Sure, but most people do not discriminate against people that are different to them, or hate people different to them, or hate those that hold views different to them. it is also true a lot would not promote those choices, or seek to hold them up either. That doesn't make them bigots. A bigot holds strong views. Views like "if you don't agree with my position on 'X" you are a hater and a bigot". Pot meet Kettle. People are complex and have a range of views, and their views are held with a range of intensity and while they may be consistent with one officially endorsed 'correct' view they may not be consistent with another. There is no dichotomy here, no straight forward good vs evil. Life is more complicated than that.
Then where is the problem with Apple's CEO being pro the rights of these minorities, especially considering they make up a significant portion of the workforce at Apple?
There is a difference between disagreeing with me having rights, and my disagreeing with someone who thinks I shouldn't have rights. My viewpoint is driven by protection. Their viewpoint is driven by "their own perspective" which is based on telling me how to live my life.
I don't tell you to stop sleeping with women because I find it disgusting and "immoral". Others tell me to stop sleeping with my husband... because they find it disgusting and immoral. In fact, my nation unlike the US believes my marriage is unconsitutional and not worth toilet paper.
Its not "hateful" to call someone a bigot. It's a statement of fact. This isn't pot and kettle. They are very different things. One is pushing policies that discriminate against minorities. The other is pointing out that they are discriminating against minorities. How can you not see that difference?
I for one am glad that the CEO of at least one company stands up for human rights, not straight rights, not white rights, not cis-gendered rights, not only some majority's rights. Especially considering that a sizeable portion of the employees at Apple fit into those minority demographics.
From a business point of view which is how shareholders should rate Cook, this CEO has had significant issues. A major one being that a significant product (Mac Pro) was not designed for upgrading and it took years for Apple to realize it. And it's not like no one complained. What else have they not realized?
The Mac Pro is not a significant product to Apple's bottom line.
The Mac is 10% of Apple's business. Generously, the Mac Pro is 5% of that 10%, or about 5% of 50% a decade ago. Even if you call these people influencers and multiply what they mean to Apple by many times, it still doesn't amount to much.
In fact, the Mac Pro probably induces a loss based on what it costs to develop and produce overall versus what it gives back directly to the company. The complainers are a loud minority of the user base.
Apple used to fight for the underdog categories that were unique even if they were not the "money maker". This company has so many resources they can continue to be a financial juggernaut while building out its niche revenue streams.
Not saying it can't. But, saying that Tim Cook's job should be at risk from shareholders because of it is... demonstrably wrong.
Sure, but most people do not discriminate against people that are different to them, or hate people different to them, or hate those that hold views different to them. it is also true a lot would not promote those choices, or seek to hold them up either. That doesn't make them bigots.
... Just to pick up on one further bit...
Here we go again... "those choices, or seek to hold them up either"...
For the 50,000th time. I was beaten and tortured for being gay. Why the hell are straight white people so obsessed with the belief that LGBT people (or people of color for goodness sake) chose that? Why on earth would anyone choose this?
This isn't a choice, any more than a straight man "choosing" to be into women with a certain size of breasts or a certain color of hair. When did you choose it? Do you deserve rights for that choice? Choose otherwise!... you can't? Neither can those people. You're attacking people's "choice" to be something they never chose simply by "disagreeing morally" with it.
Oh yes, let's talk about having "values". How, indeed, *was* your meeting, Mr. Cook, with the racist birther/p*ssy grabber all those few months ago? Did you feel that your company's "values" were consonant with appearing to be ready to work with such a loathsome person? (I know techie boyz by and large cheered this on, but still...)
Sure, I know: it's all business. That's what it comes down to and that *should* be the starting and stopping point but we often like to engage in the exercise of "buying one's way into heaven" when any company like to start talking about "values."
Oh yes, let's talk about having "values". How, indeed, *was* your meeting, Mr. Cook, with the racist birther/p*ssy grabber all those few months ago? Did you feel that your company's "values" were consonant with appearing to be ready to work with such a loathsome person? (I know techie boyz by and large cheered this on, but still...)
