AppleZulu
About
- Username
- AppleZulu
- Joined
- Visits
- 261
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 9,257
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 2,572
Reactions
-
Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring
I’ve used this metaphor before, but…
DEI is the kindergarten teacher realizing the same three students have been dominating the swings and refusing to let others have a turn on them at recess all week. Thursday afternoon, she gives a lesson on sharing, and Friday at recess implements the lesson by making sure that along with the first three, some other kids who want a turn get to rotate through as well.Anti-DEI is the first three kids getting angry because a) they (incorrectly) think something that belonged exclusively to them has been taken away and b) they think the others don’t deserve a turn because they’re not as “good” at playing on the swings (ignoring the fact that by blocking access, they’ve prevented the others from the opportunity to get as “good” at playing in the swings.)
-
Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring
DEI is literally the opposite of hate. Hate is exclusion. Inclusion is literally what the I stands for. Increasing the recruitment pool almost always yields stronger teams.SmittyW said:
Agreed. The way to fight hate, is with more hate!AppleZulu said:
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.hodar said:Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
-
Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring
Precisely. The anti-DEI “meritocracy” crowd likes to pretend they’re being noble and quote MLK’s “content of their character” line from the 1963 March on Washington out of context, misinterpreting King to mean we should simply declare there to be a meritocracy and there will be one.auxio said:
The problem is that if there are never role models or opportunities from the get go, then that potential will never be realized, even if a child is born with it. Study history and think a bit. African Americans didn't even have civil rights until the late 1960s (i.e. were pretty much reliant on white people for any chance in America). Same with women being reliant on men since they didn't have civil rights either. And think about how many LGBTQ people had to hide who they were from society in order to have opportunities (never mind if they were someone of color, which you can't hide). Discrimination happens whether it's written in laws or not.hodar said:Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
By having companies publicly declare "yes, we hire marginalized people", and hopefully even investing in education and business opportunities, it creates an attainable path to success for those people. It's not just about hoping they get to that point at the time of hiring.If they listened to the whole speech, they’d find out that MLK’s message was that his “dream” was like the aspirational goal of a business plan, and in the rest of the speech, King was telling us (like in any good business plan) about all the hard work we must commit to and then actually do before we can ever come close to achieving that goal.The hard work in this context involves starting before previously excluded people are even born and clearing the path for them to have unhindered access to the same encouragement and opportunities as anyone else. For those who have already started on their path through life and have been excluded, discouraged from, and steered away from opportunity, the hard work means recognizing how those obstacles have already undermined their position in any imagined meritocracy and then intentionally doing things to correct for that.The civil rights acts passed six decades ago declared ‘ok now, let’s quit discriminating against these excluded minorities.’ Since then, at every turn the same disingenuous, passive-aggressive arguments and tactics have been trotted out to resist doing the hard work King told us we’d have to do in order to reach that meritocracy he described.Now here we are again, sixty years on, with people insisting we mustn’t do the work, but should instead declare the mission accomplished while ignoring all evidence to the contrary. The purpose of these tactics is transparent. It is to continue the systematic exclusion of those who have historically faced obstacles at every turn, while handing out participation trophies to the folks who haven’t been repeatedly kneecapped and assuring them they earned their spot on merit, just like their forefathers before them.
-
Apple fights back against shareholders who want to end DEI hiring
Funny how “merit” wasn’t important when systematically refusing to hire certain genders and ethnicities was de rigeur. There was no meritocracy then. Now, as soon as anyone talks about systematically extending opportunities to the same people who were previously systematically excluded, we hear how there must be a meritocracy. There’s not much merit in that.hodar said:Who said that LGBTQ or minorities cannot be qualified? How about hiring the brightest, the best and most talented without regard to their skin color, their plumbing or things that have absolutely nothing to do with things unrelated to the job? Hire by merit, that's how Apple got out of the garage.
-
Apple CEO Tim Cook personally invested $1 million in Trump's inauguration
In the world, it is a fact that Donald Trump is controversial. I’ve already stated the obvious reasons that demonstrate that to be fact. Also, there is no “my world” or “your world.” There is only the world, where reality still exists. Evidently, in your mind, your opinion can nullify facts, but none of that applies outside your noggin, no matter how hard you wish at it.9secondkox2 said:
In your world, fact = whatever your opinion is.AppleZulu said:
I’ve made the facts clear. No. I’ve pointed out the facts that were already clear. Your rejoinder is the equivalent of “nuh uh,” which is not a convincing argument.9secondkox2 said:
Thanks for sharing your opinion of my opinion about his opinion. As always, your opinion is welcomed, even though you don’t know fact from fiction.AppleZulu said:
The thing that you have complained about as being the writer’s opinion - that Donald Trump is controversial - is not just an objective fact, but an understatement of fact. Like him or don’t like him, the mere mention of Trump is “likely to give rise to public disagreement.” This has been proven literally millions upon millions (upon millions) of times over the last decade. It’s a fact you have proven one more time yourself right here by reacting to this article.9secondkox2 said:
Words do have meaning. That was my point. Your opinion about the president is your opinion. You are entitled to it, but your need to shoehorn your opinion everywhere possible when necessary - to the point where you are actively encouraging longtime website members (who have been with the site longer than yourself) to go elsewhere is antithetical to any business goal in addtiion to just being rude. Doesn't seem very professional. And that comment in bold proves it. Nowhere did I display emotion. I simply stated facts. If that hurts your feelings, maybe you should be doing something else.Wesley Hilliard said:9secondkox2 said:
I don't know what to say except words have meaning and you don't have to read our website. It's not biased to call him controversial, but if that hurts your feelings then find an article that will lie and make you feel better I guess.
That’s your opinion. Many of us believe it was Biden, his family, business dealings, and policies that are controversial in addition to the law fare waged against the former and future President.Wesley Hilliard said:
He's controversial not because he won, but because of who he is and what he believes. There's nothing biased or even political about that. The mountain of lawsuits, assault claims, overt racism, sexism, and indignation for any country that isn't the United States makes him a controversial president.ike22w said:Tim Cook did the same thing with Biden. Also, why did Wesley coin the President-Elect as controversial? He won in an electoral college landslide and also won the popular vote by over 4 million votes. I’d say the country clearly stated who they wanted. No controversy here folks. Maybe let’s just stick with tech news and not show our biased political views in a tech article.
Saying someone is controversial isn't an insult or attack. It's a simple fact.We appreciate the articles, but perhaps they can be a little more universal instead than of obviously creating a dividing line.Literally anyone can be labeled controversial by anyone who disagrees with them. Doesn’t make it so.When the majority of the country approves of the guy enough to make him president again, it’s not what believes or stands for that’s controversial. Just the facts.It’s telling that your reaction to the mere mention of this fact is that it must be some sort of slight against your hero. How fragile is he (and by extension, are you) that anything less than affirmative adoration must be called out as objectionable opinion?I suspect that if an article here referred (also factually) to President Biden as “controversial,” you would say it’s a euphemistic and therefore objectionable “opinion” in support of Mr. Biden.You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. You reaction here and the split vote last November affirm that Donald Trump is controversial. If you aren’t capable of accepting that fact, then you should indeed consider retreating to only those media sources that will tell you what you want to hear. There are plenty of them, and they have certainly made a lucrative industry of catering to your sensitivities while making a shambles of our country’s public discourse.Pot, meet kettle.
