Apple is going above and beyond already in this area by partly addressing the root of the issue, rather than sugar coating the issue (e.g. my reference to Apple's donation to HBCU).
By the way, you saying that you're 'calling it like you see it' is a ridiculous cop out for a racist, hypocritical, and counterproductive statement.
Right back at you buddy.
Anyone who has an issue with diversity has an issue with people who aren't like them mixing with people who are like them. Anyone who has an issue with inclusiveness has an issue with people who aren't like them having the same opportunities as people like them.
Textbook stuff.
If you want to talk about effectiveness of specific policies then that's another thing entirely, but this thread is specifically about the appointment of a person to head up diversity and inclusiveness, and that in itself seems to need a trigger warning for some snowflakes who can't handle a world where they aren't number 1.
Lol, you can't just make proclamations and just assume that we should assume you're right. That's a pretty arrogant way to go about having a discussion. What dos not compute, exactly? Since it seems like you may get into semantics, I'll try to add more clarity: by above and beyond I mean that Apple is doing more than most with their substantial contribution to HBCU, and that this contribution is maximized by the fact that it is exponentially more helpful than having a "diversity team," which is as far a most companies go. By saying partly I'm acknowledging that this is only a small part of addressing this complex issue that also involves many different groups.
So it's not enough then. i.e. not "above and beyond" at all. Hence why it does not compute. Either Apple are doing more than they should, less that they should, or exactly the right amount. They cannot simultaneously be doing more and less than they should.
Good on Apple for partnering with HBCU. Do you know who announced that? Denise Young-Smith.
"Right back at you?" What does that mean lol. How about coming up with an actual argument instead of making vapid proclamations.
When did I say I had an issue with diversity. If you bothered to read any of my posts you'd see that I view diversity as a positive thing.
Then you go on making wild, completely illogical assumptions that are false on their face. "anyone.. anyone.."??? If that wasn't ridiculous enough, you back it up by saying your patently false statements are "textbook stuff".
You're making this about the person for some reason. It seems to me that everyone else's argument is with the position itself.
Lastly, you end with more strange statements and assumptions.
Right back at you means I'm accusing you of hypocrisy, as what you're saying about me applies far more to yourself. I would've thought that was clear, and I honestly don't see how any of what you've been saying applies to my op. You seem to have taken my words oddly personally, as if they were aimed at you. Clearly they were not aimed at you, though if you want to jump into the hot tub with bigots and whingers then by all means go ahead.
I never said you had an issue with diversity, another thing that you seem to have taken personally when there was no such direction or intent. You even take umbridge about me applying a claim to anyone who has an issue with diversity after explicitly claiming that you don't have an issue with diversity. Keep up sport, if you don't have an issue with diversity then that sentence doesn't apply to you.
Though since you've also claimed that those sentences are illogical I'd love to see that deduction, rather than the stream of question marks and spittle that you've given (are you claiming that's an "actual argument instead of [a] vapid proclamation"?).
And finally, you say that I'm making this about "the person". Which person? You again? Dude, I have no idea who you are, my comments have all been about those few people on the first page who instantly got het as soon as they saw the thread title (my "strange statements and assumptions" are all there on page 1. Go look). It happens again and again whenever diversity gets a thread, often the same familiar names and always the same reductive nonsense opinions ("Waah" Apple should only hire the best! Reverse racism! Waaah""). You're not pulling them up on their rubbish, why is that?
Apple is going above and beyond already in this area by partly addressing the root of the issue, rather than sugar coating the issue (e.g. my reference to Apple's donation to HBCU).
By the way, you saying that you're 'calling it like you see it' is a ridiculous cop out for a racist, hypocritical, and counterproductive statement.
Right back at you buddy.
Anyone who has an issue with diversity has an issue with people who aren't like them mixing with people who are like them. Anyone who has an issue with inclusiveness has an issue with people who aren't like them having the same opportunities as people like them.
Textbook stuff.
If you want to talk about effectiveness of specific policies then that's another thing entirely, but this thread is specifically about the appointment of a person to head up diversity and inclusiveness, and that in itself seems to need a trigger warning for some snowflakes who can't handle a world where they aren't number 1.
Lol, you can't just make proclamations and just assume that we should assume you're right. That's a pretty arrogant way to go about having a discussion. What dos not compute, exactly? Since it seems like you may get into semantics, I'll try to add more clarity: by above and beyond I mean that Apple is doing more than most with their substantial contribution to HBCU, and that this contribution is maximized by the fact that it is exponentially more helpful than having a "diversity team," which is as far a most companies go. By saying partly I'm acknowledging that this is only a small part of addressing this complex issue that also involves many different groups.
So it's not enough then. i.e. not "above and beyond" at all. Hence why it does not compute. Either Apple are doing more than they should, less that they should, or exactly the right amount. They cannot simultaneously be doing more and less than they should.
Good on Apple for partnering with HBCU. Do you know who announced that? Denise Young-Smith.
"Right back at you?" What does that mean lol. How about coming up with an actual argument instead of making vapid proclamations.
When did I say I had an issue with diversity. If you bothered to read any of my posts you'd see that I view diversity as a positive thing.
