Tim Cook Expresses Thoughts on Equality in Auburn University Award Speech

[InfernoShade]

You get it.

Jobs as founder of Apple, CEO of Next, Pixar and Apple, was important. Jobs as a human being was entirely unimportant. Millions and millions have benefitted from what he did professionally. The number of people with valid complaints about him as a person is tiny. If you go to your nearest supermarket, chances are you'll find a manager who has shouted at more employees than Jobs did in his life. Now if you count the people who would say "all in all, I would have been better off if I never had met Jobs", I think that number is probably zero.

Kudos! So well said! You get it. Sadly so many other people don't get it.

I've worked in dozens of fortune 500 corporations in the US. More often than not I see executives attacking and insulting underlings, and being pretty horrific at times. It's a drag but that's the way it is. These are type A personalities. People lose it now and then, and the chief gets to blow off steam in a way others do not. The sad part is none of the places I've worked ever seem to have leaders with vision. At some level I'd be ok with someone being harsh if they were pushing you toward great things and had vision. I'd rather work for Steve Jobs then any bosses I've every worked for, even if they were "nice" guys.

I agree with you, you'd find bosses that were just as harsh as Jobs at you're local stores. But they're not pushing you towards anything great. They are just small minded dictators.

Yeah, people just latch onto the handful of stories about Jobs being jerky. But those moments were clearly outweighed by the other positive aspects to his character. Sure, he wasn't perfect, but no one is, especially in the corporate world. Not to mention he had people who loved him. So it would seem he's far from the heartless ******* people claim to know for sure he was.

 

[somethingelsefl]

"...advancing humanity". Haha. God bless America™. He works for a company that makes computers...

Yo! Down-vote button! Where you at?!

 

[Michaelgtrusa]

Part of fixing our country is building a fence. But yeah getting rid of the incentives for people to come here illegally carries the same amount of weight in my opinion. But that won't happen until someone else is in charge in Washington.

..as well as getting china out of this countries interest. This would take a revolution.

 

[Eraserhead]

..as well as getting china out of this countries interest. This would take a revolution.

Given China is a huge economy and has spent 90% of the last 2000 years as one of the biggest economy it is always going to be important to the US.

The problems of the "undeveloped world" (as you call it a little too arrogant for my guess) you talk about won't get better or worse with or without computers.
The world's economic and money system is causing many people to starve, while (and because) other people are getting rediculously rich.

This is completely wrong. There are less people starving and less poor than at any point in human history.

 

[Klae17]

And what's wrong that...? I'd prefer this country to going back to being the land of opportunity, where an individual, regardless of race or ethnicity, and having little to no education, can climb the ranks and succeed. I would also like to see bigotry eradicated. That's why I oppose anti-discrimination laws, and min wage laws. I completely understand that it appears to be counter-intuitive on the surface, but when you get an understanding of the mechanics of an economy, it becomes clear that min wage laws and anti-discrimination laws always hurt those they seek to protect.

I'm not going to be able to convince the masses of liberals that simply deny economic fact, and deny that an increase litigation costs, associated with anti-discrimination laws, is tied to an increase in costs associated with hiring minorities, and therefore, discourages the hiring of minorities. I am also not going to be able to convince those who deny that minimum wage laws cause low-skilled, uneducated workers to get laid off, and closes the opportunities for low-skilled, uneducated workers from gaining employment, and thereby denies these workers with a chance to enter the workforce, and climb the ranks (as evidenced by the increase in wage gap, and the increase in unemployment among African Americans, particularly teens). I'm not going to be able to explain the moral implications of infringing on private property rights to those who think it's perfectly justifiable for government to take what someone else has earned. I'm not going to be able to convince a religious nut that the government has no right to define personal relationships, and that the government has no right to tell an individual what they put in their body (both drug related substances and biological objects). I'm not going to be able to convince a committed warmonger that non-interventionalism and endless wars is destructive and damaging to our country and safety. I'm hoping only to offer an alternative viewpoint so that the reasonable handful of people can help to actually achieve equality by REDUCING government's involvement in our day-to-day lives.

