You said your parents bought you a computer. I'm sorry but a ton of other minorities don't even have enough food to eat let alone a $2000 computer. Your Mom owns a home. I'm sorry but your 'barriers' are not huge at all. How about being homeless? How about not having food to eat? Now those are barriers. Your experience is of a middle class family.
Talk to black people who live in the deep south (Georgia, North Carolina, Ect)
Again, I'm happy for you that you didn't face racism.
But that does not mean everyone else has not.
Oh man... you're making assumptions with zero facts to back it up. We were not a middle-class family growing up and racism was in my/our face every day. We all contributed to the family home. It was only recently that we were able to pay it off so my mom didn't have to worry about losing it. Damn... your ignorance defies explanation. You make excuses for people.
I am so done with you. You want to pretend to know what the minority segment has to go through but you really have zero clue what the root problem is. I am so done with you. Continue on with the false-belief that you know.
But the usual racist US bullshit continues - nowhere else in the world are "hispanics" considered a "race" - not to mention that, even among "caucasians", the genetic differences are just astounding.
We don't use the word race any longer. It is too ambiguous. It is preferable today to use the description ethnic group.
If you are talking about hiring a CEO for a company, then MAYBE the pool of qualified candidates is so small that all you have are white males. In that instance, hiring a minority results in lower performance. Even in that instance, I don't buy it. It's even less true if you are hiring a lowly engineer coming out of college. For those positions, there are a number of equally qualified candidates. So choosing a minority will not hurt the company. If anything, it makes the company stronger because diversity = more perspectives. Between equally capable candidates, hiring managers tend to pick the one that they think fits into the group's culture better. So unconciously, they are hiring more white males into a white male dominated company. So in order to break the mold, they have to make a concious effort to consider the QUALIFIED minority candidates.
Nobody is talking about hiring unqualified minority candidates.
This is the correct perspective, and I mean correct. Ok, a correct perspective, because there might be others. But it's the first one in the thread.
The fact that most of the comments here come off accusatory, ignorant, racist, guilty, propogandist and down right silly in tone and rhetoric shows why Apple's release of this information is so important. ALL of the top companies in America of any sector should be required by law to make public diversity numbers with goals to strengthen those numbers. This isn't about not hiring more white men. This is America. If there are not clear determinate's of equality and diversity in our most successful corporations and institutions we are failing as a viable Democratic society. Period. Also, for anybody black, white, yellow or purple who sits back, shrugs their shoulders and says "I don't know why there are so many more white people working in the tech industry? I guess they are more interested in technology?" . Your racist and conspiring at worst and naive at best. Wake the #*^& up.
I did. Apple ][ said a company of 100% unqualified minorities. 1) he wasn't saying that being a minority made you unqualified, 2) you suggested (hopefully rhetorically) being white was the only thing that made them qualified. As stated by me, of the TWO OF US, you are teh one saying that, not me.
Then you haven't been paying attention to his posts. I did ask him for clarification. You're making a guess as to what he meant.
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.
Actually, this is the first correct perspective in the thread. Nice to be agreeing with Mr. Crowley lately.
"White" is also a racist term. I personally don't feel much of an affinity for anyone based on their skin color. Get to know the person! Racial classifications are all part of a racist, classist, collectivist political structure that rewards proponents of "divide and conquer" against the population.
I fully agree - was just noting how ridiculous this profiling scheme is, particularly in the US.
Asians were descriminated against after and before World War2 (espeically Japanese)
Native Americans were descriminated and had their land stolen from them and brutally murdered.
Irish and Italians were discriminated against at the turn of last century. But you’re against reparations for them because they’re white.
In fact, every group of people (the above aren’t races) has been discriminated against by every other group of people since the dawn of civilization. And yet your solution is to perpetuate inequality.
You said your parents bought you a computer. I'm sorry but a ton of other minorities don't even have enough food to eat let alone a $2000 computer. Your Mom owns a home. I'm sorry but your 'barriers' are not huge at all. How about being homeless? How about not having food to eat? Now those are barriers. Your experience is of a middle class family.
Talk to black people who live in the deep south (Georgia, North Carolina, Ect)
Again, I'm happy for you that you didn't face racism.
But that does not mean everyone else has not.
And what the **** are "latinos" then? Caucasians who speak Spanish? Half-caucasian, half-indigenous? Or just an artificial classification meant at separating the "elite" anglo-saxon white from the Southern European one?
Oh man... you're making assumptions with zero facts to back it up. We were not a middle-class family growing up you ignorant twit, and racism was in my/our face every day. We all contributed to the family home. It was only recently that we were able to pay it off so my mom didn't have to worry about losing it. Damn... your ignorance defies explanation. You make excuses for people.
