For the love of humanity, man. Or is the use of ‘humanity’ racist, too?
So you think that because a black student who graduated college needs an additional step to their degree or additional work on their resume to compete with a student of equal college prowess...
No, I don’t think this, as it just isn’t. There is no because here.
Some people here have a terrible misunderstanding of what often happens in the hiring process.
Let's say that we have a job opening. Two people apply. One is a white male, and one isn't. It doesn't matter what that other person is. Both people have equal qualifications, experience, etc.
Now, most of the people sitting behind that desk are white males. They make the choice. It's normal, and natural to want to choose someone who is most like yourself. That doesn't have to be concious religious bias, ethnic bias, racial bias or sexual bias. It is what it is.
So more often than not, that white male will hire the white male. Perhaps a couple of jokes passed between them, or some other eye contact, positive or negative, or some other physical motion that was interpreted to be hostile or indifferent. Sometimes the way the applicant sits, with legs crossed, or the way they hold their arms is interpreted differently depending on who they are.
It's very complex, and I'm speaking as the person behind that desk. A lot of it isn't intentional prejudice. But it results in that. In many large corporations HR people are trained against that, but human nature being what it is prefers to be in the company of those who are most alike.
It's the education of those in these positions that's a requirement to getting more diversity. Now, I'm not saying that his will solve all problems. Of course it won't. But a lot of those problems also have to do with people not getting the chance to have the education required for these positions. This is also why it's easier to get retail positions that are
I find that large corporation heads that testify in Congress for more visas for foreign nationals to be a very big part of this problem. When we see over a half million people in the industry who are unemployed, the idea of demanding more visas is crazy to me. But Bill gates, who has been one of the strongest supporters of these visas, constantly has testified that there aren't enough qualified people here to fill the Jobs. That's just not true.
But, my thoughts are that even if it were true, it's a damning thing to think that people may not be going to school for these positions because of these visas. And yes, this involves diversity as well. I don't have the statistics to know what percentages of the various groups in the population go for careers in tech fields. I do know, because there are a lot of articles about this in the professional computer journals about strong prejudices against women.
I believe that Apple will be doing whatever it can to hire qualified people of diverse backgrounds. I'm not concerned that they will lower standards.
The reasoning behind the foreign employee visa increase is that American employees are poorly educated and expect to be paid a lot for doing nothing, something perpetuated by social norms which teach Americans to think this way. Every individual is "special" for one reason or another. The visas are about employee expectations, engineering and programming skill levels and costs.
Yep, virtually all groups have been discriminated against at one time or another. Liberals can go cry me a river.
I have no time for underachieving whiners. There are those that take control of their situation and then there are those underachievers who play the grievance card and the race card who do nothing but whine. They will never get anywhere with their loser attitude and pathetic mindset.
So because discrimination has happened to most (if not all) artificial groupings of people it therefore makes it alright to discriminate against anyone forever? :no:
Some people here have a terrible misunderstanding of what often happens in the hiring process.
Let's say that we have a job opening. Two people apply. One is a white male, and one isn't. It doesn't matter what that other person is. Both people have equal qualifications, experience, etc.
Now, most of the people sitting behind that desk are white males. They make the choice. It's normal, and natural to want to choose someone who is most like yourself. That doesn't have to be concious religious bias, ethnic bias, racial bias or sexual bias. It is what it is.
So more often than not, that white male will hire the white male. Perhaps a couple of jokes passed between them, or some other eye contact, positive or negative, or some other physical motion that was interpreted to be hostile or indifferent. Sometimes the way the applicant sits, with legs crossed, or the way they hold their arms is interpreted differently depending on who they are.
It's very complex, and I'm speaking as the person behind that desk. A lot of it isn't intentional prejudice. But it results in that. In many large corporations HR people are trained against that, but human nature being what it is prefers to be in the company of those who are most alike.
