Your message to women is seriously to tell them to stay out of business?
No, my message is for anyone to walk out of individual business deals where the other side behaves unprofessionally. Same way I and others deal with any other problems in business deals or employment.
Here's an idea instead: why don't we shame and fire the assholes and let the women actually do the jobs they want and are qualified for?
Good idea! The way we "fire assholes" in business is to walk out on deals with them. If you provide something valuable to them, it's the biggest punishment you can dole out.
It would appear that the toxic, immature, masculinity came first. I haven't seen toxic and immature femininity established yet
Neither came first, they simply are part of mammalian biology. Furthermore, the progressive approach seems to be to take biologically female behaviors (like cooperation, risk avoidance, conflict avoidance, negotiation) as the norm and force men to conform, which simply isn't going to work.
But your main complaint is that you don't want to be on the recieving end. And you're saying this complaint where the complaint has good evidence backing it up.
No, my main point is that I don't want to work with these people, men or women, because they are behaving like immature children, have poor judgment, and are unable to handle conflict maturely. And there is indeed good evidence to back that up.
If you refuse to analyse something then it's impossible to make reasoned decisions about it.
I am analyzing it, you just refuse to listen and keep making it personal. And the analysis that the Kalanick and Caldbeck and Fowler and Wang and most of the other people involved in these scandals are progressives living in an area where the social norms are that sex without any sort of commitment is considered socially normal and acceptable. It should be obvious that such an environment produces widespread sexual harassment, among many other problems.
Abuse of position of power in Caldbeck's case.
What "power" does Caldbeck have? He's not like a politician using state troopers to procure women for him, he is a VC with money, that's all. The women simply have bruised egos because Caldbeck said, in effect, "your ideas aren't that great, but I'll hire you as a high priced hooker instead".
You are criticizing me for not publicly posting comments on slashdot admonishing Bill Clinton
I'm not criticizing you; you're just some left wing Brit. I'm saying that Silicon Valley was fine with Bill and Hillary's misconduct, which is inconsistent with now making a big deal about VCs or bosses propositioning employees. In fact, Kalanick and Caldbeck themselves appear to have been raised in progressive environments and appear to have been Hillary supporters.
So why is it always the "happily" married conservatives who get caught with a rent boy in an airport bathrooms then? It's quite astonishing you seem to believe that conservatives are less likely to have affairs.
I didn't make any arguments about "likelihood". You're stuck on the false dichotomy that a society needs to be either politically and morally conservative, or politically and morally liberal/libertine. What you don't see is that for a society to work well with permissive laws, people need to choose to be in control of their urges. Obviously, in Silicon Valley, there is a culture that celebrates people giving in to their urges, and in addition to a lot of fun sex, that also produces people like Caldbeck and Kalanick. You can't have one without the other. That doesn't mean that I think the laws should become less permissive, it means that I think people should vote with their feet and just avoid places and people like that.
What a person does is the responsibility of that person. If you act like a jerk,
Look, I believe that Caldbeck and Kalanick acted like jerks because I believe men and women should not have sex outside of marriage, hence propositioning women for sex is clearly beyond the bounds of proper behavior. On the other hand, from a conservative point of view, asking people out for coffee or dinner is fine because there are no expectations of sex associated with such invitations. Of course, men and women do engage in premarital sex, but it's simply not something that conservatives are concerned with protecting or analyzing, and for either men or women the remedy is simple: you decline.
The progressive view, on the other hand, is evidently that men and women can have sex pretty much whenever both sides agree to it and that this is something that society needs to be concerned with protecting. Heck, society is even subsidizing it by paying for abortions, child services, and STD treatments. Obviously, progressives also have no problem with people in authority propositioning subordinates for sex, since neither Bill Clinton nor Ellen Pao got ostracized for it. Yet, under some ill-defined set of circumstances, men propositioning women for sex is a grave sin in your world view and requires more of a remedy than a simple "no thanks".
So, it's clear why I object to Caldbeck and Kalanick's behavior, but on what principled basis do you object to what Caldbeck and Kalanick did? It seems to be no different from what a lot of other progressives have done without being called "jerks" by you.
So basically, this woman made some now pretty substantiated complaints about Uber but now you're complaining about her on her because according to you, she's formed a mean girl clique
There is no "now" about it: I have been clear that I find complaining about your prior employer in a public blog unprofessional.
Bro, I gotta say it, you seem to have a real problem with women.
