Maybe with the democrats winning everything, plus the obvious power tech now has, they don't think there's much risk in actually breaking the law in this. But hey at least they're banning apps that haven't actually been proven to break the law.
> Although HBCUs were originally founded to educate black students, their diversity has increased over time. In 2015, students who were either white, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Native American made up 22% of total enrollment at HBCUs, compared with 15% in 1976.[42]
Not the parent but pretty sure they intended to use "regime" in the other sense, as it fits here much better.
> Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)."
Our dead and flagged parent probably thinks that there will be some broader paradigm change in the social justice approach between the Trump and the Biden administration and that the latter will be more supportive on affirmative action.
You can reasonably assume that a large company such as Apple has done enough due diligence to decide that its actions are broadly legal, particularly given the backdrop of similar projects across the country.
It is not the case that "they ended this in the education system", and the reality is quite a complex mix of overlapping rules and systems in different circumstances.
Of course they did the research, it’s just extremely surprising to me that open racial discrimination is legal, so I wonder if that’s a general thing, or if there’s some special case they’re using.
I mean surely it can’t be legal to open a coffee shop and refuse service to some racial groups?
I would gently suggest then that you take some time to read up on the history of racial discrimination, as well as the efforts that have been taken to stop it and attempt to undo some of the long-lasting damage. Discrimination and the tools to fix the outcomes have been extensively discussed and debated in society for decades, and simplistic comparisons like "but if opened a coffee shop…?" don't add any value.
I'm European, and it's not that hard. Racial discrimination is a longstanding and complex issue, with lots of different factors feeding into the situation that the US now finds itself in – and there are related (but different) situations all over the world. It's worth taking a step back and thinking a bit about the parts that you are missing.
Your specific example is simplified to the point of irrelevance. Coffee shops and universities are different places. Denying service to a group based on their characteristics is a different thing from investing in a program targeted at that group. Actions involving underrepresented groups have different impact from the same actions involving majority groups.
It's like pointing out that "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre so freedom of speech doesn't exist!" when in reality the whole situation is way more complex, and simple examples don't have any relevance.
Maybe I’m stupid, but are you saying that it IS illegal in the coffee shop example? Sure it’s different, but for example giving grants and selling coffee, or even giving discounts on coffee, are not THAT different.
It would be interesting to know what the legal limit actually is.
Yes it is illegal to block someone from a coffee shop based on their race.
When we say "Black Church" in America, we don't mean a church for Blacks only, we mean churches that historically arose because other races would not allow Blacks in their congregation (be it illegal to discriminate or not). There is no connotation that a "Black Church" wants to exclude other races.
Under what circumstances it is legal to racially discriminate. It seems to be legal in college admissions and funding allocation, but not if it’s about denying service in e.g. restaurants.
So the line is drawn somewhere between those two, I just wonder where.
You say that like it is going to be written once and for all with an instruction manual. America uses a common law system and case precedent over time.
You seem rather concerned with college admissions, where is your concern for the fact that many if not most elite public American high schools would be out of reach for racial minorities even if their child has has perfect grades since Kindergarden. These kids can't simply 'apply' to whichever high school in the country they please.
In Europe it is illegal to label a wine Champagne if the grape is the wrong color or not grown in a particular bespoke part of France. Yet, you are baffled the line for racial equity in America is somewhat gray, absurd.
No, I'm not baffled about it being ill defined, I presumed there were specific criteria stated somewhere. I was baffled that it's legal at all, under any circumstances.
I do not for the record think it is strange that only wine made in Champagne can be called Champagne. What could be offensive about that?
I talk about college admission because that's where discrimination seems to be legal.
> out of reach for racial minorities even if their child has has perfect grades since Kindergarden
As we know, when applying to college their race is actually an advantage, so why would they not be admitted, given their perfect grades?
I think there should be systems in place to help all disadvantaged people, regardless of race.
Since there are some black kids with wealthy parents, and many white kids with poor parents, it seems obvious that race is a very unfair basis, why not simply assist people that need assistance without looking at their skin colour?
They won't answer this question straight because it exposes the hypocrisy in identity politics. Recently one of the major colleges in the US released new admissions guidelines that are more vague than before and specifically designed to reduce the asian percentages being admissions. It seems the jokes about Asians being better in school are true, and this university wanted more "diversity" so it made the requirements more difficult for Asians (and to a lesser extent whites) while making it easier for the targeted ethnicities (I only remember "black" but I believe it included more than just that).
For some reason the US has it in it's head that we can balance the scales by putting our thumbs on one group and lowering the bar for others. Weirdly they don't see the hypocrisy or outright foolishness behind "fixing" racism with more racism.
Of course, like all things like this it has almost no effect on the ultra rich and truely privileged, and will negatively effect the underprivileged "whites" of all races (weirdly, just like every other race, white people are not just some big homogenous color but makeup diverse individual cultures with distinctive history).
But I guess those privileged trailer trash should use their privilege to buy themselves access to an ivy league education.
Honestly Apple's little PR stunt is the least insulting of this stuff recently. If you want to see really stupid, look at reddits CEO stepping down and saying his job will go to a black person (and it did). That is illegal but it was just ignored. Or the incoming US president who said he VP pick would be a "woman of color". Of course I'm sure someone will defend picking VPs based on their genetics and chromosome amounts by saying "we already pick that way anyway, its why its all white men in politics!". Because clearly you fix something by propagating it.
The world is so upside down now that suggesting we be colorblind is racist.
Who is they? Me? I can't answer a question directly when you don't ask it directly. At least Grustaf and I have the fortitude to post with an account that wasn't created on the same day as the comment. Grustaf didn't address my question about high school directly, but zacmcloud, feel free to post a direct question to me and I'll reply. I can't read your mind, but your framing doesn't seem to match Grustaf in any meaningful way. If anything, Grustaf and I are finding a narrowing spectrum of disagreement, whereas your post is mostly a trite argument made against corporate PR of all kinds.
Allow me to steelman Grustaf's position as I understand it relative to zacmcloud who seems to think Grustaf shares roughly the same view as theirs. Grustaf is the type of person who would not refer to anyone as "trailer trash" even in jest or to quote someone, because Grustaf is of of the opinion that they act and are colorblind, and has behaved in such a way even in the thread by using colorblind language not to sanitize their speech, but because their use of language attempts to practice what it preaches. Grustaf would argue something like that if we seek an equitable and just society in America, [Grustaf self identified as European, giving no indication of race] then America should emulate Europe where such equity, equality, and social programs should be administered on the basis of economic need and the laws and orgs should not resort to racial language and framing altogether, because it should be based on economic or human needs that should be readily apparent with no need to poll or take into account skin color.
To steelman Grustaf further, I suppose Grustaf doesn't see an irony that dark skinned grapes aren't even allowed to be called Champagne, because Grustaf would say that grapes are not people, and that sparkling red wine made in Champagne tastes entirely different, but were it to taste the same, then the red Champagne and the white Champagne would almost certainly be given equal shelfspace and cost roughly the same if made by the same winery. Grustaf would on the other hand say that human beings transcend such issues, and certainly any person of any color can be and achieve and have the same intelligence and thoughts as any other so long as they are given equal opportunity. Grustaf believes that what Apple has done here is erode the principle of equal opportunity in attempt to try to provide equal opportunity.