It's the education of those in these positions that's a requirement to getting more diversity. Now, I'm not saying that his will solve all problems. Of course it won't. But a lot of those problems also have to do with people not getting the chance to have the education required for these positions. This is also why it's easier to get retail positions that are
I find that large corporation heads that testify in Congress for more visas for foreign nationals to be a very big part of this problem. When we see over a half million people in the industry who are unemployed, the idea of demanding more visas is crazy to me. But Bill gates, who has been one of the strongest supporters of these visas, constantly has testified that there aren't enough qualified people here to fill the Jobs. That's just not true.
But, my thoughts are that even if it were true, it's a damning thing to think that people may not be going to school for these positions because of these visas. And yes, this involves diversity as well. I don't have the statistics to know what percentages of the various groups in the population go for careers in tech fields. I do know, because there are a lot of articles about this in the professional computer journals about strong prejudices against women, that more women don't major in these tech fields.
I believe that Apple will be doing whatever it can to hire qualified people of diverse backgrounds. I'm not concerned that they will lower standards.
Hang on. Why wouldn't this hidden unconscious discrimination not be based on class, nationality, state or university? Why would a white American be prejudiced towards a Russian or Albanian but not a Chinese-American who gets American humour?
And the stats in Apple - once again - show, and only show, that Apple is "biased" ( if the bias is there at all and not a reflection of educational achievement) relative to population to Asians at the expense of blacks and Hispanics but neutral towards whites.
No, I don’t think this, as it just isn’t. There is no because here.
"It's okay for a black graduate to less money than the equally qualified white graduate. It's how things are." is what you say without the because to me unless you care to actually explain?
I really wish I could be like you, just happily unaware and uncaring of the effect the past has on the present because it currently has no effect on me. Maybe one day.
Apple on Tuesday delivered on a promise to give more details on the diversity of its workforce, revealing that its U.S.-based employees are overwhelmingly male and white --?a breakdown that Chief Executive Tim Cook said must be improved.
This kind of statement is to be expected. It's very hard for someone in Cook's position to feel comfortable saying they are perfectly happy with a white male dominated workforce by stating that the numbers align quite well with the population and interest in technology. If the numbers didn't align with the population then they'd be hiring more of a minority group than they should be.
It is however perfectly ok to have a minority or female dominated group and publicise that e.g teachers at over 85% female:
That in no way aligns with the population and yet nobody has a problem with it.
There was a case in the EU a few years ago about female motor insurance where companies were openly charging lower prices to female drivers for the same coverage as men, some companies were even created specifically for women and nobody bothered for years until the courts rules that it was blatant discrimination against male drivers:
It tends to be acceptable to discriminate against the perceived dominant group (in most cases white male) but not any other group. It's justified a lot of the time by suggesting generations of unfair dominance through discrimination will be undone more quickly this way. My view is that if you take away the discriminating barriers, the proportions will sort themselves out over time and if certain proportions are not very even then look at the reasons why. If the reasons are natural and not of a discriminatory nature such as a race or gender having more interest in other business ventures then it's not a problem in need of a solution.
The agenda is to give everyone the freedom to pursue their own interests without barriers. Different genders and ethnicities have differently weighted interests so the numbers will never come out even.
"It's okay for a black graduate to less money than the equally qualified white graduate. It's how things are." is what you say without the because to me unless you care to actually explain?
I really wish I could be like you, just happily unaware and uncaring of the effect the past has on the present because it currently has no effect on me. Maybe one day.
If all you can do is strawman, there’s no real reason to keep replying.
People that support discrimination, which you keep stating you support.
Yes, I did, albeit in more of an overt but subconscious societal norm.
And? Is this where you claim that if the NAACP agrees with you then you can't be racist because they are "black"? Are you next going to tell us ho many "black people" you know?
Which I put in quotation marks.
You've repeated stated you support discrimination which you're then claimed was acceptable because of "past wrongs", as noted below.
