Ever notice how "diversity" pushers ignore facts, evidence and thousands of yeas of evolution?
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's Workforce is Slightly More Diverse This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ever notice how "diversity" pushers ignore facts, evidence and thousands of yeas of evolution?
Political correctness is bigotry and facts don't care about your feelings.
No human is superior to another. Such things are a myth created by people who thought evolution proved racial superiority. Or even that evolution even proves races. It does not.
As I've said before the problem in this country is. whites were put in a false bubble of racial superiority. While the natural progression of other ethnicities were retarded.
And to the person who asked the question if whites will be treated equally when minorities are in power.
The answer is: by the time that happens. The majority of the population will not identify themselves by one ethnicity as we do today.
I agree with you. However, people who claim "institutional bias" are actually copping out by engaging in mere sloganeering. They're part of the problem instead of the solution.
Apple's entire Diversity Department is part of the problem, not the solution.
Again, I stand with Morgan Freeman on this. I see character, not color. I see people, not gender.
The grievance industry isn't about solving a problem. It's about not solving it so that the industry continues to thrive.
Imagine Apple employed only women. No men at all. If they're the best at what they do, I'd have no problem with it. Some people would. I'm not among those people.
But that's precisely what they do! Not all the time I'm sure, but I bet as soon as they get that call from HR reminding them of their slouching diversity number, all of a sudden the white candidates coming for their interview that day just had their chances of getting the job cut in half.
This is a point that I believe needs some emphasis. "Diversity" has turned into some code word for "unqualified minority". The fact of the matter is that most companies hire the most familiar candidate: meaning a friend of a friend, neighbor, or former colleagues of a current employee. If you have a candidate that has an employee that can vouch for them, you would certainly have leg up. This puts minority candidates at what I would argue is an unfair disadvantage. It's not an insidious plot to keep minorities out but it's a reality of most corporate hiring practices. There's a draw to going the easy route.
Unfortunately the result is a feedback loop that's difficult to navigate.
The most qualified applicant should receive the job. But if there are equally qualified applicants that don't hear about the position, or don't have a friend or someone to vouch for them in the company - it's a tough hill to climb. In many cases as a minority it's not enough to be "as good". You must be better in every measurable category to get the nod.
My God you are ignorant! The assumption that the white candidates are all qualified but only a few minorities are.
[doublepost=1470323953][/doublepost]
Great. But history has shown the opposite. Whites were indeed favored over minorities for a large portion of this country's existence. To sum that up as "copping out" is frankly disappointing as I see you as intelligent.
Is history still the present? If it's still here, how did that happen?
I hate racism. I hate bigotry. I stand with those who want to end it. However, it really is a "cop out" to say there's institutional racism and provide no evidence to back it up. That's sloganeering and it's counterproductive.
Show me a racist policy or specific empirical evidence of racism and I'll stand with you against it. Otherwise, it's just the grievance industry doing what it does best: creating ghosts and boogiemen.
There is no way to condone racial violence. But we must understand why it happens so as to address the source.
I believe that in Zimbabwe, as well as anywhere else, racial violence against whites is the direct result of an (over)reaction to white oppressive, colonial, and/or imperialist (read: business capitalist) action and/or policies.
Make no mistake, white people "conquered" (a lot of) the world. The problem was that they did not allow the "conquered" to become equal citizens; whites of the time ( and some even today) actually felt superior, and this attitute has been in place for far too long (see Apartheid, etc). The cultural and economic consequences of this have and will continue to last over generations. Plural.
However, in many places the oppressed/disenfranchised/you-name-it, instead of seizing power and making things the way they should be, went completely the other way and are now guilty of the same stupid-ass behaviour.
Human beings and our evil nature at work.
As someone who is multi-racial and multi-ethnic, and having multi-racial and multi-ethnic children that vary in appearance greatly (white, brown, and unmistakeably black), I have a vested interest in driving a stake through the psychological vampire that we call racism. I am at war with it, from within and without.
How we win said war is NOT by taking (racial) sides.
Bob Marley described the problem (and the intellectual solution) in his song "War" quite perfectly.
Look up the lyrics (if you don't like reggae
).A monochrome world would suck. There is beauty to be loved in the differences between us.
Seriously? The evidence of institutional racism/bias is too long to list. But I'll give you one very disturbing fact:
80% of the time, qualified black jurors are turned away from serving as their white counterparts.
I'm sorry, but it cannot be said that you hate racism and then try to shut someone up when they try to point it out. It is speaking from both sides of the mouth, as it were.
At least in the US, I could say with a straight face that if you are not white, you have all the "empirical" evidence you need. Seems you are white, so you need "proof".
Institutions are made up of people. Hiring decisions are made by people.
Again, people who are racist won't admit they're racists outright (unless they explicitly belong to a supremacist group).
The only visibility we have into the hearts of men is the result of their actions, i.e. these reports we're arguing about.
Racism is an internal disease. You can't spot it like the measels. You have to witness it.
These reports are the closest thing to empirical evidence we can get, flawed as they may be.
Please start listing it.
Again, I stand with you against true racism. Unfortunately "Wolf" has been cried too many times and it has actually proven counterproductive to the movement to eliminate it.
Have a citation for that "80%" assertion?
[doublepost=1470325971][/doublepost]
I'm not shutting anyone up. Yes it's a "cop out" to allege racism without proof because it actually doesn't solve anything.
Facts don't care about your feelings, race or gender, or my feelings, race or gender. I know that contradicts your narrative but you'll have to deal with that.
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life
SCOTUS ruled 7-1 on it for this case:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/us/supreme-court-black-jurors-death-penalty-georgia.html
I'm going to be very blunt... I don't have the time to list the issues you can easily find with a few mouse clicks. Suffice to say it is there. BUT..... Not every instance you hear is about bias.
