This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
"I have to work in social conditions I find personally uncomfortable and displeasing. This is clearly the same as genocide!"
Bruh. Please.
Big tech should be at least two thirds white people but instead it's maybe 10%. That looks like some kind of severe racial discrimination and crowding out to me.
I can believe underrepresentation (although some Asian overrepresentation in tech feels, frankly, pretty organic) but I don’t for a second believe that Big Tech is only 10% white. That seems like quite an exaggeration.
Although, my two personal friends who work in the FAANG world are an Indian guy (to be fair, he’s a citizen and a very patriotic rah-rah-USA kind of person) and a black guy, so hey, what do I know. Are there real stats on this out there?
Big Tech is probably about half foreign-born (overwhelmingly Chinese and Indian), with the other half split between white and Asian-Americans. Whites are probably a plurality if you count East and South Asians separately, but each company is different e.g. Microsoft has a reputation of being more Indian and Meta of being more Chinese, and individual teams or departments could have any possible ratio based on idiosyncratic hiring practices.
There's a relatively small but significant set of whites in the foreign-born tech set.
Google's 2024 diversity report has them at about 45% white and 46% Asian in the Americas. Hiring is about 40% white and 43% Asian; tech hiring is 48% Asian and 37% white. Still a lot more than 10% white.
Down from 65% white to 45% white in 10 years, please that white category is probably half non-legacy-American. And the company I was talking about was not google, so it's apples to oranges with an incredible report (Google is completely untrustworthy and an evil company).
Why would Google report a higher fraction of white employees than they actually have? If anything, the incentives run in the opposite direction, and they would be motivated to classify every possible edge case/mixed individual/white Hispanic as a person of color to hit their diversity targets.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Part of the point of white people having borders is not having to lower themselves to 9 9 6 standards. You can say 9 9 6 is hard work, but there is more to life than toil. I say working harder than is reasonable for a person with a lot of qualia is just another form of cheating, and people deserve to land wherever they would land if they worked hard within a reasonable allotment of time, such as 40 hours a week, so that better people don't have to sacrifice their qualia just to land where they deserve.
At the companies I worked at I counted and I got 10%. Obviously they try to hide it from normies.
Some companies release diversity reports. Google's indicates 45% of the US workforce is white. 10% is simply not credible.
They count hispanics, semites, and slavs in that. So probably <20% white americans there, which is close to my figure. By google's definition of white, they should easily be 85% white. So, you are nitpicking. There is obviously a great replacement in big tech.
Latinos are separately listed at 7.5% overall so even if every Latino is also white we're still at just under 40% white.
Slavs are actually white, if you feel that you are being replaced by Slavs I can't really help you.
You can't? Is the United States the same place as Russia or Serbia? Can you help me to figure that out?
Let's start over. You initially complained that tech was 10% white. Looks like you retreated from that, now your new claim is that tech is <20% white Americans. But you can't tell how long someone, or someone's family, has been in the country by looking at their name, which is presumably how you got your initial 10% count. So I'm confused what the evidence is here besides "trust me bro", or what there even is to discuss.
I work in big tech and teams that are 30%-40% white American born are quite normal. I've never seen a big company that's 10% white, but maybe that's what's happening in WITCH. Can't speak to that.
I've also not faced obstacles to advancement despite being a white man. In fact, when I had an Indian boss (a naturalized citizen) he was very eager to push me for promotion and did so successfully.
As I would tell a progressive, have you considered that your lack of professional success is not due to discrimination? I wish Hlynka was here, he really was basically right about everything.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
9-9-6 is a punishing work schedule and America maintaining a high standard of living without it is worth prioritizing, but is it really that bad? I don't believe techworkers are working Saturdays a lot. I know there are people working six twelves(which is what normie americans would call it, although for FIFO roughnecks and the like who probably make up the majority of such workers it's more likely to be 7-7 M-Sat). I know techworkers work some unusual hours but is it really normal to work more than about fifty hours a week?
