Steve Bannon Suggests There Are Too Many Asian CEOs In Silicon Valley

[idav]

I don't disagree.

Asian guys I've know knew Algebra by the time they were 7.

 

[fantome profane]

Asian guys I've know knew Algebra by the time they were 7.

I knew Algebra when I was six, I remember doing in when I was in 1st grade. It is not hard, it just has a funny name. Tell kids that Algebra is hard math and they will have trouble with it, tell them it is a game and they will figure it out easily. (p.s. I am not Asian, nor am I a genius)

 

[idav]

I knew Algebra when I was six, I remember doing in when I was in 1st grade. It is not hard, it just has a funny name. Tell kids that Algebra is hard math and they will have trouble with it, tell them it is a game and they will figure it out easily. (p.s. I am not Asian, nor am I a genius)

Kids get stuff like sponges but when our US kids are 30th in the world for math and science we have an issue. It's more our education system and the home-schooled folks here don't do any better.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

American "CEOs" who report to the Asian headquarters. And, it's not always true that they have American CEOs.

That's how Capitalism works. Why punish the successful?

 

[fantome profane]

Kids get stuff like sponges but when our US kids are 30th in the world for math and science we have an issue. It's more our education system and the home-schooled folks here don't do any better.

Absolutely, and that was my point. But also that it is more a question of attitude rather than aptitude. I learned "algebra" at the same time I learned how to add, and it was no more difficult. I was lucky that my mother was a puzzle freak. puzzles, riddles, word games were all fun

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would probably consider moving to a less conservative location. I hear those in the more populated states don't have to deal with it as much.

I am. For now, it's looking like being an English teacher will probably be the most assured way to get out, because it's moving for work which is a "check" on immigration in many places, and in some countries they're even in high demand (China for a year may be interesting). Rack up some years of experience in places where English is not the native tongue, and then start looking for a more permanent place. I don't anticipate that being America. And it's a chance to travel the world with more opportunities than what Anthropology will provide. My first stop will probably be Canada, to further my education, try to begin an career in teaching English, and because their health insurance covers things I need that my insurance here won't.

 

[MD]

Lots of people of all races and nationalities have a sob story, including the people you are convinced have more advantage than you, and you're convinced work less hard than you. But the numbers say otherwise. I'm white as the driven snow, and worked really hard to get from my rural farming background into medicine. Doesn't change that there is a greater racial disparity in representation and opportunity in POC, and even more so for black kids than Asian kids in the business workforce (especially here in the Pacific NW)
Again, I don't support school system affirmative action at all because I don't support for profit universities at all. Nobody should have to pay for higher education. But that's another thread.

Also, this:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcn...t-your-wedge-n610596?client=ms-android-att-us

You see I'm not using my sob story to gain an advantage, but to tell you that your reasoning for affirmative action is bogus. You may not 'support it' but you clearly are defending it regularly. It's also interesting how you dismiss anyone's hardships as a sob story simply to support your own biases and views. Certain people who have a hard life = hardships, others who don't fit into your view = sob story. Classic.

I personally have lived with people of chosen minorities who have come from far better backgrounds than myself and other immigrant groups who you deem as 'privileged'. These were wealthy folks who had lower grades and got into the best schools simply due to being seen as 'oppressed' by people such as yourself. They would even laugh and joke about it, and say they were using it to their advantage. They came from cultures with strong family values and structures, and used the system to their benefit. It was simply their heritage that got them far more opportunities and benefits.

How can you say a black or latino person who grows up in the same ghetto as an Asian person is more disadvantaged? What's your reasoning behind that? Especially if that Asian person has friends killed, jailed or on drugs by the time they leave that area? If that Asian person comes from an oppressed minority of their own, or a war torn zone? Or if the black or latino person are immigrants themselves and come from cultures which haven't been dismantled?

I mean I really want to know your rationale. How can you pick certain groups over others and say you're not a racist?

 

[MD]

I understand the power of innate response mechanisms.

And you are right. Nothing can be fully fair. But you don't think that after centuries of slavery and inhumane treatment we shouldn't do what we can to give African Americans a chance at an equitable society? Or since it was only in 1920 woman got the right to vote and are still fighting an income gap we shouldn't do something to prevent sexism from retaining inequality? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States#Example_of_success_in_women)

What about the other minorities, us non whites who had nothing to do with the historical injustices of the whites? Why should we pay the price for the mistakes of your ancestors?

