EPTThe problem is that Trump is applying this kind of logic to a country. It isn't ethical. We are better than that and we as a country should want to help people.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9680
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
The problem is that Trump is applying this kind of logic to a country. It isn't ethical. We are better than that and we as a country should want to help people. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4932 Posts
On January 13 2018 04:57 Mohdoo wrote: To be fair, if I was given the opportunity to choose which states exported people to Oregon, I would choose the top performing states. I have no reason to deal with Nevada, Arizona or Idaho when I could instead get some people from Massachusetts or New Jersey. It's similar to screening for interviews. If I have a pile of 50 resumes, some of the BS, some MS, some PhD, I can pretty much just throw out everything except the PhDs and know I'll end up doing ok. I have no incentive to look in the BS/MS pile for a candidate when I have 10+ PhDs to choose from. The problem is that Trump is applying this kind of logic to a country. It isn't ethical. We are better than that and we as a country should want to help people. Not only is it unethical, it's also nonsense. On average they'll have less educated people, but there's still bright people being born everywhere. I could make a case for people wanting to uproot their lives and make sacrifices to get to the States, even more so when someone came from a poor background, will be much more driven and possibly even successful than someone with cash pouring out of his pockets. | ||
KwarK
United States43160 Posts
I have no issue with a merit based application system. If they were choosing by educational attainment and people from Northern Europe simply had more educational attainment then that would broadly speaking be a merit based system. But that's not what is being described here. He's talking about applying a racial filter, not a merit based filter. The doctor from Nigeria is not getting to compete with the shop clerk from Sweden. Trump's argument (and yours) is that where you were born says something fundamental about your worthiness to be an American (or Oregonian). | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
After The Washington Post on Thursday afternoon first reported Trump’s remarks at a White House meeting with lawmakers, “The Five” co-host Jesse Watters shrugged off the slur as the way ordinary Americans talk about “Haiti people.” “If it’s true, this is how the forgotten men and women in America talk at the bar,” Watters said. “This is how Trump relates to people. If you’re at a bar, and you’re from Wisconsin, and you’re thinking, ‘They’re bringing in a bunch of Haiti people, or El Salvadorians, or people from Niger.’ This is how some people talk.” ... Later Thursday evening, prime-time Fox host Tucker Carlson kicked off his show by questioning what all the fuss was about. “For some reason virtually everyone in New York, Washington, and LA considered this a major, major event,” Carlson said. “Why is that?” Then he launched into a defense. “So, if you say Norway is a better place to live, and Haiti is kind of a hole, well, anyone who’s been to those countries or has lived in them would agree,” Carlson said. “But we’re jumping up and down, ‘Oh, you can’t say that.’ Why can’t you say that?” Later in his show, Carlson turned to what he said should be “a big news story”: “are UFOs real?” www.yahoo.com | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:00 Uldridge wrote: Scandinavians are so pure, they immigrated to cold, harsh, snowfilled lands just to be surrounded by more white. They can't stand it when it's spring and summer because that's when all the Well at least we know how to form a government. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
| ||
|
IyMoon
United States1249 Posts
I wonder if we could harness all the wind energy produced at fox by the point flying over their heads | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:02 KwarK wrote: The first example and the second example do not agree. The first example said you would screen by states, regardless of the attributes of the applicant. The second example said you would toss out all of the least qualified applicants and then choose between the remaining qualified applicants. Someone having a PhD is a valid criteria, someone being born in Idaho is not. I have no issue with a merit based application system. If they were choosing by educational attainment and people from Northern Europe simply had more educational attainment then that would broadly speaking be a merit based system. But that's not what is being described here. He's talking about applying a racial filter, not a merit based filter. The doctor from Nigeria is not getting to compete with the shop clerk from Sweden. Trump's argument (and yours) is that where you were born says something fundamental about your worthiness to be an American (or Oregonian). I am assuming a finite amount of time/resources dedicated to screening applicants. I am saying if I have way more people than I need anyway, meaning I am going to turn down 90% of the applicants, I may as well just focus on the area with the highest chance of having great applicants. This is probably more relevant in interview settings. You can only figure out so much about an applicant. You are always rolling a few dice. If I am rolling dice anyway, and I only have so much time and resources to dedicate to finding a good applicant, I may as well only pull resumes from the top of my pile. It's the same reason tech companies send people to recruit from certain universities and not others. I am saying I don't think this line of reasoning is ethical from my perspective when dealing with immigrants because we should want to help people from countries that are struggling. People in Alabama are fine, they are just less likely to complete a 4 year degree than someone from Massachussets. In the state case, the guy from Alabama isn't gonna starve because he was denied entry to Oregon. In the case of Haiti, some seriously bad shit happens to those kids. Norwegians are doing just fine. They'd LIKE to live here, but let's not pretend they are suffering right now. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:12 Mohdoo wrote: Norwegians are doing just fine. They'd LIKE to live here, but let's not pretend they are suffering right now. Even then, I don't see a whole lot of reason why someone living in Norway would want to come to America. They have UHC, actual maternity/paternity leave, actual work-life balance with shorter work-weeks than we do, less crime, and a much better education system. Maybe if they just really can't stand the cold? | ||
|
KwarK
United States43160 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:16 NewSunshine wrote: Even then, I don't see a whole lot of reason why someone living in Norway would want to come to America. They have UHC, actual maternity/paternity leave, actual work-life balance with shorter work-weeks than we do, less crime, and a much better education system. Maybe if they just really can't stand the cold? Anyone working in science should want to leave Norway for the US immediately. Norway is kind of a joke when it comes to scientific advancement. So is most of the world compared to the US. Japan only has a single scientific journal worth using for more than wiping your own ass. Assuming they are looking to be on the cutting edge or whatever. But as a whole, living in Norway will significantly disable your career progress compared to working in the states. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