It has nothing to do with gender. I find you as unprofessional as Fowler since you take the same stupid political positions.
LOL! You think anyone actually has "financial privacy" from the government? Good one.
Well, Americans used to have financial privacy, and that's what we need to return on.
Then let's just aim for less corrupt.
However, you are aiming for more corrupt.
I've made no such claim, I simply stated you have written off the possibility of a better system than the current one without exception. I'm not looking for a perfect solution, I'm just looking for a better solution than we have.
And despite all your hot air, you haven't proposed anything. Zilch. Nada.
If medical care is completely privatized then who will pay for the people who cannot afford healthcare?
Well, there are many ways of answering that question, but the simplest way is that the poor pay for it, like everybody else. After all, they get a lot of cash benefits (social security, unemployment insurance, EITC, etc.). Places like Chile have about the same life expectancy as the US, but spend only about $100/month/person on healthcare. If we allow modern technology and business to drive down costs, instead of maintaining the overregulated, centrally planned system we have, we can probably get that down further.
Do you think the poor should just "die in the streets" because they cannot afford the medical treatment they need to live?
If you look at life expectancy by per capita healthcare spending, you'll see that beyond the level that Israel or Korea spend, spending more money on healthcare doesn't make people live longer or healthier; if anything, the opposite.
If we want to get our life expectancy and level of health up, we ought to cut back on healthcare spending.
Because tracing money like that means pretty much a complete loss of financial privacy.
You're making the implication that it's impossible to have non-corrupt politicians.
I certainly do. It's basic political science.
No, I'm saying you have already discounted all possibilities before knowing what they are.
This may surprise you, but we are not the first people to talk about this. There is philosophy and political science going back centuries. Your claim that you have a solution that nobody else has thought of before is the equivalent of claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, and until you supply that, can be safely discounted.
Well, in my response, I didn't take that into account because it wasn't in his original statement (RTFA).
It's amazing, when a guy publicly does something wrong and it's noted by women, armies of white knights such as yourself rush to his defence
I'm not "rushing to his defence". I think Caldbeck is a creep, just like Kalanick. What I'm pointing out is that they are typical products of progressive educational and social environments. Caldbeck is a married, Harvard-educated lawyer. Kalanick is a UCLA educated enginer who vocally opposed Trump, and he had a female "partner" throughout that affair.
And what are these creeps doing and what are their (presumably) progressive wives doing about it? Pretty much the same thing that Bill Clinton and Anthony Wiener were doing for years and years to other women, with Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin enabling it. After all, demanding a committed marriage from your husband and insisting on marital fidelity is just that silly, icky conservative stuff that progressives have long outgrown.
What you're seeing in Silicon Valley is progressive men and women utterly unable to relate to each other. Oddly, though, progressives weren't calling for Bill Clinton's head when he was engaging in much worse crap than this.
1) it doesn't matter what laws you make, if they aren't enforced then they are just words on a page. This is a simple fact, not a false premise.
That's correct. Your false premise is that the kinds of laws you envision are enforceable in a free society. They are not.
politicians get into power not by donations but it makes it much easier. in return they make laws that will ensure future [power]
Correct. And the essential link between donations and getting into power is people like you, namely people who advocate things like campaign finace reform and public financing of healthcare, because both of those give more and more power to corrupt politicians.
Like many people who make your kind of proposals, you believe that if you only reform government enough, then the corrupt politicians will be replaced by honest politicians. You already said as much. That's a delusion, as both history and political science have shown time and again.
Why would I bother when you have already told me your response to them?
So you're saying that I correctly anticipated your implicit proposal, have responded to it, and you lack good arguments to counter my response.
then you aren't serious about solving any problems
The way to solve problems, including political corruption, is to reduce the size and power of government.
You, instead, want to increase the size and power of government. That makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Except there's plenty of evidence for Fowler's accusations.... So either your post is utterly nonsensical
You reason as if there were a bad bunch of men and if you only punish and ostracize them enough then things will be alright for women. It won't, any more than affordable housing programs in Silicon Valley make housing affordable, or high taxes in San Francisco reduce income inequality, or inner city gun control reduces homicide rates, or Planned Parenthood reduces single parenthood.
that you too might have accusations made against you and lose your job.
Like anybody with skills, I don't worry about losing my job. I worry about wasting my time and effort on a company that spirals down the social justice drain because the men can't keep it in their pants and the women form their mean girl cliques.
