AnarchistOwl retweeted
Nobody is ready for 2028.
The survivors will call it World War Meme.
The survivors will call it World War Meme.
258
778
5,737
423,377
How interesting
I put the entire game of Minecraft inside twitter.. with WORKING multiplayer 💀 tweetcraft.jai.vin/r/ti9bwes4rygu…
0
0
1
161
Happy MacGyver Day!
(now to turn this project back into what it was originally intended for....)
(now to turn this project back into what it was originally intended for....)
3
0
2
1,196
"Create an image of what the world would look like if I were in charge based on my tweets."
Correctus
Correctus
0
0
0
152
AnarchistOwl retweeted
IT'S HERE!!! HALO CE (XBOX) IN THE BROWSER!
Features:
✅ WORKING Splitscreen Co-op
✅ WORKING Multiplayer up to 128 players (untested)
❌ NO GEARBOX MASTER CHIEF
Features:
✅ WORKING Splitscreen Co-op
✅ WORKING Multiplayer up to 128 players (untested)
❌ NO GEARBOX MASTER CHIEF
347
1,447
16,575
1,228,052
AnarchistOwl retweeted
Tom Cruise: I do my own stunts
Bug: hold my beer bitch
Bug: hold my beer bitch
1,070
10,717
97,795
5,841,583
AnarchistOwl retweeted
Stop taking diet advice from walking skeletons and fake TV doctors who profit from your sickness.
[🎥IG: primalresistance]
[🎥IG: primalresistance]
87
695
4,503
231,965
AnarchistOwl retweeted
Elon Musk and Paul Graham say the most qualified person should get the job.
I agree. 100%.
But that assumes employers prefer H-1B workers because they’re more qualified.
There are other possible incentives.
What if the H-1B worker is cheaper?
Not because every H-1B worker earns less, but because a worker whose ability to remain in the country depends on maintaining qualifying employment may have very different bargaining power.
Imagine two equally qualified engineers.
One can quit tomorrow and work anywhere.
The other needs to maintain qualifying immigration status to remain in the country.
Which employee is more likely to tell the boss:
“No, I’m not working this weekend.”
“I want a 20% raise.”
“I’m leaving for your competitor.”
“I’m reporting this.”
“I’m not doing that.”
Which worker might tolerate lower pay, longer hours, an undesirable assignment or worse treatment because the consequences of losing the job extend far beyond losing a paycheck?
That’s an enormous difference in bargaining power.
And here’s the question that gets lost in the “most qualified” argument:
What happens when BOTH candidates are equally qualified? Or even similarly qualified?
An American and an H-1B worker can both be perfectly capable of doing the job.
Now the employer isn’t choosing between “qualified” and “unqualified.”
They’re choosing between two qualified people.
So what else might influence the decision?
Which one costs less?
Which one is less likely to quit?
Which one is more likely to accept longer hours?
Which one is less likely to demand a large raise?
Which one is more willing to relocate or accept an undesirable assignment?
Which one can more easily walk away?
And this question extends beyond H-1B.
Think about OPT.
If an American graduate and an international graduate on OPT are similarly qualified, what other incentives influence the employer’s decision?
Compensation?
Retention?
Work hours?
Willingness to relocate?
Future sponsorship?
How easily each worker can walk away?
Lower employment taxes?
None of this means every H-1B or OPT worker is exploited, or that every employer is exploiting foreign workers.
But it DOES mean an employer can have economic reasons to prefer a visa-dependent worker that have absolutely nothing to do with that worker being “more qualified.”
So before we assume an employer chose an H-1B worker because they were simply “more qualified,” we should ask:
More qualified? Or more economically dependent on the employer?
Those are two very different reasons to hire someone.
I agree. 100%.
But that assumes employers prefer H-1B workers because they’re more qualified.
There are other possible incentives.
What if the H-1B worker is cheaper?
Not because every H-1B worker earns less, but because a worker whose ability to remain in the country depends on maintaining qualifying employment may have very different bargaining power.
Imagine two equally qualified engineers.
One can quit tomorrow and work anywhere.
The other needs to maintain qualifying immigration status to remain in the country.
Which employee is more likely to tell the boss:
“No, I’m not working this weekend.”
“I want a 20% raise.”
“I’m leaving for your competitor.”
“I’m reporting this.”
“I’m not doing that.”
Which worker might tolerate lower pay, longer hours, an undesirable assignment or worse treatment because the consequences of losing the job extend far beyond losing a paycheck?
That’s an enormous difference in bargaining power.
And here’s the question that gets lost in the “most qualified” argument:
What happens when BOTH candidates are equally qualified? Or even similarly qualified?
An American and an H-1B worker can both be perfectly capable of doing the job.
Now the employer isn’t choosing between “qualified” and “unqualified.”
They’re choosing between two qualified people.
So what else might influence the decision?
Which one costs less?
Which one is less likely to quit?
Which one is more likely to accept longer hours?
Which one is less likely to demand a large raise?
Which one is more willing to relocate or accept an undesirable assignment?
Which one can more easily walk away?
And this question extends beyond H-1B.
Think about OPT.
If an American graduate and an international graduate on OPT are similarly qualified, what other incentives influence the employer’s decision?
Compensation?
Retention?
Work hours?
Willingness to relocate?
Future sponsorship?
How easily each worker can walk away?
Lower employment taxes?