I tend to think Grustaf might still think that if they were an American living in the country, but based on what Grustaf has said, they would be equally shocked at how not universal our basic social services are, even to elites. Grustaf would say "All men are created equal" should be made true in America so much so that racial language need no longer apply.
I just happen to find that either naive, or not pragmatic enough given the state of America in 2020. I can give Grustaf the benefit of the doubt, to a degree, because they admit to not being an American and seem to imply they don't live in America. It is easy to see how they do not have a full picture, and they admitted to as such.
I happen to feel that Apple's move is their best intentioned pragmatism to take a stand for something.
Zacmcloud on the other hand seems to have no such positions as above, and calls people "trailer trash" in jest. If zacmcloud is referring to me as the type of person who thinks any Whites are "trailer trash" let me correct the record. If working class Whites in Appalachia or Detroit were given access to an elite education through social programs, I'd be all for it, and presumably so would Grustaf. We just disagree that racial language in such initiatives kills the intiatives altogether. One reason being is American descendants of slaves aren't given popularized names for their heritage like Appalachia, and such terms typically exclude such people implicitly or explicitly in their definition, and often not by the people who coin the terms, but by the people who apply them. In my view, Grustaf's position is untenable in America at this time in the same way that if MLK's I have a dream speach would have been unintelligible had he not kept the words Black and White in.
"I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls." MLK
Someone maybe believe MLK could have said "of all races" and accomplished the same thing. To that position I say, then why wasn't "All men are created equal" sufficient to address slavery, much less racial ineq...
More likely what is happening in the investment part of this is something similar to what's happening in the other components of the announcements. Which is investing in geographic areas that typically are not places where white people typically frequent (and which often get shut out of other investment opportunities). Edit: to expand on this a little: if you solicit investment proposals only from businesses headquartered in downtown Detroit, you will get a different makeup of founders than if you only solicit from those within an hour drive of e.g. Sand Hill Road. This is legal.
Investing in HBCUs isn't racial discrimination because any student is welcome there. And obviously anyone can go to the Developer Academy in downtown Detroit, but Detroit is obviously an intentional choice.
And choosing to invest in "companies with diverse founders" would seem to be more defensible than what the Northern California VCs typically do. Read it as "invest in Black and brown companies also" as opposed to the prevailing standard of "invest in Black and brown companies rarely."
Sure, that makes sense. Investing in companies based in predominantly black neighborhoods is easy to see that it’s legal.
But then announcing you’ll invest in “black businesses” seems questionable.
But to your last point, there is no “prevailing standard” to “invest rarely” in black businesses. At least I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy.
> But then announcing you’ll invest in “black businesses” seems questionable.
Again, read it as investing in "Black businesses also". That's what makes it different than mainstream investing, which invests in "Black businesses rarely, if ever." (And controversial! See other comments here.)
> I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy.
Search for VCs explicitly saying they look for entrepreneurs who "pattern match" or "look like Mark Zuckerberg" etc. They are as explicit as possible without breaking the law. Regardless of intent, even accidental disparities create gaps that bring opportunities.
> VCs looking for that would most likely be happy to invest in founders of any colour that match his personality.
Track records say otherwise.
And again, there is plenty on the record indicating that what they mean is exactly what it sounds like: they are looking for a close match for Zuckerberg on every axis. Sure, personality, but also traits like age, pedigree, and phenotype. All available in Google if you're curious.
You would have to ask them. I have said repeatedly that this is well-documented over time and on the record. It's actually pretty basic search engine usage given that I cited some specific phrases to search for.
The other basis is expressed in the companies in which they choose to invest.
I’ve only ever heard of stats regarding _total_ investments, not investments relative to proposals or anything that would be needed to prove discrimination.
Again, this is well-documented and has been reported on and researched (with public research) by professionals who specialize in this. You don't have to take my word for it, but if you use your favorite search engine and some of the quotes upthread, you will find some nice entry points.
Publicly stating that investments from a fund will only be given to particular racial groups likely meets most people’s definition of “discrimination on the basis of race”.
These are the only investments I’m aware of that apple makes that are targeted at particular racial groups. The others are available without racial discrimination. While the racial composition of the recipients may not be in proportion with each race’s representation in the general population, I do not believe that makes them “racist”. In my view, “racism” is when race is made an explicit criterion in decision making, as apple is demonstrating here.
No, reservations are not given on the basis of race, they are part of peace treaties negotiated between "countries" such as "the cherokee nation", "the navajo nation", etc. They are no more racist than treaties signed with other nations whose population is mostly one particular race.
According to dictionaries, the word is commonly used to describe prejudice and discrimination based on race.[48][49]
From the two citations:
[48]
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
[49]
a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Apple choosing to invest in educational and entrepreneurial programs for "Black and Brown companies" is in no way antagonism towards other races nor is it an indication that Apple supports a belief that any race is superior.
> Apple choosing to invest in educational and entrepreneurial programs for "Black and Brown companies" is in no way antagonism towards other races nor is it an indication that Apple supports a belief that any race is superior.
I agree that it does not indicate "antagonism" or "superiority", but you left out "discrimination", which is right there in the definition in your comment. I believe that apple's program "discriminates" on the basis of race, and therefore is racist.
"Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.[1] People may be discriminated on the basis of race, gender, age or sexual orientation, as well as other categories.[2] Discrimination especially occurs when individuals or groups are unfairly treated in a way which is worse than other people are treated, on the basis of their actual or perceived membership in certain groups or social categories.[2][3] It involves restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4]
Do you think Apple giving 100MM specifically to "Black and Brown companies" is unjustified?
A good thought experiment is replacing "Black and Brown" by "Caucasian". Not saying they should not do it, but there is an actual discrimination (a non-black and brown company won't have access to this).
If the investment precluded any participation by Caucasians (which it doesn't) can you think of a way that investing 100MM in "Black and Brown businesses" actually delivers returns well in excess of 100MM?
It's almost as if investing in communities that have been underserved, could somehow, trickle through the economy as a whole at a disproportionally high rate of return. You know, as opposed to investing it where monetary wealth is already largely concentrated.
If the fund will not preclude any races then that of course settles it, but I think many got the impression that this program does preclude some groups.
Regarding your second point, it is bot really relevant and if the project will “deliver returns” or not. Setting up a program that explicitly only invests in anglo-american harvard grads would probably give good returns too, but it would still be pretty racist.
I think I know what you meant, but in America Anglo-American would either imply White non Hispanics (as opposed to White Hispanics or White descendants of French first speaking people who were white) or it would mean virtually anyone born in America or elsewhere whose first language was English and is now an American citizen. In any event, virtually all 2nd generation American undergrads would fit the latter definition, and the former definition would not imply a racist scholarship by your definition, but a prejudice against non anglophone white people and non anglophone non whites alike. Given that Harvard and its scholarships almost certainly assume near native proficiency in English, I'm not sure if you argued my point or yours more effectively to be honest.