Then you go on making wild, completely illogical assumptions that are false on their face. "anyone.. anyone.."??? If that wasn't ridiculous enough, you back it up by saying your patently false statements are "textbook stuff".
You're making this about the person for some reason. It seems to me that everyone else's argument is with the position itself.
Lastly, you end with more strange statements and assumptions.
Right back at you means I'm accusing you of hypocrisy, as what you're saying about me applies far more to yourself. I would've thought that was clear, and I honestly don't see how any of what you've been saying applies to my op. You seem to have taken my words oddly personally, as if they were aimed at you. Clearly they were not aimed at you, though if you want to jump into the hot tub with bigots and whingers then by all means go ahead.
I never said you had an issue with diversity, another thing that you seem to have taken personally when there was no such direction or intent. You even take umbridge about me applying a claim to anyone who has an issue with diversity after explicitly claiming that you don't have an issue with diversity. Keep up sport, if you don't have an issue with diversity then that sentence doesn't apply to you.
Though since you've also claimed that those sentences are illogical I'd love to see that deduction, rather than the stream of question marks and spittle that you've given (are you claiming that's an "actual argument instead of [a] vapid proclamation"?).
And finally, you say that I'm making this about "the person". Which person? You again? Dude, I have no idea who you are, my comments have all been about those few people on the first page who instantly got het as soon as they saw the thread title (my "strange statements and assumptions" are all there on page 1. Go look). It happens again and again whenever diversity gets a thread, often the same familiar names and always the same reductive nonsense opinions ("Waah" Apple should only hire the best! Reverse racism! Waaah""). You're not pulling them up on their rubbish, why is that?
It computes, you just decided to use a different frame of reference then the one I was implying; Apple went above and beyond relative to other companies, who typically just do lip service to diversity or superficially address diversity. You keep using the word "should." It's not Apple's responsibility to solve this entire problem for society, so they addressed part of the issue.
Good point about Denise Young-Smith announcing that program. Thanks for that info.
Um, I took things personally when you said "right back at you," accusing me of racism. hypocrisy, etc, lol. I'm still waiting to hear an actual explanation or evidence from any of my posts on why you're accusing me of those things.
Those sentences are illogical inherently. It requires no explanation. But I'll explain anyway. Two reasons: 1) "anyone" is an absolute term, and can not possibly be true, and 2) you never established a logical connection between being against diversity programs (assuming programs, because that's the entire topic of this thread) and being against 'mixing with people who are not like them.'
I think I had another poster in mind when I was saying you were making it about the person. I wasn't referring to me, sorry for the confusion.
The last strange assumption I was referring to was your assumption that anyone opposed to diversity is somehow "number 1" (who's counting? who's measuring?) or thinks they are number one, and is only opposed to diversity programs because they "can't handle" not being "number 1," or something. Seems like a very strange comment to me.
If Apple wants a diverse customer base, it needs a diverse team.
These conversations tend to get into binary ways of describing things like is/isn't diverse, is there/isn't there discrimination. What is really being considered is the proportion i.e whether a team is diverse enough. In your example, if you had a team of 100 people working on a health tracker and only 1 person was female, they could easily push for specific health features but the group wouldn't be considered diverse enough.
Even if you had a team of 3 people and 2 were men, having only 33% female would be under-representing women as they make up 45%+ of the workforce. However, if you had a team of 3 people and 2 were women, that wouldn't be considered under-representing men. Assuming that some groups are under-represented in certain areas, if you assume they are all in employment somewhere then they have to be over-represented somewhere else.
The question really becomes what proportion of diversity is the aim. Companies can only match the population proportions in an ideal outcome and when you look at tech company hiring, they are under-hiring Caucasian workers compared to the population and vastly over-hiring Asian workers relative to the population. Apple's own diversity page shows this:
These are US stats, not global and their new hires are 24% Asian despite being 5.6% of the population, they'd have to stop doing that in order for the percentage of other minorities to improve:
Promoting inclusion and diversity for race, gender, sexuality, disabilities is important because it gives people confidence that they won't be excluded due to their identity. The idea that all companies and professions need to have the same proportions of all these attributes is misguided because there are too many variables to ensure that outcome. Tech companies usually require college/university degrees as a minimum requirement and the graduation rates mirror their hiring rates:
"After six years, about a quarter of Asian students and a fifth of white students had finished their degrees, compared to about a tenth of Hispanic students and one in 12 black students."
There are different solutions to this. They can try fixing it at the education level but the results of this won't show up for another decade or more. Companies are trying to find quick fixes to make the numbers look better year-on-year so a quicker way to do this is to create jobs that better suit the skills or interests of the under-represented groups. Having more work in services or content creation can help here but everybody needs jobs and having an aim to fix numbers by giving special interest to certain groups is always going to create friction.
It's not good to get into the mindset that these outcomes of hiring rates, pay inequity etc have been purposefully done to discriminate against certain groups. This creates unnecessary divisions and an aim to discriminate more. This showed up in the 2016 Oscars where Chris Rock was talking about no black nominations:
That's a liberal audience and you can hear they felt attacked a number of times as if they had done something wrong on purpose. One point he made at the end was not thinking that everything is racist or sexist and used the example of how they weren't supposed to ask women what they were wearing at the Oscars and instead they should ask women about their work like they do for men and he said this is partly because men all wear the same outfit. "If George Clooney showed up with a lime green tux on and a swan coming out his ass, somebody would go 'what you wearin' George?'".