I am so done with you. You want to pretend to know what the minority segment has to go through but you really have zero clue what the root problem is. I am so done with you. Continue on with the false-belief that you know
He made some valid points in the previous reply to you. You have something that most people don't have. You're very intelligent and it sounds like you came from a loving, responsible family. That is a tremendous resource for being able to see past your immediate needs to a better future. These "blacks and hispanics" more interested in "thumping their chests" has nothing to do with some innate genetic code that relates to the colour of their skin, but to some degree to nature and nurture.
If you aren't taught certain social habits by a certain age it can be very hard to learn these later on, especially if you have average to below average intelligence. The following link is about a sad story of an abused girl I use as an extreme example of the importance of nurture (and potentially nature) of a rearing a child.
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.
:no:
The "Left" are the ones that ones to take anyone that looks like they might have "black" in them and label them "black" as if they are impure and tainted? Sure¡
There should be no need for affirmative action but until people like you stop looking at some superficial features of a person to determine their worth in society that's not likely to happen.
What's this "people like me" nonsense. I reported that as an ad hominen.
Let's revise where we are.
1) you said that Obama is not considered white because racism. I suggest a term for white/black. Also racism.
2) the one drop rule is in fact supported by the NAACP. When tiger woods claimed not be be black there was uproar. But he isn't entirely. I think people of mixed heritage should get to say that. Mullato is one term. Say mixed if you prefer.
3) you continuously contradict yourself by saying there is no genetic "race" but talking about people's white and black ancestors.
4) you accused me of discrimination. Reported.
In fact I support affirmative action for black people ( because of past wrongs ) in the education system. And working class people.
But beyond the education system capitalist companies have to work with what they can get.
In fact, every group of people (the above aren’t races) has been discriminated against by every other group of people since the dawn of civilization.
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.
We don't use the word race any longer. It is too ambiguous. It is preferable today to use the description ethnic group.
Same bullshit, different words - how is "latino" an "ethnic group", particularly since MOST hispanic americans are of Spanish origin, therefore caucasian (in the usual profiling parlance)?
Irish and Italians were discriminated against at the turn of last century. But you’re against reparations for them because they’re white.
In fact, every group of people (the above aren’t races) has been discriminated against by every other group of people since the dawn of civilization. And yet your solution is to perpetuate inequality.
You never answered my question: 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, that the black graduate is not disadvantaged?
Trail of tears. Native Americans should be helped, sure. The Japanese internment was bad times. So was the internment of Germans in WWI. However Japan != Asia.
In the 19th century Catholics were routinely attacked by Protestant supremacists. You could go on righting past wrongs until nobody is safe.
Except the rich of course. Rich WASPS descended from the mayflower with a few million in the bank don't need to worry about affirmative action. The socialism of fools.
What's this "people like me" nonsense. I reported that as an ad hominen.
People that support discrimination, which you keep stating you support.
1) you said that Obama is not considered white because racism. I suggest a term for white/black. Also racism.
Yes, I did, albeit in more of an overt but subconscious societal norm.
2) the one drop rule is in fact supported by the NAACP. When tiger woods claimed not be be black there was uproar. But he isn't entirely. I think people of mixed heritage should get to say that. Mullato is one term. Say mixed if you prefer.
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?
3) you continuously contradict yourself by saying there is no genetic "race" but talking about people's white and black ancestors.
Which I put in quotation marks.
4) you accused me of discrimination. Reported.
You've repeated stated you support discrimination which you're then claimed was acceptable because of "past wrongs", as noted below.
In fact I support affirmative action of black people ( because of past wrongs ) in the education system.
So you support people saying "we're giving you the job because you're "black" not because you're the most qualified."? Sounds great¡
Comments
Dude.
California has a ton of Latino's.
You said your parents bought you a computer. I'm sorry but a ton of other minorities don't even have enough food to eat let alone a $2000 computer. Your Mom owns a home. I'm sorry but your 'barriers' are not huge at all. How about being homeless? How about not having food to eat? Now those are barriers. Your experience is of a middle class family.
Talk to black people who live in the deep south (Georgia, North Carolina, Ect)
Again, I'm happy for you that you didn't face racism.
But that does not mean everyone else has not.
Oh man... you're making assumptions with zero facts to back it up. We were not a middle-class family growing up and racism was in my/our face every day. We all contributed to the family home. It was only recently that we were able to pay it off so my mom didn't have to worry about losing it. Damn... your ignorance defies explanation. You make excuses for people.
I am so done with you. You want to pretend to know what the minority segment has to go through but you really have zero clue what the root problem is. I am so done with you. Continue on with the false-belief that you know.
ever heard of trail of tears?
And those statements relate in what way, exactly?
We don't use the word race any longer. It is too ambiguous. It is preferable today to use the description ethnic group.
This is the correct perspective, and I mean correct. Ok, a correct perspective, because there might be others. But it's the first one in the thread.
And those statements relate in what way, exactly?
I find the day goes much better when sog's posts are blocked.
