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."

39 of 805 comments (clear)

  1. "found that 27 percent of professionals" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think by Asian he meant Indian as well. What are the numbers if you include Indians?

  2. Steve Bannon, not a racist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's how they'll defend it, by being even more vile than Bannon. Welcome to Brownshirt America.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re: Steve Bannon, not a racist? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm white and I've never been called a racist. Then again, I don't say racist things. Hmm, maybe there's a connection

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The summary of this article doesn't count, saying country is also it's citizens besides economy isn't racist

      This is disengenous and nonsensical. He said "Asian". Splitting hairs doesn't change the intent nor the meaning.

      Unless you believe theres a country named "Asia", in which case your probably beyond reason.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    4. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      the slashdot crowd defend this racist scumbag.

      Can someone please explain the difference in these sets of statements:

      • There are too many asian tech CEOs.
      • There are too many white tech CEOs.
      • There are too many male tech CEOs.
      • All Mexicans are Rapists.
      • All Trump supporters are Rapists.
      • All Muslims are Terrorists
    5. Re: Steve Bannon, not a racist? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't propose banning any speech. But neither do I think freedom of speech means freedom from consequence, which is what I think at least some here want. They want to be able to make direct or thinly veiled bigoted statements, and have everyone around them act like that's completely normal. You can tell what delicate little snowflakes the Alt-right are because every time they get called on some nasty slur, they start moaning about SJWs. What they really mean is "I don't want to be held accountable, and anyone that holds me accountable is bad."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think ... ”

      Yep, cut off right before making an explicitly racist comment to then go on...

      “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

      A country is also its people, including those who immigrate here and the policies that acknowledge the rights of those to immigrate. It's also the acknowledgment of the notion that opportunity comes who work hard. It's funny that there's so much BS that argues that blacks in America not getting good CEO jobs proves something about them. And then when "two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia" we start talking about "more than an economy" but about "civic society"? The guy is literally a sentence away from begging for Affirmative Action for Whites.

      Seriously, at least try to argue for institutional racism against Whites or for Asians in Silicon Valley. If there is any, it's from people who are pro-racist for Asians at least in the "a hard worker" field. When it turns around and means they elevate to CEOs, that's a problem?

    7. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can someone please explain the difference in these sets of statements:

      • There are too many asian tech CEOs.
      • There are too many white tech CEOs.
      • There are too many male tech CEOs.
      • All Mexicans are Rapists.
      • All Trump supporters are Rapists.
      • All Muslims are Terrorists

      Well, since you asked ... there is no difference. They're all false.

      That being said, there is a valid concern as to whether some roles in the upper echelons of business are filled disproportionately by certain groups. That doesn't mean there are "too many" of some group, it just means we need to examine whether there is some barrier that excludes worthy candidates because of some arbitrary characteristic that is irrelevant to their abilities.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, you are not "genuinely curious". If you were, you could trivially find dozens of examples of his racism and mysogyny for yourself with a few minutes of searching.

      And the primary sources of a number of the quotes even you could trust: Brietbart, since he FUCKING PUBLISHED THEM HIMSELF. Others are direct quotes from his radio show.

    9. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Informative

      How about Breitbart headlines over the past 2 years or so while he was editor ? There's plenty of flagrant sexist and racist bits in there. The washington post ran a profile on Bannon the racist a few days ago that consistently almost entirely of a list of links to articles he approved as editors with their headlines.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is amazing to me how, apparently, none of the people in the Christian right has ever read what their beloved bible has to say about immigration (yes - it addresses the topic DIRECTLY).

      The foreigner who moves to your land is to be treated as an equal and welcomed as a citizen and a brother.

      That's the biblical decree on immigration. Weird how they all know what Leviticus has to say about gay sex but none of them knows what it said about immigration - it's in the same book. Then again they also ignore pretty much everything else in that book. Too bad they ignore the good things (welcome immigrants and treat them kindly) with the same vigor as they ignore the bad things "sell your daughter into slavery".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    11. Re:Steve Bannon, not a racist? by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      I paraphrased.
      Here's the original quote:
      Levitcus 19:33 “When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. In fact my paraphrasing is extremely close to the original text - and could very easily be the text in a contemporary translation without altering the meaning in any way.

      Also worth noting that this message is repeated in several other texts - for example:
      Exodus 21: “You shall not wrong a sojourner or oppress him, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt.

