SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
President-elect Donald Trump realized early in his campaign that U.S. IT workers were angry over training foreign visa-holding replacements. He knew this anger was volcanic.
Trump is the first major U.S. presidential candidate in this race -- or any previous presidential race -- to focus on the use of the H-1B visa to displace IT workers. He asked former Disney IT employees, upset over having to train foreign replacements, to speak at his rallies.
"The fact is that Americans are losing their jobs to foreigners," said Dena Moore, a former Disney IT worker at a Trump rally in Alabama in February. "I believe Mr. Trump is for Americans first."
Yes, US nerds were angry about training H-1B replacements, but how much could they have helped put him over the top?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:50PM
You are racist, though, if you're voting for this goddamn trash. Whether or not "half the country" believes they're not the policies you idiots voted for were undeniably destructive towards minorities and honestly, I view people like you with your half-assed ideological defense of "Don't call my racism what it is or I'll vote for Trump" as precisely the moral equivalent to Nazis in 1930s germany.
As in, with this election, you've crossed a line, where the world would almost certainly be better off from you dying. That's not a joke: it's not that I actively wish you harm or suffering, just that we'd all be better off without your thoughts and voice.
I'll enjoy my flamebait mods, but seriously, fuck your childish "I don't wanna stop being racist wah" arguments, and fuck your idiot party.
(Score: 4, Funny) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @10:58PM
And you are an entitled, elitist shit stain without a clue what the world outside their ivory tower is like. Shall we have a reasonable discussion now or would you like to keep dealing in ad-homs? I'll warn you though, I'm much better at ad-homs than you are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:05PM
No, go fuck yourself. Cry fallacy when people point out that you have become an amoral psychopath, that's new alt-right way to address legitimate grievances.
There is a problem. And the problem is you and OP and how you voted. And the kind of people that indicates you are. Regardless of whatever other
I work a regular goddamn job. Deal with regular people. Engage in regular activities. Visit all kinds of places. Meet all kinds of people with all kinds of perspectives.
Why don't you come out of your goddamn ivory basement, where people babble back and forth on reddit or 4chan or stormfront or wherever the fuck you get your views, and meet some people who are going to be affected by your vote. (I can't wait to hear about your "black friend" excuse, because my black friends(and East Asian, and Muslim, and Hispanic) are all absolutely terrified of the world you've just created). Not everyone who disagrees with you is stuck in "Ivory Tower" and decrying intellectualism as an excuse for your rampant and hateful anti-intellectualism would be funny if it weren't leading down a disasterous path.
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:50PM
Ad-hom it is then. Have you finished admiring the smell of your own farts or would you like me to wait? Done? Okay.
You seem to think your cries of racism/sexism/*-phobe hurt people like me. They don't. It's like calling me gay after I just nutted on your mother's face. We know better.
You, though, are vulnerable to every sling and arrow that is traditionally thrown at the regressive left because you genuinely do think you know what is best for everyone and that they should have to think, speak, and act your way or be punished. You are an elitist not because you actually are elite but because you think you are intellectually and morally superior to most of the world. You're clearly neither but that only makes telling you the truth that much more enjoyable for those of us who aren't willfully blinding ourselves to it.
You think discriminating based on race can be excused as not racist in the name of righting past wrongs. Ditto gender based discrimination. You refuse to see that racism and sexism are essentially gone in the US today; all that's left is the mopping up. But that would take away your reason to harpy-screech that men and white people are assholes and we can't have that. No ma'am, can't be letting go of our own racism and sexism because they're the good kind.
Your ass, you really should have that head of yours removed from it before its swelling makes it impossible.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @12:39AM
And this is all you assholes ever do
Deny reality. That's all you goddamn idiots ever do.
It doesn't matter if hard research shows that women are 1000% more likely to get a callback on a tech resume if the gender identifying information is anonymized [cnet.com], because goddamn morons like you can just pretend sexism doesn't exist anymore. And call your deluded reality "facts" and people who are right "emotional".
Does your little sexist brain understand what 1000% means? That means bafflingly high numbers of women aren't invited in for tech interviews because their name looks female on their resume. Sexism is over you say.