The fact that most of the comments here come off accusatory, ignorant, racist, guilty, propogandist and down right silly in tone and rhetoric shows why Apple's release of this information is so important. ALL of the top companies in America of any sector should be required by law to make public diversity numbers with goals to strengthen those numbers. This isn't about not hiring more white men. This is America. If there are not clear determinate's of equality and diversity in our most successful corporations and institutions we are failing as a viable Democratic society. Period. Also, for anybody black, white, yellow or purple who sits back, shrugs their shoulders and says "I don't know why there are so many more white people working in the tech industry? I guess they are more interested in technology?"
. Your racist and conspiring at worst and naive at best. Wake the #*^& up.
Then you haven't been paying attention to his posts. I did ask him for clarification. You're making a guess as to what he meant.
Actually, this is the first correct perspective in the thread. Nice to be agreeing with Mr. Crowley lately.
"White" is also a racist term. I personally don't feel much of an affinity for anyone based on their skin color. Get to know the person! Racial classifications are all part of a racist, classist, collectivist political structure that rewards proponents of "divide and conquer" against the population.
I fully agree - was just noting how ridiculous this profiling scheme is, particularly in the US.
Native Americans were descriminated and had their land stolen from them and brutally murdered.
Irish and Italians were discriminated against at the turn of last century. But you’re against reparations for them because they’re white.
In fact, every group of people (the above aren’t races) has been discriminated against by every other group of people since the dawn of civilization. And yet your solution is to perpetuate inequality.
Dude.
California has a ton of Latino's.
You said your parents bought you a computer. I'm sorry but a ton of other minorities don't even have enough food to eat let alone a $2000 computer. Your Mom owns a home. I'm sorry but your 'barriers' are not huge at all. How about being homeless? How about not having food to eat? Now those are barriers. Your experience is of a middle class family.
Talk to black people who live in the deep south (Georgia, North Carolina, Ect)
Again, I'm happy for you that you didn't face racism.
But that does not mean everyone else has not.
And what the **** are "latinos" then? Caucasians who speak Spanish? Half-caucasian, half-indigenous? Or just an artificial classification meant at separating the "elite" anglo-saxon white from the Southern European one?
Then you haven't been paying attention to his posts. I did ask him for clarification. You're making a guess as to what he meant.
I already answered you, perhaps you missed the post.
And it is very clear what I meant. It was a simple statement that was written pretty straight forward.
He made some valid points in the previous reply to you. You have something that most people don't have. You're very intelligent and it sounds like you came from a loving, responsible family. That is a tremendous resource for being able to see past your immediate needs to a better future. These "blacks and hispanics" more interested in "thumping their chests" has nothing to do with some innate genetic code that relates to the colour of their skin, but to some degree to nature and nurture.
If you aren't taught certain social habits by a certain age it can be very hard to learn these later on, especially if you have average to below average intelligence. The following link is about a sad story of an abused girl I use as an extreme example of the importance of nurture (and potentially nature) of a rearing a child.
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.
What's this "people like me" nonsense. I reported that as an ad hominen.
Let's revise where we are.
1) you said that Obama is not considered white because racism. I suggest a term for white/black. Also racism.
2) the one drop rule is in fact supported by the NAACP. When tiger woods claimed not be be black there was uproar. But he isn't entirely. I think people of mixed heritage should get to say that. Mullato is one term. Say mixed if you prefer.
3) you continuously contradict yourself by saying there is no genetic "race" but talking about people's white and black ancestors.
4) you accused me of discrimination. Reported.
In fact I support affirmative action for black people ( because of past wrongs ) in the education system. And working class people.
But beyond the education system capitalist companies have to work with what they can get.
In fact, every group of people (the above aren’t races) has been discriminated against by every other group of people since the dawn of civilization.
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.
We don't use the word race any longer. It is too ambiguous. It is preferable today to use the description ethnic group.
Same bullshit, different words - how is "latino" an "ethnic group", particularly since MOST hispanic americans are of Spanish origin, therefore caucasian (in the usual profiling parlance)?
Irish and Italians were discriminated against at the turn of last century. But you’re against reparations for them because they’re white.
In fact, every group of people (the above aren’t races) has been discriminated against by every other group of people since the dawn of civilization. And yet your solution is to perpetuate inequality.
The reason they are not discriminated against is because a greater "threat", the free black man, became the common enemy. Because of this, they aren't even seen as different from white so why should they receive benefits if they are already benefiting from white privilege?
You never answered my question: 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, that the black graduate is not disadvantaged?
And it happens. There's no denying it.
Trail of tears. Native Americans should be helped, sure. The Japanese internment was bad times. So was the internment of Germans in WWI. However Japan != Asia.
In the 19th century Catholics were routinely attacked by Protestant supremacists. You could go on righting past wrongs until nobody is safe.
Except the rich of course. Rich WASPS descended from the mayflower with a few million in the bank don't need to worry about affirmative action. The socialism of fools.
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¡