It's good to see someone who understands so well the challenges of this world.
I agree with you reroll on this. No one is suggesting to add minorities or women to just fill a spot.
The comments above are a bit short-sighted and simplistic. It's a lot more complex subject than the comments above indicate.
Whenever there are only men in charge there are always major problems....For example the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, Islam, the NFL, Congress, BB, HP, MS, Sony, Dell, Salem, US Navy (Tailhook), US Air Force (Academy), AMA (too many cesarean sections/hysterectomies), Wall Street, US Health Insurance industry, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, etc., etc.
If, in looking at their qualifications, any of the board members are unqualified then you may have something to talk about here. Otherwise, it shouldn't matter if they are black, green, purple, female... or white males. To tell someone they shouldn't be on the board because of their race and gender... isn't that the same thing you are complaining about?
The politically correct crowd, that’s who. It’s all about appearances, not performance or competence. But then boards of directors are typically window dressing anyway so why not. In Apple’s case we also have that Intuit-tard Bill Campbell.
There are only Caucasian men and women on the Sustainability Group board and administrators. Where is the diversification of that board? Are there no African American men and women qualified to sit on that board? How about Latinos? Koreans? Indians? Chinese? Is there an honest effort being made to add anyone other than white males and females on the board and as administrators? I only ask since the firm threw the first stone by responding to another Bloomberg witch hunt of Apple.
I agree with you reroll on this. No one is suggesting to add minorities or women to just fill a spot.
The comments above are a bit short-sighted and simplistic. It's a lot more complex subject than the comments above indicate.
Whenever there are only men in charge there are always major problems....For example the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, Islam, the NFL, Congress, BB, HP, MS, Sony, Dell, US Navy (Tailhook), US Air Force (Academy), AMA (too many cesarean sections/hysterectomies), Wall Street, US Health Insurance industry, China, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, etc., etc.
Gimme a break. That’s retarded and over the top misandry.
The politically correct crowd, that’s who. It’s all about appearances, not performance or competence. But then boards of directors are typically window dressing anyway so why not. In Apple’s case we also have that Intuit-tard Bill Campbell.
Don't forget Al Gore. We could replace these two if any" ignorant stockholders" force Apple's hand.
No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bilbo63
"No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense." – Tallest-Skii
Zactly. Well said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshmaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense.
+1000. Amen. Nobody cares about who's on Apple's board. You make decisions on the best available talent at the time, not to fill arbitrary checkboxes based on race and gender.
I am with the above. Call me naive, but I feel that all this focus on diversity does more harm than good. It is a "feel good" move to specifically hire someone based on color/gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reroll
Yeeah! We had to wait post 18 to have a sensible comment.
By your comment, I am guessing you think specifically hiring based on color/gender is a good thing? May I ask why? I honestly don't know why anyone would think this way, but am open to learning/understanding why.
Disclaimer: I am a white, English speaking, college educated, male. So I know I have no first-hand experience. However, if I was ever offered a job to fill some checklist? I would take offense.
To me, it is those that claim to want equality that keep these issues going, all the while not looking for equality at all, but looking for special treatment. If we truly want to get beyond these issues, we will look beyond uncontrollable factors such as color/gender/sexual orientation. These things do not define a person. Their character and qualifications should be what does.
The politically correct crowd, that’s who. It’s all about appearances, not performance or competence. But then boards of directors are typically window dressing anyway so why not. In Apple’s case we also have that Intuit-tard Bill Campbell.
What are you talking about? I love him in Bubba Ho-Tep! Oh, no, that was BRUCE Campbell...never mind...
Okay, then let's swap out Bill for Bruce - I think Bruce would be a great addition to the Board.
Not easy to control when somebody (you and christopher126) concoct some outrageous, male hating nonsense to explain things. There are plenty of companies and countries headed by females that are in trouble. Argentina and Yahoo come to mind right off the bat. Are you two really that delusional to think males running things always makes for trouble?
Quote from another poster: "They'll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be." Such complete and utter innocence is almost touching.
Years ago, when I was studying to be an EMT, I ran into a woman who'd moved to Seattle from California because it was impossible, she said, for her as a white woman to get a EMT position. Ability had nothing to do with it. All the jobs she might have gotten went to minority woman who could fill two quotas with one hire.
That's been going on for a long time and, under Tim Cook, Apple has even put money toward expanding the quota categories. Where it has not been happening are corporate boards and the upper executive ranks, which remain dominated by not merely white males but white males with a particular lineage. Apple's been a particularly vile offender in that regard. It's unspoken motto has been "Diversity and quotas for you but not for me."
That makes no sense. The talent of the EMT that responds to my car accident is a life or death situation. If he or she isn't the best and brightest, I could die. In contrast, almost nothing the board at Apple or any other major business does matters. And an Apple board that includes Al Gore Jr. among its ranks can't really claim to be choosing the best and brightest. It was a political choice, one that, with the Clintonian faction out of power and the Obamaian faction in power, has gone very ill for the company.
Setting firm and inviolate quotas for the corporate upper ranks does something else that matters a lot. It means--at least according to contemporary dogmas about race, sex, etc.--that there's then no reason to mess with quotas for lesser positions. Those can be given out based on talent and experience.
Which is more important, filling a few highly paid but mostly ceremonial positions based on quotas or having quotas throughout an entire company, disrupting morale and productivity? I'd argue for the latter. I want the EMT that attends to me to be the absolute best. I could care less about the department's senior paper shufflers.
For the record, I oppose quotas and favor decisions always being made on talent and experience. I simply believe that, if quotas, goals and targets exist at all, they should be imposed first and foremost from the top down rather than from the bottom up. And they should be imposed with particular vigor on those who talk the most about diversity but practice it the least. Words should not be allowed to substitute for actions.
Not easy to control when somebody (you and christopher126) concoct some outrageous, male hating nonsense to explain things. There are plenty of companies and countries headed by females that are in trouble. Argentina and Yahoo come to mind right off the bat. Are you two really that delusional to think males running things always makes for trouble?
Comments
If you’re going to spew BS, at least just do it bluntly so we can get it out in the open.
Thanks for the strawmen. Oops, sorry, “strawwomen.”
Or maybe you’re just wrong.
If you’re going to spew BS, at least just do it bluntly so we can get it out in the open.
Thanks for the strawmen. Oops, sorry, “strawwomen.”
Or maybe you’re just wrong.
I can rephrase if you want : "I wish I were like you, able to tell right from wrong without any doubt".
It's good to see someone who understands so well the challenges of this world.
I agree with you reroll on this. No one is suggesting to add minorities or women to just fill a spot.
The comments above are a bit short-sighted and simplistic. It's a lot more complex subject than the comments above indicate.
Whenever there are only men in charge there are always major problems....For example the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, Islam, the NFL, Congress, BB, HP, MS, Sony, Dell, Salem, US Navy (Tailhook), US Air Force (Academy), AMA (too many cesarean sections/hysterectomies), Wall Street, US Health Insurance industry, China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, etc., etc.
If, in looking at their qualifications, any of the board members are unqualified then you may have something to talk about here. Otherwise, it shouldn't matter if they are black, green, purple, female... or white males. To tell someone they shouldn't be on the board because of their race and gender... isn't that the same thing you are complaining about?
Who cares!!!
The politically correct crowd, that’s who. It’s all about appearances, not performance or competence. But then boards of directors are typically window dressing anyway so why not. In Apple’s case we also have that Intuit-tard Bill Campbell.
I agree with you reroll on this. No one is suggesting to add minorities or women to just fill a spot.
The comments above are a bit short-sighted and simplistic. It's a lot more complex subject than the comments above indicate.
Whenever there are only men in charge there are always major problems....For example the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America, Islam, the NFL, Congress, BB, HP, MS, Sony, Dell, US Navy (Tailhook), US Air Force (Academy), AMA (too many cesarean sections/hysterectomies), Wall Street, US Health Insurance industry, China, Syria, Egypt, Cuba, Sudan, North Korea, etc., etc.
Gimme a break. That’s retarded and over the top misandry.
Gimme a break. That’s retarded and over the top misandry.
Retarded? Think about it a little more.
Retarded? Think about it a little more.
Okay, not only retarded but stupid to boot.
Okay, not only retarded but stupid to boot.
In you a lot of anger I feel.
Okay, not only retarded but stupid to boot.
You need to read more!
Don't forget Al Gore. We could replace these two if any" ignorant stockholders" force Apple's hand.
No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense.
"No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense." – Tallest-Skii
Zactly. Well said.
No one with any intelligence whatsoever gives a flying frick. Apple isn’t going to hire “minorities” to fill some magical quota. They’ll hire who can do the job, whoever that may be.
AI, don’t perpetuate this nonsense.
+1000. Amen. Nobody cares about who's on Apple's board. You make decisions on the best available talent at the time, not to fill arbitrary checkboxes based on race and gender.
I am with the above. Call me naive, but I feel that all this focus on diversity does more harm than good. It is a "feel good" move to specifically hire someone based on color/gender.
Yeeah! We had to wait post 18 to have a sensible comment.
By your comment, I am guessing you think specifically hiring based on color/gender is a good thing? May I ask why? I honestly don't know why anyone would think this way, but am open to learning/understanding why.
Disclaimer: I am a white, English speaking, college educated, male. So I know I have no first-hand experience. However, if I was ever offered a job to fill some checklist? I would take offense.
To me, it is those that claim to want equality that keep these issues going, all the while not looking for equality at all, but looking for special treatment. If we truly want to get beyond these issues, we will look beyond uncontrollable factors such as color/gender/sexual orientation. These things do not define a person. Their character and qualifications should be what does.
http://www.trilliuminvest.com/socially-responsible-investment-company/
The politically correct crowd, that’s who. It’s all about appearances, not performance or competence. But then boards of directors are typically window dressing anyway so why not. In Apple’s case we also have that Intuit-tard Bill Campbell.
What are you talking about? I love him in Bubba Ho-Tep! Oh, no, that was BRUCE Campbell...never mind...
Okay, then let's swap out Bill for Bruce - I think Bruce would be a great addition to the Board.
In you a lot of anger I feel.
Not easy to control when somebody (you and christopher126) concoct some outrageous, male hating nonsense to explain things. There are plenty of companies and countries headed by females that are in trouble. Argentina and Yahoo come to mind right off the bat. Are you two really that delusional to think males running things always makes for trouble?
Years ago, when I was studying to be an EMT, I ran into a woman who'd moved to Seattle from California because it was impossible, she said, for her as a white woman to get a EMT position. Ability had nothing to do with it. All the jobs she might have gotten went to minority woman who could fill two quotas with one hire.
That's been going on for a long time and, under Tim Cook, Apple has even put money toward expanding the quota categories. Where it has not been happening are corporate boards and the upper executive ranks, which remain dominated by not merely white males but white males with a particular lineage. Apple's been a particularly vile offender in that regard. It's unspoken motto has been "Diversity and quotas for you but not for me."
That makes no sense. The talent of the EMT that responds to my car accident is a life or death situation. If he or she isn't the best and brightest, I could die. In contrast, almost nothing the board at Apple or any other major business does matters. And an Apple board that includes Al Gore Jr. among its ranks can't really claim to be choosing the best and brightest. It was a political choice, one that, with the Clintonian faction out of power and the Obamaian faction in power, has gone very ill for the company.
Setting firm and inviolate quotas for the corporate upper ranks does something else that matters a lot. It means--at least according to contemporary dogmas about race, sex, etc.--that there's then no reason to mess with quotas for lesser positions. Those can be given out based on talent and experience.
Which is more important, filling a few highly paid but mostly ceremonial positions based on quotas or having quotas throughout an entire company, disrupting morale and productivity? I'd argue for the latter. I want the EMT that attends to me to be the absolute best. I could care less about the department's senior paper shufflers.
For the record, I oppose quotas and favor decisions always being made on talent and experience. I simply believe that, if quotas, goals and targets exist at all, they should be imposed first and foremost from the top down rather than from the bottom up. And they should be imposed with particular vigor on those who talk the most about diversity but practice it the least. Words should not be allowed to substitute for actions.
Apple chooses people based on their abilities and that's the way it should be. Ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation is a non factor.
Not easy to control when somebody (you and christopher126) concoct some outrageous, male hating nonsense to explain things. There are plenty of companies and countries headed by females that are in trouble. Argentina and Yahoo come to mind right off the bat. Are you two really that delusional to think males running things always makes for trouble?
Delusional?