So you support people saying "we're giving you the job because you're "black" not because you're the most qualified."? Sounds great¡
Not the job. Education. The whole point of affirmative action is to make up for past wrongs or present day hurdles. Which is why I support it for black Americans, and native Americans in the first case and the poor in the second case. That's the way, as far as I can tell, the education system now runs quotas.
Beyond that companies should not try and be prejudicial against or in favour of anything.
So because discrimination has happened to most (if not all) artificial groupings of people it therefore makes it alright to discriminate against anyone forever?
I believe that you are reading words that have never been written, and you are coming up with your own perverted interpretation of my simple post.
I never wrote that it's alright to discriminate against anyone forever. I also don't believe that discrimination against minorities based on race is a significant problem in the US anymore. The US did after all elect the first half black President, twice in a row.
The majority of racism in the US these days is from minorities and their leftist supporters.
Let's say that we have a job opening. Two people apply. One is a white male, and one isn't. It doesn't matter what that other person is. Both people have equal qualifications, experience, etc.
[…]
So more often than not, that white male will hire the white male. Perhaps a couple of jokes passed between them, or some other eye contact, positive or negative, or some other physical motion that was interpreted to be hostile or indifferent. Sometimes the way the applicant sits, with legs crossed, or the way they hold their arms is interpreted differently depending on who they are.
[…]
This might be part of the issue Cook was concerned about. Even if we remove all visual and auditory aspects and set up a text-only conversation between the hirer(s) and hirees using simple terms like Candidate A and Candidate The Fighting Mongooses it's possible that because of economic divides in this country it's more statistically likely that two people of a more similar genetic genealogy are going to have more similar life experiences that may result in a more easily made bond during the interview process.
How? All other things being equal, how is diversity bad?
What? How does the word "natural" apply to tech recruitment employment patterns in any way? Diversity is not necessarily natural, sometimes diversity can only happen because of people's efforts at all levels.
Referring back to statement 1, diversity for it's own sake, when all other things are equal, is beneficial. Diversity introduces wider opinions, more world experience, broader appeal.
Apple don't want to only appeal to old white men.
I completely agree. Diversity is why throughout history, creative people went to cities to exchange goods and ideas.
And you don't see this as ever being harmful?
How long do you think we should discriminate against people based on their appearance?
You have lost all coherency. You are opposed to (innate) discrimination based on appearance but also affirmative action which is supposed to compensate for that.
How long do you think we should discriminate against people based on their appearance?
It depends what you mean by appearance.
If somebody shows up for an interview wearing a clown suit, they're rightfully going to get discriminated against and not get the job.
If by appearance, you mean race, then I find your question to be ridiculous, because I have never written that "we" should discriminate against people based solely on that factor.
Shut up and reply to posts as written, not as you fabricate them.
Hahaha! Too good. Fabricating?
I'm just trying to find out what you mean, because frankly, I don't understand. I've asked, but you refuse to actually answer so of course I'll draw assumptions. That seems to be your behavior: say something vague or nonsensical, not answer when asked, then start arguments saying "you already backed it up" or "you skewed what I said".
It's cool, bro.
Saying "no" is not an answer.
Denying what is proven is not an answer.
Pretending we live in some fairy tale land where we all live perfectly together without graces isn't a solution when it's what is causing these problems.
You can't make a problem that exists go away just because you believe it doesn't exist. This isn't the Wizard of Oz, you can't just click your heals.
Comments
For the love of humanity, man. Or is the use of ‘humanity’ racist, too?
No, I don’t think this, as it just isn’t. There is no because here.
Some people here have a terrible misunderstanding of what often happens in the hiring process.
Let's say that we have a job opening. Two people apply. One is a white male, and one isn't. It doesn't matter what that other person is. Both people have equal qualifications, experience, etc.
Now, most of the people sitting behind that desk are white males. They make the choice. It's normal, and natural to want to choose someone who is most like yourself. That doesn't have to be concious religious bias, ethnic bias, racial bias or sexual bias. It is what it is.
So more often than not, that white male will hire the white male. Perhaps a couple of jokes passed between them, or some other eye contact, positive or negative, or some other physical motion that was interpreted to be hostile or indifferent. Sometimes the way the applicant sits, with legs crossed, or the way they hold their arms is interpreted differently depending on who they are.
It's very complex, and I'm speaking as the person behind that desk. A lot of it isn't intentional prejudice. But it results in that. In many large corporations HR people are trained against that, but human nature being what it is prefers to be in the company of those who are most alike.
It's the education of those in these positions that's a requirement to getting more diversity. Now, I'm not saying that his will solve all problems. Of course it won't. But a lot of those problems also have to do with people not getting the chance to have the education required for these positions. This is also why it's easier to get retail positions that are
I find that large corporation heads that testify in Congress for more visas for foreign nationals to be a very big part of this problem. When we see over a half million people in the industry who are unemployed, the idea of demanding more visas is crazy to me. But Bill gates, who has been one of the strongest supporters of these visas, constantly has testified that there aren't enough qualified people here to fill the Jobs. That's just not true.
But, my thoughts are that even if it were true, it's a damning thing to think that people may not be going to school for these positions because of these visas. And yes, this involves diversity as well. I don't have the statistics to know what percentages of the various groups in the population go for careers in tech fields. I do know, because there are a lot of articles about this in the professional computer journals about strong prejudices against women.
I believe that Apple will be doing whatever it can to hire qualified people of diverse backgrounds. I'm not concerned that they will lower standards.
The reasoning behind the foreign employee visa increase is that American employees are poorly educated and expect to be paid a lot for doing nothing, something perpetuated by social norms which teach Americans to think this way. Every individual is "special" for one reason or another. The visas are about employee expectations, engineering and programming skill levels and costs.
So because discrimination has happened to most (if not all) artificial groupings of people it therefore makes it alright to discriminate against anyone forever? :no:
Hang on. Why wouldn't this hidden unconscious discrimination not be based on class, nationality, state or university? Why would a white American be prejudiced towards a Russian or Albanian but not a Chinese-American who gets American humour?
And the stats in Apple - once again - show, and only show, that Apple is "biased" ( if the bias is there at all and not a reflection of educational achievement) relative to population to Asians at the expense of blacks and Hispanics but neutral towards whites.
Quote:
No, I don’t think this, as it just isn’t. There is no because here.
"It's okay for a black graduate to less money than the equally qualified white graduate. It's how things are." is what you say without the because to me unless you care to actually explain?
I really wish I could be like you, just happily unaware and uncaring of the effect the past has on the present because it currently has no effect on me. Maybe one day.
This kind of statement is to be expected. It's very hard for someone in Cook's position to feel comfortable saying they are perfectly happy with a white male dominated workforce by stating that the numbers align quite well with the population and interest in technology. If the numbers didn't align with the population then they'd be hiring more of a minority group than they should be.
It is however perfectly ok to have a minority or female dominated group and publicise that e.g teachers at over 85% female:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/primary-education-teachers-percent-female-wb-data.html
That in no way aligns with the population and yet nobody has a problem with it.
There was a case in the EU a few years ago about female motor insurance where companies were openly charging lower prices to female drivers for the same coverage as men, some companies were even created specifically for women and nobody bothered for years until the courts rules that it was blatant discrimination against male drivers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8354618/Sheilas-Wheels-claim-insurance-ruling-is-unfair.html
It tends to be acceptable to discriminate against the perceived dominant group (in most cases white male) but not any other group. It's justified a lot of the time by suggesting generations of unfair dominance through discrimination will be undone more quickly this way. My view is that if you take away the discriminating barriers, the proportions will sort themselves out over time and if certain proportions are not very even then look at the reasons why. If the reasons are natural and not of a discriminatory nature such as a race or gender having more interest in other business ventures then it's not a problem in need of a solution.
The agenda is to give everyone the freedom to pursue their own interests without barriers. Different genders and ethnicities have differently weighted interests so the numbers will never come out even.
I really wish I could be like you, just happily unaware and uncaring of the effect the past has on the present because it currently has no effect on me. Maybe one day.
If all you can do is strawman, there’s no real reason to keep replying.
Anyone that goes to a VC is looking for a free handout. I'm also pretty sure that if Jobs and Woz weren't white Apple would've never taken off.
If all you can do is strawman, there’s no real reason to keep replying.
I enjoy the ramblings of a willfully blind man. It helps me to understand what exactly isn't seen to help others who care to see it.
Not the job. Education. The whole point of affirmative action is to make up for past wrongs or present day hurdles. Which is why I support it for black Americans, and native Americans in the first case and the poor in the second case. That's the way, as far as I can tell, the education system now runs quotas.
Beyond that companies should not try and be prejudicial against or in favour of anything.
So because discrimination has happened to most (if not all) artificial groupings of people it therefore makes it alright to discriminate against anyone forever?
I believe that you are reading words that have never been written, and you are coming up with your own perverted interpretation of my simple post.
I never wrote that it's alright to discriminate against anyone forever. I also don't believe that discrimination against minorities based on race is a significant problem in the US anymore. The US did after all elect the first half black President, twice in a row.
The majority of racism in the US these days is from minorities and their leftist supporters.
Shut up and reply to posts as written, not as you fabricate them.
This might be part of the issue Cook was concerned about. Even if we remove all visual and auditory aspects and set up a text-only conversation between the hirer(s) and hirees using simple terms like Candidate A and Candidate The Fighting Mongooses it's possible that because of economic divides in this country it's more statistically likely that two people of a more similar genetic genealogy are going to have more similar life experiences that may result in a more easily made bond during the interview process.
And you don't see this as ever being harmful?
How long do you think we should discriminate against people based on their appearance?
How? All other things being equal, how is diversity bad?
What? How does the word "natural" apply to tech recruitment employment patterns in any way? Diversity is not necessarily natural, sometimes diversity can only happen because of people's efforts at all levels.
Referring back to statement 1, diversity for it's own sake, when all other things are equal, is beneficial. Diversity introduces wider opinions, more world experience, broader appeal.
Apple don't want to only appeal to old white men.
I completely agree. Diversity is why throughout history, creative people went to cities to exchange goods and ideas.
Wow. You really need to travel the country more often.
That is really an ignorant statement.
There are literally hundreds of towns in the deep south that minorities can't even step foot into without risking bodily harm.
I travel plenty, and I just came back from a trip last week. I was in Vegas.
There are also plenty of areas where non minorities would be well advised to avoid, as they risk bodily harm if entering these areas.
You have lost all coherency. You are opposed to (innate) discrimination based on appearance but also affirmative action which is supposed to compensate for that.
How long do you think we should discriminate against people based on their appearance?
It depends what you mean by appearance.
If somebody shows up for an interview wearing a clown suit, they're rightfully going to get discriminated against and not get the job.
If by appearance, you mean race, then I find your question to be ridiculous, because I have never written that "we" should discriminate against people based solely on that factor.
BECAUSE IT’S PSYCHOTIC. You’re supporting DISCRIMINATION as “recompense” for discrimination.
Shut up and reply to posts as written, not as you fabricate them.
Hahaha! Too good. Fabricating?
I'm just trying to find out what you mean, because frankly, I don't understand. I've asked, but you refuse to actually answer so of course I'll draw assumptions. That seems to be your behavior: say something vague or nonsensical, not answer when asked, then start arguments saying "you already backed it up" or "you skewed what I said".
It's cool, bro.
Saying "no" is not an answer.
Denying what is proven is not an answer.
Pretending we live in some fairy tale land where we all live perfectly together without graces isn't a solution when it's what is causing these problems.
You can't make a problem that exists go away just because you believe it doesn't exist. This isn't the Wizard of Oz, you can't just click your heals.