Joe Biden, the president elect, just gave a speech saying "Our priority will be Black, Latino, Asian, and Native American owned small businesses, women-owned businesses..." regarding pandemic recovery. This is a very popular approach with a large cultural group in the US.
"No. Self-identification is the preferred method of identifying the race and ethnic information necessary for the EEO-1 report. Employers are required to offer employees the opportunity to use self-identification to complete the EEO-1 report. If an employee declines to self-identify, employment records or observer observation may be used."
This is so crazy for Europeans. If an employer asked you about your race I'm pretty sure you could sue them. Hell it's not even legal to ask your age or sex as far as I know.
So one can discriminate against a group, defined by race ("white people in the us"), but you say that's not racist? That's amazing anti-logic (a.k.a. nonsense).
> (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them.
Huh. So, what if we revisit this concept with the actual balance of ethnic power in the United States, as revealed by actual income and status statistics, rather than the WASP bogeyman that may have been true in 1963?
Is it no longer possible to be racist toward Brahmin Indian immigrants, second generation children of Chinese and Korean immigrants, Jewish people, and the broadly English/Nord stock that comprise the vast bulk of the Mormons?
This is great news, because I'm sitting on a pile of real zingers about Guamanians I couldn't use because it used to be racist. Now that it's not, the offensive jokes will flow!
I think private companies can decide themselves what companies they want to invest in. Whatever the reason is, even outside of US. So I'm pretty sure this is legal.
As European (we don't have this racial segregation fetish so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject) I'm more interested how they define black and brown companies?
What if the company is owned by 3 people, 2 black, 1 white? Will they invest 33% less because the company is partially owned by a person of wrong race? What if it's 50/50? What about muslims? Women? LGBTQ? What if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black? Where do they draw the line?
This is actually fairly easy. Typically in tech, management and ownership % for white men approach 100% in the limit. So companies will typically count as investing in a minority business all of the edge cases you can think of, because the norm is ~100% white men in positions of power in a company.
> if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black
This is an intellectual creation that does not exist in the real world as a company that has received institutional capital.
Jews come in many ethnicities. I would imagine that for example Jews from Ethiopia are not considered "white." But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
As another European observing the political climate overseas I get what you mean; with the same news reversed and Apple announcing founding for Historically White Colleges and Universities and venture capital funding for White and Pale entrepreneurs it would be still legally sound as this one but would cause a shit storm so big, no umbrella or anorak would be able to protect anyone from it.
I don't get how the subjects of clear publicity stunts like these don't get offended that a multi-billion dollar company is piggybacking a legitimate movement investing a buck to get two more later on. The argument "if they are doing something good and getting profit out of it, it's a win-win" just does not sound right on the ideological level. If you want to do good, you can do it for free, especially if you have billions in cash.
Yes it is legal with the caveat that it has to be in favor of black, hispanic, or native americans. And that racial discrimination is allowed to extend to much more tangible things like hiring/promotions and university admissions. However, I don't think targeted investment like this is discrimination, though. In this case it is legitimately an undeserved market and potentially a gain for Apple to go after it.
>Honest question: is it actually legal is the US to discriminate by race like this, and “invest in black and brown companies”?
Yes. I don't know why this appears to be such a common form of confusion on HN (same principle applies to recent free speech debates too), but you have no right to a private entity's resources. Public resources, those of the government which are backed by force and come from us all, those have strong limits. But private entities are free to invest however they like, or not. Public serving companies do face requirements when it comes to providing general service, and employment to Protected Classes [1]. But when it comes where to actively invest their time or money, the government generally has no role to play except in the civil enforcement sense, though society of course always does.
>I thought they ended this in the education system (“affirmative action”) because it was illegal?
Actually that's still an ongoing debate, but that aside "the education system" almost always means "the public education system", including any institutions that are nominally private but depend significantly on federal grants or loans. Taking money often comes with strings attached, and public institutions are often quasi-government legally. Public universities are bound by the 1st Amendment for example in ways that private ones are not. Apple is in no way a public institution.
Also, again investment and their own speech is not the same as "providing service".
----
1: These are specific things under US federal law, and states are free to have additional requirements for local businesses as well. The federal ones are:
Age (40+), Disability status, Familial status, Genetic information, National origin, Pregnancy, Race, Religion, Sex, Sexual orientation & gender identity, and Veteran status. Most of these come directly or indirectly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though there have been later laws for some (genetic information being added was sometime in the 2000s).
>It’s probably confusing because it seems absurd, in how many western democracies is it legal to discriminate based on race?
In how many is it not? Not sarcasm at all, I haven't studied law much outside of the US and I'm genuinely curious where you have in mind that you or I could look at our investment portfolio and go "I think re-weighting to have some more minority managed companies would yield improved gains" and that would be illegal. I doubt it'd actually be a good investment strategy sure, but a crime?
Public accommodations law and protections for employment and so on are all quite common, but in what western democracies are you required by law to donate or invest money with the same restrictions government would face? Not saying they aren't out there or that I can't imagine some reasoning that would lead to such laws, just wondering where and how that's worked out.
I would presume that it’s illegal in most countries to have a policy of investing only or mostly in companies led by people with a specific skin colour.
In Sweden for example, as far as I know, the only degree of discrimination that is allowed is to prefer one biological/ethnic etc category over another when the candidates are equally good in all other respects.
"White" isn't a race. There is no such thing as biological races [1]. Discrimination against "black" people happens on the basis of legacy concepts of "race". There is no discrimination in absence of access/power differences.
(Yes, some "black" people don't get the race part either. And yes, some of them are dicks. And yes, Twitter sucks.)
Americans love talking about “white” and “race”, but just substitute “irish american” or any ethnicity you want. It still surprising that it’s allowed.
And you think it may be just a translation problem...
But then you see this comment section and they actually mean it in a sense of biological essentialism. Figure, how much you have to unpack in every damn discussion... I would shoot myself twice, every day.
So Apple makes money with cheap and forced labor provided by ethnic groups like Uighur's (1) and then they spend it on other ethnic groups for good PR...
These are like the worst things a corporation can do. These seem a bit more important to address. no? Apple is a multi trillion $$ company, is it really that hard to create "no child labor in our supply chain" policy.
These racial justice initiatives are just a marketing tool to increase their USA sales ? Muslim slave labor doesn't buy iphones so its ok?
Well, it's a huge company with far-flung supply networks and they can't control all working conditions (and stay competitive).
That said, they are trying to get rid of whatever slave-labor and child-labor taint exists in the supply chain. Probably it's not totally possible if you're sourcing from China and SE Asia, but yeah, they do have to at least make some effort.
Of course they could control working conditions if they wanted to, Apple and Tim Cook are world leaders in logistics, they probably have the most well-managed supply chain in the history of the universe.
