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

701–708 of 708 posts

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

#701

Post by smsm42 »

V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #697
smsm42 wrote: post #696

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you seem to be having a hard time with this It may come as a surprise to you, but when people disagree with you, it's usually not because they don't understand the infinite wisdom of your words. It's often because they understand and think you're talking nonsense. And sometimes - like in this case - it's because you are. > an awful lot of racists like to say, 'illegals'" So what? Awful lot of racists also like to s…

> So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". sigh this is the second time you've said essentially, "racists say a lot of other things too, so clearly 'illegals' isn't racist". that's not a particularly helpful or clever point. are there non-racist people who say "illegals"? sure. do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah,…

> do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do

That's called "circular arfument" - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim.

> do you? I honestly don't care

So, being unable to prove your point, or somehow substantiate the claim that calling acts that are agains the law "illegal" is somehow "racist" (tbh, you shouldn't blame yourself too hard for the failure - it's very hard to prove something this idiotic, but you definitely should blame yourself for proclaiming it in the first place, as you should know better) - you resort to denigrating me personally and feigning indifference to my opinion (after all the discussion) because you are so much smarter than me (and the way these smarts are revealed is by mindlessly repeating a slogan which you are unable to substantiate).

> are there other, non racially charged ways to describe someone's immigration status?

Yes, here's one: if someone immigrated legally, she's a legal immigrant. If someone immigrated illegally, she's an illegal immigrant. Nothing to do with race. See how easy it was? Of course, if you tend to reflexively call whoever disagrees with you "racist", it may become harder. But that's exactly the reason to get rid of that foolish tic.

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

#702

Post by V-eHGsd_ »

smsm42 wrote: post #701
V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what? Awful lot of racists also like to say "hello" and "breakfast" and "cat" and "good evening". sigh this is the second time you've said essentially, "racists say a lot of other things too, so clearly 'illegals' isn't racist". that's not a particularly helpful or clever point. are there non-racist people who say "illegals"? sure. do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah,…

> do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do That's called "circular arfument" - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. > do you? I honestly don't care So, being unable to prove your point, or somehow…

> That's called "circular arfument" (lol, sic) - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim.

first, it's whom, not who.

second, i didn't claim that it's racist because people know that it's racist.

learn from google, learn from teen vogue.

https://www.teenvogue.com/story/why-you-shouldnt-use-the-ter...

you bring nothing novel or new or clever to this conversation.

bye, dude. you're intellectually dishonest. even worse, you're boring.

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

#703

Post by smsm42 »

V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #702
smsm42 wrote: post #701

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> do most people understand the racist connotations of the term, "illegals"? yeah, most do That's called "circular arfument" - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. > do you? I honestly don't care So, being unable to prove your point, or somehow…

> That's called "circular arfument" (lol, sic) - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. first, it's whom, not who. second, i didn't claim that it's racist because people know that it's racist. learn from google, learn from teen vogue. https://www…

> first, it's whom, not who.

That's the best you can do? "Dude".

> learn from teen vogue

Oh my.

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

#704

Post by [deleted] »

smsm42 wrote: post #703
V-eHGsd_ wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's called "circular arfument" (lol, sic) - you proclaim that this term is racist and prove it by proclaiming - without any evidence - that "most people" (who?) "understand" that it is racist. What you do is just repeating your original - baseless - claim. first, it's whom, not who. second, i didn't claim that it's racist because people know that it's racist. learn from google, learn from teen vogue. https://www…

> first, it's whom, not who. That's the best you can do? "Dude". > learn from teen vogue Oh my.

[deleted]

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

#705

Post by sneak »

smsm42 wrote: post #678
lovehashbrowns wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not due to the definition, it's because of how the word has been used. There are terms which refer to undocumented immigrants which still represent their status, but are not dehumanizing.

If a person breaks the law, it is completely correct to say they broke the law. Going out of one's way to hide that fact because stating the facts is somehow "dehumanizing" is a political propaganda exercise, which tries to present (some) laws as something insignificant and barely worth mentioning, and people that consider following these laws important as somehow irrational, and more than once in this very topic - i…

In the United States, literally everyone breaks the law. Calling someone “illegal” as if their identity is defined by something done by literally every single member of society is just a thin veil over the wish to dehumanize the vast and terrifying Other.

By your logic, you are also “an illegal”, because you, too, have broken the law. Everyone is.

But you don’t use it this way. You use it exclusively to define foreigners as bad, as if the law’s opinion about a person’s actions is relevant to their identity.

Actions are illegal. People are not.

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

#706

Post by tehjoker »

whalesalad wrote: post #142
tehjoker wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are dictatorships. Get in line peasants. It could just be that if we want a democratic society, we'll need to directly attack the idea that we have no democracy in the place where we spend most of our lives.

Depends on how you look at it. You have the freedom to leave your job and go work somewhere else. You can voice your opinion within the company but at some point the company is its own living breathing entity that is not behooven to you, unless your name is on the building.

That's kinda the point. The person whose name is on the building is a dictator. I am advocating that we live in a more democratic society.

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

#707

Post by dang »

iron0013 wrote: post #691
dang wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I said name-calling I was referring to words like vile and cynic. Words like concentration camp seem to me in a different category. They aren't necessarily name-calling, but they do have dual semantics: a factual aspect and a pejorative one. If all a comment does is repeat those words and add additional pejoratives, that's not a substantive comment by HN standards. Repeating pejoratives very much feels like "say…

It's clear that you've thought about this, so what do you suggest is the appropriate way to have a constructive conversation with someone who openly endorses atrocities? The pro-atrocity side is welcome to describe the crimes they support in warm, fuzzy terms that do not offend those with delicate sensibilities, but the anti-atrocity side cannot even freely state their case because it naturally involves invoking the…

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to this. I meant to, but got swept away by the waves of everything that gets posted here.

Our intention is to give every sincere question a sincere answer, so I'm sorry to have left the wrong impression in this case. It's just not always possible given resource constraints. I'm sure we can revisit this in the future.

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

#708

Post by iron0013 »

dang wrote: post #707
iron0013 wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's clear that you've thought about this, so what do you suggest is the appropriate way to have a constructive conversation with someone who openly endorses atrocities? The pro-atrocity side is welcome to describe the crimes they support in warm, fuzzy terms that do not offend those with delicate sensibilities, but the anti-atrocity side cannot even freely state their case because it naturally involves invoking the…

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to reply to this. I meant to, but got swept away by the waves of everything that gets posted here. Our intention is to give every sincere question a sincere answer, so I'm sorry to have left the wrong impression in this case. It's just not always possible given resource constraints. I'm sure we can revisit this in the future.

Thanks! appreciate it
Post reply on HN