Sure, I know: it's all business. That's what it comes down to and that *should* be the starting and stopping point but we often like to engage in the exercise of "buying one's way into heaven" when any company like to start talking about "values."
The dance continues…
Cook only gets to set the tone for Apple; not for the US, Washington, the Trump administration, or Trump. What he can do is try to be reasonable so that he can influence the administration for the betterment of humanity by using Apple's success as a model. Perhaps Cook will be able to show Trump that immigrants are good for more than housekeeping and being trophy wives, but can also be great engineers and designers that can keep America ahead of the competition.
I don't think it is well put at all. If someone disagrees with the approved position, according to Soli this person is "some misogynistic dickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracised that he cant express his hate filled views to his colleagues". There is no middle ground, Soli believes if you don't conform absolutely to the approved views, you are total scum. No Ned Flanders types, people that are conservative when it comes to values, just hater scum.
The problem is, when a company just says it is "Pro XYZ" and those are it's values, and you say "I disagree with the company on it's values", that means you have to be anti X, Y, or Z, or a combination. There is no logical other conclusion.
In this case, being anti any of those policies of inclusion is deliberately hurting at least one of those groups because you "disagree" with it...
If you believe discriminating against someone for being trans, gay, a person of color, or disabled, or any other minority group, you're a hate filled bigot. That's not generalisation. If its a person of color you discriminate against, you're a hate filled bigot. If it's a person who's gay, you're a hate filled bigot. If you're discriminating about some guy who's disabled... you're a hate filled bigot. Does it change anything when I tell you that he lost use of his legs in Afghanistan? If it does, you're a hate filled bigot. All people who are disabled deserve respect and dignity, not just those who lost it due to war (despite how honorable their sacrifice was, and I say that as a veteran).
This isn't generalisation and "shades of grey". "I only killed a few people" isn't a defence, neither is it here.
Sure, but most people do not discriminate against people that are different to them, or hate people different to them, or hate those that hold views different to them.
Check the history of the civil rights movement and acts, and pay and equality acts to see just how wrong you are.
I don't think it is well put at all. If someone disagrees with the approved position, according to Soli this person is "some misogynistic dickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracised that he cant express his hate filled views to his colleagues". There is no middle ground, Soli believes if you don't conform absolutely to the approved views, you are total scum. No Ned Flanders types, people that are conservative when it comes to values, just hater scum. While I believe it extremely doubtful that such an olympic class hater as Soli describes would have the skill set to work at a computer company, I also find it quite interesting that these days those that are most keen to preach tolerance are in fact most likely to aggressively express their intolerance.
It's weird the think the opposite of being a bigot is to "conform absolutely." For example, you don't conform at all—muchness absolutely—to my comment, and yet I don't think you're a bigot because of it. I also don't think that daringdeveloper is a bigot for his statement.
Once you understand that 'holding different opinions ≠ intolerant toward those holding different opinions' you'll see that you're the one that left no middle ground.
The value in companies are called one and the same way: MONEY (or profit if you prefer).
The rest is just strategies and policies to ge there. As far as political views and stand... I keep my employer away and make sure it is none of it's business to change my opinions, views, beliefs and engagements after hours. Otherwise... I change employer taking my ideas elsewhere (done this many times, but not for this reason). Line up at work for work - after work do what you are about and do not let anyoine disrupt that. Balance. Simple? And no - no access to social activities (including social posts) for employer to perform checks if person has "right core values". Violate this and let's see what legal advice from attorney is on that.
Oh, and Apple does - maximize profits, revenue, and margins. Lock others out of the market by buying out parts, and reducing their cost. Bully competitors. Sue anybody that makes a rectangular smartphone. Eschew standards for proprietary interfaces, and charge licensing fees. Use the cheapest foreign workforces and turn a blind eye to workplace abuse. Cultivate a culture of fear and internal competition within your employees. Find whatever loophole to avoid taxes by stuffing businesses in foreign country addresses.
