Slashdot Mirror
IBM Employees Protest Cooperation With Donald Trump (theintercept.com)
Reader Presto Vivace shares a report on The Intercept: IBM employees are taking a public stand following a personal pitch to Donald Trump from CEO Ginni Rometty and the company's initial refusal to rule out participating in the creation of a national Muslim registry. In November, Rometty wrote Trump directly, congratulating him on his electoral victory and detailing various services the company could sell his administration. The letter was published on an internal IBM blog along with a personal note from Rometty to her enormous global staff. "As IBMers, we believe that innovation improves the human condition. ... We support, tolerance, diversity, the development of expertise, and the open exchange of ideas," she wrote in the context of lending material support to a man who won the election by rejecting all of those values. Employee comments were a mix of support and horror. Now, some of those who were horrified are going public, denouncing Rometty's letter and asserting "our right to refuse participation in any U.S. government contracts that violate constitutionally protected civil liberties." The IBMPetition.org effort has been spearheaded in part by IBM cybersecurity engineer Daniel Hanley, who told The Intercept he started organizing with his coworkers after reading Rometty's letter. "I was shocked, of course," Hanley said, "because IBM has purported to espouse diversity and inclusion, and yet here's Ginni Rometty in an unqualified way reaching out to an admin whose electoral success was based on racist programs."
IBM partnered with a nice man back in the 30s from Germany and that turned out just great!
If only they had shown that kind of backbone during the Obama years and made such a statement about any involvement of IBM in NSA surveillance, creation of massive financial and medical databases on US citizens, and drone killings.
We support, tolerance, diversity, the development of expertise, and the open exchange of ideas," she wrote in the context of lending material support to a man who won the election by rejecting all of those values.
Here's a thought - perhaps Trump indeed DOES support all those values, and you are all biting at yet more Fake News that attempts to claim he does not... time and again you find that items that paint Trump as a nazi or what have you are all vastly blown out of proportion and based on people or things Trump does not actually support and has disclaimed.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
IBM was happy to collaborate with Hitler. Why not Trump? Or any other despicable national leader? After all, business is business, right, IBM?
Where the fuck are all these special-snowflake IBM employees when they have no problem helping their corporate masters commit actual violations of civil liberties in China?
http://vannevar.blogspot.com/2...
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
He was shocked that his CEO turned out to be a sociopath? Who woulda thunk that CEO's would be sociopaths?
Sorry, but we refuse to give into neo-Nazism. We are learning from Germany's big mistake to not just go with the evil flow.
Go ahead and invoke Godwin's Law. If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, smells like a duck, and has funny hair like a duck, it's probably a friggen duck.
Table-ized A.I.
video of Trump calling for Muslim registry https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They should read Scott Adams writings about cognitive dissonance and the art of persuasion. This one for example: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...
I guess we're supposed to pretend that IBM's technology wasn't used 75-80 years ago to carry out the holocaust?
It's good that the company has learned something since then.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Sorry, but I find T's statements and attitudes surprisingly similar to Adolf's. Even if T's are somewhat milder, that's hardly a reason to dismiss them.
"But that iceberg is only 2/3 the one that sank Titanic. Relax!"
Table-ized A.I.
f he did, it was — likely as not — out of concern for those freedoms and the rights we cherish. Because Islam is incompatible with many of them.
Yes, we must protect the values we cherish by destroying them.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength
You are inventing a false dichotomy.
Table-ized A.I.
Seriously, how much of your own kool-aide can you drink?
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics...
(warning, bs autoplaying video)
"âoePresident-elect Trump has never advocated for any registry or system that tracks individuals based on their religion, and to imply otherwise is completely false," Jason Miller, Communications Director of the Presidential Transition Team, wrote in a statement. "The national registry of foreign visitors from countries with high terrorism activity that was in place during the Bush and Obama Administrations gave intelligence and law enforcement communities additional tools to keep our country safe the President-elect will release his own vetting policies after he is sworn in.""
The article goes on to illustrate where the idea apparently came from, in a probably-misheard question during a rally.
From what I can see, a good 50% of the panic the left is feeling over the Trump presidency is being startled by THEIR OWN STRAWMEN.
-Styopa
Sounds like an argument against Affirmative Action...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Your link proves you wrong. Not once did he say anything about a Muslim registry, he was talking about registering and tracking illegal immigrants. The alt-left talking heads, though, could do nothing but manufacture fake news from whole cloth.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
And, it took all of about 37 seconds before someone compared a businessman and reality TV star to a vicious, military-style dictator who started a world war that caused the death of more than one hundred million people and methodically murdered millions of people in concentration camps.
Yeah, I'm invoking Godwin's Law because it's applicable here and really a really tired comparison.
He is, without a doubt, the most successful internet troll of all time. He may be a colossal failure at a number of other things, but he is the troll to which all other trolls will be left to aspire to be for the rest of existence.