They have complete control over every detail they care about and can demand whatever they want from suppliers. If Apple wanted Foxconn workers to wear polka dot hairnets they would be manufactured and distributed within 48 hours.
Their competitiveness relies completely on suppliers NOT providing Western level working conditions, then their phones would be way too expensive.
Having said all this, it's also important to keep in mind that working conditions in other factories in China are not necessarily better.
It's convenient that companies can do more than one thing at a time. I agree that these are also important but I don't think they detract from this cause.
What we don’t know, is whether the intention of these ‘good’ initiatives is to detract and distract from other ‘bad’ things (which would cost a ton of money to fix).
E.g. there can be a PR strategy that appears good enough for a political group in power to be the least costly thing to do.
Is this a way to get enough brownie points in the eyes of public and Government, so that they won't end up getting broken into separate hardware and service companies due to Epic lawsuit, anti-trust legislation, etc.?
EDIT: Changed language with unintended connotations.
But for what it's worth, I think it's an absurd idea to try and cleanse oneself of 4chan memes, since they form such a significant strata of internet culture. The attitude that some people have towards 4chan is embarrassing. It's just a website. Yes, it harbours fascists, but so does every other website. Moreover it's one of the few places left on the internet where people say what they think rather than what they want other people to think they think...
> Moreover it's one of the few places left on the internet where people say what they think rather than what they want other people to think they think...
As an engineer, I believe in tradeoffs and pragmatism, not dogmatism. Thus, I have no issue with GP's objection and have made the suggested edit.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with using 4chan, or many memes that come out of 4chan. Most early memes have originated from 4chan anyways.
There is definitely something with being racist and generally unpleasant, which is only a tiny portion of 4chan, just like it is a tiny portion of twitter, or reddit. You are using a part to make a judgement on the whole, which anyone can do for any website. Is reddit a "bad" website because there are anti climate change subreddits?
> There is definitely something with being racist and generally unpleasant, which is only a tiny portion of 4chan, just like it is a tiny portion of twitter, or reddit
Can't believe we're already re-writing the history of early 4chan. I was there, I saw it, as I'm sure plenty of others on this site have.
I guess it really depends on what boards you go on. I may be seeing an incomplete picture because I browse /g/, /sci/ & sometimes /ic/. However if you go to /pol/ & /b/ (containment zone for the fringes & board for naked bums) you may see a very different picture
I also spent time on /g/ and /sci/, they are also quite racist, but not the burning shitfire that /b/ is.
Literally the 4th post on /g/ right now is about American tech companies and complaining that they make you support black people (well, except they used the n-word for black people).
Why do you think that social justice should only be worked on by NGOs? It seems that all of the comments on this thread are folks who don't want Apple working on social problems.
Apple customers know the supply chain is supported by coerced labor and they don't care. I mean...look no further than HN...everyone here has seen the stories, and you are all still buying iPhones.
What about the device you’re writing this from? I bet it was assembled by the same kind of labor. This isn’t limited to “Apple customers”, so don’t act like it is.
It’s currently impossible to buy a good performing smartphone that has been ethically manufactured.
Reports of dizziness? You honestly think these are remotely in the same ballpark as whats going on with Apple's supply chain? HN really just wants to excuse its own collective inability to act on the endless virtue signalling. Well the good news for you and everyone else is that you can continue to do whatever it is you did yesterday...because you found a counterexample! Congrats, bookmark it!
I've always taken "social justice" as a dogwhistle for "Let's address social issues in a way that solves them only for certain minorities". That suspicion has been strengthened again and again every time I've seen the word used unironically.
No, corporate social justice usually means low impact changes that don’t affect the bottom line.
I’m saying that speaking as someone who’s been on one of those social justice teams and was frustrated to discover we were mostly there for PR reasons.
Sure, but here the key word seems to be "corporate" and perhaps D&I, rather than social justice as a concept, which is much more all-encompassing, and includes stuff like pushing for a union, paying workers a living wage, as well as recognizing that racism is a real thing.
That’s fair, I agree with your definition of social justice generally, but I think the way it’s wielded by the powerful usually defangs the term. And that watered down definition has become the more common colloquial definition imo.
I do think huge companies should take a stance on social justice issues, as they have a lot of power...
Both can be done, but the things you stated are the minimum, not optional, if they care about humans at all.
Fair and safe working conditions first. Duh.
Then enabling equality in access and participation. Apple is enforcing the social status quo, if they uphold economic entry barriers. Gender and race issues are important, but for the most part they manifest as class issues. Much safer and easier to become an iOS developer, if you're a white dude, than a black woman. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you can't afford a Mac for development or the AppStore license.
So doing both is important, but without tidying up your own yard, it's all just green washing a dirty white collar.
On the matter of Parker, Apple likely banned Parler because of exposure to criminal, civil, and PR liability. Per the CEO of Parler, banks and payment vendors, law firms, and text and mail services also cancelled on them. That’s why people are talking about alternative currencies in the same breath as Parler.
Anyone too slow to ban Parker could face a full court press from all sides, and not merely any one firm. Apple has also banned porn and that is not legally required at all, and somewhat ideological.
"Juvenile crime/delinquency, teen pregnancy, teen
drug abuse and school dropout correlated with fatherlessness more than any other socioeconomic
factor."
If you want to solve racial equality, and boost the lives of African Americans, then do something about absent fathers or single mothers. An expansion of planned parenthood, and removing all welfare incentives to be a single mother is probably a good idea (and instead encouraging intact families).
As an outsider I think it's really interesting that how a class issue (rich vs poor) became purely a race issue. Of course they come together to some extent but I think the root cause is the economic inequality no matter what. Yet like now Apple most companies will only focus explicitly on two groups (blacks and browns). Honestly nothing will change on the long term while the 1% keeps its position and they can divide the regular public.
It's long been said that you can mix ethnicities and races but you can't mix economic classes. Americans have yet to understand this clearly.
The integration of New York City neighborhoods in the 1960s-70s led to massive white flight out of the city, lowering the middle class population drastically and destroying stable districts. Was it worth it? Some claim yes, others claim no. I believe the city made a mistake by buying up property and giving it to lower income ethnic minorities to forcibly integrate neighborhoods, rather than encourage organic integration by business investment, tax breaks, opportunity zones, etc.
> rather than encourage organic integration by business investment, tax breaks, opportunity zones, etc.
We've had a few decades of this - it has not really done much and racial wealth inequality is still massive, while informal segregation is at the highest levels it has ever been since Brown v. Board.
Yes & no. I agree that race is not the be all/end all, but the racial wealth gap in the states is so great that when you're talking about low income/poverty, there is huge overlap between race and class status.
Obviously Apple has no vested interested in combatting wealth inequality, but I think that any movement against inequality needs to also recognize how vast and rampant racial wealth inequality is.
Then don't be surprised when the non-black underclass groups on the right, and the divide continues. If the racial wealth gap is big, it can be closed by simply supporting the poorest groups. No need to exclude people who happen to share their skin color with the modal billionaire.
