Why is the tech sector so left wing when it's mostly made up of white males?

Why is the tech sector so left wing when it's mostly made up of white males?

Other urls found in this thread:

wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/
youtube.com/watch?v=EI9D526TApY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because people who work in technology are smarter than the average person.

jewish leadership

>Why is the tech sector so left wing when it's mostly made up of white males?

Because the tech sector used to be "merit based" a concept that used to appeal to liberals. But that ideology warped into quota hires, Affirmative Action, & acceptable selective racism.

sheltered white upper middle class males are usually the most easily conditioned into that kind of thinking thanks to a perfect storm of guilt and arrogance that makes them feel the need to act on the behalf of lesser races and peoples

>But that ideology warped into quota hires, Affirmative Action, & acceptable selective racism.

Modern day Silicon Valley does not represent all tech. Silicon Valley is its own special bubble of unawareness...

Essentially, Sillicon Valley is the 1%-5% now.

Yeah all those engineers, doctors, lawyers, trade workers, they're all fucking idiots m8.

All of corporate America is this way. Protip: It's not as much an ideology, as it is a thinly veiled way to protect their asses in court. Nobody truly believes this shit.

>Why is the tech sector so left wing

Don't conflate left-wing ideology with American liberalism, aka neoconservatism.

>when it's mostly made up of white males?

Are you implying that white males can't hold left-wing (or neocon/liberal) stances?

You sicken me, OP.

>it is a thinly veiled way to protect their asses in court
And to get cheap labor.

I remember reading that STEM students lean conservative.
Corporations like importing pajeets to be their slaves, they like promoting homosexuality because it gives them a new market to pander to, they want women to earn more money because they'll spend it away and give it back to the corporations faster. I wouldn't really call them "left wing" because they don't like high taxes or anything.

betas

>American liberalism, aka neoconservatism.
Imagine being this delusional

It's been proven that the higher educated you are, the more likely you are to be left-wing

>The more time you spend in leftist indoctrination centers the more likely you are to be left wing
Wow, really makes me think.....

There is nothing left wing about it. They support open borders, because cheap labor and tax havens, and they support "issues" because it doesn't cost them anything, but feeds the blogosphere circlejerk.

The universal income BS is because they create consumer goods and robots aren't going to consume their repackaged garbage. You don't see any of them actually scheming to finance it, do you? Thought not.

>I couldn't graduate college because... I couldn't take the leftist propaganda! y-yeah, that's it!
t. NEET brainlet

I love how Sup Forums made thinking into a funny ironic joke.

It really makes me think.

Imagine living in a shithole where liberal is actually considered left wing.

Because colleges and universities brainwash people

It's mostly pajeets and jews, actually

I suggest you look at the statistics. Being over represented doesn't mean they are the majority.

because in most cases you need to have strong critical thinking / logic skills to be drawn to and succeed in the tech sector

Not the other guy, but I graduated college and I've seen the garbage that goes on at campuses in some sectors. Thankfully my uni was sane, but there were still enclaves of insanity. Students who are already conservative are afraid to speak up for their own opinions for fear of retribution from their power-trip professors. That and you've got career professors (people who never did anything outside of academia who think they are hot shit) who enforce one way of thinking, and administration who only hire liberals. So what you have left is the malleable students who may skew one way or the other but not much, getting ONLY one perspective. That's the major problem because most people don't have the capacity to be a leader, only a follower. Especially women who wear their political affiliations like a pair of jeans. If you had a proper balance of ideology, the student body would probably be balanced as well.

These people are so intelligent they think shooting a US Sentator in the middle of a baseball game will get more people on their side in the ongoing political battle in D.C. not to mention they lost their voting base in the Rustbelt to a steak salesman, who they don't even really like so much as he actually talks about things they care about (namely the economy) instead of multiculti nonsense and more gov't spending on gov't programs that are pretty much at max capacity at the moment.

