Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
And the irony isn’t lost on me when you champion someone wearing a hijab. Not all Muslims are bad, of course not. But it’s one of the most violent, oppressive, overzealous and barbaric religions in the world.

We have no problem vilifying nazism for the horror that it was, yet Islam gets a free pass? Why? Because some lefty in his favourite autumn sweater sits in his favourite Starbucks in Silicon Valley, sipping his skinny double whipped cream mocha pumpkin spice latte while on his MacBook who’s never left the USA and thinks Muslims are all oppressed.

Werner Von Braun was a Nazi, Oscar Schindler was a Nazi. You can hate an ideology without hating every single person in it.
 
Why are americans so obsessed with those statistics. I dont think i ever ran across a paper asking me „what i am“ here. Meanwhile first paper i had to sign in the US had a ethnicity question in it.

Feels like those separate people more than bring them together

As an American, I could not agree more. I think as a society we are actually decently equal and the more it is made into a talking point, the more it will divide. (This should not be a politically partisan thought.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stratus Fear
No. Not concerned with other cultures and comparing impacts of slavery. In the United States where I'm from there was a system of forced labor which enriched certain groups. Over time, even with the abolishment of slavery, that head start and the ensuing systemic oppressions afforded opportunities regardless of qualification. I am of the opinion that it still has impact today and implementing programs and tracking to counteract it is a net positive.

Why not? Other cultures had the same issues and they worked to overcome it. How they did that should be valuable to people that truly want to end the oppression.

I just don't see that oppression in the USA. Plenty of stories, past and present, of poor people of all races working hard and making it big. The key is hard work, something that seems to be lost on many today.
 
If you get tens or even hundreds of applicants for the same position with roughly identical credentials, as is often the case in many STEM fields, then whom do you hire?
The one who is least likely to sue me if I need to discipline or fire them.
 
Diversity causes strife and reduced social capital, it is a cancer on society. People who don't share the same values don't trust one another, at worst they hate one another. This not idle speculation, it has been scientifically proven in studies by liberal academics: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ This is why it's right and just for separate nations to exist and organize their societies as they see fit. Apple's multicultural propaganda is just that, it's marketing. If they truly try to force certain proportions of women, gays, Muslims, etc., beyond what they have done already, they will collapse as a company. The truth is that most Muslims think that Tim Cook should be punished in some way for being a homosexual. All cultures are not equal.
 
People who think this is bad fail to realize what is "normal" today.

This obviously sounds weird, as if they're hiring people based on race or sexuality; but it only seems weird if you don't see the bigger picture.

It's NOT a coincidence that men, often white, are CEO's and top executives. There is institutionalized racism, and that's a fact. It stems from western culture and how it was built up.

So, although it seems contradictory to consider race or sexuality when hiring people as the argument is "equality", you have to realize we're currently not on a level plane field, so it's necessary to have a conscious effort to add diversity in the way Apple's doing it.

What a load of bull! It's definitely not a coincidence that the majority of CEO's are white men. 78% of America's population are white. 13% are black and whatever remaining percentage are the other ethnicities. Considering this alone will statistically mean that you're going to have a MUCH HIGHER chance of having a white CEO rather than a non-white one..

We can also take into consideration the scientifically proven average IQ studies where it was shown that black Americans had an IQ of around 85 on average. Latinos 90 average, Whites 103 average and Asians 113 average. When the government and the medical community considers an IQ of <=70 "mentally retarded" then it's not a stretch to say that this is a factor in how the black community runs itself. If you don't believe the IQ stuff you could also consider how 72% of black kids are growing up without a father or father figure. This has also been scientifically proven to lead to the kids committing more crime when they're older etc. etc.

Just look at the drop-out rates by race per state: http://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...chool-graduation-rates-by-race-ethnicity.html

The lowest is 48% that is less than 5 out of 10 people in a high school class who are black will not graduate. Is this because of institutional racism? If so, how is this actually done? and who exactly is doing it?

It's also worthy to point out that in almost all states, the pattern of IQ is correlated to the graduation rate:

Asian -> White -> Hispanic -> Black.
 
Why are americans so obsessed with those statistics. I dont think i ever ran across a paper asking me „what i am“ here. Meanwhile first paper i had to sign in the US had a ethnicity question in it.

Feels like those separate people more than bring them together
Yes, everything asks me, even the standardized tests. I always decline to answer. When I was a kid, I'd actually lie about my ethnicity on everything, but you can't really do that on job applications.
[doublepost=1510507956][/doublepost]Everyone talking about race and gender in tech should note that the stats are much different for tech-only. Ends up being 23% female and 31% Asian.
[doublepost=1510508586][/doublepost]
Diversity causes strife and reduced social capital, it is a cancer on society. People who don't share the same values don't trust one another, at worst they hate one another. This not idle speculation, it has been scientifically proven in studies by liberal academics: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/ This is why it's right and just for separate nations to exist and organize their societies as they see fit. Apple's multicultural propaganda is just that, it's marketing. If they truly try to force certain proportions of women, gays, Muslims, etc., beyond what they have done already, they will collapse as a company. The truth is that most Muslims think that Tim Cook should be punished in some way for being a homosexual. All cultures are not equal.
No, I don't give a **** about the colors of everyone. In fact, I tend to forget. I don't think most people care either. Religion is personal anyway; only matters if you're marrying the person. Sex and gender matter a bit more but shouldn't mean much in a professional workplace. Just don't be so sensitive, and it's fine.
[doublepost=1510508899][/doublepost]
Always cracks me up that the people who get bent out of shape about Harvard's acceptance process act like they've somehow been harmed by it.

