Turn on thread page Beta

Twitter beats its 2016 diversity goals but its workforce is still predominantly white watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sinatraa)
    Don't give me your self superior attitude, remember what happened last time, you made yourself look like a right fool.

    Give the point straight to me or you can **** off.
    Last time?

    Same as this time apparently, you refused to participate.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    It's just logic.

    If white people get the better jobs in a fair job market (which you guys imply is the case) that is because there is something intrinsically superior about white people over black people. Hence white people are superior to black people. Racism.

    It's just where you end up if you follow your logic.

    Personally as a disgusting lefty even if that were the case I would be fine in having equality for its own sake and putting inferior black people in positions of power alongside white people. Thankfully though I don't think there is any real built in inferiority with black people. It's more to do with how society is structured that screws them over on average.
    Don't try and pin your leaps of logic on the non-racists of the world. There are myriad reasons why Twitter might not end up with a perfectly ethnically proportioned workforce. Perhaps African-Americans grow up in areas with crappy, union-destroyed schools (like the ones in Chicago). Maybe they, in general, pursue careers other than ones in the technology sector. You seem to be under the impression that, in a pure meritocracy, equity will just happen somehow. That's crazy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    Last time?

    Same as this time apparently, you refused to participate.
    I will participate if you cut the sarcasm, only intelligent people use that to patronise others
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is an outrage!!!!!!!

    The first non-white player to enter the league was Wataru Misaka in 1947. According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2015 was composed of 74.4 percent black players, 23.3 percent white players, 1.8 percent Latino players, and 0.2 percent Asian players.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...yoOmm2gBgRJxXg

    Blacks make up what, 13% of the US population but account for 75% of NBA players?

    We need to organize a pointless march right now!

    You would have thought our self appointed equality tzars would be all over this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sinatraa)
    I will participate if you cut the sarcasm, only intelligent people use that to patronise others
    Sarcasm?

    I wrote:

    Corporations in sub Saharan Africa are predominantly black because............

    And asked you to hazard a guess as to why..........where is the sarcasm?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Don't try and pin your leaps of logic on the non-racists of the world. There are myriad reasons why Twitter might not end up with a perfectly ethnically proportioned workforce. Perhaps African-Americans grow up in areas with crappy, union-destroyed schools (like the ones in Chicago). Maybe they, in general, pursue careers other than ones in the technology sector. You seem to be under the impression that, in a pure meritocracy, equity will just happen somehow. That's crazy.
    Those reasons you gave are societal reasons and are hence malleable. It's then a question of ethics. I don't know about you but having black people shut out of certain industries due to crap education is not acceptable.

    In a pure meritocracy equality would happen if we were all more or less the same due to how probability works. Any differences would be an expression of inherent differences between races.

    I'll pin my logic wherever I like thanks. I think a lot of people are racist. It is just it is now not acceptable to identify as a racist hence people don't like being called it. People know racism is bad without actually knowing what racism means.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Affirmative action and diversity targets are incredibly stupid. They're by definition discriminatory but the discrimination just happens to be against the majority so that's okay of course. When applying for jobs, the better applicant should get the job, that's it. It's simple. Diversity isn't inherently a good thing. Specifically hiring women and minorities is sexist towards men and racist towards whites. But of course "white men" are the problem. When will people realise that you can't force minorities and women to do certain jobs for the sake of diversity. Rejecting a male/white candidate just so you can hire a female/minority applicant is discriminating against someone people of their sex and skin colour.

    What Twitter is doing is sexist and racist, there's no two ways about it. At the end of the day, they're denying people jobs because of the colour of their skin and what's between their legs but since it white men society doesn't seem to give a crap because they've apparently had power throughout history.

    Never mind, the working class' struggle to get the right to vote, no we just need to learn about how men are bad and oppressed the brave women who fought for the right to vote, because those poor as **** men who worked their entire life for their families were definitely the ones oppressing women and not the upper class who wanted less people to have power. After working class men fought for it, they had to give in but denying women the right to vote was just an attempt as keeping their power which they also had to eventually give in to. I'm not saying there wasn't sexism in the past, just that it was men oppressing women. It was more to do with the rich oppressing the poor. Dividing them by gender was a way to preserve their power by denying half the population the right to vote.