>left wing
>logic
lol

>t. party of evangelical christians

t. The party of good spelling

lol you sound like you've never even stepped foot on a college campus

seriously nobody gives that much of a shit about what other people believe

You also think shooting politicians helps your cause and lost to a Kenyan Muslim who hates America, twice, despite running a war hero and a successful business man against him.

Impressive that they actually got the swastika right, at least.

liberalism is not neoconservatism. Neoconservatism revolves around using military intervention to protect interest of corporations which take on aristocratic roles in society (which is why it's "neo" conservatism because it's a modern day version of traditional government systems). And neoconservatism is especially focused on fighting for jews.

American liberalism rejects these notions because at it's core neoconservatism is very big government and liberalism in all forms is always against large authoritarian bodies.

Jared Laughner is a batshit insane registered Democrat. Retard.

See, the key word in your post is "educated". There are way more useless degrees these days than there were before. So someone can have one of these useless degrees, be considered "educated", but still have no common sense or logic.

You think Loughner was a conservative?
Holy shit, bud.

we don't go out of our way to signal what we like and don't like like you lefty niggers
fuck up or not, it's safe to assume a leftist drew it to whip up some lefty rage

He was registered independent and apparently flip flopped, being conservative at the time of the shooting.

It honestly sounds like you're the one who hasn't stepped onto a college campus. I'm working through my second semester and I'm already sick of the word 'diversity'.

So in the context of this thread you're saying that CS is a useless degree? Fascinating.

You think Hodgkinson was a leftist? Holy shit, bud.

So uh... You're saying if a true conservative drew that they wouldn't have even been able to get the swastika right? I don't think you're really helping your case here, lol.

Why do conservatives think that violence is a legitimate political tool?

>spelling
>actually correct swastika
falseflag

>more identity politics from left wing retards
lol

Right? What's up with all these conservative riots? Why are they destroying Berkeley?

Why can't the party of personal response take responsibility when idiots and criminals identify with their party?

No not really. I never actually believed in any of those things because I'm not a partisan idiot. Gabby Giffords shouldn't have been shot, and Obama is just a stupid nigger not unlike every president between him and Reagan, even though the left is stupid enough to believe that Trump is some agent of Russia or some literally stupid bullshit like that. Also, john McCain and Romney are neocons who ironically, have the mindset that the Cold War never ended, the same mindset the left is stuck in now thinking Russia is actually relevant outside of Eastern Europe, the Near East and other Former Soviet territories. Actually the reason they lost is because, like Clinton, they didn't actually offer solutions and were unlikeable (not that Trump wasn't. He just offered more solutions that resonated with the Democratic base)
P.S. You literally hot yourselves in the foot today because even the Republican Party when Gabby was shot wasn't as unpopular as the Democrats are now. Seeing that a socialist idiot tried to shoot a US Congressman, they'll become less popular (keep in mind even Trump is more popular than the Democratic Party). This along with not ditching their failed campaign model of 2016 and not actually coming up with a plan other than say "Fuck Trump" and general lack of leadership is probably why the Democratic Party is going to lose the 2018 midterm. All in all, you should keep your idiots on a leash, because it seems to me all of this violence (whether it be Antifags, terrorists of the Muslim variety and this guy) have been coming from the left and soon the progressive/socialist movement will become the new Tea Party and be labeled as a bunch of fucking loonies, rightfully, hurting your already abysmally low chances of regaining power on the state and federal levels. Why do you think the Republicans had to ditch the Tea Party? Because they were doing the shit that Hodgkinson faggot was doing, or at the very least saying it aloud.

IDK, why do conservatives stab people so much?

Keep being in denial. What ever happened to the leftist monopoly on empathy you people are so proud of? Can you not understand that conservatives are silenced on campuses?

Yeah fuck those right wingers who tried to assassinate Republicans officials on a baseball field today. Wait.

...

Do you not realize the irony of making fun of Democrats for being unpopular while defending Trump? Do you realize how hypocritical you look while denying you're a partisan while calling Obama a n*gger and a socialist?

Why do politics matter, I wouldn't care if it was left or right.

IDK, why do right wingers shoot up historically black churches full of innocent Christians?

