5 ms·

there are several people in the comments saying things "american jobs for americans first". how much more spiteful can you be.

perl4ever 7y ago
When I consider how much people hate Facebook, and my own sense that they don't really "do anything", it seems like there are an infinite number of better existing and potential enterprises someone could work for (or create). In that light, it seems churlish to focus on whether any benefits are distributed equitably. Maybe it's all garbage, so people should have the self-respect not to fight over it?
- yfk 7y ago
  You'd be surprised. A lot folks hopping between companies in SV are happy to throw away their values to work there for the money.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    This sort of phrasing ("throw away their values") to me has the connotation that normal people have an exhaustive, complex, and perfectly logical system of "values" which guide them like a million-line computer program until they reach a breaking point for some unclear reason. Which I'm describing in a way that sounds ridiculous, because I think it is. It's ridiculous squared to imply that I (or anyone) can infer how someone else's putative system of values works. I have a distaste for Facebook, although I still use it, kind of like I would for an unpleasant person at work. But that has nothing to do with principles, which I don't admit to having.
eridius 7y ago
And of course the "americans" they're talking about are descended from immigrants themselves, because you can be sure they're not saying that the jobs should go to indigenous people.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Is the logic that, because they are descended from immigrants, they are not allowed to put the interests of their own citizens first?
  - eridius 7y ago
    It is in the interests of our citizens to have talent flow into the US instead of flowing out. But that wasn't really my point. My point was people who have benefitted from our country's historic immigration practices are decrying the continuation of those practices.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      'Continuation' is inaccurate - your country's historic immigration practices began with "free White persons of good character" [1], and were effectively 'whites only' until 1965 [2]. But the 'nation of immigrants' rhetoric omits this. Those are the practices they probably benefited from. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
burfog 7y ago
Pardon the sports analogy... You're on a soccer team. You object to your teammates refusing to let the fans or the opposing team have a chance to kick the ball. You see this as being spiteful, since everybody should be able to share the experience of kicking the ball. Meanwhile, your teammates are muttering about how you are disloyal and really don't belong on the team. They want to succeed together, even if that means excluding the fans and the opposing team. Being drafted by birth doesn't change the fact that your peers expect you to support the team. They want to win, as a team, without compromise. George Washington didn't share ammunition with the British, even though it would have been a kind gesture. Was he spiteful for not sharing? How about Truman refusing to share nuclear weapons with the rest of the world?
- kaesar14 7y ago
  This is more like a professional soccer team objecting to someone far better coming into the team because it'll disrupt one of their roles and the team rallies around that individual. Loyal? Sure. Probably means the team is going to be worse in the long run for it.
- jhayward 7y ago
  We are not at war with people going to college at Dartmouth, and we won't be nuking Dartmouth. What kind of world view does it take to see everyone as the enemy?
  - burfog 7y ago
    I'm guessing the campaign promise to "win bigly" didn't resonate with you, but lots of people loved it. I suspect you do have an enemy. It might be rural people, southerners, Christians, or people who want to win bigly. Evolution made humans behave this way. People who supported their tribe against the neighboring tribes got to leave more offspring. Even those killed in battle effectively got more offspring, due to DNA shared with close relatives who benefited from winning the wars. An interesting take on it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
joejerryronnie 7y ago
If Americans want these high paying jobs then they need to suck it up and study hard core STEM subjects instead of “following their passion” into random fields that pay no money. None of these hiring companies care which country you’re from (in fact it’s probably cheaper to hire American citizens).
dang 7y ago
I understand the feeling, but the site guidelines ask you not to reply to egregious comments (or comment on them at the top level, which is the same thing but worse). In other words: please don't feed the trolls. We've banned the account, but the damage that comment caused has now spilled over the entire thread. If you flag the bad comment, that alerts moderators. In egregious cases, email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at it sooner. But starting a new off-topic subthread about how shitty a shitty comment was merely makes the thread worse, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mlevental 7y ago
  i wasn't talking about comments on hn - i was talking about comments on the linkedin post.
  - dang 7y ago
    Sorry, I completely misread that! The principle still applies though. It's a swerve into a generic controversy to which people's responses will be indignant and predictable. There's no curiosity in such discussion, and therefore it's off topic for HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - mlevental 7y ago
      i don't understand what kind of curiosity an article like this could inspire at all. if you allow these kind of controversial articles you might as well allow the ensuing partisan debate.
      - dang 7y ago
        I understand why you'd say that, but the suggestion doesn't generalize. Even if we exclude articles like this one, there will still be many other articles with controversial and political overlap. Excluding them all isn't an option, and neither is allowing "ensuing partisan debate" to burn wild. I wrote about this recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20013092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20013092. If you read that and still think there's something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to hear what it is.