Well, the last time I checked, the people in the US didn't want any social security systems for everyone to help the poor, because black Americans would also profit from it.
At least that's what comes up in the occasional article about these issues. Racism is apparently an obstacle here.
> Well, the last time I checked, the people in the US didn't want any social security systems for everyone to help the poor, because black Americans would also profit from it.
I don't see why a racist opinion would matter, even if the whole group were white as a lily and too poor to live.
> Racism is apparently an obstacle here.
And it probably is, but this approach is not going to help overcome that.
One of the problems with trying to solve poverty is that focusing on "poor people" is a method that helps keep people stuck because you have to be poor to get the help.
Focusing on other characteristics that tend to correlate to poverty is a more effective means to break the cycle.
Tho, I think class is more than just income. E.g. you don't become upper class as a prostitute or drug dealer, just because you manged to get by well.
Either way, within a class a white man will still have better chances for influence and freedom than a black trans woman. So gender and "race" are not obsolete classifications.
However, I think any sense of identity is the cognitive fallout of experiencing lack of self-efficacy, chronically. Seeing the increase in white men building an identity around being "white" and male, too, indicates a wide decrease in class mobility.
Pitching those identities against each other is indeed class warfare.
Most of the social justice thrust that comes into the mainstream is just upper-class people trying to minimize analysis of themselves and construct an elaborate belief system to cast themselves as moral actors.
This is not by chance, this was by design. Hyperfocusing on race, sexual orientation and gender helps to significantly downplay the class, economic and geographical differences. So in this world Taylor Swift, Colin Kaepernick,Tim Cook and Caytlin Jenner are helpless victims of the system while a poor white unemployed Oklahoman or a Bulgarian truck driver are little better that vermins because they are at the helm of an hypothetical totem pole. supposedly calling all the shots.
"...global innovation and learning hub for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); an Apple Developer Academy to support coding and tech education for students in Detroit; and venture capital funding for Black and Brown entrepreneurs..."
The notion of technology initiatives in underserved communities is excellent and badly needed. The way to achieve "racial equity" is to provide better education and job opportunities to help bring under-performing populations up to par, and then their children will grow up in better school districts and have higher standards and expectations as well.
At least, that's the theory. There are no magic wands to cause these kinds of massive socio-economic changes overnight, but this sounds like a good step in the right direction.
If anything, I might question why "only" $100m? A corporation that currently has $191B in cash could presumably afford to part with more than that. But, a small step in the right direction is better than none, and certainly sets a great example of corporate good citizenship.
Why not more money? Shareholders of course. We’re talking about a company that skirts US labor laws by hiring in China. All profitable companies make these decisions to survive and succeed, not to improve the world the best they can.
> The Apple Developer Academy will offer two programs in Detroit. A 30-day introductory program is designed for learners who are considering app economy careers and looking to better understand what it means to be a developer. The full academy program is an intensive 10- to 12-month program that will help aspiring developers build the skills needed to participate in the iOS app economy, and even start their own businesses. Apple expects the academy’s programming to reach close to 1,000 students each year with a curriculum that covers coding, design, marketing, and professional skills.
It appears just like M1 chips social justice and racial equity are also in service of and limited to Apple's interests.
It's always eye-opening to see how things like this are received on HN. A private company is free to do whatever it wants, and investing in the under-served and/or minority communities does no harm to others. Sure, Apple doing this is self-serving; I don't believe that it would have been done otherwise. However, these programs will help impart useful skills, and may have the effect of allowing for more economic mobility for these communities, which is wonderful and still hurts no one. I mean, seriously, $100 million pales in comparison to the institutionalized wealth disparity between the majority white population and long-marginalized minority communities, but it's a start.
It’s a start, you’re just seeing dissatisfaction at how “underserved community” is being tied to race in the context of 100mm of aid distribution. A much better indicator at least would be something approximating class or general financial opportunity. I’m totally into the idea Apple can spend their money how they want, it just bugs me no one wants to call their strategy racist.
I myself came from an underprivileged community (or at least one that was poor and not particularly mobile), and I can think of several friends growing up who were also into tech and programming like I was. None of them could afford college, and last time we talked they had just stopped pursuing tech altogether since it’s pretty hard to do without a degree. When I eventually lucked into working for a FAANG, most of the people I ended up working with came from all the good schools I never really had a chance of getting in either way, or at least largely weren’t white. There was probably still privilege specific to white males that helped along the way, but being lumped in with the billionaires and compared to a another set of large and similarly generalized non-white and/or non-male communities has always felt unjust and frustrating to me. I wish I could have ended up working with my childhood friends, maybe if they had this sort of attention things could have been different.
Not sure why this is getting such push back on Hacker News. This actually seems like the more effective way to help raise people up vs having silent (bonus based) hiring quotas. It is also smart as it feeds into Apple's ecosystem
Yeah it's definitely more constructive to start as far upstream as you can. Hiring people based on race seems condescending and might fuel resentment.
The issue with this for me, and probably for many non-Americans, is that explicitly favouring particular races at all is pretty baffling, it wouldn't be allowed here.
Personally I think they should launch programs to help disadvantaged people, regardless of race and sex. Why exclude poor white people, and why include wealthy black people? Racism is not the only reason someone may have a hard time in America, it's a very difficult place to live for anyone that is poor or lacks supportive parents.
> I would've expected the crowd here to be more educated or open minded.
Have you ever considered that describing your own preconceived ideas as "open minded", and discounting those who disagree with them out of hand, is in fact the opposite of open minded?
I am curious how much taxes Apple avoided in 2019 or 2020 compared to this $100 million incentive. I have a hunkering that if Apple were to pay taxes they owe it would be more beneficial to society.
And only then can they start patting themselves on the back when introducing various social programs that they pay for from their revenue.
"Racial and systemic equity" > forced labor and immoral practices in parts factories in the third world.
Racial equity is the bogeyman that's meant to save an unpopular capitalistic model. If working class people are arguing over racism, it distracts from the "inequity" of people like Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos having access to lawmakers, schools, healthcare and security that almost none of us have access to.
168 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 209 ms ] threadI thought they ended this in the education system (“affirmative action”) because it was illegal?
> Although HBCUs were originally founded to educate black students, their diversity has increased over time. In 2015, students who were either white, Hispanic, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Native American made up 22% of total enrollment at HBCUs, compared with 15% in 1976.[42]
> Contemporary academic usage of the term "regime" is broader than popular and journalistic usage, meaning "an intermediate stratum between the government (which makes day-to-day decisions and is easy to alter) and the state (which is a complex bureaucracy tasked with a range of coercive functions)."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime
Our dead and flagged parent probably thinks that there will be some broader paradigm change in the social justice approach between the Trump and the Biden administration and that the latter will be more supportive on affirmative action.
I think that's not particularly controversial.
It is not the case that "they ended this in the education system", and the reality is quite a complex mix of overlapping rules and systems in different circumstances.