The law literally states that the punishment for what Trump did is execution. The death penalty is legal. What's wrong for advocating enforcing the law?

Do you have to refer to false dichotomies just to have a chance of winning arguments on the internet?

>n*gger

>what Trump did is execution
which is?
>The death penalty is legal
lol

Why do you?

>defeating your own statement
whatever floats your boat

You expect him not to resort to fallacies?

Treason. Also, Huffpo took that piece down. It was a blog post.

>Keep in mind even Trump is more popular than the Democratic Party
> they lost their voting base in the Rustbelt to a steak salesman, who they don't even really like so much
This is an implication that I know Trump is very unpopular. I'm not even hiding it. I'm just stating a fact that Trump is literally more popular than the Democratic Party which had how many special elections and lost all of them so far) with a 45-40% approval rating. And then I sain every president between Obama and Regan (both included) were niggers,
>Obama is just a stupid nigger not unlike every president between him and Reagan
and I never actually said he was a socialist.
Do you have to lie to win arguments? Or are you just a fucking retard because both theories make sense given your a leftist.

>liking one thing while simultaneously liking the other is automatically partisan no matter the reasoning or explanation

Why is this garbage thread on Sup Forums again?

I thought huffpo was a blog.

Democrats lost in Kansas in Montana by vastly smaller margins than Trump won by. Trump has barely been in office 100 days, to lose that much ground so fast is unprecedented.

>what Trump did is execution
You mean the tin-foil hat conspiracy theory you believe about Russia and the elections or some stupid shit like that despite:
UMBRAGE

The CIA's hand crafted hacking techniques pose a problem for the agency. Each technique it has created forms a "fingerprint" that can be used by forensic investigators to attribute multiple different attacks to the same entity.

This is analogous to finding the same distinctive knife wound on multiple separate murder victims. The unique wounding style creates suspicion that a single murderer is responsible. As soon one murder in the set is solved then the other murders also find likely attribution.

The CIA's Remote Devices Branch's UMBRAGE group collects and maintains a substantial library of attack techniques 'stolen' from malware produced in other states including the Russian Federation.

With UMBRAGE and related projects the CIA cannot only increase its total number of attack types but also misdirect attribution by leaving behind the "fingerprints" of the groups that the attack techniques were stolen from.

UMBRAGE components cover keyloggers, password collection, webcam capture, data destruction, persistence, privilege escalation, stealth, anti-virus (PSP) avoidance and survey techniques.
that was revealed in Vault7 a couple months ago?
wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/

>No evidence
Why do people around Trump keep LYING about Russia then?

I'll show you exactly why that means absolutely nothing:
youtube.com/watch?v=EI9D526TApY

Because right-wingers are empirically less intelligent, thus they are less likely to have jobs that require high cognitive skills.

I remember you. You certainly are a fan of this guy.

For a libtard, you sure do have little empathy for the lower classes

For a compassionate conservative, you do seem to have no empathy for white women. White women DEMAND black cock because it has never failed to give them an orgasm, yet Republicans would ban interracial sex if they could.

White male infrastructure engineer here, nearly all of my coworkers have been right wing, the people who are left wing at these tech companies are the marketing department and hr.

>falling for the myth of the big black dick
cuck

>falling for the myth of the big white penis
Super duper cuck

The same reason the CIA has PROVABLY allowed software that can essentially leave certain fingerprints from specific countries leak into other intel agencies and even hacker groups to the point that literally China, Russia, Belarus, and N. korea has it (if Wikileaks could attain a copy of it, you can bet your ass that essentially every other intel agency in the world has it). Not to mention the DNC spawned this "MUH RUSSIA" shit when they realized that Wikileaks essentially leaked all their dirty deeds to the public. So to make it a partisan issue, they made it a conspiracy theory. Remember when the election couldn't be hacked when Hillary was winning? :^)
Inconsistency in ones beliefs is a massive sign of idiocy.

There is no affirmative action in silicon valley as affirmative action is outlawed in california (thank you based asians).

All the tech firms I work at are full of conservatives, all the libtards work in san francisco.