That's not the land of opportunity you have been yearning for. I'm a double minority, it is hard. The laws are protections for heavens sake. They have done more good than bad. And yes, seriously, women were paid less than men. Please give us credible information of when they were paid equally before. Also if it doesn't hurt and doesn't help, then what's the problem for pay scales based on gender? Again? A source please.

 

[Gasu E.]

Try checking the site I posted, there are plenty of scientific links

Every "scientific fact" linking GMOs directly to cancer and disease has been shown to be pure hokum; made-up stuff, or the result of incompetent, biased scientific techniques, such as that infamous French study that recently had to be retracted.

This is not to say that that GMOs have been proven innocent of leading to ecological problems. Some GMOs are naturally insect-resistant, which could be causing damage to insect populations. Monsanto's Roundup-resistant strains may be encouraging farmers to go overboard on pesticides. All those possibilities are deeply concerning. So if you oppose GMOs on an ecologic basis, that's swell.

However, the fear-mongering that GMOs have a direct deleterious effect on the consumer's health is just nonsense, aimed at the weak-minded. The fact that you just chose to link to the top of the site, and couldn't locate any direct evidence yourself, underscores this. You linked to the site; if you are too lazy or timid to line up behind a specific piece of evidence, why should anyone else take the time and trouble to wade through that mess themselves?

 

[steve333]

Every "scientific fact" linking GMOs directly to cancer and disease has been shown to be pure hokum; made-up stuff, or the result of incompetent, biased scientific techniques, such as that infamous French study that recently had to be retracted.

This is not to say that that GMOs have been proven innocent of leading to ecological problems. Some GMOs are naturally insect-resistant, which could be causing damage to insect populations. Monsanto's Roundup-resistant strains may be encouraging farmers to go overboard on pesticides. All those possibilities are deeply concerning. So if you oppose GMOs on an ecologic basis, that's swell.

However, the fear-mongering that GMOs have a direct deleterious effect on the consumer's health is just nonsense, aimed at the weak-minded. The fact that you just chose to link to the top of the site, and couldn't locate any direct evidence yourself, underscores this. You linked to the site; if you are too lazy or timid to line up behind a specific piece of evidence, why should anyone else take the time and trouble to wade through that mess themselves?

I gave you a link which has more links within than I could possible find, yet you don't want to click on those links and you call me lazy?
GMOs have been banned in countries, crops have been burned in Poland, countries have banned U.S. imports because of GMO contamination.
It is not natural for humans to ingest food with foreign non food DNA implanted into their DNA. Pesticide that can't be washed off, a foreign gene implanted to make the seed resistant to round-up (A monsanto pesticide that is destroying soil and creating super weeds resistant to it, besides being a poison on it's own).
Animal testing has shown deleterious effects, tumors growing in lab rats, absolutely no long term safety testing on humans, an undeniable increase in cancer and degenerative diseases.
I can't convince someone who blindly believes that nothing you ingest matters so you can continue to eat what you want. My hope is that I reach other people here who will want to look into this further and come to the same conclusion that I did after years of research- GMOs are harmful and should be banned from the food supply.

 

[sransari]

That's not the land of opportunity you have been yearning for. I'm a double minority, it is hard. The laws are protections for heavens sake. They have done more good than bad. And yes, seriously, women were paid less than men. Please give us credible information of when they were paid equally before. Also if it doesn't hurt and doesn't help, then what's the problem for pay scales based on gender? Again? A source please.

And what exactly do the laws protect minorities from? Equal pay, or being fired based on race? Gimme a break...if an employer was racist, then the minority never would have been hired to begin with.

