What’s homophobic about it?

Why would you spread this? That’s the point of these things, to get a reaction out of people and get it seen by more people.

Stop making shit worse

Dude, I just said it’s not indentured servitude.

I never said the system wasn’t broken, in fact I’m on one of those horrible visas now.

Also, down votes aren’t supposed to be for people who are correcting you (or people you disagree with 😘)

That doesn’t contradict what I said? It matches everything I’ve said as well. And there’s a 60 day grace period generally speaking. Can you define and name any similar with indentured servitude?

That isn’t the rule for h1b visas.

If you want to simplify it, then it’d be If you want to live and work in a country, you have to be sponsored by a company. If you’re laid off, you have 60 days to find another sponsor

I’m not doing either of those things. You made a claim by misunderstanding terms for hyperbole. I said that your claim isn’t true. You backed up your claim with more hyperbole. I rebutted that with how it’s standard practice globally and even in within a larger scope is a more reasonable standard.

QED, the US visa program is not indentured servitude, by colloquial or exact definitions, and not ultra-capitalistic by any stretch. These are not whataboutism or dodging. They directly address your statements.

All countries have some sort of work for visa program, which by itself is not indentured servitude. And given there are non ultra-capitalistic countries that also have it, the practice is also not “as far as one can get”.

Hell, to group the US 's visa program in with the ones that literally end with slavery (and are actually like what you described) is just poor form.

Well yeah, that comes with any sort of immigration setup.

It can be, but isn’t a guarantee. All countries do this to an extent, some do it better than others. You calling it the wrong thing trying to drive a point home with hyperbole isn’t helpful to anyone.

Tying a visa to an employer is not indentured servitude.

What is this referring to?

Based on your response, I’m guessing you didn’t read about the history of the phrase that I linked, which explains what it meant and how it was used in the early, mid, and late 20th century. As well as the 21st century.

Just because you think something means something doesn’t mean it’s true.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/bleeding-heart-phrase-origin-meaning

The word’s always been pretty straightforward. I’ve never seen it mean anything performative. It’s always just a soft and empathetic person to a harmful degree.

If you’re on the winning side, yeah they do

I don’t think “blame” is the right word here. They’re/we’re looking for reasons for how things ended up the way they did.

IMO it’s unhelpful at best and harmful at worst to look at the data and the people analyzing it and approach it as a blame thing - or even to assume it’s a finger pointing game. The facts are that the voting strategies of certain groups of people changed this election. The important thing moving forward is to understand who changed and why they changed, because then those things can be addressed.

And yeah, DNC leadership is either dumb or actively malicious because they keep pushing failed ideas under a false banner.

It’s an insult for being to sympathetic/empathetic and soft.

Ultimately meaning that if push came to shove, a bleeding heart would be so caught up in caring that they would fail to make a tough decision.

That’s not what those terms mean or why they are used as insults.

And, generally speaking, a few ethnic/gender groups changed their voting strategies this election, while others didn’t. The articles calling out different demographics are pointing out reality. Those shifts affected the results of the election.

That’s why they are being pointed out, instead of pointing out that one group did exactly what was expected of them and what they did last time, and the time before, and the time before…

So I’d challenge you that it’s not recriminations or gross, it’s simply pointing out what changed and how it led to us being in our current spot. You can’t fix things/change course without understanding where you are.

Oh good. I’m sure glad the author took a step back to consider the voting demographics of the latest election instead of using a sexist and racist argument.

How useful.

Fuckin called it.