      Sojourner would just be an older word meaning 'immigrant'.

      There is no doubt in my mind that America's current immigration laws violate the principles of those verses which make them incompatible with Christianity - literally the only reason the bible gives where breaking the law is biblical okay - when the law prevents you from acting as the bible commands, and those texts make no claim of a difference between 'legal' or 'illegal' immigration. It tells you how to treat immigrants, it doesn't say you get to change that treatment because an immigrant hasn't complied with a burocratic process that itself violates those principles and numerous others (like the obligation to care for the poor and destitute and to offer shelter to those fearing for their lives).

      Trust the atheist to, as usual, know the bible better than the biblethumpers do.

      And that's without me even pointing out that if you oppose offering shelter to refugees fleeing YOUR enemies who want to kill them - then you have become nothing less than a murderer. You fear that one or two Syrian refugees may want to kill Americans ? So you are happy to let hundreds of thousands of them die ? You're a mass murderer if you think that way. Nothing less.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re: Steve Bannon, not a racist? by Pfhorrest · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Not enough" = "disproportionately few".

      Fewer than you would expect given an unbiased selection from the population.

      Which suggests there might be a bias somewhere.

      --
      -Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
      "I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
  3. "Civic Society" not a very impressive euphemism by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:"Civic Society" not a very impressive euphemism by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well to be fair he does have to still pretend that he's not an outright racist piece of crap while speaking in code phrases the Breitbart crowd can understand.

  4. Reverse brain drain by narcc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't we want the best and brightest from around the world to work here, to our advantage, rather than their home countries?

    1. Re: Reverse brain drain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Informative

      "Probably"? Based on what?

      Based on his racist, bigoted history. Based on the quote in this article. Based on the quote in his email to his wife that was entered as evidence in his divorce. Based on the past year of Breitbart headlines.

      He's a racist piece of crap, and the perfect "Chief Strategist" for the Trump Administration. I'm of the opinion that the best way to see someone destroyed is to give them exactly what they want, so I'm rooting for Trump to keep Bannon and make Giuliani Atty General and John Bolton Sec'y of State and fucking Ben Carson Education Secretary.

      It's Trump's government to run and it will be a glorious thing to watch.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re: Reverse brain drain by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you survive it.

      Oh, I'll survive it all right. As someone who came of age during the Reagan Administration, I've spent a lifetime working to insulate myself and my family from the vagaries of ass-clowns in elected office. I'm white so that means I don't have to worry about what Trump does.

      It's minorities, the elderly, and other at-risk groups that I worry about. And also the ignorant alt-Right, who will have to deal with watching their dreams turn to ashes and sand because they put their faith in the hands of a guy who sells patent medicine at carnivals.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Does not follow? by TodPunk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Does not follow? by JoeyRox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try reversing the question - what about a CEO being Asian would detract from a civic society in America? I asked myself the question and couldn't come up with an answer that didn't lean racist in construction. But I'm open to ideas in case my imagination is limited on the topic...

    2. Re:Does not follow? by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Bay Area is heavily populated by Asians (33% in SF for example), so why would Bannon think having an Asian CEO would go against its local values and culture?

  6. Solution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. The Actual Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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 it doesn't exactly seem to have a very positive connotation, there's also not much of a negative one. It's definitely not what the widespread quote has been.

    Definition of a civic society (since I had to look it up):

    In the United Kingdom, a civic society is a voluntary body or society which aims to represent the needs of a local community. Some also take the role of an amenity society.

    A civic society may campaign for high standards of planning of new buildings or traffic schemes, conservation of historic buildings, and may present awards for good standards. They may organise litter collections or "best kept village" cleanups

    I'm clearly missing the problem here? He has the wrong statistic (literally the opposite quantity), but what part of his statement doesn't make sense? A country should probably be a civic society, by that definition, to preserve its own self-interests. I also agree that with the other statement that we should look to retain their best and simply block their worst. Why effectively use our institution's tax dollars to train a foreign power's workers?

    1. Re:The Actual Quote by chiguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!
  8. Re:Bannon U R Fired! by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    We apologize again for the fault in the Cabinet assignments. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  9. Re: "Civic Society" not a very impressive euphemis by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re: "Civic Society" not a very impressive euphemi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:*Whew* I'm safe! by iggymanz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re: "Civic Society" not a very impressive euphemis by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

    What is your interpretation of what Bannon meant by a "civic society" in the context in which he said it?