Let me ask you this: If today, employers were allowed to post for a job that said "men only," or post jobs with different pay scales for the same job (with the different scales based on gender, race, etc.), do you think that employer would survive? Of course not...and that's because of society's values, NOT legislation. So then, why do we need anti-discrimination/equal pay laws if society can already themselves punish racist and sexist employers WITHOUT these laws? As I've demonstrated, these laws themselves indicate an increase in cost associated with hiring minorities. Therefore, these laws serve no other purpose than to discourage the hiring of minorities (and to line the pocket of lawyers), and do NOTHING to protect minorities. Politicians push these laws to serve lobbyists of the lawyers, and because it's politically popular. As I've admitted, these laws sound great and common sense on the surface, but when you take time to actually THINK and analyze for yourself, you understand how these laws backfire and harm those that the law claims to protect.

I also never said that women were paid equally than men. My entire point is that equal pay and anti-discrimination laws make it difficult for minorities to earn employment since the cost of hiring minorities is increased. The source for this fact is the laws themselves.

 

[Eraserhead]

And what exactly do the laws protect minorities from? Equal pay, or being fired based on race? Gimme a break...if an employer was racist, then the minority never would have been hired to begin with.

Let me ask you this: If today, employers were allowed to post for a job that said "men only," or post jobs with different pay scales for the same job (with the different scales based on gender, race, etc.), do you think that employer would survive? Of course not...and that's because of society's values, NOT legislation. So then, why do we need anti-discrimination/equal pay laws if society can already themselves punish racist and sexist employers WITHOUT these laws? As I've demonstrated, these laws themselves indicate an increase in cost associated with hiring minorities. Therefore, these laws serve no other purpose than to discourage the hiring of minorities (and to line the pocket of lawyers), and do NOTHING to protect minorities. Politicians push these laws to serve lobbyists of the lawyers, and because it's politically popular. As I've admitted, these laws sound great and common sense on the surface, but when you take time to actually THINK and analyze for yourself, you understand how these laws backfire and harm those that the law claims to protect.

I also never said that women were paid equally than men. My entire point is that equal pay and anti-discrimination laws make it difficult for minorities to earn employment since the cost of hiring minorities is increased. The source for this fact is the laws themselves.

If capitalism is so perfect why exactly before the smoking ban did no one setup smoke free bars?

 

[Giuly]

If you turn on VoiceOver, it breaks all scrolling on an iPad.

That renders it useless to me (try Safari with only the first part of a page), and I can only image how hard it must be for someone with a muscular disorder to turn it off, as you have to tap everthing five times in order to move to the next screen.

 

[sransari]

If capitalism is so perfect why exactly before the smoking ban did no one setup smoke free bars?

Way to completely change the subject without even an attempt to address anything previously stated. Did I ever imply that pure anarchy (no laws ever) was the way to go. As I said before, smoking is not a point of contention here. Since second-hand smoke infringes on the rights of others to enjoy a smoke-free environment, laws are appropriate to protect the rights of these individuals. Once someone else's action (e.g. a smoker's action of smoking), infringes on the rights of another (e.g,. a bystander exposed to second hand smoke), that is when laws are appropriate. Unfortunately, our government has implemented laws that do not protect our rights, and often, rob us of our rights.

It's also not completely true that smoking was present in all bars prior to smoking bans. Many establishments voluntarily had smoking and non-smoking sections, while many were completely smoke-free. I'm not going to deny that smoke-free laws have done good. There's just no connection between smoke-free laws and anti-discrimination laws.

If we didn't have smoke-free laws, there would be a large number of establishments that would go back to permitting smoking, and thus, violating the rights of others that do not want exposure to 2nd hand smoke. However, if we didn't have anti-discrimination laws, I really don't think there would be a lot of employers that would suddenly start excluding minorities from contending for jobs. In fact, minorities would have a better chance of getting jobs since it would be less risky to hire them. Any employers that did behave bigotry would, as you know, not be in business very long.

 

[Eraserhead]

Way to completely change the subject without even an attempt to address anything previously stated. Did I ever imply that pure anarchy (no laws ever) was the way to go. As I said before, smoking is not a point of contention here. Since second-hand smoke infringes on the rights of others to enjoy a smoke-free environment, laws are appropriate to protect the rights of these individuals. Once someone else's action (e.g. a smoker's action of smoking), infringes on the rights of another (e.g,. a bystander exposed to second hand smoke), that is when laws are appropriate. Unfortunately, our government has implemented laws that do not protect our rights, and often, rob us of our rights.

