This is a liberal group. Liberals don't usually support Republicans. This is news? Partisanship has to do with parties that are openly supported, not general political preferences.

Can you name any of these alleged "business-friendly" policies that blue states lack and that might have actually been relevant to Google's decision? How about the NYC- or Chicago-specific "red tape" that would have impacted them?

They're talking about the Heritage Foundation's 1989 proposal, later supported by Orrin Hatch in 1993, revised again in 1994.

Also available at less truthy sources in more detail.

It doesn't inherently require anything! That's not what that word means. Writing the word "inherently" inherently requires using the letter "E". You might think that it's a piss-poor argument if you don't have the right reasons for having an opinion, but others might think differently. That's an argument to be had about the validity of generalizations, not GamerGate.

And at the same time, if you have to interpret others' words in a certain way in order to validate your argument, you're probably doing it wrong.

Just wanted to dissect one of the claims you're making:

Lots of people claim lots of things. The KKK called themselves Christian, Lenin said he was working on the behalf of the proletariat, etc. Not necessarily relevant.

And this is precisely why I say the term "authoritarian" is warranted in these cases (assuming they're true), regardless of whatever small-L libertarian ideals they claim. These are people who clearly agree firmly with the right to dictate orthodoxy to others, no dialogue necessary.

Let me see here... rabtech said:

And then you translated that as:

And then:

Somehow became:

(Emphases mine, of course.) Is there some secret way to reinterpret these lines that I'm missing?

Just because it's been used that way by certain wingnuts doesn't mean that's what it means in a general academic context.

(Whenever anyone says something along the lines of "racism against white people is denied by leftists", though, I do wonder what they think racism is and why those who study it, of all races, consider white-on-black racism to be sui generis when it comes to American race relations.)

How about "authoritarian leftist" then? Nice and neutral, and if they dispute the first part, it can open up a dialogue about what freedom actually means in a pluralistic society in which they don't automatically get to be right about everything. Everybody wins.

While it is admirable that you are using the foil in a manner that gives it more functionality than it would if you were to use it as a hat, I worry that the underlying motives are the same either way.

Hm, interesting. I guess I missed out on the earlier arguments, and a lot of the rhetoric is confusing to someone who hasn't been involved in the debate. I can't say that either team looks from the sidelines like they're arguing in good faith.

I'll have to look into the sociologist quote you mentioned. It's nice to see some actual research on this sort of stuff instead of assumptions about people's motives. That said, I don't understand how you can dismiss out of hand the idea that the culture of, say, software developers or gamers in the US (there is a culture, isn't there?) might include more sexists or contain an ideology that allows for sexism more so than other fields. I mean, couldn't that be possible of any field, any culture? I don't see how anyone could say there exists a culture that doesn't have something that sucks significantly about it, and that includes those that we love and couldn't feel in our place without.

I don't even know what that means! WTF are you talking about, seriously?

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I have no sympathy whatsoever with the whiners that get all defensive when the topic of women in tech comes up, and it's not because I give one shit about whether someone self-identifies as a nerd or not. (Why does anyone?) It's because I've never seen a good argument for your side. I see article after article with statistics, hypotheses, anecdotes — some valid, some spurious — and all I see as a counterargument is mindless invective clearly preaching to the choir.

One other thing I definitely don't have any sympathy for (and again, only speaking for myself) is crappy debate. So where are the arguments that are actually intended to persuade those with an open ear? If I sound critical, it's only because I've yet to see a single post on here complaining about alleged bias on gender-related stuff in tech that sounds like it's from someone open to debate. I've heard plenty of talk from your side about men being men, so why don't you man up already and prove yourself right?

What if you're actually wrong, though? If that were the case, then wouldn't it be worth it if one day you actually changed your mind?

Never mind that, in any case — why are you bitching instead of trying to persuade people you're right? Where's the forthright, manly debate? You don't sound like you're ready to back your side up. Why not?

"Troll" sometimes just means "ripostes in a way that makes me feel stupid"

Got a study to back that up (the whole thing, causality and all, of course), or are you just pulling that assertion out your ass?