Slashdot Mirror
Steve Bannon Suggests Having Too Many Asian Tech CEOs Undermines 'Civic Society' (theverge.com)
In an interview last year with Donald Trump -- that The Washington Post resurfaced yesterday -- Breitbart News Network's executive chairman, Steve Bannon, suggested that there are too many asian CEOs in Silicon Valley. "He alluded to the idea that foreign students should return to their respective countries after attending school in the U.S., instead of sticking around and working at or starting tech companies," writes Ashley Carman via The Verge: Trump voiced concern over these students attending Ivy League schools and then going home: "We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country," Trump said. When asked if he agreed, Bannon responded: "When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think [...]" he didn't finish his sentence. "A country is more than an economy. We're a civic society." While Bannon didn't explicitly say anything against immigrants, he seemed to hint at the idea of a white nationalist identity with the phrase "civic society." The Huffington Post makes note of a May 2015 study in its report, which "found that 27 percent of professionals working in Silicon Valley companies were Asian or Asian-American. They represented less than 19 percent of managers and under 14 percent of executives, according to the report."
I think by Asian he meant Indian as well. What are the numbers if you include Indians?
It'll be interesting to see the alt-right portion of the slashdot crowd defend this racist scumbag.
By interesting, I mean embarrassing to humanity.
So according to Steven Bannon we can't have a "civic society" in America if there are areas whose population aren't a majority of whites. I expected a more sophisticated racist euphemism from a Harvard-educated man.
Don't we want the best and brightest from around the world to work here, to our advantage, rather than their home countries?
Required reading for internet skeptics
In what world does "civic society" equate to "white nationalist identity?" There's a dozen things I could honestly take from this quote, and I could do without its really heavy baiting to control where I'm going with my interpretations.
I get that Bannon isn't likable or something. I don't want to dispute anything about him either way. I just want data without the entire heavy-leaning interpretation of hand-wavy words. He's clearly wrong about his numbers. Can we focus on that? Do we have to label him "white nationalist" with all but coming out and saying that? Is that helpful? Pretend he's an actual white supremacist and proud of it. Can we not criticize his points on their own, like actual discourse requires? If he and his words are simply not worth talking about, this is not how to go about that.
Good lord there's so much to actually criticize out there and we're just framing every damn thing in tribalistic nonsense. (Before it gets assumed, no, I don't think this is limited to one "party" or whatever. It's common in every sensationalist nonsense "journalism" organization.)
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
Dear people mad that "Asians" or whatever are running the tech companies...
The obvious answer is "make more college graduates."
Many state schools are turning to foreign nationals to pay out-of-state tuition to fund operating costs because their state has cut funding.
So step 1 is... restore state funding to colleges, and you can get rid of some foreign students that whoever you want in roles won't have to compete with!
Step 2 is... tell your constituents that college isnt a "liberal elite conspiracy," so they'll actually attend.
Step 3 is... fund the ones that can't afford it. If some dude/dudette whose parents lost their manufacturing job to a robot has the talent, he should be there, gaining skills for America! Quit viewing college funds as a "handout" and look at it as an investment in America's workforce.
That's pretty much it. You'll reduce the number of whoever you don't like in tech companies by a small amount, by making the people you do want in them more capable of competing.
I'm pretty sure even the Asians you're mad at will be cool with that.
America's culture is that it's a melting pot of cultures. Always has been and always will be. You respect and protect that by allowing other cultures to continue to immigrate and contribute to that culture.
I think if you're an immigrant from "whereverstan" and land ashore on one of these boats you've mentioned, learn the local language, get selected to attend the top schools, get hired by the best companies and end up running the companies, you've assimilated pretty f*cking well.
Take your racism somewhere else.
eh, I only see him saying a country is its people too, not just economy and having a large number of foreigners leading the economy talent isn't the best thing. Hmmm, isn't that like Obama's STEM emphasis?
Really, I'm coming up dry looking for this Bannon guy's supposed racist quotes. I see what his ex-wife said sure, and what some others claim about him. But no proof. Where is his big racist diatribes, c'mon I'm wanting to see some of his nasty jew-bashing, black bashing, asian-bashing etc.