At the same time, it highlights that there are conventions that aren't done intentionally to discriminate but that's the result in some cases. Populations always have a majority of one race so leading roles in most movies will go to them. Indian and Asian movie companies are obviously going to primarily hire much more of the majority race that makes up their population. This naturally creates a lack of opportunity as it creates a convention.
Companies using numbers and percentages undermines the cause because it suggests that the numbers they have are too low and they never say where the goal is, they just say the aim is for 'more diversity'. You can only get so much diversity before you start getting less diverse so there is a well-defined goal. When they start to show percentage improvements, it looks suspicious as if they just found a previously untapped pool of talent that just happens to be under-represented groups. In general, it's just a bad idea to suggest that lower proportions of certain groups implies there's a problem, especially when it's not done with every group in every industry. Companies should absolutely put out the welcome mat to everyone but they shouldn't expect everyone to show up and start thinking there's a problem if they don't.
Thank you for such an excellent, well reasoned, and non-emotional post. Reading it was like taking a deep breath. I admittedly get a bit worked up when people start making accusations of racism without backing it up with evidence or any meaningful discussion.
That oscar clip was hilarious. The look on Cate Blanchet's face was priceless lol. And of course, excellent points made by Chris Rock.
To weave your post into the context of the discussion, from my perspective (which I'm pretty much doing for myself since I doubt anyone is still following this thread at this point), I think my complaint about the "PC hyperfocus" is akin to Chris Rock (and you) discussing that racism (or other isms) is not binary, and the problems and solutions are complex and not helped be people crying/accusing/screaming racism any time there is a perceived disparity, nor is it helped by keeping close track of specific metrics.
I love Apple's diversity page and principals, with the exceptions of 1) including the various metrics so prominently (although making them available for transparency purposes is probably positive), and 2) creating such a prominent role (which I feel is counterproductive 'hyperfocus'). Both those exceptions seem to me to overstate and oversimplify the problem and thus contributes to divisiveness rather than harmony. While there are still macro issues that need to be sorted out by society, overall it seems to me that the amount of racial/gender/religious/etc harmony is vastly more significant and prominent than examples of disharmony.
Diversity programs are not the subject of this thread, the appointment of a very well qualified person to a role heading up diversity and inclusion policy within Apple is. And then the thread gets polluted by jackwads interjecting their bull view about quotas and positive discrimination, which has not been postulated at all. That's what I'm making a logical connection with, dickheads who equate diversity and inclusiveness with the so-called erosion of white rights and whining about fairness and how Apple is somehow worse for prioritising their appeal as a workplace to a broad spectrum.
If you honestly can't see the link between these stupid ass views and latent or blatant racism, and those textbook equatings that I posted then I can't see how you're being anything other than wilfully ignorant.
Harvard professor of political science Robert D. Putnam conducted a nearly decade long study how multiculturalism affects social trust. He surveyed 26,200 people in 40 American communities, finding that–when the data were adjusted for class income and other factors–the more racially diverse a community is, the greater the loss of trust. People in diverse communities “don’t trust the local mayor, they don’t trust the local paper, they don’t trust other people and they don’t trust institutions,” writes Putnam. In the presence of such ethnic diversity, Putnam maintains that “…we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us. Even Halyard knows this is all a pile of “feel good” shit. Like a religion, it relies on persecuting those who don’t agree to keep itself mainstream thought. After the study was released, Putnam was intimidated and harassed because he was accused of helping racists. He later came out and gave a very vague statement saying diversity “had problems but was worth it in the long run” to keep these morons appeased. This statement gives no indication of the “long run” and, in fact, is not quantified by anything.
According to conflict theory, distrust between ethnic groups rises with diversity, but not within a group. Putnam describes people of all races and socioeconomic statuses, ages, and both sexes as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community–both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates–two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining interethnic group trust–more diversity is still associated with less communal trust. Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
Lower confidence in local government, local leaders, and the local news media
Lower political efficacy–that is, confidence in one’s own influence
Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result
Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g. voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage)
Less likelihood of working on a community project
Less likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
Fewer close friends and confidants
Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment”
Putnam’s study was published in 2001. Genetic cluster analysis of the micro satellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3636 subjects, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15625622 Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence Alex Rutherford, Dion Harmon, Justin Werfel, Shlomiya Bar-Yam, Alexander Gard-Murray, Andreas Gros, Yaneer Bar-Yam We consider the conditions of peace and violence among ethnic groups, testing a theory designed to predict the locations of violence and interventions that can promote peace. Characterizing the model’s success in predicting peace requires examples where peace prevails despite diversity. Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups. Mountains and lakes are an important part of the boundaries between sharply defined linguistic areas. Political canton and circle (sub-canton) boundaries often separate religious groups.
