enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion.
Enacting policies of forced inclusion and diversity is the exact opposite of hiring solely on merit, and therefore will not benefit Apple whatsoever. It forces recruiters to discriminate against highly capable white male applicants to reach some arbitrary diversity target. If these targets were representative of the workforce it would be a noble objective, but they are not. To be anything but representative of the workforce is discriminatory, but apparently discriminating against white males is fine.
Women are underrepresented within Apple relative to the population, but not the workforce. There are simply very few female engineers in the workforce. Generally, the number of women who enjoy engineering is tiny compared to men. Arbitrary targets wont fix that, it needs to start in schools.
In a company like Apple there is very rightly very little discrimination against underrepresented groups. Asian men are very much over represented for example - because they make brilliant engineers, but no one is complaining about that.
It’s impossible to hire “solely on merit” when some people have arrived with credentials based on a lifetime of cultural assumptions about their gender and race said they are more deserving and possess inherent aptitude for something like engineering, and other people arrive (if they arrive at all) after a lifetime of cultural assumptions about their gender and race said they are less deserving and are lacking in inherent aptitude for something like engineering.
The winners of a championship tournament in a racially segregated sports league can thump their chests and claim they’re the best, but are they really? Winning a championship when many competitors have simply been disallowed to compete is not the results of a competition based solely on merit.
Nor is the championship based solely on merit in the next year after the league declares itself “integrated,” when all the feeder systems leading up to that league are still affected by racism.
Simply declaring the HR department in big tech companies to be colorblind and gender blind, while ignoring everything that affects people before they submit their CVs, won’t magically make the big tech companies into meritocracies. It will do just the opposite, because it embraces the results of all the discriminatory practices that led up to that ‘finish line,’ telling those who benefited from that discrimination that they deserve to be there, and those who were discriminated against that they don’t. That is the opposite of a meritocracy.
When Richard Kerris was in charge of Apple Dev Relations, they made sure that the frameworks met developer's needs, the API documentation was up to date, and they didn't compete with us every time an app started making a little money. I miss those days.
"Apple's diversity efforts are 'selfish & practical' says head of developer relations…"
On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.
History trivia: Enlightened self-interest was a concept that Alexis de Tocqueville discussed in his work Democracy in America, back in 1835 and 1840. The notion he held was that Americans voluntarily join together in associations to further the interests of the group and, thereby, to serve their own interests. Since the SCOTUS "Citizens United" ruling in 2010 that corporations are people, Apple's efforts are of benefit to humanity as well as the corporation! And since the ruling also concluded that money is free speech, Apple has the biggest megaphone (and Disney should be allowed to disagree without fear of retaliation from an opportunistic neofascist with big ambitions).
Explain to me the difference between Fascism and Communism/Socialism as they are actually practiced in the world, not how they differ on some academic white paper. You say Disney should be allowed to disagree but does not the left do exactly the same thing when they shout down a speaker whose ideology is not their cup of tea. Or label people who disagree with them as homophobes, xenophobes, transphobic, bigoted, misogynists, and any other slur they can apply to shut down speech.
Bottom line for me is that labeling someone a fascist is getting old and useless because of the history it conjures up, no different than labeling someone as a Naziif you don;t like what they are saying. To me the right and left of are of the same ilk, both seeking to control the individual’s thoughts, behavior, speech, to become slaves to their respective ideologies.
So bottom line, you have no business calling De Santis a fascist when your own ideology does the same damn thing to individual ideals they don’t like.
I am guessing you don't know what any of those words means in any setting. It's hard to fathom how someone would ask such an ignorant question.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race?
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
The best products are those that the designers/engineers would want to use themselves. To make products for a diverse consumer population, it can be useful to have employees who share the preferences and needs of those customers. So long as that’s the sort of logic that motivates DEI, DEI is fine. The trap is to start treating jobs like cookies to be distributed fairly. Companies can and do fall into that trap, which is bad for everyone. Sounds like apple has the right motivation here.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
It appears you didn’t read the post and consider what it said. I find it interesting that you claim to support diversity but immediately jumped to calling someone a bigot when they introduced a perspective you didn’t agree with.
sconosciuto said: Corporations have free speech rights just like you and I. Disney has every right to speak up about legislation. Corporations do this all the time as a matter of fact.
Then that door swings both ways. If Disney has a right to speak up about something then Florida has every right to revoke extra special benefits unique to Disney and no one else.