    He meant to say "civil society", but was too drunk and coked up to get it right.

    I don't think we need to worry about Bannon. He looks like he's one rail away from joining Andrew Breitbart in Hell.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cr...

    http://img.wonkette.com/wp-con...

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  13. Re:Shocker by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    By "antiscience" you mean "accepts what actual scientists say."

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  14. Google vs Breitbart by vovin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Re:I"m a liberal socialist by bfpierce · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "70-80% of tech workers here on H1-B visas"

    What actual fucking reality are you from with bullshit numbers like that?

  16. Re:I"m a liberal socialist by Princeofcups · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  17. Re:Shocker by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  18. Re: "Civic Society" not a very impressive euphem by unimacs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:I"m a liberal socialist by Dahamma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While yes, the remarks were clearly racist - especially given Bannon's background for context - his comments are also completely factually inaccurate, so defending them means you are at *best* extremely ignorant of the facts.

    "two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia"

    Wha?? The percentage of any executive level is 14%, and of CEOs, well under that. Certainly below the population percentages of the area.

    And your comment, "70-80% of tech workers here on H1-B visas" is even more inaccurate. I did see a quote (unverified) that 70% of Silicon Valley tech workers are foreign born, but that doesn't mean they are on a Visa nor Asian. I work with dozens of foreign born co-workers from all over - China, Russia, Germany, UK, India, Brazil, France, Thailand, etc - and probably only 1 in 10 are on a Visa, the rest are citizens or permanent residents.

    We have a half dozen openings at any one time that we can't fill, and we rarely even SEE US-born applicants. If you are having trouble finding a job in the Silicon Valley right now, you are either not looking or just plain unqualified.

    Oh, and back to racism... I don't think people are racist just for voting for Trump - they simply decided other (mostly empty) promises of his were more important to them than rejecting his racism flat out. But once you start actively ignoring or worse defending the racist aspects, then yes, you, too, are a racist, that's kind of the definition.

  20. Re:Did he suggest by silentcoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 *
  21. My mother said it in the 80ies ... by Qbertino · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My US Grandpa worked at Grumman Aircraft and helped building the Lunar Lander.
    My US Great Grand Aunt was a Secretary of President Roosevelt.
    My dad worked with NASA.
    As a kid and teenager I was a very very proud american citizen, even though I lived abroad most of my life (I'm German now, for reasons unrelated to this post)

    When my mom and my dad were in the US in Texas in the early '70ies , my mom worked the night-shift at a diner near Houston. During the day she would work part-time protocolling the radio transmitions of the Apollo missions, a job she had gotten through the contact of my dad, who was working at NASA at the time. We had a house in Clear-Lake-City, the engineers city Houston had build for the NASA employees.

    There were two incidents she told me about a few times:
    Once she was working the late shift at the Diner again and a bunch of men came in, and started asked my mom if she knew of some German lady working somewhere in a Diner not wearing a bra. It was a shock to my mom that some unknow group of men had gone out for a ride to come look for her because someone had spread the work *that she wasn't wearing a bra*. My mom speaks accent free english and said she'd never heard of anything like that. Please note: Not wearing a bra was perfectly normal in most parts of the western world in the 60ies and 70ies, but in totally backwards rural Texas it was considered a sensation/scandal.

    Another time she was tending to african-american guests and talking and joking with them when an older cowboy got up in the middle of his meal, slammed money on the table and left without a word. My mom was bedazzled about what had gone wrong and the black people told her that white people don't talk to black people in these parts and that her behaviour was very unusual by rural Texas standards. Medieval standards, no less.

    Fastforward into the early 80ies, smack in the middle of the cold war and nuclear exchange always looming we lived near Bonn in western Germany and my mom used to say that the Russians weren't the problem. But a USA turning fascist - that should be the thing to be afraid of. Very afraid.

    My mom is a smart woman.

    And I have to say, heaven help us all if it's the USAs turn to try out fascism.

    And I know perfectly 'normal' nice people can turn into something far beyond anything one might call 'savage'. If you come to Germany today, you wouldn't think for a moment that our ancestors are responsible for the most extreme atrocities ever commited by and to humanity.

    I'm actually staying paranoid and have been for the past 2.5 decades, ready to move out of Europe and to Patagonia or something, should fascism and xenophobia start to spread out in Europe and other parts of the western world again. And my buddies are starting to understand.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca