IT is the cause of rising income and wealth inequality since the 1970s [pdf]

Can you prove this? I'm curious. I don't entirely disagree, but I sure would love verification.

I think that whole thing about "unconscious bias" is very real, and it's quite fair to rigorously examine our biases and accept constructive criticism of them. There's also a matter of perception lagging behind reality, and reality being difficult to assess because of availability biases.

> But that doesn't stop people from continuing to paint us specifically with too broad a brush,

Deep apologies for going so far on a tangent here, but I'd like to encourage you to step back from these for a moment.

Firstly, don't be that person and allegations aimed at said people don't really apply to you? If you accidentally behave in a way that lines up with these allegations, then own it, accept the censure, identify what steps you'll take to correct yourself then execute on them.

> I think it's because they have an issue with us personally, and that's probably due to negative stereotypes about "geeks".

I'm sure that there is a bit of this still lingering in the world, but by-and-large the stereotyping about "geeks" has ended. Geeks rule the damn world. Geeks dominate the news cycle. In terms of combating anti-intellectualism? We're winning that handily.

Here's the part where I sorta agree with your previous statement, even if I wouldn't bet the whole farm on it:

One of the reasons that the extreme-conservative-and-extreme-liberal rhetoric is amplifying so much lately is that fact-and-experiment-driven flexibility is actually gaining so much cultural mindshare from more dogmatic methods of thinking. This empirical method is decried by both sides of the aisle as "centrism" or painted as anti-humanist. I don't believe it is, but such is the defense mechanism of those those thoughts. Examine the rhetoric of a "nationalist" or a "monarchist" or even a "communist"; exclusion is baked into their doctrine. It's why these ideas are so tenacious.

As these more dogmatic groups get backed further and further into corners, they seem outsized cultural impact more and more desperately to avoid the perception that they are in decline.

To this end, enduring slings and arrows while focusing on doing the right and fair thing, with an eye towards incremental improvement, is exactly what folks attacking our community hate us doing. Part of the reason they're eager to amplify our failures at self-policing is because they're flustered by the fact that for the most part the valley has calmly agreed that the current situation is in fact illegal and untenable and started taking steps to correct it.

These steps can't happen overnight, nor can they be "one simple thing." We both know that. But dogmatic thought thrives on the notion that if you just listen and do whatever they say (often without any pre-planning at all) then it'll all go away.

Looping this all back around to the topic, it's up to us to figure out how to use the power-disparity we're developing (and that's precisely what a difference is technology is) to make the world a better place. Criticism needs to be in our lives to remind us that we're shaping things that can affect generations and generations to come.

After the limited time I've spent in my life paying attention to this, I'm not assuming any job, including my own, is safe from automation.

> Historically, farm laborers whose jobs disappeared went to the cities and started working in factories or learned a trade.

And that is the difference, except this time the cities jobs are being automated and there's no where left to go, as even the farms don't need nearly so many people. And yes there's certainly an argument to be made for the trades which I'm sure are (mostly) safe from automation for awhile, but not forever, and there's a limited pool of people who are skilled enough to do those jobs, and even past that is a limited availability of those jobs, AND AFTER THAT is the fact that as more and more former factory workers, truck drivers, and coal miners all sign on to be plumbers, electricians, etc. all of which are needed that the supply of those workers will explode and the wage they make will therefore shrink.

> Agreed, but my argument is that if those are the only two choices, we're doomed. Basically, you're saying society will, in the fairly near future, end up stagnant--all important jobs will be automated and all of the humans will just sit around watching soap operas (except, perhaps, for the small number of humans who oversee the automation).

That't not at all what I said: I said we should have a system in place for that certain group of people who have nothing to contribute, because there's nothing wrong with that. The alternative to feeding and clothing them in their homes is to feed and clothe them in prison, and the former doesn't enrich private prisons and we don't need to pay for guards, not to mention the ethical cost involved in the current situation which is mass incarceration.

I'm saying, by virtue of being born, you should be fed, clothed, and sheltered because we can do that and the notion that we simply shouldn't so Mark Zuckerburg can have a fifth house is I'm sorry, a DISGUSTING idea to me.

> I would put this differently. I would say that the idea that someone could receive a basic living without producing anything that improves anyone's lives is offensive to huge numbers of people. And it should be.

Why is that offensive? With what we currently spend on defense, we could feed, house, and clothe every homeless person in the United States with Gucci bags, mansions and caviar. Why is it so important that we not? And if you cannot answer without citing tradition or work ethic or something equally arbitrary and archaic, then I'm sorry but I'm not convinced.

Up to whom? Yes, you get to decide what improves your own life. But you don't get to decide what improves someone else's life.

The ensuing dissonance upon understanding this punishment is what encourages our low voter participation rates, as well as hyper-partisan politics, tribalism. In addition, there's a pervasive "government sucks" that contemplating a state by state change in voting law, and it would have to be state by state, seems like dark comedy. It would take a lot of political committment way beyond that of voting 3rd party to fix the problem we have in the American political system. Americans are politically lazy, content to not vote, or vote 3rd party, and suffer the inevitable result, engage in political denialism, than the critical thinking required to fix it.

The effect of closed primary elections also enhances this tribalism and discourse problem. It's maybe 8-12% of the total eligible electorate that get a presidential primary candidate the nomination for the two major parties.

Both major political parties sabotaged the Electoral College by stacking it with party loyalists rather than, you know, smart people or even contemplative people or even randomly selected citizens. We could hardly do worse choosing dead people for Electors.

A case to watch is Gill vs Whitford before the Supreme Court next year.