It's also not completely true that smoking was present in all bars prior to smoking bans. Many establishments voluntarily had smoking and non-smoking sections, while many were completely smoke-free. I'm not going to deny that smoke-free laws have done good. There's just no connection between smoke-free laws and anti-discrimination laws.

If we didn't have smoke-free laws, there would be a large number of establishments that would go back to permitting smoking, and thus, violating the rights of others that do not want exposure to 2nd hand smoke. However, if we didn't have anti-discrimination laws, I really don't think there would be a lot of employers that would suddenly start excluding minorities from contending for jobs. In fact, minorities would have a better chance of getting jobs since it would be less risky to hire them. Any employers that did behave bigotry would, as you know, not be in business very long.

So why are anti-smoking laws acceptable but anti-equality ones are not? I don't get it.

I suggest we agree to disagree to be honest.

 

[Giuly]

Never mind that, either.

 

[Klae17]

And what exactly do the laws protect minorities from? Equal pay, or being fired based on race? Gimme a break...if an employer was racist, then the minority never would have been hired to begin with.

Let me ask you this: If today, employers were allowed to post for a job that said "men only," or post jobs with different pay scales for the same job (with the different scales based on gender, race, etc.), do you think that employer would survive? Of course not...and that's because of society's values, NOT legislation. So then, why do we need anti-discrimination/equal pay laws if society can already themselves punish racist and sexist employers WITHOUT these laws? As I've demonstrated, these laws themselves indicate an increase in cost associated with hiring minorities. Therefore, these laws serve no other purpose than to discourage the hiring of minorities (and to line the pocket of lawyers), and do NOTHING to protect minorities. Politicians push these laws to serve lobbyists of the lawyers, and because it's politically popular. As I've admitted, these laws sound great and common sense on the surface, but when you take time to actually THINK and analyze for yourself, you understand how these laws backfire and harm those that the law claims to protect.

I also never said that women were paid equally than men. My entire point is that equal pay and anti-discrimination laws make it difficult for minorities to earn employment since the cost of hiring minorities is increased. The source for this fact is the laws themselves.

No one is dumb enough to put that in a help wanted ad. Seriously. All they do like you said, is don't hire them in the first place. But now that is illegal to do.

 

[sransari]

No one is dumb enough to put that in a help wanted ad. Seriously. All they do like you said, is don't hire them in the first place. But now that is illegal to do.

What is illegal? Not hiring minorities? Don't think so. As you agree, no employer would have different pay scales for different genders or races, even if they were allowed to do so under the law. So we don't need those laws that prohibit that. Society's values already prohibit it, and the laws just make it riskier to higher minorities.

 

[Klae17]

What is illegal? Not hiring minorities? Don't think so. As you agree, no employer would have different pay scales for different genders or races, even if they were allowed to do so under the law. So we don't need those laws that prohibit that. Society's values already prohibit it, and the laws just make it riskier to higher minorities.

I said not hiring based on gender, race, religion, and soon sexual orientation.

 

[sransari]

I said not hiring based on gender, race, religion, and soon sexual orientation.

Actually the laws state that minorities cannot be fired or passed up for promotions or paid differently. Again, those laws make it easier for minorities to sue, making them costlier/riskier to hire, thereby discouraging the hiring of minorities.

This is exactly why when two resumes are submitted, with one name on the resume as "John" and the other as "Tyrone," the resume of "John" will receive more interviews than "Tyrone." Thanks to anti-discrimination laws, "Tyrone" is more riskier and costly to hire than "John." This is because the laws make it easy for "Tyrone" to sue the employer if the employer has to later fire "Tyrone" for whatever reason. Get it?

 

[Klae17]

Actually the laws state that minorities cannot be fired or passed up for promotions or paid differently. Again, those laws make it easier for minorities to sue, making them costlier/riskier to hire, thereby discouraging the hiring of minorities.

