Tim Cook Says Diversity is the Future of Apple, Points to More Female-Driven Presence at WWDC

[ecommerceedward]

the diversity Tim's trying to achieve.

We can both agree that we do not have Tim's utopian genital/skin color quota database or his PRIVATE company policy documents regarding "diversity", just public calculated PR statements. Therefore is it assumed there will be speculation here, obviously but seeing how you reply to my argument it is necessary.

You're not winning any arguments here, you're just dissecting my post and either acting willfully ignorant or just looking for some technicality, pretending you're not understanding the argument or just resort to parroting a definition of diversity. Almost all your rebuttals are vague utopian statements but they fail to address or disprove anything I'm saying and are either answered in 1 of 3 ways.

• Willfully Ignorant
• Technicalities
• Red Herring

This has nothing to do with the content of character

In the context I'm obviously arguing that merit and skill is more important that skin color. But hey conveniently just avoid that whole skin color thing. True you could have a guy with a rotten attitude be your best programmer, but what MLK was trying to convey was not to judge people by the color of their skin. You knew this but took the anal technicality route rather than to debate philosophically.

• Willfully Ignorant
• Technicality

Race seems to be paralyzing your thought process. Diversity goes beyond just race. Your arguments don't, but diversity does.

Of course it is more than race, if you bothered to read my post I also had sexuality in there too? For time's sake I did not list every possible diversity combination, otherwise we would be here all night. This is a forum post, not War and Peace, due to character limitations and a job I must summarize. Obviously I think you're aware of that, your rebuttal didn't disprove anything, it wasn't even an argument, your red herring attempt to change the argument to the definition of diversity fails, infact I agree with your statement that "it goes beyond race", that was the example, do I need to retype the entire post and replace BLACK with FEMALE and WHITE with MALE for you to "understand" it? That's the cheap way out, you knew what I was saying.

• Willfully Ignorant - you could obviously apply it to gender etc.
• Parroting a definition of diversity, why? I AGREE with that definition, what kind of rebuttal is this? My statement still stands.

Ridiculous is not recognizing that an argument against quotas does not qualify as an argument against diversity.

It is ridiculous to think one of the largest companies in the world that brags about their diversity WOULDN'T have some type of database or policy regarding hiring practices that requires "diversity" (discrimination). How is this diversity achieved? I keep asking you this but you keep dancing around the question with vague non-answers.

• Willfully Ignorant - Diversity doesn't just magically appear out of thin air, How is this achieved without discrimination and without unnecessarily wasting money?

The words diversity and quota lack equivalency. They are not interchangeable. In fact, they're more opposite than alike.

Did you even read my post? Obviously the objective is DIVERSITY.. How is that defined exactly? X-Amount of albino-trans-sexual-programmers? You're being willfully ignorant and vague, you're talking about the public relations side of diversity, not the how-sausage-is-made ugly truth of how it's achieved. Read my post again or don't, anyone can see you're purposely avoiding the point.

• Willfully Ignorant - Avoiding the point again, HOW are you achieving diversity?

Diversity, on the other hand, is synonymous with variety, mixture, or multiplicity.

Yes, ok, and....?

• Parroting a definition of diversity, why? It can be a variety, so what? 20 males, 3 females. So what? I agree with that, in fact I already addressed here "You'll have a hard time fulfilling the North Korean quota", I guess you're agreeing that would be a small fraction? Doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

We can only speculate the most likely ways they will achieve diversity. It's completely wrong, but how would they achieve this?

• Quota: The fastest way would be by discriminating by skin color or genitalia, which the US Government has already done and wouldn't be a far stretch to assume Apple would have some type of quota or an internal unwritten wink and nudge policy that your staff better look "diverse" next time we audit you. This is the most likely, but I'm sure there's Apple Lawyer PC-legal way they have of discriminating to achieve their diversity agenda.
• Recruitment in Minority-X / Sexual pref-X Media: They would merely discriminate against all other races and focus on a specific skin color or genitalia when budgeting advertising for recruiting. Again this is still discrimination, it's just at a different level, maybe not as obvious but still a waste of share holder's money and there's still some type of database or skin color / genital requirement being fulfilled, still an unnecessary waste of money for the shareholders, employees and customers.

 

[69Mustang]

We can both agree that we do not...

Your arguments are unassailable. You win.

 

[Gary03mw]

@ecommerceedward

The issue with @69Mustang argument is that he's still defining diversity incorrectly. I posted this on page 5 but it appears nothing has changed:

You seem to think that I am wrong because I have somehow defined "diversity" incorrectly. I'm sorry, but you don't get to make up your own definition of what the term means. Diversity certainly is not, "choosing from a larger candidate pool." Here is a definition from businessdictionary.com:

Workplace diversity- "Similarities and differences among employees in terms of age, cultural background, physical abilities and disabilities, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation."

Tim Cook may be attempting to increase diversity by increasing the number of minorities and women in the candidate pool but there is nothing that inherently ties the two ideas together. What I mean is that a larger candidate pool does nothing to increase diversity if the entire pool is nothing but white males. Increasing the candidate pool is a perfectly noble goal. Increasing diversity is not. Nobody is going to argue with you that having 3000 candidates is going to yield better results than having 1000 candidates. What we are going to argue is that once you have those candidates the goal should not be diversity but which ones are best suited for the positions. We would also argue the need and morality of focusing the increase on race or gender.

I can use the same example you just mentioned but leave out diversity. If I have a candidate pool of 5000 and you have a "diverse" candidate pool of 3000 then the odds are heavily in my favor of getting a better group of 100 employees. Basically you need to come to terms with the fact that the definition you provided of diversity is bunk. I'll also say that I find it ironic and a bit ignorant that you essentially attacked my correct definition of diversity and then proceeded to supply you're own that couldn't have been more wrong.

By acting like "diversity" and "creating a larger candidate pool" are the same thing he's creating a straw man. He needs to understand that those two ideas are mutually exclusive.

 

[Makendu]

lol this is dumb either your qualified or not a lot of women are just not interested in the computer field thats all it is.

 

[Toutou]

Tim, please, let Apple make great products again. Yosemite is NOT a great product. The latest MBA is NOT a great product. The latest Mac Mini is NOT a great product. They're good, but not Apple good. Focus on that.