Do you know why you say that? Because you're a sexist fuckwit and we'd all be so much better off if you had taken five seconds to understand and interpret the world around you.
But no. You fucking goddamn sanctimonious morons get on your fucking high horse and whine like god has never seen about the tiny inconvenience of maybe considering you're wrong.
You're incapable of learning. You're a systemically broken person The Mighty Buzzard, and you can enjoy bieng upomodded "informative" for a full-of-shit denying-reality post. And that's fine, that's exactly what this election was, a bunch of blowhards jacking each other off about non-existant problems and delusional solutions to them.
You are a terrible person. Do you get that? No? You're in denial about that too?
I don't think white men are responsible for this, YOU ARE. Go. Fuck. Yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @01:26AM
Ahem
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160426162606.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Bit more compelling.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday November 11 2016, @02:58AM
Not if you read the actual editorial letter submitted to the journal [sci-hub.cc] (Sorry for the piracy, please buy an overpriced subscription to Applied Economics Letters)
Their names for signaling "blackness" were Chloe and Ryan, which in the realm of stereotypes, are "white-sounding" as all hell. The article they're "responding to" here is titled "Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination." Which I'm going to say was better structured and got better data, and the reasons for the differences are pretty clear from a more in-depth reading of both studies. (This one is designed to draw out a mean, especially on African American names)
Now, as the authors note, they are indeed common names for actual, real-life African-Americans. And also note that they disguise their effect sizes(not purposefully, mind you, just by virtue of how they structured their experiment) by comparing a mean of a dataset that's primarily composed of minority applicants, with only a fractional cross-section being white and male. Which also explains why in their table 2, they have p>0.10 for most of their crosstabs. Also note, they don't offer any sort of white-male controls we don't even get an N for that. All their exposed data is the 4 experimental groups, kinda restating the earlier point, but kinda not, since they took the data but don't expose it. Odd that it's left out of their models.
It's... not useless to surmise anything from this study, but it doesn't say what you're thinking it says. I appreciate your stepping into the realm of data-driven analysis, but please understand what you're actually submitting as evidence rather than just citing the first headline that sounds like it agrees with you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:14AM
From the fucking article you didn't bother to read.
Researchers sent 9,000 fictitious resumes to employers, using last names that were likely to be interpreted as coming from black, Hispanic or white applicants. For African-American applicants the researchers used the surnames Washington and Jefferson. According to data from the U.S. Census, 90 and 75 percent of individuals with these surnames are African-American, respectively. Similarly, the researchers used the surnames Hernandez and Garcia, and Anderson and Thompson, for Hispanic and white applicants, respectively. These surnames also are strong indicators of race/ethnicity. The researchers used first names to convey gender in the study.
Not Chloe and Ryan.
Why misrepresent the study with something unrelated behind a paywall?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday November 11 2016, @05:05PM
Washington and Jefferson seem like... extremely bad choices considering that we don't care about what the *actual* statistical reality of name distribution is, but what the *perceived* reality is in the minds of the HR department employees screening the resumes. Employees who as a rule probably aren't intentionally setting out to implement racist hiring policies.
And I would guess that most people seeing those names think "Early White Presidents", not "Black People".
(Score: 4, Touché) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @01:54AM
Yes, you're in no way emotional. Obviously. Follow ye ole AC's link and spout your regressive rag propaganda again, why don't you? Oh, I'm sorry, that hit you right in the narrative. That's got to hurt.
Here's a clue for you to take back to your friends: we don't hate blacks, hispanics, arabs, or women. We hate you. Far above and beyond anything else in the world, we hate you.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:06PM
Ah yes, the "well I'm not the one upset and getting all worked up here". Reminds me of the Big Lebowski when Walter gets worked up then drops it and says "calmer than you are" like that somehow makes him suddenly in the right.
YAY! I found the perfect example! TMB and other such douches on this site are just Walters! And not the crafty Breaking Bad Walters, the child-level emotions, gun-loving violent Walters who should probably be in weekly therapy at the least, and possibly a psych ward to make sure they don't have any nasty dreams about shooting people from a tower...