When we recognize this, we ought to wonder if the Muslim Registry is just presented as just another act of trolling. Sure, he has championed a great number of Really Bad Ideas, but this one would be beyond the pale for the overwhelming majority of all people. At least his proposed wall doesn't blatantly fly in the face of any enumerated constitutional rights, but this Muslim Registry inarguably does.
It's hard to really imagine that he actually wants to do this. He must be trolling us, right?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Surprisingly insightful. You can't pick and choose what you get outraged about.
Of course you can. It's called partisanship and it happens all the time. The Red/Blue Team will always get outraged when the Blue/Red team does something the Red/Blue team did when it was in power, but that was different because they were the ones doing it! For instance, I'm looking forward to the return of the anti-war left, missing since 2008.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Sh!7 we have a database of everybody but I don't remember anybody calling the Obama Administration "fascist."
The government does not have a database of everyone's religion. The only time the government ever asked me my religion was when I was a Marine and a PFC asked as he was using a metal punch machine to make my dogtags. I was told it was to ensure I got the right funeral. It didn't go into any database.
Preface: I voted against Trump.
In the first clip I'm noticing that Trump refers to borders and walls suggesting his mind is in the context of immigration from the south. That would mean his comments about databases refer to immigration in general. Islam isn't referenced until late in the clip, and then by the interviewer rather than Trump. My conclusion: Trump and the interviewer are talking about two different things. It's unclear if the interviewer intended for that to happen. It's also unclear whether some of the interview from before the clip we see would've established a Muslim context to what we see.
In the second clip Trump seems to try to avoid the question. I can interpret that as him being evasive or as him being annoyed at the question. Being annoyed would be understandable if Trump has not proposed a Muslim database. I haven't seen evidence he has. A smarter politician would've taken the opportunity to say "Muslim database? That's horrible idea and I'm against it! Now an immigration database would be handy to have in the unlikely event Canada invades..." if he has not proposed a Muslim database, but I don't think Trump is very smart (see my preface).
Trump's original proposal last year of banning all (non-American) Muslims from coming to the US (which has since morphed into 'Extreme Vetting') was perfectly legal: there are no laws that grant US rights to people not living in the US. But if he did a Muslim registry, which sounds like all Muslims in America - citizens or not - would be compiled into a list, that would probably end up in the Supreme Court.
I agree w/ you that Islam does not belong in the US, but that needs to be done legislatively by de-classifying it as a religion in terms of First Amendment protections. Like there are things in Islam - from death sentences for apostasy, stoning of adulterers, throwing gays from tall buildings, FGMs, et al that are incompatible w/ the US constitution. That's never been tried in court, but needs to be spelt out. Otherwise, someone doing an honor killing can claim first amendment protection of practice of Islam as the basis of strangling his daughter b'cos she was out kissing a Jewish guy.
Because Islam is incompatible with many of them.
Yup yup, and hardline Christianity isn't. Any religion, when taken to extremes, is antithetical to a country that proclaims religious freedom as one of its cornerstones. Trying to single-out Islam as the problem is nowhere near the solution, it makes you one of them us-vs-them guys that fuels this fire even more.
Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
Okay, let's compare a (failed) artist to a TV star. Better?
If the German citizens had nipped it in the bud, it may not have gone as far as it did. Otherwise, it's the equivalent of feeding a troll.
Table-ized A.I.
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it
And yet, ritual infant male genital mutilation, even though it removes more tissue is a-ok. (You should review the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendation that we begin performing infant female genital mutilation in US hospitals to get a better idea what exactly it is.)
Oddly, the rest of that list is in both Christianity and Islam by way of the Old Testament, even including ritual infant male genital mutilation. Female genital mutilation is not a mandatory part of Islam.
If you're not certain, I'd invite this fellow called MikeeUSA to help out your understanding of the Old Testament. He does seem to know what he's talking about when you peel back the insanity.
NYT is the prime driver of fake news.
I genuinely find this comment chilling. Things have entered a spiral that going in a worrying direction. If we can't agree on the facts under debate then we are all (regardless of our political affiliation) going to be fucked. It's in everyone's interest not to create a fog that makes dialog and reasoned debate impossible. When debate becomes impossible we no longer have a democracy. Elections are just window dressing.
soylentnews.org
You certainly can't trust that article in the NYT. Note that they make incorrect and unsupported claims about what questions were asked, then direct quotes which they say were answers. If one listens to the exchange verbatim, it's clear that Trump was talking about databases to track immigrants. He was not "asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out" as claimed, that was manufactured by the NYT. In context it's clear he wasn't focusing his answers on Muslims, but on immigrants - he specifically mentioned the wall he wants to build along the Mexican border, and not even the alt-left has tried to claim he wants that to keep Muslims out.