I'm sorry, let me spell it out: there was no demand for this kind of product. That is, people didn't buy it because it was a bad product, people didn't buy it because it was the wrong product.
All this before ever asking how it could be fixed.
As I was saying, you're free to state your idea any time you like. We're still stuck on some of your false premises, like The key part to laws is having them enforced. and Politicians get into power because of large, corrupt campaign donations.
goes straight to blaming an opposing political ideology
You bet: I go straight to blaming progressivism, just like I go straight to blaming faith healing and homeopathy.
Writing blog posts about how awful your past employer was is not professional behavior, not matter whether the reason was bad pay, homophobia, or a horny boss.
here's a free bit of advice: stop behaving unprofessionally and you'll be fine.
Good advice. You should heed it since you obviously have trouble with it.
But you haven't been working in large organizations anyway, have you?
Right so your point is that (a) the women are telling the truth and (b) you're afraid they'll acccuse you. You are literally copping to being a harasser.
No, what I am afraid of people will lob around suspicions of me being a harasser with zero evidence, merely based on differing political views and disapproval of the behavior of the women. Just like you are doing.
Thanks for demonstrating so nicely what we are talking about. That is why people with your kinds of political views are best avoided, whether you have a dick or not.
Or men could just learn to control their urges. Why is that such a radical thought?
I'm all for it. Unfortunately, that's hard to do in an environment in which large numbers of people claim that gender is merely a social construct and pretend that women and men are interchangeable.
And, of course, the problem isn't just that men fail to control their urges, it's that women fail to control their urges just as much.
Planned Parenthood is not a political organization. The ACLU is a human rights organization.
You must be joking, trying to claim that donations to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU arise from charitable impulses to help the poor. And you need to look up what PP and the ACLU actually do; a good look at their history would also be a good idea.
The big political donations are the GOP backing PAC's.
Because health care workers in the US blah blah blah
I.e., because of government price fixing, government regulation, and government-mandated monopolies.
You should both stop thinking there are quick fixes that the other side is evilly preventing. There aren't. Health care is going to continue to be expensive in the US.
Nowhere did I claim that there was a "quick fix". Returning to a free market is extremely hard after decades of nationalized health care and overregulation. However, Democrats are clearly taking us in the wrong direction, and Republicans are rudderless.
People probably aren't going to agree to any big changes either.
Actually, the simplest way of dealing with this is simply to let the existing system die on its own. That is, simply maintain payouts, employment, and services at current levels. Inflation and new technologies will take care of it, and people will gradually have to buy private supplementary insurance.
Look, you have contributed nothing substantive. You're obviously completely ignorant of these issues and just making things up as you go along.
Heck, you still seem to believe that political donations get politicians elected as if by magic.
As I was saying, ignorant people like you are the main cause of political corruption. The sooner you get yourself an education, the sooner you can stop being part of the problem.
That's rich. Since you have made this assertion without consideration to an alternative funding plan,
I have not only "considered" alternative funding plans, I have lived in countries that use them.
Right because that would be the kind of thing nobody would ever consider prohibiting.
People have tried those prohibitions and they don't work.
Now this I gotta hear. How could this possibly give incumbents a larger advantage?
If campaigns can't be financed privately anymore, then they need to get financed publicly and that is controlled by politicians. Politicians then put rules into place that make it difficult for challengers to get funding.
As Friedman put it:
[you assume] somehow that government is a way in which you put unselfish and ungreedy men in charge of selfish and greedy men. But government is an institution whereby the people who have the greatest drive to get power over their fellow men, get in a position of controlling them.
Slashdot Mirror
No, my message is for anyone to walk out of individual business deals where the other side behaves unprofessionally. Same way I and others deal with any other problems in business deals or employment.
Good idea! The way we "fire assholes" in business is to walk out on deals with them. If you provide something valuable to them, it's the biggest punishment you can dole out.
Neither came first, they simply are part of mammalian biology. Furthermore, the progressive approach seems to be to take biologically female behaviors (like cooperation, risk avoidance, conflict avoidance, negotiation) as the norm and force men to conform, which simply isn't going to work.
No, my main point is that I don't want to work with these people, men or women, because they are behaving like immature children, have poor judgment, and are unable to handle conflict maturely. And there is indeed good evidence to back that up.