You conservative greedy fucktards (sorry I'm a bit upset by this stupid thread so a little ad hominem of my own) are on the way out, the world doesn't like your shit anymore and fighting the winds of change will only plunge us into the dark ages. Take your heads out of the sand and start looking for a therapist that can actually help you work through your emotional issues.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:47PM
Um, not to put too fine a point on it, but it is President Trump.
If there was ever a group with a shelf life, well, I've got some bad news.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 11 2016, @09:08PM
Interesting comment. I shall reply at the same level of discourse. I'm rubber, you're glue...
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:42PM
Yes and women are 200% more preferred in STEM and god knows how many times more preferred in non-STEM academia.
Guess what, you are not as good as you think and you are not entitled to freebies because you happen to associate yourself with some group identity.
Tell me, would you rather hire someone who spoke English or Martian?
Apparently businesses are not supposed to be run on profits they ought to run on some liberal-gifted metric that just happens to help people like you.
You know some thing? 99.9999% of all businesses which are run by men, end up providing for women who don't work.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 11 2016, @11:48AM
If only. They're just coming up with new -isms that they can use to justify pointing the finger at ordinary folk accusatorily and saying "-ist!!!".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:09PM
Nah, I'd say it's mostly true that racism is on the way out but "mopping up" is too small of a phrase for how much we have left to do. It will be another 20-50 years for racial tensions to really calm down (napkin math!), but it looks like the elites are already trying to prep us for WW3 in the middle east. Gotta get that propaganda rolling so by the time war comes around everyone is already irrationally angry at eastern brown people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 11 2016, @01:50AM
I work a regular goddamn job. Deal with regular people. Engage in regular activities. Visit all kinds of places. Meet all kinds of people with all kinds of perspectives.
And still clueless. Who knew that superficial life experience didn't prepare one for everything? Who knew?
Your "moral" concerns about Trump are way overblown. Comparisons between him or for that matter Clinton with Hitler have always been blatantly wrong. I think this comes from being completely ignorant of how Hitler operated such as the violence and lawlessness Hitler spurred from the very beginning of his political career, and the crippling weakness and corruption of the society he operated in.
And of course, who advocates widespread death because a candidate that they didn't like got elected? The Nazi, ikanreed. Stop being the problem you claim to care about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:18PM
You're right and wrong. The concerns are overblown since Trump is a hot air blowhard, but if you take some of his comments seriously then the concerns are 100% on point. From everything I've seen you post you're intelligent but seriously lacking world experience, your worldview is myopic and your brain patterns old and inflexible. You have "the truth" according to khallow and other conservative circle-jerks on here, but for those of us lucky enough to have more liberal upbringings your truth and wisdom are like the RIAA. Trying to fight the better future because of fears with little to no basis. There are nuggets of truth in your worldview, but some serious flaws which you just take for granted. We can only point things out, its up to you to reflect and get more worldly knowledge so you can update your personal views to be more humane.
Right now you and your fellows are the dangerous reactionaries that would easily get us into WW3 because "fuck those ******** people trying to..."
1. take our jerbs
2. free people from archaic modes of thinking
3. save the environment
4. help the poor
5. generally make the world a better place
So I'll agree that some of the liberals on here are way too rabidly emotional about this election and spewing their own ignorance and hypocritical hatred, but that doesn't absolve you of the same. Or mean that the liberal viewpoint is somehow invalid. You need to open your mind to all paths, and use your brain to fit the pieces together as best you can.
Or just sit at home thumping the bible or Aayn Rand, or whatever gets you through the day...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 12 2016, @04:53AM
but if you take some of his comments seriously then the concerns are 100% on point
Nonsense. Your ignorance is not mine. I've already explained this. You will see that even after two years of Republican domination that your fears were overblown.
Right now you and your fellows are the dangerous reactionaries that would easily get us into WW3 because "fuck those ******** people trying to..."
1. take our jerbs
2. free people from archaic modes of thinking
3. save the environment
4. help the poor
5. generally make the world a better place
I'm not interested in "trying" here. Outcome matters not "trying".
