catdograbbit

I believe it. The most extraordinary evidence of this is the gay rights movement. They've adopted "Love Wins" as their slogan, but then refuse to even interact with people who may not support them (i.e: Mike Pence). Clearly, they don't believe their own propaganda.

If that was the case, you wouldn't need to suppress the ideas, but rather counter them with the evidence of their past failure.

One example is the idea that the gender imbalance in tech could be caused by population-level differences between the genders. This is what Damore was arguing for and got fired for.

All of these things have only minor impact on the average citizen. Trump's tax cuts have already done way more for the average tech worker than anything Hillary was proposing.

No, he isn't. Democrats said the same thing about Bush, and they're saying the same thing about Pence. Anybody with an R next to their name would get the same backlash if they were president.

How do you define what is and isn't a loot box? Elements of chance are a fact of life. If you remove them from games, video games will be indistinguishable from movies.

Is this relevant to the linked article at all or are you just finding any excuse available to push your politics?

> I remember reading in a similar article that many "classical-liberal" types think that the wage-gap between man and woman may be caused by the fact that woman are naturally less competitive. Meaning that they are less careerist. This is of course a failure of meritocracy, in the same way that charisma often trumps skill at a job (which is the big problem for anti social men).

How is this a failure of the meritocracy? To me, this is the meritocracy working correctly and succeeding. A competitive person will naturally work harder to improve their skills because they have a greater desire to be the best. In a true meritocracy, you'd expect them to outperform less competitive people.