I am analyzing it, you just refuse to listen and keep making it personal. And the analysis that the Kalanick and Caldbeck and Fowler and Wang and most of the other people involved in these scandals are progressives living in an area where the social norms are that sex without any sort of commitment is considered socially normal and acceptable. It should be obvious that such an environment produces widespread sexual harassment, among many other problems.
What "power" does Caldbeck have? He's not like a politician using state troopers to procure women for him, he is a VC with money, that's all. The women simply have bruised egos because Caldbeck said, in effect, "your ideas aren't that great, but I'll hire you as a high priced hooker instead".
I'm not criticizing you; you're just some left wing Brit. I'm saying that Silicon Valley was fine with Bill and Hillary's misconduct, which is inconsistent with now making a big deal about VCs or bosses propositioning employees. In fact, Kalanick and Caldbeck themselves appear to have been raised in progressive environments and appear to have been Hillary supporters.
I didn't make any arguments about "likelihood". You're stuck on the false dichotomy that a society needs to be either politically and morally conservative, or politically and morally liberal/libertine. What you don't see is that for a society to work well with permissive laws, people need to choose to be in control of their urges. Obviously, in Silicon Valley, there is a culture that celebrates people giving in to their urges, and in addition to a lot of fun sex, that also produces people like Caldbeck and Kalanick. You can't have one without the other. That doesn't mean that I think the laws should become less permissive, it means that I think people should vote with their feet and just avoid places and people like that.
You continue to prove that you are an ignorant bigot.
Fortunately, America seems to go in a different direction from where you desire.
Look, I believe that Caldbeck and Kalanick acted like jerks because I believe men and women should not have sex outside of marriage, hence propositioning women for sex is clearly beyond the bounds of proper behavior. On the other hand, from a conservative point of view, asking people out for coffee or dinner is fine because there are no expectations of sex associated with such invitations. Of course, men and women do engage in premarital sex, but it's simply not something that conservatives are concerned with protecting or analyzing, and for either men or women the remedy is simple: you decline.
The progressive view, on the other hand, is evidently that men and women can have sex pretty much whenever both sides agree to it and that this is something that society needs to be concerned with protecting. Heck, society is even subsidizing it by paying for abortions, child services, and STD treatments. Obviously, progressives also have no problem with people in authority propositioning subordinates for sex, since neither Bill Clinton nor Ellen Pao got ostracized for it. Yet, under some ill-defined set of circumstances, men propositioning women for sex is a grave sin in your world view and requires more of a remedy than a simple "no thanks".
So, it's clear why I object to Caldbeck and Kalanick's behavior, but on what principled basis do you object to what Caldbeck and Kalanick did? It seems to be no different from what a lot of other progressives have done without being called "jerks" by you.
There is no "now" about it: I have been clear that I find complaining about your prior employer in a public blog unprofessional.
It has nothing to do with gender. I find you as unprofessional as Fowler since you take the same stupid political positions.
Well, Americans used to have financial privacy, and that's what we need to return on.
However, you are aiming for more corrupt.
And despite all your hot air, you haven't proposed anything. Zilch. Nada.
Well, there are many ways of answering that question, but the simplest way is that the poor pay for it, like everybody else. After all, they get a lot of cash benefits (social security, unemployment insurance, EITC, etc.). Places like Chile have about the same life expectancy as the US, but spend only about $100/month/person on healthcare. If we allow modern technology and business to drive down costs, instead of maintaining the overregulated, centrally planned system we have, we can probably get that down further.
If you look at life expectancy by per capita healthcare spending, you'll see that beyond the level that Israel or Korea spend, spending more money on healthcare doesn't make people live longer or healthier; if anything, the opposite.
If we want to get our life expectancy and level of health up, we ought to cut back on healthcare spending.
Because tracing money like that means pretty much a complete loss of financial privacy.
I certainly do. It's basic political science.
This may surprise you, but we are not the first people to talk about this. There is philosophy and political science going back centuries. Your claim that you have a solution that nobody else has thought of before is the equivalent of claiming to have invented a perpetual motion machine. It's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary proof, and until you supply that, can be safely discounted.
Well, in my response, I didn't take that into account because it wasn't in his original statement (RTFA).
I'm not "rushing to his defence". I think Caldbeck is a creep, just like Kalanick. What I'm pointing out is that they are typical products of progressive educational and social environments. Caldbeck is a married, Harvard-educated lawyer. Kalanick is a UCLA educated enginer who vocally opposed Trump, and he had a female "partner" throughout that affair.