Projection is not a good argument here. Please recall just who is whizzing their pants right now because Trump. It's not me. And the driving force behind a lot of the above thinking is zero sum thinking (a classic archaic mode of thinking) driven by social programs, class envy, and similar stuff. Not all of that comes from Trump supporters.
Or just sit at home thumping the bible or Aayn Rand
Only the ignorant would think that Ayn Rand or Objectivists have anything to do with the problems you claim to care about except possibly point 3 (they do have a notable lack of concern for people "trying" to save an environment, often by making the situation worse).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:01PM
Not really a fan of Trump
I see your user name is more suggestive than a statement of fact.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:10PM
It's important to note that Trump (and the GOP) have multiple policies, on a range of issues. Saying that you must be racist because you voted for him is extremely narrow-sighted.
Hell, this very article which you're commenting on discussed precisely this point! If you were a Disney IT worker who lost their job to an H-1B, I think you'd be tempted to vote for the one candidate that promised to fight that instead of the other candidate that didn't, regardless of their other policies.
So, in voting for Hillary, are you automatically pro-war? Support big banks? Want to kill Edward Snowden?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:22PM
No, I'd argue it's not.
If you were friends with someone who says they're going to kill their wife, but hey, he also makes okay ice cream I guess, so why not be pals, I'd probably condemn your tacit endorsement of his murdering.
That might all be different if the wife-killer had changed his mind, repented, or been punished for it in some way, because hey, understanding that people are flawed is okay. But that's not the case in this analogy, the immoral, outright evil component of Trump was front and center and unapologetic. Anyone tacitly accepting that with a vote, is also tacitly endorsing the bigotry in a non-trivial way. These voters are actually bad people.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday November 11 2016, @01:21AM
Unfortunately though, this election was a choice between a shit sandwich and a glass of vomit (your choice who was who). You could equally argue that voting for Hillary was tacit endorsement of her support for the big end of town at the expense of the little end. I'm still feeling the Bern.
I agree that Trump's election will be bad for minorities. But I disagree that it was the intent of all Trump voters (maybe some, but not all) to explicitly disadvantage minorities. His angle was about protecting American jobs. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that, if there were a crisis in the US flat-pack furniture industry, he'd try to send all of the Swedish home too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @07:21PM
This! Stop the division, even with Sanders on the ballot I would understand that some people would be too afraid of the scurrry "socialism" and vote Trump out of that fear. I wouldn't like it, I would think those people need to expand their own mind, but just voting for Trump wouldn't mean by default that they are racist / bigoted / idiots. Just differing opinions about what they think would make the US a better place.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday November 11 2016, @01:34AM
WHOA, whoa, whoa!
Hillary was fine with corruptly stealing the leadership of the Dems from Bernie. She had no problem staying with and supporting a man who cheated on her, while also attacking those women and trying to find info on them in order to attack them further and denigrate them.
She also deleted emails under subpoena not to.
She is a liar, a corrupt person who sanctimoniously attacked Trump for doing something she supported Bill for doing.
DO NOT Throw stones in her glass house... it all might come shattering down around you!
Bernie should have been the Dems leader and HE would have won GUARANTEED!
Instead, a pig of a person ran and lost, so stop crying about who won: Bernie and America lost. Hillary was just the punchline.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Friday November 11 2016, @03:48AM
So basically you're saying that all Hillary voters are bad people. After all, she has repeatedly advocated for war, and unrepetently supports campaigns that include bombing innocent civilians and putting weapons in the hands of murderous terrorists and religious fundamentalists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @10:27AM
I could argue such things about every candidate ever. We're always given a choice of two evils from the major parties, and most voters foolishly vote for what they believe is the lesser evil. Now, since most candidates have supported mass surveillance and/or other unconstitutional policies (which are every bit as horrendous if not more so than racism), does that mean everyone who voted for those candidates supported those policies? Do you have to agree with a candidate 100% to vote for them? You might argue that voting for evil is foolish--and I would agree--but I think someone's actual intentions matter, regardless.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 10 2016, @11:15PM
Immature wank.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 11 2016, @10:23AM
You are racist, though, if you're voting for this goddamn trash.
So you're calling everyone who voted for Trump a racist? Can you actually prove that?