EDIT: Bullshit about science only being cutting edge in the US. Plenty of cutting edge research happening elsewhere, including Norway. And US academia is really not preferable due to the publish or perish bullshit going on. Collaborations can take you plenty far. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:18 KwarK wrote: Probably for the best that you're not in HR Mohdoo because I don't think "look, we have so many qualified applicants that I figured I could still get a variety of well qualified candidates if I narrowed the selection to just white men while saving everyone a lot of time" would fly. lol why are you pretending I am applying racial filters to job hiring? I specifically said education level. You're being a little silly today. On January 13 2018 05:19 Ghostcom wrote: Well last year it was like 502 Norwegians that immigrated last year so it's not like they are flocking to the place. EDIT: Bullshit about science only being cutting edge in the US. Plenty of cutting edge research happening elsewhere, including Norway. And US academia is really not preferable due to the publish or perish bullshit going on. Collaborations can take you plenty far. What specific branch of science do you work in? You don't need to work in academia to work in stem. Don't forget all the tech companies based in the US. Intel's entire R&D thrust is in the US for a reason. Certain countries here and there have good work being done in little areas here and there, but by and large, your ability to grow and advance as a scientist is significantly greater in the states. There's a big difference between a country being in 90 percentile and being at the top. The gap is still really, really big today. As I said, Norway does some good work. So do lots of countries. But the opportunities in the US are incomparably better. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43160 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:20 Mohdoo wrote: lol why are you pretending I am applying racial filters to job hiring? I specifically said education level. You're being a little silly today. As I pointed out when you first said it, you first said that you would use place of birth as a proxy for applicant quality, then went on to talk about filtering by education level. I immediately identified that you were talking about two very different things and that I was fine with education level being used as a way of measuring the quality of the applicant but that place of birth was not a valid measure. You then responded defending place of birth. We are definitely talking about place of birth filtering here Mohdoo. Not education. Place of birth. Definitely. | ||
|
Herpin_Along
15 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14030 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:19 Ghostcom wrote: Well last year it was like 502 Norwegians that immigrated last year so it's not like they are flocking to the place. EDIT: Bullshit about science only being cutting edge in the US. Plenty of cutting edge research happening elsewhere, including Norway. And US academia is really not preferable due to the publish or perish bullshit going on. Collaborations can take you plenty far. You can say that but then you look at MIT and the southern California schools doing crazy stuff with rockets. Europe isn't really that interested in rocket tech and MIT is the cutting edge. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:31 Herpin_Along wrote: Dude wtf are you talking about, host country "prestigious scientific journals" is such a silly way to evaluate performance in science. At the least a bit better of a metric would be pubs per capita, but that's not even very good due to lack of info on the strength of the publications. See here for a brief ranking of per-capita publications, anyways: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18767/research-publications-per-capita A better metric might incorporate the quantity of citations of those publications or maybe even something like technological patents, but in either case "scientific strength", like most poorly defined yet complex issues, is a difficult thing to quantify. But in the field I work in Scandinavian countries do just fine and are leaders in a lot of areas of research that are particularly applicable for them. Publications per capita aren't relevant. Just look at China. I don't think many countries manage to be as much of a joke in the international chemistry community than China. You're focusing on the wrong thing. # of Nobel prizes would be a lot closer to showing reality. No one cares if you published. People care if you publish something special. In terms of becoming a truly distinct, globally recognized researcher, no one comes close to the US. For people (unlike me) who are focused on reaching the top of the mountain, there is no other place to be than the US. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4782 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:20 Mohdoo wrote: lol why are you pretending I am applying racial filters to job hiring? I specifically said education level. You're being a little silly today. What specific branch of science do you work in? You don't need to work in academia to work in stem. Don't forget all the tech companies based in the US. Intel's entire R&D thrust is in the US for a reason. Certain countries here and there have good work being done in little areas here and there, but by and large, your ability to grow and advance as a scientist is significantly greater in the states. There's a big difference between a country being in 90 percentile and being at the top. The gap is still really, really big today. As I said, Norway does some good work. So do lots of countries. But the opportunities in the US are incomparably better. I'm in medical sciences. My father and sister is in chemistry. Best friends are in biology and physics. US does some things well, but they are far away from being anywhere near as ahead as you believe. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Edit: this discussion hilarious. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15723 Posts
On January 13 2018 05:43 Ghostcom wrote: I'm in medical sciences. My father and sister is in chemistry. Best friends are in biology and physics. US does some things well, but they are far away from being anywhere near as ahead as you believe. As I've said, I'm sure all of them do great work. It's not about whether you do well. It is about the difference between 90 and 100. A ton of people chase 100. Your career can "cap out" in a way in Norway that is simply won't unless you're Einstein in the US. EDIT: And just look at # of scientists in Norway vs the US. Or just amount of money spent. It's not like you guys are genetically inferior. I'm sure if I waved a magic wand and made Norway the size of the US, you guys would be killing it. Norway does well for what it has. China, on the other hand, is a complete mess. | ||
| ||
