high-performing companies, which just happen to be genetically diverse.
Or any of many other possible connections and confounders. This is really basic stuff.
I feel like the suspicious thing is that people didn't react in this way.
Why was this not a glaring problem that his supporters rushed in to answer?
If I told you I had an elegant model for some chemical reactions and could predict, say, the thermal energy released in an experiment, you might look at the model and think it's great.
If it doesn't match what is measured in the real world, then it's possible the model is correct: could be an environmental factor or a problem with the apparatus etc. But I need to answer questions around the gap between prediction and reality, rather than to rely on my perceptions of the elegance of the model.
That's where I think this veers off into identity politics.
You don't get to avoid discussion[4] about those subtitled points by retreating to some kind of invented safe space here. Out with it. Is he right?
[1] He is.
[2] He has.
[3] It is.
[4] Yeah, I'm just asserting without evidence too. But only to avoid the pointless flames that result.
[1] https://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/pinker.slides.html
"What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed."
[1] http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html