I don't think it is well put at all. If someone disagrees with the approved position, according to Soli this person is "some misogynistic dickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracised that he cant express his hate filled views to his colleagues". There is no middle ground, Soli believes if you don't conform absolutely to the approved views, you are total scum. No Ned Flanders types, people that are conservative when it comes to values, just hater scum. While I believe it extremely doubtful that such an olympic class hater as Soli describes would have the skill set to work at a computer company, I also find it quite interesting that these days those that are most keen to preach tolerance are in fact most likely to aggressively express their intolerance.
It's weird the think the opposite of being a bigot is to "conform absolutely." For example, you don't conform at all—muchness absolutely—to my comment, and yet I don't think you're a bigot because of it. I also don't think that daringdeveloper is a bigot for his statement.
Once you understand that 'holding different opinions ≠ intolerant toward those holding different opinions' you'll see that you're the one that left no middle ground.
It's weird how if one wants to frame themselves as "reasonable and non-bigotous" one needs to only frame it as a "difference of opinion".
The nazis just had a difference of opinion when they discriminated against the Jews and other minorities.
The KKK just had a difference of opinion when they discriminated against African Americans.
Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's reasonable or non-bigotous. In this case, I'm happy to call anyone a bigot for criticising someone for promoting the fair and ethical treastment of people in minority groups.
The fact people think these minority groups are "morally incorrect", are "choices we don't want to promote" and "don't deserve protection", that they criticise the CEO for standing up for his employees, just shows what type of people they are.
But please, keep framing this as a "difference of opinion". I'm sure in 50 years when we look back and ask "how could anyone have been so terrible to people for no good reason" we only need to look back at these opinions and see the convenient framing of being a selfish, ignorant, hateful and discriminatory person as a "difference of opinion" and go "oh right, I get it now".
From a business point of view which is how shareholders should rate Cook, this CEO has had significant issues. A major one being that a significant product (Mac Pro) was not designed for upgrading and it took years for Apple to realize it. And it's not like no one complained. What else have they not realized?
The Mac Pro is not a significant product to Apple's bottom line.
The Mac is 10% of Apple's business. Generously, the Mac Pro is 5% of that 10%, or about 5% of 50% a decade ago. Even if you call these people influencers and multiply what they mean to Apple by many times, it still doesn't amount to much.
In fact, the Mac Pro probably induces a loss based on what it costs to develop and produce overall versus what it gives back directly to the company. The complainers are a loud minority of the user base.
Without the Mac line, they have no app developers. With this in mind, they have been neglecting the roots of their success tree AND their future successes... unless there is some kind of impression that they have enough apps and no longer need developers (and I know that isn't the case)?
From a business point of view which is how shareholders should rate Cook, this CEO has had significant issues. A major one being that a significant product (Mac Pro) was not designed for upgrading and it took years for Apple to realize it. And it's not like no one complained. What else have they not realized?
The Mac Pro is not a significant product to Apple's bottom line.
The Mac is 10% of Apple's business. Generously, the Mac Pro is 5% of that 10%, or about 5% of 50% a decade ago. Even if you call these people influencers and multiply what they mean to Apple by many times, it still doesn't amount to much.
In fact, the Mac Pro probably induces a loss based on what it costs to develop and produce overall versus what it gives back directly to the company. The complainers are a loud minority of the user base.
Rubish. The stats are the way they are because Apple refuses to sell and support a decent performing headless Mac at a reasonable price. The Mac Pro could have been so much more but they cocked it up big time by refusing to offer NVIDIA graphics options etc. Unit sales has absolutely nothing to do with it. Any stat you throw around will seem small because of the iPhone. The question is wether Apple are making wise design choices, giving people what they want and offering a decent "pipeline" of support and upgrades. The answer to all this is no, so it's no wonder they don't sell well, operate at a loss, or whatever other excuse you give for the the lack of attention resulting in a lack of unit sales. I can't believe they didn't learn their lesson from the cube. When you make something almost completely customised or non upgradable you better make sure you get the formulae right (as they have with iMac)... How many of us would buy a headless Mac with a single discrete 1080ti graphics, decently priced and upgradeable memory and storage etc. Apple, do that, and then we can talk about stats and numbers with the staff and readership of AI who don't seem to have any clue what these stats mean (let me give you a hint, it has something to do with the dragging the horse by the cart)... Apple is really missing someone like SJ right now. I mean, putting Xeons in an iMac? What the hell? I'm sure that won't sell well either, then we'll be back to the same completely flawed argument all over. The pro segment is not selling well, let's cancel the new Mac Pro!