perl4ever 7y ago

When I consider how much people hate Facebook, and my own sense that they don't really "do anything", it seems like there are an infinite number of better existing and potential enterprises someone could work for (or create). In that light, it seems churlish to focus on whether any benefits are distributed equitably. Maybe it's all garbage, so people should have the self-respect not to fight over it?

yfk 7y ago
You'd be surprised. A lot folks hopping between companies in SV are happy to throw away their values to work there for the money.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  This sort of phrasing ("throw away their values") to me has the connotation that normal people have an exhaustive, complex, and perfectly logical system of "values" which guide them like a million-line computer program until they reach a breaking point for some unclear reason. Which I'm describing in a way that sounds ridiculous, because I think it is. It's ridiculous squared to imply that I (or anyone) can infer how someone else's putative system of values works. I have a distaste for Facebook, although I still use it, kind of like I would for an unpleasant person at work. But that has nothing to do with principles, which I don't admit to having.

eridius 7y ago

And of course the "americans" they're talking about are descended from immigrants themselves, because you can be sure they're not saying that the jobs should go to indigenous people.

deogeo 7y ago
Is the logic that, because they are descended from immigrants, they are not allowed to put the interests of their own citizens first?
- eridius 7y ago
  It is in the interests of our citizens to have talent flow into the US instead of flowing out. But that wasn't really my point. My point was people who have benefitted from our country's historic immigration practices are decrying the continuation of those practices.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    'Continuation' is inaccurate - your country's historic immigration practices began with "free White persons of good character" [1], and were effectively 'whites only' until 1965 [2]. But the 'nation of immigrants' rhetoric omits this. Those are the practices they probably benefited from. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...

burfog 7y ago

Pardon the sports analogy... You're on a soccer team. You object to your teammates refusing to let the fans or the opposing team have a chance to kick the ball. You see this as being spiteful, since everybody should be able to share the experience of kicking the ball. Meanwhile, your teammates are muttering about how you are disloyal and really don't belong on the team. They want to succeed together, even if that means excluding the fans and the opposing team. Being drafted by birth doesn't change the fact that your peers expect you to support the team. They want to win, as a team, without compromise. George Washington didn't share ammunition with the British, even though it would have been a kind gesture. Was he spiteful for not sharing? How about Truman refusing to share nuclear weapons with the rest of the world?

kaesar14 7y ago
This is more like a professional soccer team objecting to someone far better coming into the team because it'll disrupt one of their roles and the team rallies around that individual. Loyal? Sure. Probably means the team is going to be worse in the long run for it.
jhayward 7y ago
We are not at war with people going to college at Dartmouth, and we won't be nuking Dartmouth. What kind of world view does it take to see everyone as the enemy?
- burfog 7y ago
  I'm guessing the campaign promise to "win bigly" didn't resonate with you, but lots of people loved it. I suspect you do have an enemy. It might be rural people, southerners, Christians, or people who want to win bigly. Evolution made humans behave this way. People who supported their tribe against the neighboring tribes got to leave more offspring. Even those killed in battle effectively got more offspring, due to DNA shared with close relatives who benefited from winning the wars. An interesting take on it: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

joejerryronnie 7y ago

If Americans want these high paying jobs then they need to suck it up and study hard core STEM subjects instead of “following their passion” into random fields that pay no money. None of these hiring companies care which country you’re from (in fact it’s probably cheaper to hire American citizens).

dang 7y ago

I understand the feeling, but the site guidelines ask you not to reply to egregious comments (or comment on them at the top level, which is the same thing but worse). In other words: please don't feed the trolls. We've banned the account, but the damage that comment caused has now spilled over the entire thread. If you flag the bad comment, that alerts moderators. In egregious cases, email hn@ycombinator.com so we can look at it sooner. But starting a new off-topic subthread about how shitty a shitty comment was merely makes the thread worse, so please don't. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mlevental 7y ago
i wasn't talking about comments on hn - i was talking about comments on the linkedin post.
- dang 7y ago
  Sorry, I completely misread that! The principle still applies though. It's a swerve into a generic controversy to which people's responses will be indignant and predictable. There's no curiosity in such discussion, and therefore it's off topic for HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - mlevental 7y ago
    i don't understand what kind of curiosity an article like this could inspire at all. if you allow these kind of controversial articles you might as well allow the ensuing partisan debate.
    - dang 7y ago
      I understand why you'd say that, but the suggestion doesn't generalize. Even if we exclude articles like this one, there will still be many other articles with controversial and political overlap. Excluding them all isn't an option, and neither is allowing "ensuing partisan debate" to burn wild. I wrote about this recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20013092 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20013092. If you read that and still think there's something I haven't addressed, I'd be curious to hear what it is.