This is exactly why when two resumes are submitted, with one name on the resume as "John" and the other as "Tyrone," the resume of "John" will receive more interviews than "Tyrone." Thanks to anti-discrimination laws, "Tyrone" is more riskier and costly to hire than "John." This is because the laws make it easy for "Tyrone" to sue the employer if the employer has to later fire "Tyrone" for whatever reason. Get it?

Maybe for you, but most of us aren't prejudice. Actually the law is you can't discriminate for hiring also. There's no point in arguing with you, you do what you do, the rest of us are thankful for these laws. Being a minority isn't easy and is still hard in this day.

 

[Mums]

That sounds more like ENVY than righteous indignation.

It's neither. It's called common sense - something you anti-American Europeans could do with a bit more of.

 

[sransari]

Maybe for you, but most of us aren't prejudice. Actually the law is you can't discriminate for hiring also. There's no point in arguing with you, you do what you do, the rest of us are thankful for these laws. Being a minority isn't easy and is still hard in this day.

You are saying that I am prejudice, but you are the one who is favoring laws that tip the scale against the minority and in favor of the non-minority. I am opposing these laws.

You appear to be denying the fact that the minority is less likely to be selected for an interview over the non-minority because of the risk associated with hiring the minority. Let's start from the beginning: Anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity laws state that employment, firing, and promotions cannot be based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. If a minority, is therefore, fired or passed up for a promotion, the minority has legal grounds to sue the employer. If a non-minority is fired up or passed up for a promotion, the non-minority does NOT have legal grounds to sue the employer. Therefore, the minority is a higher risk employee than the non-minority. If you deny this fact, then it is clear you care more about ideology than the welfare of the minority.


When it comes to hiring, an employer cannot consider race, ethnicity, gender, etc. when making a hiring decision. In practice, it is impossible to prove that an employer eliminated a candidate from contention based on race, ethnicity, or gender. In practice, the minority might not have been hired over the non-minority, again, because the minority was riskier to hire, thanks to anti-discrimination laws.

Is that what you're thankful for? Are you thankful that these laws have made it more difficult for you to be hired because it is now riskier for an employer to hire you? Had these laws not been on the books, the risk associated with hiring a non-minority would be the same as the risk associated with hiring a minority. However, now the anti-discrimination laws tip the scale in favor of the non-minority over the minority. If you are thankful for that, then you are the one who is prejudice, since you are the one who is favoring the scales be tipped against the minority, whereas I am in opposition of this.

What exactly are you thankful for? You still have not explained that at all...as you stated yourself, no company would be dumb enough to list a job that excluded minorities, even if the law allowed them to do so. So again, explain HOW anti-discimination laws protect minorities. You can't explain it, because they don't protect minorities, and ONLY serve make it riskier to hire minorities.

Politicians thrive off of people's ignorance by winning votes by claiming to care for the minority and passing such anti-discrimination laws. Ignorant voters, buy into the propaganda, whereas informed voters, who actually care about the minorities, understand the damage that these laws do to minorities. Only ignorant people refuse to see what is in front of them, even at the cost of harming others. Only ignorant people completely fail to explain their point of view, as you have.

 

[sransari]

So why are anti-smoking laws acceptable but anti-equality ones are not? I don't get it.

I suggest we agree to disagree to be honest.

It's actually a simple explanation...anti-smoking laws protect those, who do not wish to be exposed to smoke, from being exposed to smoke. Smokers are free to ingest whatever they choose into their body, however, they cannot impose or force bystanders to ingest those substances. The core principle behind liberty is the freedom to choose how you live your life, so long as your choices do not harm others, and so long as you take responsibility for your actions and live with the consequences of your actions. Anti-smoking laws protect our right to allow us to protect our personal property (our bodies) from harm. Government is supposed to protect our rights to personal property, including our rights to allow us to protect our bodies.

Anti-discrimination laws (don't think you mean anti-equality) have the opposite objective of freedom, and instead, inject the government into the affairs of how private owners choose to manage a privately owned entity.