Or is corporate welfare only acceptable for organizations that pretend to cater to your tribe? The amount of mental gymnastics from the left to defend - of all companies, Disney! - is utterly amazing. Double standards? More like quadruple standards.
radarthekat said: What you suggest needs to start in schools ignores the fact that school age children are very often influenced by role models they see in society. What’s missed by your stance is that it takes a generation to prime the pump for true equality.
What you and most of the off the wall left seem hell bent on ignoring is that men and women have different preferences. "True equality" is the worst kind of projecting. Stop trying to fix non-existant problems.
Ah yes, the ad hominem - always the ultimate argument from the position of greatest strength.
How about instead of attacking people you discuss the ideas? If your ideas aren't crap then you don't have to constantly switch back to discussing people instead.
You said it, brother. When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.
Or when you worked your ass off for decades to get where you are and you see people who want to take it away - for you, or even worse your children - solely based on the color of your skin your damn straight people are going to get uppity.
Why do you think the left is desperately trying to pervert the American dream from the land of opportunity to the land of equity. Equal opportunity means it's up to you to forge your own success. Strong, independent people can't be lead around by the nose like a passel of sheep. It's much easier to maintain power over people who are dependent and subservient - waiting for the roast duck to fly into their mouth. That's why it's imperative to shift the discussion from character to immutable characteristics like race and gender.
MLK would be run out on a rail for stating "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." If you don't have people focusing on race, gender or other immutable characteristics you can't have them constantly squabbling. As soon as you focus on something quantifiable like character, emotion mostly goes out the window.
Instead we not have a movement that argues we should ensure equity through noble bigotry 🙄
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
It appears you didn’t read the post and consider what it said. I find it interesting that you claim to support diversity but immediately jumped to calling someone a bigot when they introduced a perspective you didn’t agree with.
Well, if the shoe fits…
It appears you didn’t read the post and consider what it said.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
“ On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.” - JP234 in the very first comment on this article
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
“ On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.” - JP234 in the very first comment on this article
You’re arguing both sides here.
I can do that, too!
"Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove."
That's the message. Admit that, or own your bigotry. Geez!
You post a lot but I can’t tell if you’re reading and comprehending other posters.
Also, you keep calling people bigots when there is no evidence they are. This is bizarre.
sconosciuto said: Corporations have free speech rights just like you and I. Disney has every right to speak up about legislation. Corporations do this all the time as a matter of fact.
Then that door swings both ways. If Disney has a right to speak up about something then Florida has every right to revoke extra special benefits unique to Disney and no one else.
Free speech rights don't count for much if the government can punish you for exercising them. What you've just said is in complete contradiction to the very first amendment of the Bill Of Rights.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
“ On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.” - JP234 in the very first comment on this article
You’re arguing both sides here.
I can do that, too!
"Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove."
That's the message. Admit that, or own your bigotry. Geez!
You post a lot but I can’t tell if you’re reading and comprehending other posters.
Also, you keep calling people bigots when there is no evidence they are. This is bizarre.
No evidence? I'm really interested in what you would classify as evidence of bigotry if you don't see any in this thread.
As I mentioned, you don’t seem to be comprehending. The post you quoted when I replied to you is absent any bigotry. My posts are absent any bigotry (as they are simply responding to your posts about that first quote) but somehow you feel it’s necessary to call me a bigot. As I said, bizarre.
EDIT: To be clear, you quoted Davidw and called him a bigot. There’s no bigotry in his post. In fact, he’s just asking some questions and presenting some examples.
Also, I didn’t say there was no bigotry in this thread so I don’t know where you came up with that.
EDIT 2: I just noticed your response to me pointing out that in your first post you advocate for hiring and promoting based only on merit, but in a later post you say hiring and promoting based on merit is a tired old trope used by bigots. Your response seems out of context.
“Prescott explained that the company's dedication to inclusivity and diversity is motivated by a "selfish and practical" perspective. She believes that to create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a diverse team of individuals, according to a report from The Independent.”
I don’t agree. To create the best products for all consumers, they must be developed by a competent team with diverse skills and perspectives. Why are they so focused on the gender and race of a developer?
Because gender and race diversity brings different perspectives. You're so close!
But why does "diversity" only pertain to gender and race? I'll wager that there is more "diversity" between an Asian born and educated in the US and an Asian born and educated in China or an Asian born and educated in Japan or an Asian born and educated in India, than there is between him and a White person born and educated in the US. The same goes for White. There's "diversity" among Whites from the US and those from the UK or Australia or Sweden or France, etc. Why is "diversity" only pertaining to gender and race? There can be as much or more "diversity" among people of the same race than there is among people of different races.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Stop trying to justify your bigotry in word soup and just say it out loud! Diversity is fine, as long as it only includes differing white people.