Nothing he said implied that he supported creating a database specific to Muslims. He was talking about expanding and better managing long existing systems which track people entering/exiting the US. Yes, because some immigrants are Muslim, they should be in the database (same as others). But, because he refused to say that he wouldn't track Muslims, the alt-left fake news says he wants a "Muslim database", says Muslims would be in it based solely on their religion, and implies it would include US citizens.
I get how people can misunderstand things he says - he's not well read, not very articulate, and doesn't have a career politician's ingrained care with words. It gets him in trouble, but it doesn't make him evil.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Hopefully they've learned to do a more effective job this time.
They did an effective job last time. Most of the death camps were profitable. They were very efficiently run, and IBM's tabulating machines helped with that.
and India. IBM dumped almost all of it's non-Sales staff except a few researches to work on high profile projects that keep them in the news. IBM has long since switched to being an Indian outsourcer who occasionally does some research as part of a broader marketing push. They said as much around 2008 when they did their last round of layoffs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If T had simply said, "We have too much immigration in general. Let's cut way down on it", then very few would be calling him fascist or a neo-Nazi.
Incidentally, if all immigration were curtailed, he wouldn't have his wife.
Table-ized A.I.
And, it took all of about 37 seconds before someone compared a businessman and reality TV star to a vicious, military-style dictator who started a world war that caused the death of more than one hundred million people and methodically murdered millions of people in concentration camps.
Old Adolf didn't start as a Dictator. He started as a ex-corporal and failed artist who found that he got a lot of attention screaming about how Jews were filthy and communists were evil in front of beer hall crowds. He wasn't particularly smart, but he was very charismatic. The similarities between Trump and Adolf's character and politics is striking and rather alarming to people who study world history. The people who just want to demonize Trump will of course throw around the comparison as it suits them.
No, Donald hasn't committed genocide. Comparing him to Hitler in that sense is completely ridiculous. I think the concern that people have about him is that he comes off as a populist bully, someone who is completely willing to throw followers of Islam and Mexicans under the bus in order to gain populist support. In that sense of the comparison, he is very much like Hitler.
Godwin's 'Law', notes that it is OK to discuss Nazis in the context of a topic that pertains to Nazis. So provided that we are not just trying to demonize him, it seems fair. There is a real concern that Trump is going to do some very evil things with power, and starting a national Islam database seems very similar to Germany's first steps with Jewish people. IBM was the company who sold Germany the machines to make punch cards and trace genealogy of Jewish people, so this should be a very touchy topic for IBM.
I don't care if you are pro or anti Trump. Don't get your opinions about him from pundits or talk show hosts. Just watch for yourself what he does very closely and think about history. It is usually a rerun...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Easy, create policies that do away with these "tribal" tendencies. But you see we tried that and the "crybullies" got upset because that meant certain minorities were poorly represented in certain areas of what they would consider privileged areas of society, like higher education.
If you want to see an example of a meritocracy then look to athletics or the military. Blacks make up about 12% of the US population by most estimates. You don't see a lot of Blacks in the Coast Guard though. How could that be? To see why then look to the Olympics on how well Blacks compete in swimming events. Blacks, for the most part, are poor swimmers. Should we award a bronze medal to a Black person just because they are Black? No, of course not. Should we make the Coast Guard take in more Black recruits? Sure, if you want to put people's lives at risk.
Affirmative action policies are just as abhorrent as any other discrimination. By short circuiting the meritocracy that should dominate in education and business we are making the world worse off, not better. If someone is actually promoting people out of "tribal" reasons over merit then this will be reflected in the quality of their work. A professional sports team that hired athletes out of "tribal tendencies" will find themselves a laughing stock in short order, not because of being "too White" or "too Black" but because they will be beaten badly by the teams that hire on merit.
Think about where your affirmative actions policies would lead. We'd have people getting into fields like medicine and engineering out of racial preference over merit. This means people will die because of poorly performed surgeries and improperly built bridges. One thing about affirmative action is it cannot override merit completely. A sub par physician or engineer simply will not get as far as an excellent one. What affirmative action did do though is lower the quality of the population of very critical professions. People that should have gotten into medical school or an engineering program out of merit were denied that spot because a person of some protected minority got in instead.
I say this as a protected minority. I am a disabled veteran and it gives me certain preferences in finding work, getting into schools, etc. If you think that I don't take advantage of this preferential treatment then you are a fool. I know what's best for me and so I act on it. I don't expect anyone else to do different. What I do expect though is that people should not get into places that they do not belong. If the bar has to be lowered to meet a set demographic profile then that is a problem.
I remember a conversation I had with a classmate once where we got to talking about affirmative action. He said something that stuck with me, it went something like if you want to get into engineering then claim you are a Black lesbian Jew. Someone like that would tick off all the affirmative action boxes, that person probably wouldn't even have to go to class to graduate and get hired immediately.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Deuteronomy 13:
6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death, because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.
12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.
Deuteronomy 17:
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
Luke 19:27:
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
As well as Matthew 10:34:
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.