It has nothing to do with not having empathy, it's all about correlation between variables, and understanding probable causal links.

The election was not hacked in the way that Trump had alleged. Again, Trump's own law enforcement and intelligence officials that he hired have stated that it was Russia that did it. Fucking Jeff Sessions believes it was Russia.

so this is leafposting

>believes
sneaky wording

Why do race """realists""" deny the reality that they just can't compete with the inherent sexual superiority of black males?

What would make you believe it was Russia? How many conservatives need to confirm it was Russia before you believe it was Russia? Literally only 2 Republicans in the Senate voted against punishing Russia today.

>when it's mostly made up of white males?

That's false though. Beta nu-male cucks are not white.

Yeah, pajeets are so brilliant right?

The problem is this is the CIA, FBI and NSA saying this: the same agencies that essentially said there were WMDs in Iraq, when they turned out to be moot and we started a word over that. Not to mention toppled Qaddafi over faulty intelligence. I don't really care what a bureau or politician says this or that because their not honest. Wikilieaks has 100% accuracy on their reporting because it's first-hand material that's essentially the modern day muckraking missing in the media. What they say is probably the truth seeing that it was these same conservatives that said we need to bomb Iraq because of the missing WMDs (not to mention their huge hate boner for Russia and Iran that's been pretty prevalent over the past 10 years, when the liberals of yesteryear noticed that strange quality about these people who seem to get off to the idea of war, any justification (true or false) is justification enough to go to war).

*started a war

Rod fucking Rosenstein confirmed it. If Donald Trump said that Russia interfered in our election, would you believe him?

jewish brainwashing so they hate their own race.

No. Why would I trust a politician? They're literally known for lying? Why wouldn't I trust someone who, you know, is known for actually publishing first hand materials of classified info so the info the gov't is hiding isn't kept secret? You know, like Wikileaks.

>>>>American liberalism rejects these notions because at it's core neoconservatism is very big government and liberalism in all forms is always large authoritarian bodies.

American liberalism != liberalism. American liberalism is, quite literally, neocon. Liberalism in all forms is always against large authoritarian bodies, but not American liberalism.

American liberalism = neoconservatism + progressive social values

Imagrunts is Immigrants+grunts, immigrants are the the foot troops of Zion

I guess I always felt that being heavily biased for the left or right was pretty stupid. A truly wise individual will break out of the given choices and make their own damn choices.

Rod Rosenstein is not a politician. He's a very respected conservative attorney and now deputy AG.

Bruh, WikiLeaks is literally hosted in Russia. It's telling that you would trust them over your own president, Congress on both sides of the aisle, people from the private sector claiming they were hacked, etc etc.

Pretty much. Being heavily partisan one way over the other (right or left) is a good reason to believe you've been brainwashed by literal propaganda.

>WikiLeaks is literally hosted in Russia.
Nigger WHAT? It's in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. For you to actually say that shows how little you know or how brainwashed you are by propaganda.
And why would I trust someone that is a political figure since being conservative is a big part of Rod's identity according to you. Again, political figures are rarely trustorthy, either dur to pure ignorance or malice (or a combination of the two).
BTW, stop using an argument from authority.

I mean literally,there were like how many pieces on Assange possibly having to leave the embassy because of an election in Ecuador.I think you really are brainwashed. Not to mention that Assange did the same thing to Hillary as he did to Putin, so there's no love between the two.

Yes

Holy fucking shit. Julian Assange is stuck in an embassy in London. The servers are hosted in Russia.

Why do you place so much faith in a man who refused to redact the name of Afghan informants because “If an Afghan civilian helps coalition forces, he deserves to die.” The dude literally hates America that much.

My class had a meltdown when we had the "we need more niggers in tech" argument when I asserted that given their population relative to the whole if the nation being 20℅ of the industry was very well represented. Apparently, if we don't allow poor nuffins to come in with no education then we're racist.

>people deny that WikiLeaks is a Russian puppet when a pro Putin newspaper paid them $10,000 for leaks and he also helped the dictator of Belarus crack down on the opposition