From a business point of view which is how shareholders should rate Cook, this CEO has had significant issues. A major one being that a significant product (Mac Pro) was not designed for upgrading and it took years for Apple to realize it. And it's not like no one complained. What else have they not realized?
The Mac Pro is not a significant product to Apple's bottom line.
The Mac is 10% of Apple's business. Generously, the Mac Pro is 5% of that 10%, or about 5% of 50% a decade ago. Even if you call these people influencers and multiply what they mean to Apple by many times, it still doesn't amount to much.
In fact, the Mac Pro probably induces a loss based on what it costs to develop and produce overall versus what it gives back directly to the company. The complainers are a loud minority of the user base.
Rubish. The stats are the way they are because Apple refuses to sell and support a decent performing headless Mac at a reasonable price. The Mac Pro could have been so much more but they cocked it up big time by refusing to offer NVIDIA graphics options etc. Unit sales has absolutely nothing to do with it. Any stat you throw around will seem small because of the iPhone. The question is wether Apple are making wise design choices, giving people what they want and offering a decent "pipeline" of support and upgrades. The answer to all this is no, so it's no wonder they don't sell well, operate at a loss, or whatever other excuse you give for the the lack of attention resulting in a lack of unit sales. I can't believe they didn't learn their lesson from the cube. When you make something almost completely customised or non upgradable you better make sure you get the formulae right (as they have with iMac)... How many of us would buy a headless Mac with a single discrete 1080ti graphics, decently priced and upgradeable memory and storage etc. Apple, do that, and then we can talk about stats and numbers with the staff and readership of AI who don't seem to have any clue what these stats mean (let me give you a hint, it has something to do with the dragging the horse by the cart)...
This specific argument is why I brought up the numbers from a decade ago in the post. 5% of 50% of Apple's business pre iPhone, in the heyday of the product.
"How many of us would buy a headless Mac with a single discrete 1080ti graphics, decently priced and upgradeable memory and storage etc."
You would. I would. Most of this forum would. A very small minority of Apple's customer base would. The industry has changed in the last decade, away from enthusiasts towards everybody -- and that's not just with Apple. Failure to see that and insisting that Apple is wrong, and insisting that the numbers which have been relatively steady for the life of that particular platform are irrelevant is what's actually dragging the horse by the cart.
Apple IS making good design decisions -- just not for you, and most of the AI forumers and staff. We aren't Apple's target market anymore, and probably never will be again.
From a business point of view which is how shareholders should rate Cook, this CEO has had significant issues. A major one being that a significant product (Mac Pro) was not designed for upgrading and it took years for Apple to realize it. And it's not like no one complained. What else have they not realized?
The Mac Pro is not a significant product to Apple's bottom line.
The Mac is 10% of Apple's business. Generously, the Mac Pro is 5% of that 10%, or about 5% of 50% a decade ago. Even if you call these people influencers and multiply what they mean to Apple by many times, it still doesn't amount to much.
In fact, the Mac Pro probably induces a loss based on what it costs to develop and produce overall versus what it gives back directly to the company. The complainers are a loud minority of the user base.
Without the Mac line, they have no app developers. With this in mind, they have been neglecting the roots of their success tree AND their future successes... unless there is some kind of impression that they have enough apps and no longer need developers (and I know that isn't the case)?
At no point did I say that Apple didn't need the Mac. It doesn't need the Mac Pro, nor should its absence speak poorly on its CEO.
From a business point of view which is how shareholders should rate Cook, this CEO has had significant issues. A major one being that a significant product (Mac Pro) was not designed for upgrading and it took years for Apple to realize it. And it's not like no one complained. What else have they not realized?
The Mac Pro is not a significant product to Apple's bottom line.
The Mac is 10% of Apple's business. Generously, the Mac Pro is 5% of that 10%, or about 5% of 50% a decade ago. Even if you call these people influencers and multiply what they mean to Apple by many times, it still doesn't amount to much.
In fact, the Mac Pro probably induces a loss based on what it costs to develop and produce overall versus what it gives back directly to the company. The complainers are a loud minority of the user base.
Rubish. The stats are the way they are because Apple refuses to sell and support a decent performing headless Mac at a reasonable price. The Mac Pro could have been so much more but they cocked it up big time by refusing to offer NVIDIA graphics options etc. Unit sales has absolutely nothing to do with it. Any stat you throw around will seem small because of the iPhone. The question is wether Apple are making wise design choices, giving people what they want and offering a decent "pipeline" of support and upgrades. The answer to all this is no, so it's no wonder they don't sell well, operate at a loss, or whatever other excuse you give for the the lack of attention resulting in a lack of unit sales. I can't believe they didn't learn their lesson from the cube. When you make something almost completely customised or non upgradable you better make sure you get the formulae right (as they have with iMac)... How many of us would buy a headless Mac with a single discrete 1080ti graphics, decently priced and upgradeable memory and storage etc. Apple, do that, and then we can talk about stats and numbers with the staff and readership of AI who don't seem to have any clue what these stats mean (let me give you a hint, it has something to do with the dragging the horse by the cart)...
This specific argument is why I brought up the numbers from a decade ago in the post. 5% of 50% of Apple's business pre iPhone, in the heyday of the product.
"How many of us would buy a headless Mac with a single discrete 1080ti graphics, decently priced and upgradeable memory and storage etc."
You would. I would. Most of this forum would. A very small minority of Apple's customer base would. The industry has changed in the last decade, away from enthusiasts towards everybody -- and that's not just with Apple. Failure to see that and insisting that Apple is wrong, and insisting that the numbers which have been relatively steady for the life of that particular platform are irrelevant is what's actually dragging the horse by the cart.
Apple IS making good design decisions -- just not for you, and most of the AI forumers and staff. We aren't Apple's target market anymore, and probably never will be again.
5% is pretty good though. Apple is always going to sell the majority of its Macs as laptops or iMacs. Looking at the stats, 5% seems low. But it easily justifies keeping a decent pro computer of the type people are asking for. Designing the hardware with a focus on cots components will not be expensive. Apple seems to agree, even though the current Mac Pro is a complete flop.
How do you think a person working for Apple would feel when the company they work for expresses "values" associated with one political cause and therefore get pressured into following the "company values" against their own conscience? Or alternatively get ostracised by colleagues when they try to freely express their opinion?
OK, so how exactly does that work? Apple says we "we have values," and we support equality for women, different races, nationalities, LGBTQ rights, freedom of religion, the disabled, and all the other civil rights Tim Cook believes people are entitled. In your scenario this will offend some misogynistic dickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracized that he can't express his hate filled views to his colleagues, which may or may not be in one of the aforementioned categories because of Apple isn't run using an antediluvian business model. You say this is hypocritical because it doesn't respect his values. Boo-fucking-woo, go work for Uber.
Thanks Soli for engaging in this open and free debate and thank you for proving my point so brilliantly.
I carefully made sure I did not mention any specific social issue. I only talked about the principles of free speech: the right to hold an opinion and not be bullied or hated for it. And yet your statement:
"this will offend some misogynisticdickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracized that he can't express his hate filled views to his colleagues"
seems to be doing exactly the opposite. Without even knowing which issue might be under debate this statement is asserting that: 1) One side is right and the other is wrong 2) Apple is on the right side 3) Anyone who disagrees with Apple management's opinion is deserving of a) Insults: "misogynisticdickhole" b) Does not hold a intellectually opposing view, rather is driven by hate: "hate filled views" To me this statement is very aggressive and bullying and I can sense some anger coming through. If Soli has been a victim of the failings of society then I am truly sorry and I hope we can all help to prevent this in the future. I would like to know why you feel this way if you are willing.
Resorting to name calling and insults tends to invalidate your own argument and validate mine. Rather than resorting to this I'd much prefer people to treat each other with respect and respect their opinions even though we disagree with them.
I agree with Soli on this point: Hate speech is wrong. Hate speech is well defined in law in many countries and is easy to recognise and call out. But my scenario in the first post above did not describe hate speech at all. This was entirely a mis-interpretation.
Sometimes the minority (or unpopular) idea turns out to be a good one and changes the world for the better after it grows in popularity. It takes patience and determination (and often tolerance of intolerant and hateful people) but good ideas usually win in the end (e.g. racial equality).
I encourage everyone reading this thread to have the patience and humility to listen to other people's opinions because it does not matter how good or bad you think their words are - often there is a just cause behind them. There is always something driving a person's opinion which is an important learning for us to discover: To understand why people feel this way.
Armed with the understanding and even empathy with how people feel helps us to heal society and resolve conflicts that should be temporary. If we never listen with an open mind to opposing viewpoints how can we successfully debate and resolve important moral issues of society?
Most issues are complex and grey and therefore require complex solutions sensitive to the subtleties of the issue. Also human rights are often in conflict with one-another: i.e. one person's right is broken by enforcing another persons right. Rarely is an issue black and white. We need to listen and understand to appreciate the subtleties.
In summary this little response to my post is an example of the broader problem in society today: If someone respectfully expresses an opinion that is in the minority (i.e. not popular) then that individual (not the idea they expressed) is insulted and bullied until they go away (as Soli said: "go work for Uber."). This behaviour saddens me and I believe we can all be better than this. It goes against the foundations of free speech and threatens to destroy it. If enough people behave like this and it becomes normal that minority ideas are silenced then I fear that will be the beginning of the end of moral progress and civil society.
Please accept my apologies if any my arguments offended you. I hope we can learn from each other and see eye-to-eye in the future.
How do you think a person working for Apple would feel when the company they work for expresses "values" associated with one political cause and therefore get pressured into following the "company values" against their own conscience? Or alternatively get ostracised by colleagues when they try to freely express their opinion?
OK, so how exactly does that work? Apple says we "we have values," and we support equality for women, different races, nationalities, LGBTQ rights, freedom of religion, the disabled, and all the other civil rights Tim Cook believes people are entitled. In your scenario this will offend some misogynistic dickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracized that he can't express his hate filled views to his colleagues, which may or may not be in one of the aforementioned categories because of Apple isn't run using an antediluvian business model. You say this is hypocritical because it doesn't respect his values. Boo-fucking-woo, go work for Uber.
I agree with Soli on this point: Hate speech is wrong. Hate speech is well defined in law in many countries and is easy to recognise and call out.
But my scenario in the first post above did not describe hate speech at all. This was entirely a mis-interpretation.
It's not a misinterpretation, it's a single, yet common, example from overly generalized suggestion you made. It's a subset of what you stated.
Did you even answer my question as to how this would work?
I only talked about the principles of free speech: the right to hold an opinion and not be bullied or hated for it.
Free speech does not mean that one isn't held accountable for what they say. It also has nothing to do with anything outside of the gov't. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect repercussions.
As for using "cursed words":
Again, how do you let any of the civil rights categories—that this article is based on—be allowed in your world view? How do you let a group of people talk about segregation the "negro" or talk about how women are only fit for making babies, for example, openly talk about this to others in the workplace and the people who overhear have to just accept this as normal because you don't think they should be bullied or hated for speaking their mind.
How do you think a person working for Apple would feel when the company they work for expresses "values" associated with one political cause and therefore get pressured into following the "company values" against their own conscience? Or alternatively get ostracised by colleagues when they try to freely express their opinion?
Right on. What if you're a conservative/Republican who works at Apple? Clearly, Apple wants you to shut your mouth because your views conflict with the so-called "official company party line".
You're CEO of a business. Your job is maximizing profits and keeping shareholders happy. Business and politics do not mix; it's about as basic a saying as you can get. You want to express your views? Do it outside of work, like all the rest of the worker bees are told.
Comments
Then where is the problem with Apple's CEO being pro the rights of these minorities, especially considering they make up a significant portion of the workforce at Apple?
