Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 708 posts

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#311

Post by smsm42 »

house9-2 wrote: post #236
umeshunni wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if a significant portion of GitHub's employees are non-US citizens, it's highly unlikely they're illegals.

> it's highly unlikely they're illegals I consider 'illegals' to be a derogatory term used by racists (whether they think they are racist is another matter) Did you drive a car today? Did you speed? If so that is an illegal activity so maybe you are also an 'illegal'? Maybe I am way off base? I should probably go hug a tree or something.

> I consider 'illegals' to be a derogatory term used by racists

You consider wrong. Doubly wrong since race has nothing to do with it (there are illegal immigrants of all races, just as there are people of all races on all sides of the immigration debate).

> If so that is an illegal activity so maybe you are also an 'illegal'?

Within the context of driving, yes. You can be called "illegal driver" or "criminal driver" if your behavior raised to the level of a crime (e.g. something like DUI and causing a crash). But we aren't discussing driving here, so no.

> Maybe I am way off base?

Yes, you are.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#312

Post by baggy_trough »

shadowgovt wrote: post #95
baggy_trough wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That kind of characterization is hysterical nonsense.

That kind of characterization is definitional. See: the Japanese Internment camps the US ran during World War II.

I don't think the immigrant detention centers measure up to the definition at, for example, the Encylopedia Britannica:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#313

Post by temikus »

nostrademons wrote: post #270
commandlinefan wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also have to wonder what percentage of GitHub’s employees _are_ non-US citizens. Every programming job I’ve ever had in the U.S. was for a company that was staffed by at least 90% foreigners; if they see U.S. immigration as an adversary, they may be opposing any contract on personal grounds.

Every non-citizen I know keeps their head down and doesn't express their personal opinions on political matters ( particularly relating to ICE) because they don't want to jeopardize their visa. It would be strange and kinda stupid for a foreign programmer on an H1B to oppose a contract with ICE because they do eventually want to get that Green Card and eventually citizenship, and they know who holds the power in that…

You are correct. As someone who used to be on very restrictive visas for a while - your job is not “just a job” anymore. It was very much a source of constant stress for me knowing that political shifts at work or a terrible boss could very well send you packing in a matter of days.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#314

Post by traverseda »

house9-2 wrote: post #268
plurple wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily, whether you consider something racist or not has no actual impact on the usage of the term. And of course, you’re free to call a speeder an “illegal” if you want, just like apparently you’re free to call other HN users racist for using common terminology in a way you don’t like.

> whether you consider something racist or not has no actual impact on the usage of the term Thats true > for using common terminology in a way you don’t like. When did it become common terminology? I am 47 years old and don't remember that term ever being used until the last presidential election as a means to vilify people of color. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention the other 44 years?

It used to be "illegal aliens" I think? That's the shortened form.

Unfortunately any word used to describe a population that people don't like will stop being a descriptor and become a slur if it's used long enough.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#315

Post by swebs »

lovehashbrowns wrote: post #277
vinay427 wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's fairly clear the commenter meant that they're "illegal immigrants," which approriately describes people that immigrated illegally. While the abbreviated colloquial form may not be strictly accurate on its own, it's quite reasonable to assume the full form given the context.

The words you use have an effect on how others feel and how they're perceived. The word "illegals" can have negative connotations, and it's a dehumanizing word.

The word has negative connotations because you're describing a very negative thing. If you suddenly decide to use a new word, it will also inevitably develop negative connotations.

Stephen Pinker explains it well:

https://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/1994_04_03_newyo...

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#316

Post by JohnFen »

standardUser wrote: post #153
JohnFen wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

White Nationalism is an entirely different thing than nationalism. But both are objectionable.

I'm having a hard time understanding if you were downvoted for correctly pointing out that "nationalism" and "white nationalism" are two very different things, or because you described both as objectionable.

I wondered the same thing. I suspect it's that I said I considered plain old nationalism objectionable. That term can have very different connotations to different people.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#317

Post by scarejunba »

vinay427 wrote: post #232
sneak wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No person is illegal.

I think it's fairly clear the commenter meant that they're "illegal immigrants," which approriately describes people that immigrated illegally. While the abbreviated colloquial form may not be strictly accurate on its own, it's quite reasonable to assume the full form given the context.

It's usually considered better to refer to people by adjectives rather than noun forms. It just sounds politer to imply that it's an aspect of them rather than what they are. It's a minor thing in American speech, I think.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#318

Post by [deleted] »

paulddraper wrote: post #238
ken wrote: post #235

> The results of GitHub’s quarterly anonymous employee survey — which showed a decline in trust of leadership ... In 100% of cases where I've known a small company that got bought by a much bigger company, this has occurred. It's amazing anyone still believes that their small company can get bought and somehow they'll be able to preserve (what they think is) their "company culture".

> It's amazing anyone still believes Has anyone ever believed that?

[deleted]

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#319

Post by Rebelgecko »

jcims wrote: post #289
house9-2 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The big difference is that "illegal alien" really does refer to a person simply existing in a country they are not supposed to be in Correct, I have no issue with the term: "illegal alien" > shortening it to just the adjective "illegals" works in a derogatory manner

Is 'criminals' better? Also technically true.

The term "criminal" is probably a step up. Using an epithet isn't inherently bad, but I've noticed that when an adjective becomes a nickname for a group of people it's often a method of dehumanizing them.

Re: GitHub tries to quell employee anger over its ICE contract

#320

Post by Rebelgecko »

nostrademons wrote: post #276
mgraczyk wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At every large company where I have worked (Intel, Qualcomm, Google, Facebook) the majority of my colleagues have been non-citizens. In some cases (Qualcomm SD, Google) 100% of the people on my team were non-citizens.

It's heavily team-dependent. I was on a team at Google where I was the only American citizen, with teammates from Iceland, England, Vietnam, India (4), Taiwan (2), and China (2). I was also on a team where there were basically zero non-citizens, and most of my teammates were from places like Ohio, Indiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, etc.

Is that sort of distribution typical? Do teams tend to self-segregate?
Post reply on HN