Last edited:
I dismiss its noteworthiness because it's a preposterous claim. My point was that people like you only think it's try twisting my words, though.
And I already explained why diversity is something worth addressing; evidently, you don't think having people from different backgrounds and of different experiences contributes to problem solving. You're entitled to believe as you please, you're just wrong on this point.
By the way, increasing diversity in the workplace doesn't imply lowering standards to do so. This an assumption made by people who view non-traditional tech employees (read: non-white, non-male) as inferior employees. All diversity increasing means is that companies make an extra effort to find qualified people of different backgrounds. They cast a wider net to find these people, that's all. Everyone of the people hired are still extremely qualified.
P.S. You don't know how straining it is to have people [who don't experience the things you do] always questioning your life experiences, as if you just make up problems for the hell of it. It would be great if you start from a place of empathy and willingness to understand, instead of a place of extreme skepticism.
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with "feelings".
You are asking for evidence of racism.
How exactly can it be provided? Where and how was "wolf" been cried, in your experience?
What do you consider proof of racism?
Should us non-whites start wearing hidden go-pros when we go into interviews, restaurants, stores, dealing with the police, just so you can have your evidence??
Diversity in the workplace, and lack thereof, is evidence enough.
The fact that you require all this "evidence" means that you and I are nowhere near the same stance against racism. Stop kidding yourself.
Your assumption that the diversity that you are seeing is not merit based is a good place to start.
People like me? What about people like me?
No that's not what I think. That's what your narrative requires you to believe I think.
I support increased competence in the workplace from all backgrounds.
Unfortunately the grievance industry has lessened the credibility of many legitimate complaints about racism. Skepticism is healthy. Denial isn't. I'm not in denial. I think I'm more willing to see things from your point of view than you are willing to reciprocate. That's too bad.
People that think like Morgan Freeman on this issue; don't try to make more of my words than is there. I inferred that that is what you think based on your posts.
And you certainly are in denial; because if you were just being skeptical, you would have done the reasearch on institutional racism. Instead, you pretend it doesn't exist and place the burden on regular people to explain it to you because that supports your worldview. The evidence is out there, if you are truly interested in learning about it.
Anyway, I think posting here was a waste of time; I don't know why I bother sometimes.
And you certainly are in denial; because if you were just being skeptical, you would have done the reasearch on institutional racism. Instead, you pretend it doesn't exist and place the burden on regular people to explain it to you because that supports your worldview. The evidence is out there, if you are truly interested in learning about it.
Anyway, I think posting here was a waste of time; I don't know why I bother sometimes.
Over 90% of the people in jail are men. Is that because the system is sexist against men?
[doublepost=1470330939][/doublepost]
I'm sure we're a diverse group. That's what you're referring to right?
A friend of mine owns a web development studio. He's got a government mandate to have a pants to skirts ratio. Almost all his employees are men, and almost all his job applicants are also men. When I say almost all, the number is about 95% or higher. Women rarely apply.
I took a web development program in college a few years back that lasted two years. There was only ONE woman in our class and she dropped out 2 months into the program.
Now ask yourself; If there's essentially a 50-1 ratio of men to women for a job, why does my friend HAVE to hire the woman? What are the chances that the woman will be more qualified for the job than the 50 men that have applied?
You're speaking as if all women are more qualified when greatly outnumbered. Of course, this doesn't mean women can't be qualified, but the odds are greatly against them.
Now ask yourself this; suppose you DO hire the woman based on your sexist view to pander to women just because they're women and have an equal 50/50 split of men/women. What happens when you've run out of women to select and all that's left is men?
Now another question:
Do you complain about the lack of men in certain fields like nursing?
There's a reason why women aren't in certain fields like STEM; they simply don't want to. I remember Milo Yiannopoulos once mentioned that in countries where women we're given the choice to work in any field they wanted they still chose the stereotypical fields.
One of my friends, a Persian woman along with her friend we're the ONLY females in the entire Engineering program in one of the top universities in the state, a program of about 300 people and only TWO women, despite no barriers being present for women to take part.
This whole 'diversity' crap is extremely sexist, it's essentially a feminist backlash but nobody questions it because feminism cannot be challenged, just like religion; it's as much a shield as it is a weapon.
What you also may not realize is that hiring women simply for the fact that they're women is really insulting to women. It suggests that they're inferior and deserve a handout where as I'm pretty sure most people, women included, would like to think they're being rewarded for their competence. What diversity does it create a sense of entitlement rather than making women strive for greatness.
Last edited:
Even as a goal, percentages are discriminatory. I see that you don't mind being a racist, sexist, etc. and that said discrimination is justifiable because it happened to others in the past. For me any racism, sexism, etc. is not acceptable. Period. But percentages are only an excuse to allow discrimination and further the divide between classes of people. Sure its is an easy metric. The problem, that metric is garbage. Hiring just one person to better the numbers is discriminatory because it means you hired them because of their race, gender, etc. Hiring or not hiring a person because of race, gender, etc. are both discriminatory to the person not hired.
It is pretty easy to review resumes and the reviewers notes to determine if the reviewer was discriminatory. There never are two candidates that are equal except for race, gender, etc. Each has a different personality, ability to communicate, ability to work under stress, knowledge, skills, etc. So yes, this is a hard problem. But it is not a problem fixed by simple percentages.
Superbly put.
The diversity pushers just can't accept that men and women have different preferences when it comes to different kinds of jobs. Any job that doesn't have 50% of each is suspect in their eyes. It's bonkers, but that's the upside-down world we live in today.