I'm with Trump, not Bannon, on this one. If more of the Asians we educate at Stanford and MIT would stay and become a counterforce to the anti-science liberal culture that infests academia, we in particular, as nerds, would be better off. Our position in science compared to Asian countries would improve. We would still have a long way to go before we competed with them in applications, but we would have a better chance of getting there.
By "antiscience" you mean "accepts what actual scientists say."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Given Sundar Pichai is Google's CEO ...
Seems to me this is just Breitbart trying to muddy the waters as Google is taking a stand against 'fake news' and twitter is banning the alt-right.
If Breitbart can claim victim status perhaps they can get around Google (and thereby Facebook et.al.) from classifying them as 'fake news'.
By being incendiary about Asian (that's Indian in British parlance) CEOs then can later claim that Google banning them (Breitbart) is personal.
While I probably don't agree that Breitbart is 'fake' they are certainly walking the line and occasionally stepping over. Breitbart is unabashedly biased and incendiary and some opinions and commentary seems to not be shy of using 'post-fact' rhetoric.
"70-80% of tech workers here on H1-B visas"
What actual fucking reality are you from with bullshit numbers like that?
If you and others like you dismiss him as a bigot you'll get more nasty surprises at the ballot box as folks like me give up on liberal socialism that feels like lip service and turn to guys like Trump to protect our jobs.
You think Trump and the Republican legislature are going to do anything other than royally FUCK the middle class in the next 4 years? You are truly deluded. I dare you to come back here when his term is over and admit how wrong you were.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
Nope, I mean "accepts what scientists say." That you can find at least one or two researchers in any field who promote wingnut views doesn't mean those views aren't pure wingnuttery.
In my area of interests, Proto-Indo-European studies, there are a small group of linguists, primarily Indian nationalists, who insist India is the Urheimat of the Proto-Indo-European languages. The overwhelming majority of PIE researchers view this for what it is, politically motivated rubbish, and point to Pontic-Caspian Steppe as the most likely original homeland of the Indo-European speakers, pointing to the fact that the Baltic and Slavic (sometimes grouped together as the Balto-Slavic languages) as possessing far more PIE primitives than virtually any other family of languages with the possible exception of the extinct Anatolian subfamily.
The point of that long aside is to show you that you will find in any field of research a small number of people who for various reasons, some honest and sincere, some absurd and dishonorable, who ride against the consensus. And so it is with climatology. You have a very small number of climatologists (and a much smaller number of active and publishing researchers) who claim AGW is overstated or false, but the overwhelming majority assert that those very small number of contrarians are wrong, and in some cases, clearly intentionally distorting legitimate research and data to make AGW seem overstated. It doesn't help that some of these contrarians, like Frank Spencer, are basically on anti-AGW political thinktank payrolls, raising serious ethical questions about their motivations for writing anti-AGW screeds (not to mention these very few individuals, like their Creationist counterparts in biology, almost never publish any papers that lay out their great destructive critiques of AGW).
My view is that you just don't want to hear bad news, so you've decided that the overwhelming number of researchers in areas related to climatology are liars, and because you're of an childish and cowardly temperment, literallly a delicate little snowflake, you only want to hear from that tiniest fraction of the research community who promotes claims you are emotionally equipped to deal with.
At the end of the day, of course, the universe doesn't fucking care about your tender snowflake feelings. CO2 has the properties it has, and increasing even fractional percentages of overall CO2 in the atmosphere will inevitably lead to more heat being trapped. I do pity your fragile snowflake ego, though. I understand that your mommy and daddy never really explained to you that reality doesn't owe even the tiniest favor.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This is how racial code words work. You are blind to their meaning because you are not impacted by them. They're "just words." Because you will "obviously" never be excluded from "civic society" like Asian CEOs would be excluded. Presumably because I'm guessing you're not Asian or any other minority (or you're Omarosa).
Some examples of code words that will probably never affect you but seriously affect others:
Inner City: “You can’t publicly say black people don’t like to work, but you can say there’s an inner-city culture in which generations of people don’t value work.”