The SAT is not a magic path to entry, it's but one measure of qualification. Harvard looks at test scores, transcripts and the individual to create the best environment for students to learn. Nobody wants a classroom full of white males with top scores. They want a mix of students so that they can learn from each other through debate and discourse. White candidates with lower-than average SAT scores also get in if they can somehow balance that. But you need to get over the notion that a desire to bring diverse students in somehow means that they aren't qualified.
It's not just test scores but also high school grades. It's true of other private universities too. Look, the conversation has come up, and I've looked at stats in UC Berkeley and other UCs vs other private schools vs similar private schools in the area (Stanford and USC). The private ones, where "affirmative action" isn't banned, have way lower (eastern) Asian proportions, slightly higher white, and much higher black. It's definitely cause for suspicion.

When I went to college in my UC school, which had banned "diversity and inclusion" admission programs, I can't say that race ever mattered for anything, other than which cultural clubs tried to give you fliers (lol). Occasionally I'd realize I'm the only non-Asian person in my entire computer science class, but whatever.
 
Last edited:
The issue in the past has been that unconscious bias in favor of considering "looks like me" as part of "merit" has made it harder for qualified women and minorities to get past that unrecognized filter.

For quite awhile after passage of our employment laws looking to make good on "equal opportunity," many firms have continued to elide the problem of unconscious filtering out of people who don't "look like us" when hiring people. Now we're not dodging the issue so much any more. Why? Because it became clear that the laws weren't enough. Because our minds and maybe our hearts didn't capture the spirit of the laws. We're better than our track record. That's what Apple's saying, taking it out from behind the HR walls and showing the world ok here's what we do, here's where we are, we're trying, we're making progress.

Now we're talking about it, and really trying to change up how we hire, and a lot of people are practically up in arms about it. And they are, predictably, white and fairly often but not always male as well. I chalk a lot of that up to discomfort with change, not necessarily to overt racism or sexism.

Even good change makes us uncomfortable at first.

That's the thing about institutional prejudice, it's not necessarily overt, aggressive, even conscious. It's just there. It's there because it's "always" been there, like that S curve out on County 14 that used to go around someone's outbuildings in the 19th century. Most of us are comfortable with it only because we had to get comfortable with gearing down to 30 or ending up in some guy's pine trees. Someday someone will get killed taking those things at 55 and then they'll take down the 30 signs and call in the engineers... well the USA called in the engineers in 1965 because enough of the country was finally uncomfortable always gearing down for those S curves that kept good people from advancing --or getting hired for a good job to begin with-- and we're still trying to build a better road.

Our brains are lazy, they can make us like things the way they are. But we're in charge, right? It's ok to be uncomfortable in service of getting used to the dash on a new car, though, eh? We can see the benefit. Otherwise why get the new car? Well, it's also ok to be uncomfortable while getting used to trying to identify and ditch those filters we may have stashed away on who's "meritorious" of getting hired when we need to staff up. The benefit is making the most of our human potential sooner than we may be doing now.

There’s a reason engineering firms may still shuffle resumés looking for STEM-qualified kids who grew up on a farm and were handing their dad the right size wrench from the time they were big enough to be trusted not to eat the stuff in the toolbox. They got that 3-D wiring activated in their brains when their brains were most receptive to development of capacity to understand spatial relationships. There’s absolutely no reason to pass by a resumé like that if the kid happens to have been a girl. Unless…. she doesn’t look like a guy?
What a load feministic bull. Loads of vague blanket statements like institutional prejudice just exists, show me a damn example. I'm sick of people like you using the typical ideological buzzwords like white-male, privilege, institutional racism/sexism, unconscious-bias and making claims that are never substantiated in any way shape or form.

I find it appalling that you believe that a recruiter, who is processing not only CVs but also carrying out job interviews actually deny women jobs simply for being women. You should read James Damore's memo. The non-altered one that is to find out why women choose to go into different fields.

I'm also curious to know why there isn't a big push for more men in nursing, teaching, child care, housekeeping etc. or why there isn't a big push for women in coal mining, construction, garbage collection etc.

Why is it always, conveniently, the high paying jobs?
 
I'm also curious to know why there isn't a big push for more men in nursing, teaching, child care, housekeeping etc. or why there isn't a big push for women in coal mining, construction, garbage collection etc.

Why is it always, conveniently, the high paying jobs?

As a male teacher, school systems would love more men teachers, but you really never do hear anything about getting more men into teaching because men don't want to be teachers. It is not a job that is inherently man oriented and I think that's fine. I think it would be great to have more male teachers but I don't get upset at the lack of male teachers because I know the reason is because men don't want the jobs and there doesn't need to be a push to make them want the jobs except to make teacher pay more competitive but thats another issue.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.