Hacker News Reader

Comment by warlox | Hacker News Reader

> “We have to be careful of that, Steve. You know, we have to keep our talented people in this country,” Trump said. He paused. Bannon said, “Um.”

> “I think you agree with that,” Trump said. “Do you agree with that?”

> Bannon was hesitant.

> “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.”

What could Bannon possibly have meant by this besides wanting to deport them en masse?

Mass deportation is ethnic cleansing, in case you didn't know.

View on HN

Talking about the distribution of race in Silicon Valley

~ some magical jump in logic ~

Talking about deportation

~ another magical jump in logic ~

Talking about ethnic cleansing

I don't really follow. Nowhere does he talk about "mass deportation" or "ethnic cleansing" or anything even closely related.

Trump is saying that we have to keep the talented people in the country.

Bannon disagrees that we should keep the talented people in the country, but he doesn't want to say it to Trump's face, so he says a bunch of code words for "whites only society."

There's only one way to make a whites only society. It's ethnic cleansing. Trump happens to have already brought discussions of mass deportation to the mainstream.

Mass deportation is a type of ethnic cleansing, by the way. It's right in the definition. There is no leap of logic there.

As an aside, Bannon is significantly overstating the percent of CEOs who are Asian.

Making assumptions based on ambiguous statements is dangerous. He does not use the words "mass deportation" he does not even say explicitly that he disagrees with Trump. Instead of agreeing he nuances his position first, noting the percentages (which I agree sound a bit far from reality) that cause him to not flat out agree.

The furthest you can take his words is that he is of the opinion that the government should do something about there being a disproportionate amount of non-American born in SV power. There are lots of ways he might think that might be corrected, some of which are not even unfair or racist. To assume the very worst is not constructive.

> corrected

Your choice of vocabulary says something about your opinions, as well.

Enlighten me. How else would he go about changing the demographic makeup of anything besides ethnic cleansing?

Changing H-1B visa laws?

The effects would take too long (longer than the next election) to show up.

Too long for who?

I didn't see the quote where Bannon said that the effects would take too long.

In all democracies, policies that you're running on have to have effects before the next presidential election to assist in the reelection campaign. Ending visa programs will not significantly change demographics until 5-20 years down the line. Unless you think that Stephen Bannon will end democracy before the next election, ending visa programs will not be enough for him.

Also, according to former associates, Bannon is "sinister", "vindictive", and willing to "kill everyone else." Naturally he gravitates to radical solutions over moderate ones. http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaig...

Obamacare was signed in 2010 and affected the 2010 election even though its implementation was delayed for years.

Voters react to laws that are passed, not only to their effects.

By analyzing the socio-economic drivers that caused the discrepancy and disrupting in them some way.

That "disruption" means killing off capital flow in Silicon Valley. People follow the money. Why would it be desirable at all to do that unless you're a racist ideologue?

If you say the same thing about blacks ("there's not enough black programmers/entrepreneurs") or women ("there should be more women in Silicon Valley"), you're a champion of social justice. But if you say this about whites ("white people are underrepresented"), all of a sudden you're Hitler.

I guess the hardest thing is being aware of your own bias.

If you look at the facts, white people are not underrepresented at C-level.

Of course, Bannon and the facts do not have a good relationship at all.

Yeah, it's definitely fair to point out when he's factually wrong. But you also did much more than just that.

According to people who have worked with him, Bannon is "legitimately sinister." http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i-know-trumps-new-campaig...

Of course he will gravitate towards radical "solutions." He wants to do a lot more than force hiring practices on companies.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com