None of this means every H-1B or OPT worker is exploited, or that every employer is exploiting foreign workers.
But it DOES mean an employer can have economic reasons to prefer a visa-dependent worker that have absolutely nothing to do with that worker being “more qualified.”
So before we assume an employer chose an H-1B worker because they were simply “more qualified,” we should ask:
More qualified? Or more economically dependent on the employer?
Those are two very different reasons to hire someone.
Yes
99
65
497
71,146
AnarchistOwl retweeted
We've lost our damn minds.
The Lindsay Clancy mass psychosis proves that a lot of people need to have their Wifi taken away. But this psychosis started many years before TikTok...
The Lindsay Clancy mass psychosis proves that a lot of people need to have their Wifi taken away. But this psychosis started many years before TikTok...
3,739
17,179
74,456
9,054,325
AnarchistOwl retweeted
F-1 Visa = scam
F-1 + OPT work authorization = scam
F-1 + STEM OPT = scam
F-1 + Day 1 CPT work authorization = scam
H-4 + EAD = scam
U-1 Visa = scam
H1B Visa = scam
O1 Visa = scam
L1 Visa = scam
All these people are only here to steal AMERICAN JOBS!
F-1 + OPT work authorization = scam
F-1 + STEM OPT = scam
F-1 + Day 1 CPT work authorization = scam
H-4 + EAD = scam
U-1 Visa = scam
H1B Visa = scam
O1 Visa = scam
L1 Visa = scam
All these people are only here to steal AMERICAN JOBS!
3
33
135
1,905
RT @AlastairMac1964: F-1 Visa = scam
F-1 + OPT work authorization = scam
F-1 + STEM OPT = scam
F-1 + Day 1 CPT work authorization = scam…
F-1 + OPT work authorization = scam
F-1 + STEM OPT = scam
F-1 + Day 1 CPT work authorization = scam…
0
27
0
5
AnarchistOwl retweeted
It is amazing to watch the enemies of American culture set our society against each other while they keep making gains.
Do you see the immigration coalition infighting the way the right does? They have far more internal differences than we do. Yet they have masterfully set Americans against Americans.
Younger generations against Boomers. Social Security fights. How American are you if you cannot trace your line to the Mayflower. Whether you own a gun. Whether you send your kids to public, private, or home school. Opinions on gender. The list is long and deliberately designed to keep us distracted and disorganized.
Ask yourself this. If boatloads of armed soldiers were parachuting into your town or landing on your beaches Red Dawn style, would you turn to your neighbors and demand to know whether they were Catholic or Protestant, or how far back their lineage went, before accepting their help setting up a barrier at the entrance to your neighborhood?
In a real sense that is exactly what is happening. The old warning “first they came for…” still applies. We sit here carefully selecting the few we will align with while our opponents, as different from each other as can be, stay focused on monetizing the separation of our culture and society.
They figure out how to get us fighting each other. Then they monetize the results. Gender drugs cost money. Aborted tissue has value and government-funded institutions will buy it. We are forced to fund the very institutions furthest from our values so the destruction can accelerate. Our own taxes. Our own politicians. Kickbacks for the betrayal.
X has become a source of further separation instead of a tool for organizing. We had better figure out a way to win this.
If you believe the only people who can fight are those on their 15th generation, whitest, from an approved colonial stock, then you have just identified the smallest and easiest group for the combined forces to eliminate first.
Instead let us build a bigger tent. Veterans who love this country. People who believe Christ is Lord. Those who do not want to celebrate holidays that did not exist in 1965. Those who do not believe loans or colleges should favor people not born here.
We can start there and move forward.
What is the minimum set of shared beliefs you would accept to stand with someone against the war on our culture?
Do you see the immigration coalition infighting the way the right does? They have far more internal differences than we do. Yet they have masterfully set Americans against Americans.
Younger generations against Boomers. Social Security fights. How American are you if you cannot trace your line to the Mayflower. Whether you own a gun. Whether you send your kids to public, private, or home school. Opinions on gender. The list is long and deliberately designed to keep us distracted and disorganized.
Ask yourself this. If boatloads of armed soldiers were parachuting into your town or landing on your beaches Red Dawn style, would you turn to your neighbors and demand to know whether they were Catholic or Protestant, or how far back their lineage went, before accepting their help setting up a barrier at the entrance to your neighborhood?
In a real sense that is exactly what is happening. The old warning “first they came for…” still applies. We sit here carefully selecting the few we will align with while our opponents, as different from each other as can be, stay focused on monetizing the separation of our culture and society.
They figure out how to get us fighting each other. Then they monetize the results. Gender drugs cost money. Aborted tissue has value and government-funded institutions will buy it. We are forced to fund the very institutions furthest from our values so the destruction can accelerate. Our own taxes. Our own politicians. Kickbacks for the betrayal.
X has become a source of further separation instead of a tool for organizing. We had better figure out a way to win this.
If you believe the only people who can fight are those on their 15th generation, whitest, from an approved colonial stock, then you have just identified the smallest and easiest group for the combined forces to eliminate first.
Instead let us build a bigger tent. Veterans who love this country. People who believe Christ is Lord. Those who do not want to celebrate holidays that did not exist in 1965. Those who do not believe loans or colleges should favor people not born here.
We can start there and move forward.
What is the minimum set of shared beliefs you would accept to stand with someone against the war on our culture?
35
78
339
3,907