No definitely not. I just mean white Americans should not have to compete against cheating Asians. They cheat directly and they cheat by studying and grinding and signaling more than decent whites would consider reasonable. The latter is largely slow to become acknowledged as cheating, but it is indeed cheating in terms of cause and effect.
It's not cheating if they're doing work that is actually useful to people, which the 12 hour shift people probably are. Then other people get to enjoy whatever they produced, which is the point of paying people for their labor.
Working harder than is good or reasonable is cheating, because one attempts to lower others to that miserable level, which is bad or them, or else one takes what is rightfully theirs in terms of status, money, and employment. It's the same as using steroids in sports. It's unhealthy, it's not reasonable, you either win outside of the bounds of reasonable competition and therefore rob your competitors, or you force others to poison their bodies just like you.
This is specific rather than general, and would depend on intuitions concerning specific events. It depends, ultimately, on what the work is. For instance, I don't necessarily want a pastor or professor who's been grindmaxxing his whole life, I'd like someone who's been cultivating wisdom through conversations, study groups, perhaps even traveling to get different perspectives, praying or reflecting, and other low stress activities.
But that's not because the status is somehow "rightfully theirs" in a caste sense, but because the grindmaxxing doesn't necessarily produce more wisdom, which is what people are paying them to cultivate. If they start thinking their status is "rightfully theirs," they should become subject to the rule of "whosoever humbles himself will be exalted, and whosoever exalts himself will be brought down," because that position is showing a lack of wisdom and maturity.
The oil riggers are welcome to produce more oil, as long as they aren't so exhausted they're making stupid mistakes.
More options
Context Copy link
Even if that kind of idiosyncratic statement was true, so what? You just said society isn't real, so if my family wants to outwork your family then you have no say. Society is what sets norms around what is reasonable behaviour. If it doesn't exist then everyone gets to set their own norms, no?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Modern tech companies aren't doing jackshit that's useful to most people. That's why things have been so easily hollowed out and the makework sinecures have been put up for foreign tender for no reason. It's very hard to beat an Indian at stupid bureaucratic games and the majority of tech employment is now stupid bureaucratic games as 5% of the workforces actually contribute the revenue.
Amazon has built a logistics system that is one of the best in the world, and computing infrastructure that probably IS the best in the world (at least of that available to outsiders). They also have a really nice retail website which sells a lot of useful things, and a video entertainment system which is pretty nice.
Microsoft, stodgy old dinosaur that it is, still underlies almost everything corporate, and they, too, have a significant player in computing infrastructure.
Apple, of course, makes the iPhone and the Mac and everything associated. And they have a video entertainment group too.
Alphabet does a lot of useless crap, but they still do Google search. And maps. And another significant computing infrastructure offering. And YouTube. And Waymo.
NVidia makes hardware that makes a lot of computing possible.
Tesla is for some reason considered a tech company; they make cars.
And then rounding off the Magnificent 7 is Meta. Oh well, they can't all be useful.
More options
Context Copy link
If most tech work is bullshit anyway, then why don't these white workers who are apparently so much more talented and deserving than Indian immigrants go do something that actually contributes to society instead, rather than whining about missing out on opportunities to be a parasite?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The six twelves people mostly signed up for it for the opportunity to make more money, usually in jobs that would be tough to replace even if they might be unpopular in certain circles(oil extraction in particular likes this schedule). No one really finds this schedule controversial- those guys almost always volunteered for it. I think he's referring to the oriental grindset of overstudying to boost test scores above what IQ would predict.
It's controversial enough to require overtime pay, because a more decent population that existed in the past decided man is more than a workbot.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah, I don't necessarily like grinding at learning as a widespread practice, though that mostly seems to be about worrying that the only alternative to passing tests and office drudgery is too horrible to contemplate. The main way around that is making second or third tier jobs bearable. It should be alright (and largely is in America) for a moderately smart person to work as a cook or something. People make fun of liberal arts baristas, but that is a sign that America is producing barista jobs that are better than someone grinding super hard or running back to their families, which is good, actually.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link