I mean surely it can’t be legal to open a coffee shop and refuse service to some racial groups?
And I’m not sure what the problem with my coffee shop example is, are the rules different for shops than for universities, or why is it irrelevant?
Your specific example is simplified to the point of irrelevance. Coffee shops and universities are different places. Denying service to a group based on their characteristics is a different thing from investing in a program targeted at that group. Actions involving underrepresented groups have different impact from the same actions involving majority groups.
It's like pointing out that "you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre so freedom of speech doesn't exist!" when in reality the whole situation is way more complex, and simple examples don't have any relevance.
It would be interesting to know what the legal limit actually is.
When we say "Black Church" in America, we don't mean a church for Blacks only, we mean churches that historically arose because other races would not allow Blacks in their congregation (be it illegal to discriminate or not). There is no connotation that a "Black Church" wants to exclude other races.
So the line is drawn somewhere between those two, I just wonder where.
You seem rather concerned with college admissions, where is your concern for the fact that many if not most elite public American high schools would be out of reach for racial minorities even if their child has has perfect grades since Kindergarden. These kids can't simply 'apply' to whichever high school in the country they please.
In Europe it is illegal to label a wine Champagne if the grape is the wrong color or not grown in a particular bespoke part of France. Yet, you are baffled the line for racial equity in America is somewhat gray, absurd.
I do not for the record think it is strange that only wine made in Champagne can be called Champagne. What could be offensive about that?
I talk about college admission because that's where discrimination seems to be legal.
> out of reach for racial minorities even if their child has has perfect grades since Kindergarden
As we know, when applying to college their race is actually an advantage, so why would they not be admitted, given their perfect grades?
I think there should be systems in place to help all disadvantaged people, regardless of race.
Since there are some black kids with wealthy parents, and many white kids with poor parents, it seems obvious that race is a very unfair basis, why not simply assist people that need assistance without looking at their skin colour?
For some reason the US has it in it's head that we can balance the scales by putting our thumbs on one group and lowering the bar for others. Weirdly they don't see the hypocrisy or outright foolishness behind "fixing" racism with more racism.
Of course, like all things like this it has almost no effect on the ultra rich and truely privileged, and will negatively effect the underprivileged "whites" of all races (weirdly, just like every other race, white people are not just some big homogenous color but makeup diverse individual cultures with distinctive history).
But I guess those privileged trailer trash should use their privilege to buy themselves access to an ivy league education.
Honestly Apple's little PR stunt is the least insulting of this stuff recently. If you want to see really stupid, look at reddits CEO stepping down and saying his job will go to a black person (and it did). That is illegal but it was just ignored. Or the incoming US president who said he VP pick would be a "woman of color". Of course I'm sure someone will defend picking VPs based on their genetics and chromosome amounts by saying "we already pick that way anyway, its why its all white men in politics!". Because clearly you fix something by propagating it.
The world is so upside down now that suggesting we be colorblind is racist.
To steelman Grustaf further, I suppose Grustaf doesn't see an irony that dark skinned grapes aren't even allowed to be called Champagne, because Grustaf would say that grapes are not people, and that sparkling red wine made in Champagne tastes entirely different, but were it to taste the same, then the red Champagne and the white Champagne would almost certainly be given equal shelfspace and cost roughly the same if made by the same winery. Grustaf would on the other hand say that human beings transcend such issues, and certainly any person of any color can be and achieve and have the same intelligence and thoughts as any other so long as they are given equal opportunity. Grustaf believes that what Apple has done here is erode the principle of equal opportunity in attempt to try to provide equal opportunity.
I tend to think Grustaf might still think that if they were an American living in the country, but based on what Grustaf has said, they would be equally shocked at how not universal our basic social services are, even to elites. Grustaf would say "All men are created equal" should be made true in America so much so that racial language need no longer apply.
I just happen to find that either naive, or not pragmatic enough given the state of America in 2020. I can give Grustaf the benefit of the doubt, to a degree, because they admit to not being an American and seem to imply they don't live in America. It is easy to see how they do not have a full picture, and they admitted to as such.
I happen to feel that Apple's move is their best intentioned pragmatism to take a stand for something.
Zacmcloud on the other hand seems to have no such positions as above, and calls people "trailer trash" in jest. If zacmcloud is referring to me as the type of person who thinks any Whites are "trailer trash" let me correct the record. If working class Whites in Appalachia or Detroit were given access to an elite education through social programs, I'd be all for it, and presumably so would Grustaf. We just disagree that racial language in such initiatives kills the intiatives altogether. One reason being is American descendants of slaves aren't given popularized names for their heritage like Appalachia, and such terms typically exclude such people implicitly or explicitly in their definition, and often not by the people who coin the terms, but by the people who apply them. In my view, Grustaf's position is untenable in America at this time in the same way that if MLK's I have a dream speach would have been unintelligible had he not kept the words Black and White in.
"I have a dream that one day little black boys and girls will be holding hands with little white boys and girls." MLK
Someone maybe believe MLK could have said "of all races" and accomplished the same thing. To that position I say, then why wasn't "All men are created equal" sufficient to address slavery, much less racial ineq...
Investing in HBCUs isn't racial discrimination because any student is welcome there. And obviously anyone can go to the Developer Academy in downtown Detroit, but Detroit is obviously an intentional choice.
And choosing to invest in "companies with diverse founders" would seem to be more defensible than what the Northern California VCs typically do. Read it as "invest in Black and brown companies also" as opposed to the prevailing standard of "invest in Black and brown companies rarely."
But then announcing you’ll invest in “black businesses” seems questionable.
But to your last point, there is no “prevailing standard” to “invest rarely” in black businesses. At least I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy.
Again, read it as investing in "Black businesses also". That's what makes it different than mainstream investing, which invests in "Black businesses rarely, if ever." (And controversial! See other comments here.)
> I don’t think many VCs have that as an explicit policy.
Search for VCs explicitly saying they look for entrepreneurs who "pattern match" or "look like Mark Zuckerberg" etc. They are as explicit as possible without breaking the law. Regardless of intent, even accidental disparities create gaps that bring opportunities.
VCs looking for that would most likely be happy to invest in founders of any colour that match his personality.
Track records say otherwise.
And again, there is plenty on the record indicating that what they mean is exactly what it sounds like: they are looking for a close match for Zuckerberg on every axis. Sure, personality, but also traits like age, pedigree, and phenotype. All available in Google if you're curious.
The other basis is expressed in the companies in which they choose to invest.
Do you have any links?
Good luck with your journey.
See wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
> According to dictionaries, the word is commonly used to describe prejudice and discrimination based on race.
That seems to match what I wrote above.
From the two citations: [48]
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
[49] a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Apple choosing to invest in educational and entrepreneurial programs for "Black and Brown companies" is in no way antagonism towards other races nor is it an indication that Apple supports a belief that any race is superior.
I agree that it does not indicate "antagonism" or "superiority", but you left out "discrimination", which is right there in the definition in your comment. I believe that apple's program "discriminates" on the basis of race, and therefore is racist.
"Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.[1] People may be discriminated on the basis of race, gender, age or sexual orientation, as well as other categories.[2] Discrimination especially occurs when individuals or groups are unfairly treated in a way which is worse than other people are treated, on the basis of their actual or perceived membership in certain groups or social categories.[2][3] It involves restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4]
Do you think Apple giving 100MM specifically to "Black and Brown companies" is unjustified?
In your quote: "It involves restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group."
Apple is restricting people who are not black or brown from this opportunity.
https://harlem.capital/pitch/
The first of their five pillars:
"We invest in founders from all backgrounds, genders and walks of life"
It's almost as if investing in communities that have been underserved, could somehow, trickle through the economy as a whole at a disproportionally high rate of return. You know, as opposed to investing it where monetary wealth is already largely concentrated.
Regarding your second point, it is bot really relevant and if the project will “deliver returns” or not. Setting up a program that explicitly only invests in anglo-american harvard grads would probably give good returns too, but it would still be pretty racist.
https://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo-1-survey/eeo-1-frequently...
"No. Self-identification is the preferred method of identifying the race and ethnic information necessary for the EEO-1 report. Employers are required to offer employees the opportunity to use self-identification to complete the EEO-1 report. If an employee declines to self-identify, employment records or observer observation may be used."
This will illegal in Europe.
Discrimination is making choices that negatively impact a group based on some criteria.
Racism is discrimination plus systemic power imbalances that enforce this discrimination.
One can be discriminatory towards the powerful group (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them.
I'm happy to drive to why it is not, as you describe, nonsense if you are willing to have a critical and rational discussion.
> One can be discriminatory towards the powerful group (e.g. white people in the US for instance), but not racist towards them.
Just for anyone reading this who isn't familiar: this is a radical theory and isn't at all a generally accepted idea.
And it's also a viewpoint that is more commonly held by the political left. I'll grant that too.
Describing it as 'radical' is something I'd disagree with.
Huh. So, what if we revisit this concept with the actual balance of ethnic power in the United States, as revealed by actual income and status statistics, rather than the WASP bogeyman that may have been true in 1963?
Is it no longer possible to be racist toward Brahmin Indian immigrants, second generation children of Chinese and Korean immigrants, Jewish people, and the broadly English/Nord stock that comprise the vast bulk of the Mormons?
This is great news, because I'm sitting on a pile of real zingers about Guamanians I couldn't use because it used to be racist. Now that it's not, the offensive jokes will flow!
As European (we don't have this racial segregation fetish so please excuse my lack of knowledge on the subject) I'm more interested how they define black and brown companies? What if the company is owned by 3 people, 2 black, 1 white? Will they invest 33% less because the company is partially owned by a person of wrong race? What if it's 50/50? What about muslims? Women? LGBTQ? What if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black? Where do they draw the line?
> if the company is owned by white people, but upper management is fully black
This is an intellectual creation that does not exist in the real world as a company that has received institutional capital.
I don't get how the subjects of clear publicity stunts like these don't get offended that a multi-billion dollar company is piggybacking a legitimate movement investing a buck to get two more later on. The argument "if they are doing something good and getting profit out of it, it's a win-win" just does not sound right on the ideological level. If you want to do good, you can do it for free, especially if you have billions in cash.
Yes. I don't know why this appears to be such a common form of confusion on HN (same principle applies to recent free speech debates too), but you have no right to a private entity's resources. Public resources, those of the government which are backed by force and come from us all, those have strong limits. But private entities are free to invest however they like, or not. Public serving companies do face requirements when it comes to providing general service, and employment to Protected Classes [1]. But when it comes where to actively invest their time or money, the government generally has no role to play except in the civil enforcement sense, though society of course always does.
>I thought they ended this in the education system (“affirmative action”) because it was illegal?
Actually that's still an ongoing debate, but that aside "the education system" almost always means "the public education system", including any institutions that are nominally private but depend significantly on federal grants or loans. Taking money often comes with strings attached, and public institutions are often quasi-government legally. Public universities are bound by the 1st Amendment for example in ways that private ones are not. Apple is in no way a public institution.
Also, again investment and their own speech is not the same as "providing service".
----
1: These are specific things under US federal law, and states are free to have additional requirements for local businesses as well. The federal ones are: Age (40+), Disability status, Familial status, Genetic information, National origin, Pregnancy, Race, Religion, Sex, Sexual orientation & gender identity, and Veteran status. Most of these come directly or indirectly from the Civil Rights Act of 1964, though there have been later laws for some (genetic information being added was sometime in the 2000s).
In how many is it not? Not sarcasm at all, I haven't studied law much outside of the US and I'm genuinely curious where you have in mind that you or I could look at our investment portfolio and go "I think re-weighting to have some more minority managed companies would yield improved gains" and that would be illegal. I doubt it'd actually be a good investment strategy sure, but a crime?
Public accommodations law and protections for employment and so on are all quite common, but in what western democracies are you required by law to donate or invest money with the same restrictions government would face? Not saying they aren't out there or that I can't imagine some reasoning that would lead to such laws, just wondering where and how that's worked out.
In Sweden for example, as far as I know, the only degree of discrimination that is allowed is to prefer one biological/ethnic etc category over another when the candidates are equally good in all other respects.
(Yes, some "black" people don't get the race part either. And yes, some of them are dicks. And yes, Twitter sucks.)
1: https://www.uni-jena.de/en/190910_JenaerErklaerung_EN
But then you see this comment section and they actually mean it in a sense of biological essentialism. Figure, how much you have to unpack in every damn discussion... I would shoot myself twice, every day.
Da ist der Wurm drin.
(1) https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/29/22204920/lens-technology...
> knowingly used child labor. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-knowingly-used-child-l...
> Using forced muslim labor. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/29/lens-te...
These are like the worst things a corporation can do. These seem a bit more important to address. no? Apple is a multi trillion $$ company, is it really that hard to create "no child labor in our supply chain" policy.
These racial justice initiatives are just a marketing tool to increase their USA sales ? Muslim slave labor doesn't buy iphones so its ok?
That said, they are trying to get rid of whatever slave-labor and child-labor taint exists in the supply chain. Probably it's not totally possible if you're sourcing from China and SE Asia, but yeah, they do have to at least make some effort.
They have complete control over every detail they care about and can demand whatever they want from suppliers. If Apple wanted Foxconn workers to wear polka dot hairnets they would be manufactured and distributed within 48 hours.
Their competitiveness relies completely on suppliers NOT providing Western level working conditions, then their phones would be way too expensive.
Having said all this, it's also important to keep in mind that working conditions in other factories in China are not necessarily better.
What we don’t know, is whether the intention of these ‘good’ initiatives is to detract and distract from other ‘bad’ things (which would cost a ton of money to fix).
E.g. there can be a PR strategy that appears good enough for a political group in power to be the least costly thing to do.
where is the other thing though? I don't see what they are doing about issues I mentioned.
EDIT: Changed language with unintended connotations.