And if you're looking at minorities that have been oppressed, why not give preferences to the Jews? Or the Zoroastrians? Or the Ukrainians, the Cambodians, Coptic Egyptians, etc etc. I mean I could pull a hundred examples of groups that have undergone centuries of slavery, genocide and inhumane treatment and not only don't get preferential treatment but are discriminated against by affirmative action.

Ah...but shouldn't it be in the public sector that affirmative action be the most prevalent? There is still an atrocious education gap when it comes to blacks vs. whites, and shouldn't government jobs represent all Americans?

That has more to do with the ****ty educational system of the U.S. than historical injustices. I grew up in a ghetto, it's a cess pool and it will take more than throwing money or giving preference to change deep set cultural changes that came about due to slavery and colonialism.

Jobs should represent the best person for that position, not fit some quota and especially not discriminate against groups that don't fit your idea of oppression.

 

[Watchmen]

That's how Capitalism works. Why punish the successful?

We should protect our own first. We obviously don't have pure capitalism. You know that, right?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Is this a conversation about race or about business practice/success?

Successful, business-minded entrepreneurs (regardless of ethnicity or background) have a place in the market don't they? If there is a market need, and they fill it, why does it matter who they are or where they are from?

If the problem isn't a racial one, from Bannon's perspective, then what is it exactly?
Are we to remove successful businesses from the marketplace just because they aren't White enough? Because they aren't American enough? For those defending Bannon, what should the standard be for having more "American" CEOs in Silicon Valley? If their products and organization were better, wouldn't they succeed? Isn't that how business works?

 

[jonathan180iq]

We should protect our own first.

Who would that be, exactly?
What's the standard for deciding who should be protected first and who should be protected second?
Is it the ethnicity of the CEO of said company?
Is it dependent on how many American citizens a company employees?
Is there a certain dollar amount that an organization needs to put back into the American economy before it gets that privilege?
Do you have an organization in mind that you would like for us to look at as a comparable model for what's good and best about American owned businesses?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We should protect our own first. We obviously don't have pure capitalism. You know that, right?

Yes, but that's the mentality you're up against. Any such burden is an attack on the job creators and success. The state taking care of their own is just a costly expense. That's why we have NAFTA. Because it's great for business, and cheapens operating and production to economy-weakening heights. It is bad, it does need to go until we have a truly global and unified economy, but, ultimately, the argument that prevails--that also has the books to back it up--is that "taking care of our own" isn't good for business.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

What about the other minorities, us non whites who had nothing to do with the historical injustices of the whites? Why should we pay the price for the mistakes of your ancestors?

And if you're looking at minorities that have been oppressed, why not give preferences to the Jews? Or the Zoroastrians? Or the Ukrainians, the Cambodians, Coptic Egyptians, etc etc. I mean I could pull a hundred examples of groups that have undergone centuries of slavery, genocide and inhumane treatment and not only don't get preferential treatment but are discriminated against by affirmative action.

I don't think we should discriminate against any minority. I bring up African Americans because affirmative action was needed in order to break the cycle of prejudice. Does it need tweaking? Apparently, as the data you cited suggests.

That has more to do with the ****ty educational system of the U.S. than historical injustices. I grew up in a ghetto, it's a cess pool and it will take more than throwing money or giving preference to change deep set cultural changes that came about due to slavery and colonialism.

Jobs should represent the best person for that position, not fit some quota and especially not discriminate against groups that don't fit your idea of oppression.

Actually, considering poverty is a viscous cycle directly related to education and the funding of it, throwing more money at it may be helpful...as long as we break the segregation and class-ism still rampant in some areas.

Jobs should be filled by the best people for that position. But we need to regulate it somehow, since time and again people have shown that people will be passed over not due to qualifications but due to bigotry.[/QUOTE]

 

[MD]

I don't think we should discriminate against any minority. I bring up African Americans because affirmative action was needed in order to break the cycle of prejudice. Does it need tweaking? Apparently, as the data you cited suggests.


Actually, considering poverty is a viscous cycle directly related to education and the funding of it, throwing more money at it may be helpful...as long as we break the segregation and class-ism still rampant in some areas.

Jobs should be filled by the best people for that position. But we need to regulate it somehow, since time and again people have shown that people will be passed over not due to qualifications but due to bigotry.

You talk about classism, yet you support policy that discriminates against certain low class minorities. You think Asians are on a high class? Immigrants live in the same poverty as other groups.