An individual or group of individuals who privately own a business have the right to manage their business on their own. When the government forces business decisions through legislation, they are essentially making a claim on a privately owned entity. Government is supposed to protect our rights to private property, not steal or claim our property.

As I have also been saying, the anti-discrimination laws tend to backfire, since they increase the risk associated with hiring minorities, since a minority has legal grounds to sue an employer if fired or passed up for a promotion, whereas a non-minority would not have such legal grounds. Since the risk of hiring minorities is higher than that of a non-minority, the minority is at a disadvantage.

 

[Klae17]

You are saying that I am prejudice, but you are the one who is favoring laws that tip the scale against the minority and in favor of the non-minority. I am opposing these laws.

You appear to be denying the fact that the minority is less likely to be selected for an interview over the non-minority because of the risk associated with hiring the minority. Let's start from the beginning: Anti-discrimination and equal employment opportunity laws state that employment, firing, and promotions cannot be based on race, ethnicity, gender, etc. If a minority, is therefore, fired or passed up for a promotion, the minority has legal grounds to sue the employer. If a non-minority is fired up or passed up for a promotion, the non-minority does NOT have legal grounds to sue the employer. Therefore, the minority is a higher risk employee than the non-minority. If you deny this fact, then it is clear you care more about ideology than the welfare of the minority.


When it comes to hiring, an employer cannot consider race, ethnicity, gender, etc. when making a hiring decision. In practice, it is impossible to prove that an employer eliminated a candidate from contention based on race, ethnicity, or gender. In practice, the minority might not have been hired over the non-minority, again, because the minority was riskier to hire, thanks to anti-discrimination laws.

Is that what you're thankful for? Are you thankful that these laws have made it more difficult for you to be hired because it is now riskier for an employer to hire you? Had these laws not been on the books, the risk associated with hiring a non-minority would be the same as the risk associated with hiring a minority. However, now the anti-discrimination laws tip the scale in favor of the non-minority over the minority. If you are thankful for that, then you are the one who is prejudice, since you are the one who is favoring the scales be tipped against the minority, whereas I am in opposition of this.

What exactly are you thankful for? You still have not explained that at all...as you stated yourself, no company would be dumb enough to list a job that excluded minorities, even if the law allowed them to do so. So again, explain HOW anti-discimination laws protect minorities. You can't explain it, because they don't protect minorities, and ONLY serve make it riskier to hire minorities.

Politicians thrive off of people's ignorance by winning votes by claiming to care for the minority and passing such anti-discrimination laws. Ignorant voters, buy into the propaganda, whereas informed voters, who actually care about the minorities, understand the damage that these laws do to minorities. Only ignorant people refuse to see what is in front of them, even at the cost of harming others. Only ignorant people completely fail to explain their point of view, as you have.

Lol. Not tipping the law to the minorities. It's about evening out the playing field. There is more harm in not having these laws. Anyways dude, no arguing with you.

 

[sransari]

Lol. Not tipping the law to the minorities. It's about evening out the playing field. There is more harm in not having these laws. Anyways dude, no arguing with you.

You're pretty ignorant if you think that the laws even the playing field. They make it uneven against the minority since it's more risky to hire the minority. But I have zero chance winning an argument against someone who refuses to see fact, so I guess you win (but the minorities will lose, if things go your way, so thanks for that).

 

[skottichan]

You're pretty ignorant if you think that the laws even the playing field. They make it uneven against the minority since it's more risky to hire the minority. But I have zero chance winning an argument against someone who refuses to see fact, so I guess you win (but the minorities will lose, if things go your way, so thanks for that).

As a person who's been fired because of my "lifestyle", by a manager who's religion deemed me a sinful pervert, I welcome the new protections.

 

[Klae17]

You're pretty ignorant if you think that the laws even the playing field. They make it uneven against the minority since it's more risky to hire the minority. But I have zero chance winning an argument against someone who refuses to see fact, so I guess you win (but the minorities will lose, if things go your way, so thanks for that).

They don't have to go my way. They go with how the citizens vote and who represents us. If you want to deem it illegal to have anti-discrimination laws then start telling minorities to sit in the back of the bus.