In case you picked it up somewhere else, I thought you might want to know that this meme is a 4chan thing.
Brownie points: https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/brownie_point#English
Good boy points: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/tendies-stories
But for what it's worth, I think it's an absurd idea to try and cleanse oneself of 4chan memes, since they form such a significant strata of internet culture. The attitude that some people have towards 4chan is embarrassing. It's just a website. Yes, it harbours fascists, but so does every other website. Moreover it's one of the few places left on the internet where people say what they think rather than what they want other people to think they think...
As an engineer, I believe in tradeoffs and pragmatism, not dogmatism. Thus, I have no issue with GP's objection and have made the suggested edit.
There is definitely something with being racist and generally unpleasant, which is only a tiny portion of 4chan, just like it is a tiny portion of twitter, or reddit. You are using a part to make a judgement on the whole, which anyone can do for any website. Is reddit a "bad" website because there are anti climate change subreddits?
Can't believe we're already re-writing the history of early 4chan. I was there, I saw it, as I'm sure plenty of others on this site have.
Racism "only a tiny portion of 4chan"? Pshh.
Literally the 4th post on /g/ right now is about American tech companies and complaining that they make you support black people (well, except they used the n-word for black people).
1. A less blood-sucking fee structure in your app store.
2. A chance to install 3rd party software from outside your official channels if an user so decides.
3. Let your workers to unionize without any repercussions
4. You only will manufacture in contractors with a public verifiable record of complying with the labor laws.
5. You will not ban apps for ideological reasons, unless you are required to do it by law.
It’s currently impossible to buy a good performing smartphone that has been ethically manufactured.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of this community to heart, we'd be grateful.
Or is social justice just a dogwhistle for "things that help black people/women that I don't like" at this point?
I’m saying that speaking as someone who’s been on one of those social justice teams and was frustrated to discover we were mostly there for PR reasons.
Apple has a handful of employees. I suspect they’re more than capable of doing more than one thing at a time
(Pure speculation though... the whole company might still be focused on un-jamming that printer in HR)
That should explain why they didnt verify they were exploiting children in 3rd world countries.
Both can be done, but the things you stated are the minimum, not optional, if they care about humans at all.
Fair and safe working conditions first. Duh.
Then enabling equality in access and participation. Apple is enforcing the social status quo, if they uphold economic entry barriers. Gender and race issues are important, but for the most part they manifest as class issues. Much safer and easier to become an iOS developer, if you're a white dude, than a black woman. If you live paycheck to paycheck, you can't afford a Mac for development or the AppStore license.
So doing both is important, but without tidying up your own yard, it's all just green washing a dirty white collar.
Anyone too slow to ban Parker could face a full court press from all sides, and not merely any one firm. Apple has also banned porn and that is not legally required at all, and somewhat ideological.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African-American_family_struct...
"Juvenile crime/delinquency, teen pregnancy, teen drug abuse and school dropout correlated with fatherlessness more than any other socioeconomic factor."
https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/38560/Elli...
If you want to solve racial equality, and boost the lives of African Americans, then do something about absent fathers or single mothers. An expansion of planned parenthood, and removing all welfare incentives to be a single mother is probably a good idea (and instead encouraging intact families).
The integration of New York City neighborhoods in the 1960s-70s led to massive white flight out of the city, lowering the middle class population drastically and destroying stable districts. Was it worth it? Some claim yes, others claim no. I believe the city made a mistake by buying up property and giving it to lower income ethnic minorities to forcibly integrate neighborhoods, rather than encourage organic integration by business investment, tax breaks, opportunity zones, etc.
We've had a few decades of this - it has not really done much and racial wealth inequality is still massive, while informal segregation is at the highest levels it has ever been since Brown v. Board.
Obviously Apple has no vested interested in combatting wealth inequality, but I think that any movement against inequality needs to also recognize how vast and rampant racial wealth inequality is.
At least that's what comes up in the occasional article about these issues. Racism is apparently an obstacle here.
I don't see why a racist opinion would matter, even if the whole group were white as a lily and too poor to live.
> Racism is apparently an obstacle here.
And it probably is, but this approach is not going to help overcome that.
Focusing on other characteristics that tend to correlate to poverty is a more effective means to break the cycle.
Tho, I think class is more than just income. E.g. you don't become upper class as a prostitute or drug dealer, just because you manged to get by well.
Either way, within a class a white man will still have better chances for influence and freedom than a black trans woman. So gender and "race" are not obsolete classifications.
However, I think any sense of identity is the cognitive fallout of experiencing lack of self-efficacy, chronically. Seeing the increase in white men building an identity around being "white" and male, too, indicates a wide decrease in class mobility.
Pitching those identities against each other is indeed class warfare.
Based Tucker Carlson: https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/comments/fwnw...
The notion of technology initiatives in underserved communities is excellent and badly needed. The way to achieve "racial equity" is to provide better education and job opportunities to help bring under-performing populations up to par, and then their children will grow up in better school districts and have higher standards and expectations as well.
At least, that's the theory. There are no magic wands to cause these kinds of massive socio-economic changes overnight, but this sounds like a good step in the right direction.
If anything, I might question why "only" $100m? A corporation that currently has $191B in cash could presumably afford to part with more than that. But, a small step in the right direction is better than none, and certainly sets a great example of corporate good citizenship.
It appears just like M1 chips social justice and racial equity are also in service of and limited to Apple's interests.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/65196498/nsrunningapplic...
I myself came from an underprivileged community (or at least one that was poor and not particularly mobile), and I can think of several friends growing up who were also into tech and programming like I was. None of them could afford college, and last time we talked they had just stopped pursuing tech altogether since it’s pretty hard to do without a degree. When I eventually lucked into working for a FAANG, most of the people I ended up working with came from all the good schools I never really had a chance of getting in either way, or at least largely weren’t white. There was probably still privilege specific to white males that helped along the way, but being lumped in with the billionaires and compared to a another set of large and similarly generalized non-white and/or non-male communities has always felt unjust and frustrating to me. I wish I could have ended up working with my childhood friends, maybe if they had this sort of attention things could have been different.
The issue with this for me, and probably for many non-Americans, is that explicitly favouring particular races at all is pretty baffling, it wouldn't be allowed here.
Personally I think they should launch programs to help disadvantaged people, regardless of race and sex. Why exclude poor white people, and why include wealthy black people? Racism is not the only reason someone may have a hard time in America, it's a very difficult place to live for anyone that is poor or lacks supportive parents.
Apple can do that, I hope it will help and not fade out.
Have you ever considered that describing your own preconceived ideas as "open minded", and discounting those who disagree with them out of hand, is in fact the opposite of open minded?
And only then can they start patting themselves on the back when introducing various social programs that they pay for from their revenue.
Racial equity is the bogeyman that's meant to save an unpopular capitalistic model. If working class people are arguing over racism, it distracts from the "inequity" of people like Tim Cook and Jeff Bezos having access to lawmakers, schools, healthcare and security that almost none of us have access to.