    The same goes for race, I'm not denying that minorities don't face racism, from personal experience I have to say we do, but it's also just as stupid to say "all white people are racist" because that in of itself is a prejudiced conclusion based on judging an entire race of the actions of individuals, however many of these individuals there may be. And just to clarify, I'm talking about racism in today's world, not the past because there was obviously a lot of it in the past.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe cooley)
    This is an outrage!!!!!!!

    The first non-white player to enter the league was Wataru Misaka in 1947. According to racial equality activist Richard Lapchick, the NBA in 2015 was composed of 74.4 percent black players, 23.3 percent white players, 1.8 percent Latino players, and 0.2 percent Asian players.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rc...yoOmm2gBgRJxXg

    Blacks make up what, 13% of the US population but account for 75% of NBA players?

    We need to organize a pointless march right now!

    You would have thought our self appointed equality tzars would be all over this.
    Agreed! Let's force whites, Asian and Latinos to join the NBA until all of them equally represent their demographics in relation to the US. Let's bring down the number of black players from 75% to 13%, that's the only way you can truly be for equality! (obviously sarcasm)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    Those reasons you gave are societal reasons and are hence malleable. It's then a question of ethics. I don't know about you but having black people shut out of certain industries due to crap education is not acceptable.
    Nobody's being "shut out". It's just a fact that education in certain parts of America (particularly the bits habitually run by the Democratic Party) is absolutely dire and doesn't set you up well for later life. Those areas tend to be majority-African American. So step one to improving your community (because this action will also lower crime and help increase corporate investment in your neighbourhood) is to start voting Republican.

    In a pure meritocracy equality would happen if we were all more or less the same due to how probability works. Any differences would be an expression of inherent differences between races.
    That's not how probability works. You can roll a dice 600 times but it won't land on each side exactly 100 times.

    I'll pin my logic wherever I like thanks. I think a lot of people are racist. It is just it is now not acceptable to identify as a racist hence people don't like being called it. People know racism is bad without actually knowing what racism means.
    This was at least a coherent point-of-view until you had to go an imply there's some nebulous definition of racism out there that loads of people fall into but are totally unaware of. Enlighten us, how did you come to the conclusion that loads of people are just closet racists?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    It always confuses me when people complain about a "lack of women" in technology careers, for example, but nobody ever complains about a "lack of men" in nursing, for example.

    Seems like society is quite inconsistent on these issues.

    I don't really think diversity in itself matters much, as long as the recruitment system is fair and without bias.
    1. Do you think women being underrepresented in tech is an issue? Why?

    2. Why do you have to compare a woman's issue every time to a man's issue? When your friend tells you about a problem do you listen and engage or do you start talking about how that one time you had that issue?

    3. No, it seems women want to be tech but men don't want to be in nursing.

    4. No ****. The point though is that cognitive bias exists...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    4. No ****. The point though is that cognitive bias exists...
    The science on that point is dubious at best.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Just finished reading the first page. Why do people assume that hiring for diversity necessarily lowers standards? If diversity were the sole goal, it would be fairly easy to achieve. The fact they are slow in these targets is because they are hiring both diverse and skilled people.

    The only valid point I saw was by Sephiroth "Why on earth should there be an equal number of all races in the workplace when they don't make up an equal number of a country's population?" Although I would caveat that by saying even if a minority just makes up say 10%, if the country is large enough that 10% would be more than large enough a pool for any single company to achieve diversity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    Why do people assume that hiring for diversity necessarily lowers standards?
    Because if you're hiring for diversity, you aren't hiring for standards. I guarantee you that if you stop hiring for standards then standards will go down. Best case scenario they stagnate at where they are, but then your competition improves and then your standards have gone down relative to the rest of the market.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yudothis)
    1. Do you think women being underrepresented in tech is an issue? Why?
    As long as recruitment is fair and there is no bias, no I do not think it is an issue.

    2. Why do you have to compare a woman's issue every time to a man's issue? When your friend tells you about a problem do you listen and engage or do you start talking about how that one time you had that issue?
    I am commenting on a noticeable double-standard which is relevant to the thread.

    3. No, it seems women want to be tech but men don't want to be in nursing.
    Based on what?
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mathemagicien)
    Twitter has revealed that it has surpassed the modest workforce diversity targets it set for 2016, but the company has admitted it still has work to do when it comes to the representation of women and minorities within its walls.

    The social network's most recent diversity update noted that 37% of its 3000 staff are women, coming in at 2% above its goal for this year. Women in leadership positions are now 5% above target at 30%.

    Underrepresented minorities comprise 11% of Twitter's workforce and while just 9% of these work in tech roles the numbers align with the firm's 2016 diversity blueprint.

    In 2016 Twitter went from having no underrepresented minorities in leadership positions to having racial and ethnic minorities make up 6% of the its leadership.

    While its progress is limited, Twitter says it hopes the incremental changes will have a long-term impact.

    “Our commitment to inclusion and diversity is fundamental to who we are and crucial to the effectiveness of our service,” Jeffrey Siminoff, Twitter’s vice-president of inclusion and diversity wrote in a blog post, adding that "one-and-done measurements" don’t apply at the company and as such it is setting new representation goals for 2017.

    Twitter's projected diversity goals for the next twelve months include a commitment to boost women and minority staff working within its walls.

    "We know that the effects of our actions - many of which were new for 2016 -cannot be immediate," Siminoff continued. "We are focused on sustained efforts that will help us draw more diverse talent, create great experiences and careers, and foster a culture of belonging that fully lives up to the spirit of community on Twitter itself."

    The tech community has been under pressure in recent years to make its workforce less male and white, with Facebook recently blaming a lack of talent rising up through the ranks for its poor diversity figures.

    http://www.thedrum.com/news/2017/01/...ntly-white-and

    Its good that there is some progress towards diversity, but this progress is too slow. It seems like Twitter is dragging its feet. Thoughts?
    I don't care if the entire Twitter workforce are card carrying Klan members who like to burn a cross on the front lawn every lunch break. All that matters to me is they do their job to the highest standard.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Why the hell is this important? The 'diversity' of a company does not matter one iota. They just use it to flaunt how 'progressive' they are. It's PC peacocking. That's all it is.

    No one should be hired because of their race, gender or sexuality. All this does is discriminate against candidates who would be better for the job because they just happen to be from the 'wrong' demographic. It's so backward and ironically racist/sexist.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    As long as recruitment is fair and there is no bias, no I do not think it is an issue.



    I am commenting on a noticeable double-standard which is relevant to the thread.



    Based on what?
    Studies have shown such bias does exist.

    It is not a double standard. That is just your way of having an excuse to justify your not caring.

    Based on the fact that men aren't taking action but women are.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Because if you're hiring for diversity, you aren't hiring for standards. I guarantee you that if you stop hiring for standards then standards will go down. Best case scenario they stagnate at where they are, but then your competition improves and then your standards have gone down relative to the rest of the market.
    Absolutely

    Roughly translated.....

    "If you hire the disabled lesbian from a minority ethnic background so you can tick a diversity quota box the competing firm down the road will hire the white bloke who REALLY knows wtf he is doing"

    About right?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wōden)
    I don't care if the entire Twitter workforce are card carrying Klan members who like to burn a cross on the front lawn every lunch break. All that matters to me is they do their job to the highest standard.
    And who says diversity necessarily leads to hiring less capable applicants?

    What if a more diverse team is actually the better team, even if on an individual level some are slightly less capable?

    You whole "all that matters is meritocracy" bunch are hilarious to read.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm so confused, Diversity isn't about putting people there for show of equality. Maybe all the people there have the right qualifications and it has nothing to do with skin colour?
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.