There is a difference between disagreeing with me having rights, and my disagreeing with someone who thinks I shouldn't have rights. My viewpoint is driven by protection. Their viewpoint is driven by "their own perspective" which is based on telling me how to live my life.
I don't tell you to stop sleeping with women because I find it disgusting and "immoral". Others tell me to stop sleeping with my husband... because they find it disgusting and immoral. In fact, my nation unlike the US believes my marriage is unconsitutional and not worth toilet paper.
Its not "hateful" to call someone a bigot. It's a statement of fact. This isn't pot and kettle. They are very different things. One is pushing policies that discriminate against minorities. The other is pointing out that they are discriminating against minorities. How can you not see that difference?
I for one am glad that the CEO of at least one company stands up for human rights, not straight rights, not white rights, not cis-gendered rights, not only some majority's rights. Especially considering that a sizeable portion of the employees at Apple fit into those minority demographics.
Here we go again... "those choices, or seek to hold them up either"...
For the 50,000th time. I was beaten and tortured for being gay. Why the hell are straight white people so obsessed with the belief that LGBT people (or people of color for goodness sake) chose that? Why on earth would anyone choose this?
This isn't a choice, any more than a straight man "choosing" to be into women with a certain size of breasts or a certain color of hair. When did you choose it? Do you deserve rights for that choice? Choose otherwise!... you can't? Neither can those people. You're attacking people's "choice" to be something they never chose simply by "disagreeing morally" with it.
It's weird the think the opposite of being a bigot is to "conform absolutely." For example, you don't conform at all—muchness absolutely—to my comment, and yet I don't think you're a bigot because of it. I also don't think that daringdeveloper is a bigot for his statement.
Once you understand that 'holding different opinions ≠ intolerant toward those holding different opinions' you'll see that you're the one that left no middle ground.
The rest is just strategies and policies to ge there. As far as political views and stand... I keep my employer away and make sure it is none of it's business to change my opinions, views, beliefs and engagements after hours. Otherwise... I change employer taking my ideas elsewhere (done this many times, but not for this reason). Line up at work for work - after work do what you are about and do not let anyoine disrupt that. Balance. Simple? And no - no access to social activities (including social posts) for employer to perform checks if person has "right core values". Violate this and let's see what legal advice from attorney is on that.
The nazis just had a difference of opinion when they discriminated against the Jews and other minorities.
The KKK just had a difference of opinion when they discriminated against African Americans.
Just because it's your opinion doesn't mean it's reasonable or non-bigotous. In this case, I'm happy to call anyone a bigot for criticising someone for promoting the fair and ethical treastment of people in minority groups.
The fact people think these minority groups are "morally incorrect", are "choices we don't want to promote" and "don't deserve protection", that they criticise the CEO for standing up for his employees, just shows what type of people they are.
But please, keep framing this as a "difference of opinion". I'm sure in 50 years when we look back and ask "how could anyone have been so terrible to people for no good reason" we only need to look back at these opinions and see the convenient framing of being a selfish, ignorant, hateful and discriminatory person as a "difference of opinion" and go "oh right, I get it now".
Rubish. The stats are the way they are because Apple refuses to sell and support a decent performing headless Mac at a reasonable price.
The Mac Pro could have been so much more but they cocked it up big time by refusing to offer NVIDIA graphics options etc.
Unit sales has absolutely nothing to do with it. Any stat you throw around will seem small because of the iPhone. The question is wether Apple are making wise design choices, giving people what they want and offering a decent "pipeline" of support and upgrades. The answer to all this is no, so it's no wonder they don't sell well, operate at a loss, or whatever other excuse you give for the the lack of attention resulting in a lack of unit sales. I can't believe they didn't learn their lesson from the cube. When you make something almost completely customised or non upgradable you better make sure you get the formulae right (as they have with iMac)...
How many of us would buy a headless Mac with a single discrete 1080ti graphics, decently priced and upgradeable memory and storage etc. Apple, do that, and then we can talk about stats and numbers with the staff and readership of AI who don't seem to have any clue what these stats mean (let me give you a hint, it has something to do with the dragging the horse by the cart)...