Where such boundaries do not appear to be sufficient, we find that specific aspects of the population distribution either guarantee sufficient separation or sufficient mixing to inhibit intergroup violence according to the quantitative theory of conflict. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura. Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence, existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but the peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide. The success of peace in Switzerland may serve as a model to resolve conflict in other ethnically diverse countries and regions of the world. Report #: NECSI 2011-10-01 Cite as: arXiv:1110.1409v1 http://necsi.edu/research/social/scienceofpeace.pdf
Ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
If any company hires a person based on skin color or gender then that is discrimination. So Apple should favor one race of people over the other? Is that what you're saying? I don't think this is what Apple does or believes in this. The outcome here is situational and is not discrimination on Apple's part and certainly not wanting their company to be diverse. Apple hires from the pool of people who are available. It's that simple...
I do find that channel raciest!!! What if there was a WET channel? White Entertainment Television.
McDonald’s runs 365Black. Where is 365White? They also run My InspirAsian. Where is My Europeancouragement?
Very interesting stuff you presented TS. It definitely seems to suggest that forced diversity in societies is not helpful, in a lot of ways lol.
The interesting part is that I've experienced evidence for and against this, by currently living in Texas, and growing up in California, respectively. In California people seem to identify more as individuals first, then with their race. Here in Texas, it seems like race is a bigger part of the identity pie. In California there seemed to be very limited friction between people of different races. Here in Houston, despite being technically the most diverse city in the US, communities here seem to 'hunker down' a lot more, and self-segregate. Most people get along just fine, there's plenty of racial mixing, and I rarely see any overt racism, but there sill seems to be a subtext that wasn't really present in Cali.
All that said, I think we've progressed enough as a society where we can intelligently encourage and promote diversity to the betterment of society (and Apple). Although I don't think being hypersensitive to it and crying wolf about racism all the time (as we saw in this thread) is the way to get there.
Here in Houston, despite being technically the most diverse city in the US, communities here seem to 'hunker down' a lot more, and self-segregate.
I’d say that the studies show it’s not ‘despite’; it’s ‘because of’. There are those who seek to forcibly dictate the words you use in relation to any given concept, regardless of the reality of the situation. Be aware of that; it’ll change how you view the world. For example, the left’s mental illness has progressed to the point where they now say ‘undocumented Americans’ rather than ‘foreign invaders.’
On that topic, too, look at New York City. It’s not a multicultural city. It’s a cosmopolitan city. What’s the difference? A multicultural society is one in which all cultures have been effectively erased, leaving only one synthetic culture that has been approved by the elite and is imposed from the top-down. To maintain the appearance of diversity, the elites focus on superficial ethnic and gender differences. However, their cultures are homogenized and their values are stripped down. What this effectively does is divide the population into a bunch of M&Ms—they look different, but inside they’re all the same. It would more appropriately be called a “multiethnic monocultural” society. Mind you, the “diversity” of the “multicultural” society is intended to keep the population divided and more easily controlled.
A cosmopolitan society is one in which all cultures exist separate from each other by choice but interact with one another for mutual benefit and in mutual respect. Borders exist to maintain cultural solidarity, but can be crossed for things such as commerce or government. A cosmopolitan person is someone who can have meaningful exchanges with people of different cultures while retaining his own cultural identity. In New York, you have a largely cosmopolitan landscape: ethnic groups tend to keep to their own areas (Chinatown, Woodlawn, the Diamond District…) but those areas are frequented by people of other cultures. These groups interact daily, but the Jews remain Jewish, the Chinese are still Chinese, and the Russians are still Russian. You’ll notice that the bulk of the crime tends to be isolated within ethnic groups, but the law enforcement itself is about as diverse as the city. Compare this to Swedish, French, and British “no-go” zones, where Muslims have effectively established autonomous micro-states that police dare not enter.
Diversity programs are not the subject of this thread, the appointment of a very well qualified person to a role heading up diversity and inclusion policy within Apple is. And then the thread gets polluted by jackwads interjecting their bull view about quotas and positive discrimination, which has not been postulated at all. That's what I'm making a logical connection with, dickheads who equate diversity and inclusiveness with the so-called erosion of white rights and whining about fairness and how Apple is somehow worse for prioritising their appeal as a workplace to a broad spectrum.
If you honestly can't see the link between these stupid ass views and latent or blatant racism, and those textbook equatings that I posted then I can't see how you're being anything other than wilfully ignorant.
crowley, if that's what diversity is then that sentence was redundant and pointless (not to mention a bit reductionistic). I hope you didn't pay too much for that textbook, lol. It's actually doubly pointless because most of the people here haven't been "against" diversity. Most opponents here are against the *way* the issue is being addressed, which has been the topic of most of the past posts if you care to read them.
The program/role has been the thing discussed here. I haven't seen a single comment about whether Denise Young-Smith is qualified or not; I'm sure she's highly qualified and will do a fantastic job at her new role. At the sake of repeating myself, I think the main argument (at least mine) is against the hyper-focus on our differences by creating such a prominent role, and by focusing on every percentage point of different people in different roles.
I don't think the solution to racism (or other isms) is to just to put a
magnifying glass over the most negative parts (whether it's by society at large, or by Apple). When you're trying to guide a child's behavior (lets not kid ourselves, humans tend to keep being pretty childish regardless of age) you don't get very far by pointing out all the faults and only saying what not to do. By doing this we lose focus from all the areas where there is harmony (which there is a ton more of relative to disharmony), and we lose sight of the things that we have in common.
FWIW, it looks like both sides of this discussion have been bringing in a lot of outside, implicit subcontext to the discussion that has been counterproductive. Including, and I'd emphasize especially you, when you started off by making racist remarks about white people, which 1) doesn't give you much credibility when you're accusing others of being racist, and 2) actually gives credence to those arguing that hyperfocus on this issue is counterproductive, and leads to more divisiveness (which it clearly has).
Here in Houston, despite being technically the most diverse city in the US, communities here seem to 'hunker down' a lot more, and self-segregate.
I’d say that the studies show it’s not ‘despite’; it’s ‘because of’. There are those who seek to forcibly dictate the words you use in relation to any given concept, regardless of the reality of the situation. Be aware of that; it’ll change how you view the world. For example, the left’s mental illness has progressed to the point where they now say ‘undocumented Americans’ rather than ‘foreign invaders.’
On that topic, too, look at New York City. It’s not a multicultural city. It’s a cosmopolitan city. What’s the difference? A multicultural society is one in which all cultures have been effectively erased, leaving only one synthetic culture that has been approved by the elite and is imposed from the top-down. To maintain the appearance of diversity, the elites focus on superficial ethnic and gender differences. However, their cultures are homogenized and their values are stripped down. What this effectively does is divide the population into a bunch of M&Ms—they look different, but inside they’re all the same. It would more appropriately be called a “multiethnic monocultural” society. Mind you, the “diversity” of the “multicultural” society is intended to keep the population divided and more easily controlled.
A cosmopolitan society is one in which all cultures exist separate from each other by choice but interact with one another for mutual benefit and in mutual respect. Borders exist to maintain cultural solidarity, but can be crossed for things such as commerce or government. A cosmopolitan person is someone who can have meaningful exchanges with people of different cultures while retaining his own cultural identity. In New York, you have a largely cosmopolitan landscape: ethnic groups tend to keep to their own areas (Chinatown, Woodlawn, the Diamond District…) but those areas are frequented by people of other cultures. These groups interact daily, but the Jews remain Jewish, the Chinese are still Chinese, and the Russians are still Russian. You’ll notice that the bulk of the crime tends to be isolated within ethnic groups, but the law enforcement itself is about as diverse as the city. Compare this to Swedish, French, and British “no-go” zones, where Muslims have effectively established autonomous micro-states that police dare not enter.
More interesting stuff to think about. Are those definitions of multicultural vs cosmopolitan established, or are you more using them to make a point?
It looks like it comes down to a sense of common community. I would think that ideally there should be a non-partisan, non political, unifying identity that helps the US (or any mixed culture) be more multicultural (thus more harmonious), without overly-compromising the identities of the subcultures (i.e. still be cosmopolitan); but I see your point that this shouldn't be dictated or forced.
I think that's the thing that makes racial tension such a big deal in the US, that lack of a sense of common community. I'm fully on board with the US ideal of individualism, but it seems like there's quite a few wrinkles that need to be ironed out related to this, which seem largely related to a lack of a perceived shared identity.
Diversity programs are not the subject of this thread, the appointment of a very well qualified person to a role heading up diversity and inclusion policy within Apple is. And then the thread gets polluted by jackwads interjecting their bull view about quotas and positive discrimination, which has not been postulated at all. That's what I'm making a logical connection with, dickheads who equate diversity and inclusiveness with the so-called erosion of white rights and whining about fairness and how Apple is somehow worse for prioritising their appeal as a workplace to a broad spectrum.
If you honestly can't see the link between these stupid ass views and latent or blatant racism, and those textbook equatings that I posted then I can't see how you're being anything other than wilfully ignorant.
crowley, if that's what diversity is then that sentence was redundant and pointless (not to mention a bit reductionistic). I hope you didn't pay too much for that textbook, lol. It's actually doubly pointless because most of the people here haven't been "against" diversity. Most opponents here are against the *way* the issue is being addressed, which has been the topic of most of the past posts if you care to read them.
The program/role has been the thing discussed here. I haven't seen a single comment about whether Denise Young-Smith is qualified or not; I'm sure she's highly qualified and will do a fantastic job at her new role. At the sake of repeating myself, I think the main argument (at least mine) is against the hyper-focus on our differences by creating such a prominent role, and by focusing on every percentage point of different people in different roles.
I don't think the solution to racism (or other isms) is to just to put a
magnifying glass over the most negative parts (whether it's by society at large, or by Apple). When you're trying to guide a child's behavior (lets not kid ourselves, humans tend to keep being pretty childish regardless of age) you don't get very far by pointing out all the faults and only saying what not to do. By doing this we lose focus from all the areas where there is harmony (which there is a ton more of relative to disharmony), and we lose sight of the things that we have in common.
FWIW, it looks like both sides of this discussion have been bringing in a lot of outside, implicit subcontext to the discussion that has been counterproductive. Including, and I'd emphasize especially you, when you started off by making racist remarks about white people, which 1) doesn't give you much credibility when you're accusing others of being racist, and 2) actually gives credence to those arguing that hyperfocus on this issue is counterproductive, and leads to more divisiveness (which it clearly has).
I haven't made a single racist remark against white people. Get out of it.
Compare this to Swedish, French, and British “no-go” zones, where Muslims have effectively established autonomous micro-states that police dare not enter.
Hi. British person here.
There aren't any no-go zones for police in Britain. Anyone who says there are 'no-go' zones is doing so to further their own political agenda.
Compare this to Swedish, French, and British “no-go” zones, where Muslims have effectively established autonomous micro-states that police dare not enter.
Hi. British person here.
There aren't any no-go zones for police in Britain. Anyone who says there are 'no-go' zones is doing so to further their own political agenda.
There are certainly areas that are less safe than others, and in some of those race may play a part. In all likelihood though, if there is a problem, that will manifest as a minority getting attacked while on a predominantly white estate. Occasionally it goes the other way (just like how occasionally a wife will physically abuse her husband), but there's really no comparison when it comes to the numbers. Excluding terrorist attacks, the only statistically relevant race hate crime in the UK is white attacking non-white.
The police go anywhere though. No-go areas is a complete myth.
Are you denying that the first page of this thread had any whining about diversity being a bad thing for Apple? I direct you to posts made by SpamSandwich (a repeat offender in this nonsense), Allmypeople (nice name), and Justme12.
You seem a bit defensive, and it's blinding you; I didn't make anything up.
I specifically said that diversity is a good thing, when it is not used as a substitute for the other skills that are needed for the job. Let me put my opinion in a slightly different form, so you hopefully have an easier time understanding.
Needed skill set = GOOD. Needed skill set + diversity = EVEN BETTER. Diversity instead of a needed skills = BAD. Hiring people based on skin color = RACISM.
That much is obvious... But if you see things through an ideological lens, that might not be what reality actually is... Instead it might be just your biased perception of it. And the best way of getting rid of that bias (or at least, assessing it) is by the use of introspective and self-reflection on where you are (ideologically). Neither one of those things is the tool of today's left, unfortunately.. And I am saying this is someone who for quite a long time WAS associating himself with that side. Unfortunately, when the left became like the extreme right, but with a different sign, I had to leave. Just saying.
I live in LA where cultural diversity is what makes our city the best city on the planet. There are hundreds of different ethnic groups here and that is the way I like it. Diversity inspires open mindedness and innovation which I think can only be good for any organization.
Do you all live in and among each other, or do various groups congregate in certain areas? I had a young English woman telling me that Brexit passed because everyone outside of London was racist, but Londoners were "diverse and inclusive." She then proceeded to tell me how each group had their own area of town, but when she realized what she was saying, stopped mid sentence and went back to the everyone else is a racist trope.
I've lived near LA all my life. The only place where LA residents are all happy together in their diversity is in your imagination.
Are you denying that the first page of this thread had any whining about diversity being a bad thing for Apple? I direct you to posts made by SpamSandwich (a repeat offender in this nonsense), Allmypeople (nice name), and Justme12.
You seem a bit defensive, and it's blinding you; I didn't make anything up.
I specifically said that diversity is a good thing, when it is not used as a substitute for the other skills that are needed for the job. Let me put my opinion in a slightly different form, so you hopefully have an easier time understanding.
Needed skill set = GOOD. Needed skill set + diversity = EVEN BETTER. Diversity instead of a needed skills = BAD. Hiring people based on skin color = RACISM.
Thanks.
I have no idea why you're replying or talking down to me, I haven't said anything in argument against any of that.
Again, you're being defensive when you're not even being attacked. I suggest that it is not me but you who needs to make greater effort to understand.
Diversity is not a zero sum game against skill. No one is positively suggesting hiring people who are not qualified for the job. The only people who are even talking about that as a possibility are the usual whinging naysaying dullards who are always overjoyed to pollute threads outside of PoliticalOutsider with their crap. They know who they are.
I haven't made a single racist remark against white people. Get out of it.
crowley, from your previous posts: ..the insecure white males bleat on about how diversity is killing everything good. If you define everything good as being white and male, of course. ...a trigger warning for some snowflakes who can't handle a world where they aren't number 1 [assuming you're again referring to white people here]
You're the one that brought race antagonism into the discussion, along with spice-boy. There was no need. And it took quite a few posts to get past the ad hominems and into any discussion that was at least somewhat meaningful (even then, the actually important, non-ad-hoiminem points mostly got ignored). Crying racism is does not help any sort of discussion. Especially when you're the one saying the most racially-charged things. It doesn't help your argument. In fact, it strengthens the opposing arguments.
Said the suicidal, middle aged white man who falsely sees the world he has exploited and dominated for centuries leaving him behind when it is he that has stopped moving forward. If trolling were an new industry some many of the racists posting here would be living high.
spice-boy, how can you accuse people of racism when you're saying the most racist comments??? You have NO credibility to call anyone racist. I'm genuinely asking.
Not only that, you're projecting all over the place "the world he has exploited and dominated for centuries"? Really?? Lol. TS exploited and dominated the world for centuries? Is he a vampire?
I'm not trying to pick sides, I just don't think your racist comments are helping you make any sort of meaningful argument.
Diversity is not a zero sum game against skill. No one is positively suggesting hiring people who are not qualified for the job.
Not true. For example, BBC is known for posting job openings with the mention of that non-white people are needed for the position, while ousting people who were qualified and who were occupying the positions, but unfortunately for them were white males. I have no problem with diversity, but I do have a problem with actual racism and sexism disguised as the fight for equality, as well as I have a problem with with hypocrisy and double standards... I know, I am weird that way...
Comments
Good on Apple for partnering with HBCU. Do you know who announced that? Denise Young-Smith.
Right back at you means I'm accusing you of hypocrisy, as what you're saying about me applies far more to yourself. I would've thought that was clear, and I honestly don't see how any of what you've been saying applies to my op. You seem to have taken my words oddly personally, as if they were aimed at you. Clearly they were not aimed at you, though if you want to jump into the hot tub with bigots and whingers then by all means go ahead.
I never said you had an issue with diversity, another thing that you seem to have taken personally when there was no such direction or intent. You even take umbridge about me applying a claim to anyone who has an issue with diversity after explicitly claiming that you don't have an issue with diversity. Keep up sport, if you don't have an issue with diversity then that sentence doesn't apply to you.
Though since you've also claimed that those sentences are illogical I'd love to see that deduction, rather than the stream of question marks and spittle that you've given (are you claiming that's an "actual argument instead of [a] vapid proclamation"?).
And finally, you say that I'm making this about "the person". Which person? You again? Dude, I have no idea who you are, my comments have all been about those few people on the first page who instantly got het as soon as they saw the thread title (my "strange statements and assumptions" are all there on page 1. Go look). It happens again and again whenever diversity gets a thread, often the same familiar names and always the same reductive nonsense opinions ("Waah" Apple should only hire the best! Reverse racism! Waaah""). You're not pulling them up on their rubbish, why is that?
Good point about Denise Young-Smith announcing that program. Thanks for that info.
Um, I took things personally when you said "right back at you," accusing me of racism. hypocrisy, etc, lol. I'm still waiting to hear an actual explanation or evidence from any of my posts on why you're accusing me of those things.
Those sentences are illogical inherently. It requires no explanation. But I'll explain anyway. Two reasons: 1) "anyone" is an absolute term, and can not possibly be true, and 2) you never established a logical connection between being against diversity programs (assuming programs, because that's the entire topic of this thread) and being against 'mixing with people who are not like them.'
I think I had another poster in mind when I was saying you were making it about the person. I wasn't referring to me, sorry for the confusion.
The last strange assumption I was referring to was your assumption that anyone opposed to diversity is somehow "number 1" (who's counting? who's measuring?) or thinks they are number one, and is only opposed to diversity programs because they "can't handle" not being "number 1," or something. Seems like a very strange comment to me.
That oscar clip was hilarious. The look on Cate Blanchet's face was priceless lol. And of course, excellent points made by Chris Rock.
To weave your post into the context of the discussion, from my perspective (which I'm pretty much doing for myself since I doubt anyone is still following this thread at this point), I think my complaint about the "PC hyperfocus" is akin to Chris Rock (and you) discussing that racism (or other isms) is not binary, and the problems and solutions are complex and not helped be people crying/accusing/screaming racism any time there is a perceived disparity, nor is it helped by keeping close track of specific metrics.
I love Apple's diversity page and principals, with the exceptions of 1) including the various metrics so prominently (although making them available for transparency purposes is probably positive), and 2) creating such a prominent role (which I feel is counterproductive 'hyperfocus'). Both those exceptions seem to me to overstate and oversimplify the problem and thus contributes to divisiveness rather than harmony. While there are still macro issues that need to be sorted out by society, overall it seems to me that the amount of racial/gender/religious/etc harmony is vastly more significant and prominent than examples of disharmony.
That's what diversity is!
Diversity programs are not the subject of this thread, the appointment of a very well qualified person to a role heading up diversity and inclusion policy within Apple is. And then the thread gets polluted by jackwads interjecting their bull view about quotas and positive discrimination, which has not been postulated at all. That's what I'm making a logical connection with, dickheads who equate diversity and inclusiveness with the so-called erosion of white rights and whining about fairness and how Apple is somehow worse for prioritising their appeal as a workplace to a broad spectrum.
If you honestly can't see the link between these stupid ass views and latent or blatant racism, and those textbook equatings that I posted then I can't see how you're being anything other than wilfully ignorant.
The interesting part is that I've experienced evidence for and against this, by currently living in Texas, and growing up in California, respectively. In California people seem to identify more as individuals first, then with their race. Here in Texas, it seems like race is a bigger part of the identity pie. In California there seemed to be very limited friction between people of different races. Here in Houston, despite being technically the most diverse city in the US, communities here seem to 'hunker down' a lot more, and self-segregate. Most people get along just fine, there's plenty of racial mixing, and I rarely see any overt racism, but there sill seems to be a subtext that wasn't really present in Cali.
All that said, I think we've progressed enough as a society where we can intelligently encourage and promote diversity to the betterment of society (and Apple). Although I don't think being hypersensitive to it and crying wolf about racism all the time (as we saw in this thread) is the way to get there.