States’ Rights: "while “states’ rights” is a pretty racially neutral issue, you just have to look at what was happening at the moment to realize that everyone knew it translated to the right of states to resist federal mandates to integrate schools and society."
Forced Busing: on its face, was racially neutral, “the Northern analog of states’ rights,” which “allowed the North to express fevered opposition to integration without having to mention race.” After all, kids had been bused to school for quite a while. It was only when the plan took on a racial edge that it became controversial. Politicians didn’t have to say that outright, though—they simply dropped in the phrase to trigger resentment and gain supporters.
Cut Taxes: Dog-whistle politics is partly about demonizing people of color, but it’s also about demonizing government in a way that helps the very rich, says López. So, when Ronald Regan said “cut taxes,” what he was communicating to the middle class was, “so your taxes won’t be wasted on minorities.” A key Reagan operative admitted as much in an interview quoted in Lopez’s book, saying, ” ‘We want to cut taxes’ is a whole lot more abstract than, ‘N*****, n*****.’ ” It continues to be more abstract, and it continues to work.
Law and Order: is a way to draw on an image of minorities as criminals that was used by both Reagan and Clinton. He points to an inverse relationship in Congress between conversations about civil rights and criminal law enforcement. “What you see in the 1960s is that opposition to civil rights becomes ‘what we really need is law and order, to crack down’. ” Of course, the latter is less controversial and, at least on its surface, avoids the issue of race.
‘Welfare’ and ‘Food Stamps’: Welfare, says López, was broadly supported during the New Deal era when it was understood that people could face hardships in their lives that sometimes required government assistance, and, in fact, was purposely limited to white recipients. In this context, it wasn’t heavily stigmatized. Fast-forward to the 1960s, when Lyndon Johnson made it clear that he wanted it to have a racial-justice component. “Then it becomes possible for conservatives to start painting welfare as a transfer of wealth to minorities,” says Lopez. Remember those Reagan speeches about welfare queens? Today, says López, we hear “food stamps” used similarly.
passetspike!
I'll take it one step further and suggest that "assimilation" is an anti-American concept. Though in reality we have a checkered history when it comes to this, we regard "religious freedom" as an American tenet. People established colonies here precisely because they didn't want to be assimilated into the cultures of where they came from. We are also one of the few countries that does not have an official language. That's not an oversight.
Given that religious values and language are intimately tied to culture, it's not at all a stretch to say that a diversity of cultures is baked into the fabric of America. What you've described as some new phenomena is what's being going on since the beginning.
Even among whites in the US there are regional dialects and cultural traditions that can be traced back to other countries, - Louisiana Creole for example. Then there's perhaps the best example, the Amish, who've doggedly resisted any sort of assimilation.
You can make the argument that the Amish should take on the values of the larger society but my point is that not "assimilating" is nothing new. And to the extent that melting does occur, it can take generations and is never really complete or uniform.
I find it ironic that some people want to turn the US into the kind of countries that our ancestors deliberately left.
Aaah right, gotta get the terminology right. If a democrat is president or white people are doing it then it's patriotic protest, but if black people do it or a republican is president then it's 'hooligan's rioting'.
Just like when a muslim crashes a plane on purpose it's 'terrorism' but when a white guy crashes a plane on purpose it's 'mental illness'. | I don't recall a single MSM headline that called the German pilot who deliberately flew a plane into a mountain 2 years ago a terrorist - even though he clearly was.
Or how if a white guy walks into a restaurant with a loaded AR-15 with the safety off it's "open carry" but if a black man does the same it's "armed and dangerous" and soon to be "shot by police" (and as recent history shows -the 'black man' need not be a man 'ten your old boy' will do, and the 'gun' doesn't even have to be real, a toy gun, or even an imaginary gun, will do just as well.
Or how, when a black president does not attribute the behaviour of a small number of assholes to an entire religion he is 'too wimpy to say "radical islamic terrorism"' but when the FBI publishes a study that finds 'rightwing white militias are the number one greatest threat to American national security' the republicans in congress actively suppress publication of the report and that's NOT considered a cover-up ?
At least TRY to pretend you are not maintaining a double standard.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *