4 ms·
Trump Responds to Apple Keeping Diversity Policies
- darthrupert 2y agoGood. Never ever obey in advance when faced with fascism.
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoThis isn’t fascism. It’s the President using his bully pulpit. Fascism would be Apple suffering extrajudicial consequences.
- rhelz 2y agoIDK where the line between being scolded from a bully pulpit and extrajudicial consequences begins, but....You don't think this puts Apple at risk vis-a-vis extrajudicial consequences? E.g. The iPhone lost share in China. Do you think Trump will go out of his way to help Apple in China? (For example, convince Chinese regulators to ease up a bit, or to have them make some more parts available during their next 5-year plan, etc etc?)
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> where the line between being scolded from a bully pulpit and extrajudicial consequences begins When the consequences are beyond the reach of a court. President does something. Apple objects. Court either declines to intervene or is ignored. > Do you think Trump will go out of his way to help Apple in China? Not fascism. If it is, fascism is fine because it’s been a staple of democracy since the start.
- beardyw 2y agoDon't get too fixated about the historical definition of fascism. Words end up meaning what we want them to mean.
- Daishiman 2y agoA single specific event is not fascism. A series of events that indicates that the executive works transactionally and is willing to undermine every democratic principle that advances his interests is.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> the executive works transactionally This is between kleptocracy, corruption and transactional politics. If Apple were to cite opposing fascism as their reason for ignoring Trump on DEI, that would be between hypocrisy and the hysterical. Fascism merits fighting at tremendous costs, personal and societal. If you use fascism as a reason for doing something, it means you’re willing to burn a lot of shit down, literally, to prevent Neo Hitler’s rise. It means you’re willing to put lives on the line. You can’t say you’re fighting fascism and then have tea with the fascist. You’re also morally bankrupt if you see fascism and aren’t willing to sacrifice personas comfort and safety to forcefully oppose, or at the very least, decouple from it. Crying wolf at authoritarian tendencies is tremendously dangerous, because it means we have no alarms left to ring if the system goes true fascist.
- thiht 2y agoIt’ll come
- darthrupert 2y agoYou're right that this isn't fascism right now, but we are definitely facing fascism right now. Whether it'll degenerate into it in a proper way absolutely relies on enough people taking it in their behinds without fighting back.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoTrump is correct to criticize Apple. DEI policies are discriminatory and illegal, because they focus on equality of outcomes (equity) instead of merit. The law just needs to be enforced against them for the discrimination they quietly practice. Let’s also not pretend the obvious isn’t happening - companies with DEI are aligning their culture to progressive politics. It’s why Apple has transcription that calls Trump racist and why Google has had various situations with politically censored search results. DEI culture gives activist employees permission.
- Daishiman 2y agoThis was the shareholders' position, I'm not sure where you think you know better than the shareholders.
- unsupp0rted 2y agoI'm a shareholder and I agree that Apple should be hiring based on demonstrated merit and nothing else.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoApple leaders have voluntarily chosen to have DEI policies. Shareholders didn’t demand those policies be put in place, it was a decision by the company. They just rejected a resolution that asked the company to consider (it didn’t force it) ending their DEI program. Also it isn’t really a “shareholder” vote as much as a few people at financial groups (like funds) that cast votes for actual shareholders.
- belter 2y ago> DEI policies are discriminatory and illegal, because they focus on equality of outcomes (equity) instead of merit. Would you say the current administration appointees are an example of the merit based society you seem to aim for?
- dialup_sounds 2y agoWhat are the actual policies that are illegal?