On that topic, too, look at New York City. It’s not a multicultural city. It’s a cosmopolitan city. What’s the difference? A multicultural society is one in which all cultures have been effectively erased, leaving only one synthetic culture that has been approved by the elite and is imposed from the top-down. To maintain the appearance of diversity, the elites focus on superficial ethnic and gender differences. However, their cultures are homogenized and their values are stripped down. What this effectively does is divide the population into a bunch of M&Ms—they look different, but inside they’re all the same. It would more appropriately be called a “multiethnic monocultural” society. Mind you, the “diversity” of the “multicultural” society is intended to keep the population divided and more easily controlled.
A cosmopolitan society is one in which all cultures exist separate from each other by choice but interact with one another for mutual benefit and in mutual respect. Borders exist to maintain cultural solidarity, but can be crossed for things such as commerce or government. A cosmopolitan person is someone who can have meaningful exchanges with people of different cultures while retaining his own cultural identity. In New York, you have a largely cosmopolitan landscape: ethnic groups tend to keep to their own areas (Chinatown, Woodlawn, the Diamond District…) but those areas are frequented by people of other cultures. These groups interact daily, but the Jews remain Jewish, the Chinese are still Chinese, and the Russians are still Russian. You’ll notice that the bulk of the crime tends to be isolated within ethnic groups, but the law enforcement itself is about as diverse as the city. Compare this to Swedish, French, and British “no-go” zones, where Muslims have effectively established autonomous micro-states that police dare not enter.
The program/role has been the thing discussed here. I haven't seen a single comment about whether Denise Young-Smith is qualified or not; I'm sure she's highly qualified and will do a fantastic job at her new role. At the sake of repeating myself, I think the main argument (at least mine) is against the hyper-focus on our differences by creating such a prominent role, and by focusing on every percentage point of different people in different roles.
I don't think the solution to racism (or other isms) is to just to put a magnifying glass over the most negative parts (whether it's by society at large, or by Apple). When you're trying to guide a child's behavior (lets not kid ourselves, humans tend to keep being pretty childish regardless of age) you don't get very far by pointing out all the faults and only saying what not to do. By doing this we lose focus from all the areas where there is harmony (which there is a ton more of relative to disharmony), and we lose sight of the things that we have in common.
FWIW, it looks like both sides of this discussion have been bringing in a lot of outside, implicit subcontext to the discussion that has been counterproductive. Including, and I'd emphasize especially you, when you started off by making racist remarks about white people, which 1) doesn't give you much credibility when you're accusing others of being racist, and 2) actually gives credence to those arguing that hyperfocus on this issue is counterproductive, and leads to more divisiveness (which it clearly has).
It looks like it comes down to a sense of common community. I would think that ideally there should be a non-partisan, non political, unifying identity that helps the US (or any mixed culture) be more multicultural (thus more harmonious), without overly-compromising the identities of the subcultures (i.e. still be cosmopolitan); but I see your point that this shouldn't be dictated or forced.
I think that's the thing that makes racial tension such a big deal in the US, that lack of a sense of common community. I'm fully on board with the US ideal of individualism, but it seems like there's quite a few wrinkles that need to be ironed out related to this, which seem largely related to a lack of a perceived shared identity.
There aren't any no-go zones for police in Britain. Anyone who says there are 'no-go' zones is doing so to further their own political agenda.
The police go anywhere though. No-go areas is a complete myth.
Let me put my opinion in a slightly different form, so you hopefully have an easier time understanding.
Needed skill set = GOOD.
Needed skill set + diversity = EVEN BETTER.
Diversity instead of a needed skills = BAD.
Hiring people based on skin color = RACISM.
Thanks.
Instead it might be just your biased perception of it.
And the best way of getting rid of that bias (or at least, assessing it) is by the use of introspective and self-reflection on where you are (ideologically). Neither one of those things is the tool of today's left, unfortunately.. And I am saying this is someone who for quite a long time WAS associating himself with that side.
Unfortunately, when the left became like the extreme right, but with a different sign, I had to leave. Just saying.
Again, you're being defensive when you're not even being attacked. I suggest that it is not me but you who needs to make greater effort to understand.
Diversity is not a zero sum game against skill. No one is positively suggesting hiring people who are not qualified for the job. The only people who are even talking about that as a possibility are the usual whinging naysaying dullards who are always overjoyed to pollute threads outside of PoliticalOutsider with their crap. They know who they are.
..the insecure white males bleat on about how diversity is killing everything good.
If you define everything good as being white and male, of course.
...a trigger warning for some snowflakes who can't handle a world where they aren't number 1 [assuming you're again referring to white people here]
You're the one that brought race antagonism into the discussion, along with spice-boy. There was no need. And it took quite a few posts to get past the ad hominems and into any discussion that was at least somewhat meaningful (even then, the actually important, non-ad-hoiminem points mostly got ignored). Crying racism is does not help any sort of discussion. Especially when you're the one saying the most racially-charged things. It doesn't help your argument. In fact, it strengthens the opposing arguments.
Not only that, you're projecting all over the place "the world he has exploited and dominated for centuries"? Really?? Lol. TS exploited and dominated the world for centuries? Is he a vampire?
I'm not trying to pick sides, I just don't think your racist comments are helping you make any sort of meaningful argument.
I have no problem with diversity, but I do have a problem with actual racism and sexism disguised as the fight for equality, as well as I have a problem with with hypocrisy and double standards...
I know, I am weird that way...