If there's anything that gets to me, it's when bigots play the "We should only hire the best qualified people, based only on merit!" trope. Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove.
“ On the face of it, sounds like something you'd hear on right-wing talk shows. Poor choice of words, when you read the article and realize that enacting policies of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion will benefit Apple Inc. in the long term through hiring and promotion based solely on merit, not race, class or religion. And that's practical, enlightened benchmark for sustainable growth.” - JP234 in the very first comment on this article
You’re arguing both sides here.
I can do that, too!
"Well, we've missed hiring millions of the best people for the job due to the exact embedded societal racism and sexism your beliefs prove."
That's the message. Admit that, or own your bigotry. Geez!
You post a lot but I can’t tell if you’re reading and comprehending other posters.
Also, you keep calling people bigots when there is no evidence they are. This is bizarre.
No evidence? I'm really interested in what you would classify as evidence of bigotry if you don't see any in this thread.
As I mentioned, you don’t seem to be comprehending. The post you quoted when I replied to you is absent any bigotry. My posts are absent any bigotry (as they are simply responding to your posts about that first quote) but somehow you feel it’s necessary to call me a bigot. As I said, bizarre.
EDIT: To be clear, you quoted Davidw and called him a bigot. There’s no bigotry in his post. In fact, he’s just asking some questions and presenting some examples.
Also, I didn’t say there was no bigotry in this thread so I don’t know where you came up with that.
EDIT 2: I just noticed your response to me pointing out that in your first post you advocate for hiring and promoting based only on merit, but in a later post you say hiring and promoting based on merit is a tired old trope used by bigots. Your response seems out of context.
Man, some bigots will say anything to deny or justify their bigotry. They should try reading Breitbart News, where at least the bigotry is open and unashamed.
Since I already you know can’t explain what part of Davidw’s post shows bigotry I’ll make it much easier for you and ask you point to a post of mine that shows any bigotry. It’s simple, just quote my comment that you think “proves’ I’m a bigot below here.
It would be nice if you could also explain how in one post you advocate for hiring based on merit and in a later post say that hiring based on merit is bigotry, but I figure that’s a long shot.
Comments
the API documentation was up to date, and they didn't compete with us every time an app started making a little money.
I miss those days.
As for "........ diversity brings different perspectives", this might matter when designing a GUI or working in HR or working in promotion and ads or customers relations, or designing a virtual assistance, etc. but "diversity" should have no bearing when it comes to designing chips, writing search algorithm or debugging software and many other jobs where "a different perspective" doesn't matter.
A company shouldn't hire a female that is good at debugging software because she might bring a different perspective into debugging software. A company should hire a female that is good at debugging software because she good at debugging software. However, if a female speciality is in designing virtual assistance and your company team in charge of designing a virtual assistance is all male, then adding a female to the team might just make the design better because of the different perspective she adds to the design.
Or maybe compared to men, most women aren't interested in engineering? Why is there always this assumption there is a problem to fix?
Or is corporate welfare only acceptable for organizations that pretend to cater to your tribe? The amount of mental gymnastics from the left to defend - of all companies, Disney! - is utterly amazing. Double standards? More like quadruple standards.
How about instead of attacking people you discuss the ideas? If your ideas aren't crap then you don't have to constantly switch back to discussing people instead.
Why do you think the left is desperately trying to pervert the American dream from the land of opportunity to the land of equity. Equal opportunity means it's up to you to forge your own success. Strong, independent people can't be lead around by the nose like a passel of sheep. It's much easier to maintain power over people who are dependent and subservient - waiting for the roast duck to fly into their mouth. That's why it's imperative to shift the discussion from character to immutable characteristics like race and gender.
MLK would be run out on a rail for stating "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
If you don't have people focusing on race, gender or other immutable characteristics you can't have them constantly squabbling. As soon as you focus on something quantifiable like character, emotion mostly goes out the window.
Instead we not have a movement that argues we should ensure equity through noble bigotry 🙄
Bigotry is never noble.
You’re arguing both sides here.
EDIT 2: I just noticed your response to me pointing out that in your first post you advocate for hiring and promoting based only on merit, but in a later post you say hiring and promoting based on merit is a tired old trope used by bigots. Your response seems out of context.
It would be nice if you could also explain how in one post you advocate for hiring based on merit and in a later post say that hiring based on merit is bigotry, but I figure that’s a long shot.