Apple’s leadership page could literally be interchanged with Trump‘s staff and you would never know the difference. And most of those people were put there by Tim. Personally, I’d start with Eddy Cue. You could replace him with a cardboard cutout and there would be zero impact to Apple’s performance.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple CEO Tim Cook Announces $100 Million Racial Equity and Justice Initiative Led by Lisa Jackson
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple’s leadership page could literally be interchanged with Trump‘s staff and you would never know the difference. And most of those people were put there by Tim. Personally, I’d start with Eddy Cue. You could replace him with a cardboard cutout and there would be zero impact to Apple’s performance.
Not really. I'm very open to other viewpoints. Blocking trolls is the equivalent of not leaving the front door of my house open so morons can come in and dump on the carpet. You're welcome to come in and talk if you can be civil and respectful. Otherwise, stay outside with the animals.
With respect, I don’t think you’re listening or looking closely enough. Many people have proposed many tactics toward solutions.
Changing where funding goes, for only one example. Instead of [further] militarizing the police (and supporting corporate prisons with more laws intent on jailing minorities for non-violent and victimless crimes), education and social services would be a far more effective investment for society.
The “problem” with investing in society is that the status quo bros at the top don’t benefit. Those are your white male executives at prison & law enforcement-related industry corporations and the politicians with whom they are buddies (and these are often interchangeable).
Another idea: public funding for political campaigns and banning non-public funds. Smaller campaigns (less waste), no corporate personhood in elections. Etc. This puts more power in the hands of the people: running for public office wouldn’t be limited to only those who are already privileged.
The laissez-faire economic system itself is at the root of it all, feeding off of human behavioral issues like xenophobia, sexism, and greed. If anyone is adamantly against this notion, they’re probably defending a system that benefits themselves while harming others. I’d advise doing a deep dive analysis into the origins of their character and ideologies.
I think I prefer the word Black disadvantage instead of white privilege. The goal being to make us all equal.
Just curious. Can you explain some of the reasons why you think it's okay to hire based on racial quota?
While I think racial inequality is unfortunate and should be fixed, hiring lesser candidate to meet the quota can further contribute to racial divide. Hired black candidates won't get the full credit they deserve and employees of other races might resent.
That isn't to say company should merely tell their workers to hire only the "best candidates". People tend to hire people similar to their background. At many high tech companies, team with predominantly Indians tend to hire Indians, and so on.
So I understand why affirmative action is often used as a shortcut to bring the change. But it is ripe with failures.
I wasn't actually saying it's ok, and I'm a bit on the fence about it. I can see the pros and cons, and can see that it's something that could fail if not implemented well, but also something that could work well as intended if implemented well. What I was saying was that the wikipedia article section on the failures of affirmative action wasn't very convincing.
Chucker, you often have interesting ideas. Some I find agreeable. Some I do not. In this case I disagree but I would not block you. Living in an echo chamber of like minded people is exactly what is driving division.
[automerge]1592096992[/automerge]
Affirmative action has been a thing before many members on this board were born. It was both racist and necessary. It has also run its course. Hiring based on race, religion, sex, etc has never been a healthy thing.
How about by starting to pay employees a livable wage instead of donating money to charities for a tax write off where only 1% of that will actually see the light of day. The rest will go to the greedy execs.
This is such ******** and you need to step down.
All these pledges and they have factory workers making less than a $1 a day overseas
This is such ******** and you need to step down.
All these pledges and they have factory workers making less than a $1 a day overseas
Interesting. How much have you donated to people who "make less than a $1 a day overseas"?
I was actually referring to automating manufacturing and assembly. If that was possible then the plants could be located anywhere.
Maybe, but that future isn't here yet, you seemed to imply that, under Jobs, Apple would want to move back towards manufacturing, when in fact it was under Jobs that they left manufacturing. I don't think blue-collar jobs were the only reason.
You should read for content. I did not say there were no new products. I said products are all I want the CEO to talk about.
But it’s we white people who have the majority of the power and control, and we white people who therefore have to actively do something about the problem. That’s why it’s white privilege that we talk about. “Check your privilege” is meant to make us aware of our own comfortable complacency.
A white person will never be able to fix the problems in this country for a black person. The way you become successful is hard work and smart, responsible decisions. A white person can’t do that for a black person.
The most a white person can do to actually solve the problems is not be someone who gets in their way. And someone who encourages them to work hard and make good decisions.
But bottom line, it’s black people who have to solve the problem. Not a bunch of white liberals spray painting black lives matter on honest business‘s stores. And there are a LOT of black people out there who know this and are doing what they can to act accordingly.
Your logical fallacy is:
Survivorship Bias.
Survivorship bias - Wikipedia
You seem to be libertarian. Maybe you’d enjoy Apple Insider forums more.
Your logical fallacy is:
Survivorship Bias.
Survivorship bias - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
You seem to be libertarian. Maybe you’d enjoy Apple Insider forums more.
it’s not survivorship bias because I’m not ignoring or overlooking anything. I’m talking about the essential thing required in making blacks more successful. And the only thing that could be considered optimistic in what I said is that a lot of blacks know they have to work hard and make smart, responsible decisions to be successful. If you believe that is overly optimistic as per the definition of survivorship bias you linked to, then I would examine your own attitudes towards blacks and really look at the question as to whether or not you are racist toward them.
But what you are probably more guilty of is in lieu of actually thinking for yourself, you just are assigning labels. It’s very common these days. Religious fervor has largely moved out of religion and more into politics, because there’s very little power in churches any more, And you do it with the labels not once but twice in your post, survivorship bias and the “happier at Apple Insider”. I don't have to be amongst people who think like myself to be happy. I’m not religious like that. In fact when that happens to me,I usually find it quite boring. People who are happier because everyone thinks like them are people who follow the crowd. And they don’t like their thinking challenged because they’re not thinking for themselves.
Last edited:
Victim mentality never works. I know successful dark skinned people. They didn’t need to rely on handouts or quotas.
That’s a lot of blabbing just to say “I know you are but what am I”, and then restate your original premise without learning why I told you what your bias is.
The facts do not support your preferred beliefs. I have no time or inclination to further attempt to reason with someone who’s this deeply entrenched in their self-serving logical fallacies and possibly racist ideologies.
[automerge]1592835833[/automerge]
Your logical fallacy is, surprise surprise, the same as that other guy’s.
Survivorship bias.
You can apply your survivorship bias theory to everything. Sometimes it applies, sometimes it does not.
You haven’t done any reasoning to begin with. All you did was post a link to a label that clearly doesn’t apply, as has been explained to you.