E Pur Si Muove

I don't, I was going for "things everyone, pretty much everywhere, accept as evil".

>but it's ridiculous to describe 'people criticizing me on the Internet for what I say' to 'censorship'.

First of all it's not "people criticizing me", it's "people applying a detramental label to me". And, no it's not (yet) government sanctioned censorship but I'm sure you realize it has an effect of shutting down the discussion.

>and to allow them to advocate for others doing the same. What exactly do you mean by 'mobbing'?

But in modern times with social media, I think we need to begin to realize that this is too much power for individuals to have. Anyone can simply decide that someone is bad for any reason and all and then advocate for others to get them fired, boycott their business, etc. To apply these kinds of consequences to people used to require going through the justice system.

>Are you really going to compare online speech to physical violence?

That's not what I was talking about here. I was describing a case where a group of people started deciding what kind of speach was ok and how that turned out. If there were brown shirts today they wouldn't engage in those tactics, they'd probably get lots of online accounts to brow beat and shut down any conversation they don't like. It would probably be even more effective than trying to go beat everyone into submission.

>How do you determine which of those are 'unambiguously evil'?

I go with well established societal consensus.

My "hypothesis" is that without trying to eliminate the cultural factors, we'll never be able to actually measure how strongly the alleged biological factors affect behavior. So no, my hypothesis doesn't explain anything, because it doesn't try to.

> And our culture has changed a hell of a lot.

Our academic scientific culture is barely 200 years old. Female participation in academic culture is way younger than that, with most of the earlier examples (like Marie Curie) being known as "weirdos" in their time because they didn't behave like "normal women". Our current cultural system is thousands of years old, yet you expect that the last 100 years of science to have fixed all disparities accrued over millennia. Doesn't sound very realistic.

> Why is it so implausible to you that it's biology?

Why is it implausible to you that it is culture, when there are reams of data showing that different cultures perform differently? You are cherrypicking data that supports your thesis and completely ignoring everything else. Why?

Notice that even the paper you link is hedging when making the claim: "In contrast, gender differences in interests appear to be consistent across cultures and over time, a finding that suggests possible biologic influences." But you, somehow, are 100% sure. Weird. Makes me think you have an agenda first, and look for evidence to back it up second, just like Damore did.

Workers can't afford to buy the products and businesses lose demand in a downward spiral.

That's what worked about the New Deal. If capitalist's want to continue getting to be capitalists, they have to sacrifice large amounts of profit to the common good. They still get to be wealthier than every one else, just by a smaller amount.

I really just consider life extension a wealthy vanity project. All of them contribute some money to defeating death, just in case...It really makes you think you should be in the business of promising immortality to wealthy people.

The victimization complex Trump supporters seem to have internalized is such a bizarre thing.

This is a basic scientific question. It has nothing to do with politics. You accuse me of "having an agenda" just because I disagree with you. You accuse damore of being "alt right" and defend his firing, just because he believes a relatively uncontroversial scientific claim. You accuse me of "cherrypicking data" when I've done nothing of the sort. Yet apparently cherrypicking a few random countries with different stats to support your bizarre culture theory is fine. But as I've shown your model doesn't make any sense of the data either, which apparently isn't a problem for you.

What even is your theory? Yeah, it's "culture", sure. But what predictions does that make? How can it be disproved?

If I show, for example, that there's the same percentage of female computer science graduates as female tech workers, does that disprove it? Does your theory predict that? "But the sexism is happening before the industry then." Ok.

So what about the same percentage of female high schoolers interested in computer science as female computer science majors. Does your theory predict that? "The sexism is happening before then."

Well we can go back to middle school. Hell let's go back to early childhood, and we find boys and girls show strong preferences for different kinds of toys. That seems pretty damning for your theory to me.

But that's far from the only evidence. Does your model predict neurological differences between male and female brains? That doesn't make any sense if all differences must be explained by culture.

>Female participation in academic culture is way younger than that, with most of the earlier examples (like Marie Curie) being known as "weirdos" in their time because they didn't behave like "normal women"

Exactly! 160 years ago women were excluded from many areas. There were no women doctors, few women at universities, no women lawyers, etc.

Now, in 2017, we've reversed all that. There are more women getting university educations than men! They make up 51% of law students, 50% of medical students, 75% of psychology majors, etc, etc. And yet in engineering they make up 20%. And it's been that way, consistently, for decades. And shows no signs of changing even as culture continues to change.

Think about this. It makes no sense to your theory. Why should culture change so quickly for every other area but engineering.

(And also why the double standard of caring so much about gender ratios in engineering, and not any other area like psychology or university in general?)