When I'm talking about Asians, I'm not only talking about Chinese or Koreans. I'm including West Asians and South Asians. There is discrimination against them as well through affirmative action. Many of them live in ghettos, come from low income homes and war torn regions. Many fall into gangs, have their homes broken. Yet many persevere and survive and thrive. However, according to affirmative action that is s sin. According to affirmative action in the U.S., a Syrian refugee is seen as more privileged than a Nigerian kid who comes from wealth and the latter is given preference over the former. Yes, that's how it works, it's purely race based.

You speak against bigotry, yet you still promote your own version of it. If you actually looked critically at your argument you would realize you are no different from Bannon. He asks for preference for whites, while you ask for preference for only special minorities. It's two sides of the same coin, the only fair option is merit.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

You talk about classism, yet you support policy that discriminates against certain low class minorities. You think Asians are on a high class? Immigrants live in the same poverty as other groups.

When I'm talking about Asians, I'm not only talking about Chinese or Koreans. I'm including West Asians and South Asians. There is discrimination against them as well through affirmative action. Many of them live in ghettos, come from low income homes and war torn regions. Many fall into gangs, have their homes broken. Yet many persevere and survive and thrive. However, according to affirmative action that is s sin. According to affirmative action in the U.S., a Syrian refugee is seen as more privileged than a Nigerian kid who comes from wealth and the latter is given preference over the former. Yes, that's how it works, it's purely race based.

You speak against bigotry, yet you still promote your own version of it. If you actually looked critically at your argument you would realize you are no different from Bannon. He asks for preference for whites, while you ask for preference for only special minorities. It's two sides of the same coin, the only fair option is merit.

Huh? Where am I supporting discriminating policies and promoting bigotry?

Edit: Please note where I am suggesting change. While I get that you are not for affirmative action, I am not sure why you think that--without regulation--people will hire fairly, based purely on merit.

I do not wish to promote bigotry, only to give minorities who are treated unfairly a fighting chance for equality.

 

[idav]

You speak against bigotry, yet you still promote your own version of it. If you actually looked critically at your argument you would realize you are no different from Bannon. He asks for preference for whites, while you ask for preference for only special minorities. It's two sides of the same coin, the only fair option is merit.

The issue is Americans are not earning the positions. Businesses are not obligated to hire an American, jobs are in competition so US needs to learn the skills or get passed up by somebody who has them, regardless if they are a minority. I personally am not too much a fan of affirmative action but I feel it has its place. If an area has 50% minorities there is no reason a company should be 0% minority.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The issue is Americans are not earning the positions. Businesses are not obligated to hire an American, jobs are in competition so US needs to learn the skills or get passed up by somebody who has them, regardless if they are a minority.

When you put it like that, replace "Americans" with black people, Mexicans, homosexuals, women, etc., and suddenly it seems like people who foam at the mouth with rage against Affirmative Action like the idea of excluding some while making sure others are included.

 

[MD]

When you put it like that, replace "Americans" with black people, Mexicans, homosexuals, women, etc., and suddenly it seems like people who foam at the mouth with rage against Affirmative Action like the idea of excluding some while making sure others are included.

You obviously completely missed my point. Like a typical liberal you lump in a bunch of selected 'minorities' that are oppressed, while ignoring people across the spectrum who truly need help.

No a rich white woman is not more oppressed than a broke *** immigrant Indian, that's a fact. Liberals love delusion, but that's why you're getting hit back now. Your delusion turns off people tuned into reality.

 

[MD]

Huh? Where am I supporting discriminating policies and promoting bigotry?

Edit: Please note where I am suggesting change. While I get that you are not for affirmative action, I am not sure why you think that--without regulation--people will hire fairly, based purely on merit.

I do not wish to promote bigotry, only to give minorities who are treated unfairly a fighting chance for equality.

How do you decide which minorities are treated unfairly, that's my point. According to affirmative action, a Syrian male refugee is more privileged than a rich latino. You're stating that some minorities are treated unfairly, while ignoring that to elevate these minorities other minorities should be punished.

Since you cannot create a perfect system, you abolish the one now

 

[idav]

When you put it like that, replace "Americans" with black people, Mexicans, homosexuals, women, etc., and suddenly it seems like people who foam at the mouth with rage against Affirmative Action like the idea of excluding some while making sure others are included.

When talking about why there are CEO's in tech companies I doubt there are any affirmative action issues. The whole world is equal opportunity. I mentioned Microsoft CEO being Asian. But does that really matter? Anyone has the same opportunity to work there.