Apple is really missing someone like SJ right now. I mean, putting Xeons in an iMac? What the hell? I'm sure that won't sell well either, then we'll be back to the same completely flawed argument all over. The pro segment is not selling well, let's cancel the new Mac Pro!
"How many of us would buy a headless Mac with a single discrete 1080ti graphics, decently priced and upgradeable memory and storage etc."
At no point did I say that Apple didn't need the Mac. It doesn't need the Mac Pro, nor should its absence speak poorly on its CEO.
5% is pretty good though. Apple is always going to sell the majority of its Macs as laptops or iMacs. Looking at the stats, 5% seems low. But it easily justifies keeping a decent pro computer of the type people are asking for. Designing the hardware with a focus on cots components will not be expensive. Apple seems to agree, even though the current Mac Pro is a complete flop.
I carefully made sure I did not mention any specific social issue. I only talked about the principles of free speech: the right to hold an opinion and not be bullied or hated for it.
And yet your statement:
"this will offend some misogynistic dickhole who now feels, as you put it, ostracized that he can't express his hate filled views to his colleagues"
seems to be doing exactly the opposite. Without even knowing which issue might be under debate this statement is asserting that:
1) One side is right and the other is wrong
2) Apple is on the right side
3) Anyone who disagrees with Apple management's opinion is deserving of
a) Insults: "misogynistic dickhole"
b) Does not hold a intellectually opposing view, rather is driven by hate: "hate filled views"
To me this statement is very aggressive and bullying and I can sense some anger coming through.
If Soli has been a victim of the failings of society then I am truly sorry and I hope we can all help to prevent this in the future.
I would like to know why you feel this way if you are willing.
Resorting to name calling and insults tends to invalidate your own argument and validate mine.
Rather than resorting to this I'd much prefer people to treat each other with respect and respect their opinions even though we disagree with them.
I agree with Soli on this point: Hate speech is wrong. Hate speech is well defined in law in many countries and is easy to recognise and call out.
But my scenario in the first post above did not describe hate speech at all. This was entirely a mis-interpretation.
Sometimes the minority (or unpopular) idea turns out to be a good one and changes the world for the better after it grows in popularity.
It takes patience and determination (and often tolerance of intolerant and hateful people) but good ideas usually win in the end (e.g. racial equality).
I encourage everyone reading this thread to have the patience and humility to listen to other people's opinions because it does not matter how good or bad you think their words are - often there is a just cause behind them. There is always something driving a person's opinion which is an important learning for us to discover: To understand why people feel this way.
Armed with the understanding and even empathy with how people feel helps us to heal society and resolve conflicts that should be temporary.
If we never listen with an open mind to opposing viewpoints how can we successfully debate and resolve important moral issues of society?
Most issues are complex and grey and therefore require complex solutions sensitive to the subtleties of the issue.
Also human rights are often in conflict with one-another: i.e. one person's right is broken by enforcing another persons right.
Rarely is an issue black and white. We need to listen and understand to appreciate the subtleties.
In summary this little response to my post is an example of the broader problem in society today:
If someone respectfully expresses an opinion that is in the minority (i.e. not popular) then that individual (not the idea they expressed) is insulted and bullied until they go away (as Soli said: "go work for Uber.").
This behaviour saddens me and I believe we can all be better than this. It goes against the foundations of free speech and threatens to destroy it.
If enough people behave like this and it becomes normal that minority ideas are silenced then I fear that will be the beginning of the end of moral progress and civil society.
Please accept my apologies if any my arguments offended you.
I hope we can learn from each other and see eye-to-eye in the future.
Did you even answer my question as to how this would work?
Free speech does not mean that one isn't held accountable for what they say. It also has nothing to do with anything outside of the gov't. Sure, you're entitled to your opinion, but don't expect repercussions.
As for using "cursed words":
Again, how do you let any of the civil rights categories—that this article is based on—be allowed in your world view? How do you let a group of people talk about segregation the "negro" or talk about how women are only fit for making babies, for example, openly talk about this to others in the workplace and the people who overhear have to just accept this as normal because you don't think they should be bullied or hated for speaking their mind.