And what are these creeps doing and what are their (presumably) progressive wives doing about it? Pretty much the same thing that Bill Clinton and Anthony Wiener were doing for years and years to other women, with Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin enabling it. After all, demanding a committed marriage from your husband and insisting on marital fidelity is just that silly, icky conservative stuff that progressives have long outgrown.
What you're seeing in Silicon Valley is progressive men and women utterly unable to relate to each other. Oddly, though, progressives weren't calling for Bill Clinton's head when he was engaging in much worse crap than this.
That's correct. Your false premise is that the kinds of laws you envision are enforceable in a free society. They are not.
Correct. And the essential link between donations and getting into power is people like you, namely people who advocate things like campaign finace reform and public financing of healthcare, because both of those give more and more power to corrupt politicians.
Like many people who make your kind of proposals, you believe that if you only reform government enough, then the corrupt politicians will be replaced by honest politicians. You already said as much. That's a delusion, as both history and political science have shown time and again.
So you're saying that I correctly anticipated your implicit proposal, have responded to it, and you lack good arguments to counter my response.
The way to solve problems, including political corruption, is to reduce the size and power of government.
You, instead, want to increase the size and power of government. That makes you part of the problem, not part of the solution.
You reason as if there were a bad bunch of men and if you only punish and ostracize them enough then things will be alright for women. It won't, any more than affordable housing programs in Silicon Valley make housing affordable, or high taxes in San Francisco reduce income inequality, or inner city gun control reduces homicide rates, or Planned Parenthood reduces single parenthood.
Like anybody with skills, I don't worry about losing my job. I worry about wasting my time and effort on a company that spirals down the social justice drain because the men can't keep it in their pants and the women form their mean girl cliques.
I'm sorry, let me spell it out: there was no demand for this kind of product. That is, people didn't buy it because it was a bad product, people didn't buy it because it was the wrong product.
That's not why it failed. It failed because there was next to no demand.
As I was saying, you're free to state your idea any time you like. We're still stuck on some of your false premises, like The key part to laws is having them enforced. and Politicians get into power because of large, corrupt campaign donations.
You bet: I go straight to blaming progressivism, just like I go straight to blaming faith healing and homeopathy.
Writing blog posts about how awful your past employer was is not professional behavior, not matter whether the reason was bad pay, homophobia, or a horny boss.
Good advice. You should heed it since you obviously have trouble with it.
But you haven't been working in large organizations anyway, have you?
No, what I am afraid of people will lob around suspicions of me being a harasser with zero evidence, merely based on differing political views and disapproval of the behavior of the women. Just like you are doing.
Thanks for demonstrating so nicely what we are talking about. That is why people with your kinds of political views are best avoided, whether you have a dick or not.
I'm all for it. Unfortunately, that's hard to do in an environment in which large numbers of people claim that gender is merely a social construct and pretend that women and men are interchangeable.
And, of course, the problem isn't just that men fail to control their urges, it's that women fail to control their urges just as much.
You must be joking, trying to claim that donations to Planned Parenthood and the ACLU arise from charitable impulses to help the poor. And you need to look up what PP and the ACLU actually do; a good look at their history would also be a good idea.
You need a reality check.
I.e., because of government price fixing, government regulation, and government-mandated monopolies.
Nowhere did I claim that there was a "quick fix". Returning to a free market is extremely hard after decades of nationalized health care and overregulation. However, Democrats are clearly taking us in the wrong direction, and Republicans are rudderless.
Actually, the simplest way of dealing with this is simply to let the existing system die on its own. That is, simply maintain payouts, employment, and services at current levels. Inflation and new technologies will take care of it, and people will gradually have to buy private supplementary insurance.
When you actually have a new idea, be sure to communicate it!
Look, you have contributed nothing substantive. You're obviously completely ignorant of these issues and just making things up as you go along.
Heck, you still seem to believe that political donations get politicians elected as if by magic.
As I was saying, ignorant people like you are the main cause of political corruption. The sooner you get yourself an education, the sooner you can stop being part of the problem.
We narrowly avoided this crap in the last election, because one of the candidates was hell-bent to follow European models.
I have not only "considered" alternative funding plans, I have lived in countries that use them.
People have tried those prohibitions and they don't work.
If campaigns can't be financed privately anymore, then they need to get financed publicly and that is controlled by politicians. Politicians then put rules into place that make it difficult for challengers to get funding.
As Friedman put it: