Alphabet-owned Verily Suspended Employee Bonuses To Fund Diversity Initiatives (theverge.com) 115
Verily Life Sciences, the Alphabet-owned healthcare company, is suspending employee spot bonuses. From a report: The money will be funneled instead to fund diversity and inclusion initiatives. The move frustrated workers, many of whom have been working grueling hours on the company's COVID-19 testing projects. In a letter to management obtained by Business Insider, employees said the decision implied these initiatives are not a priority. They wrote: "The use of spot bonuses to subsidize social justice programs such as Healthy@Work for HBCUs [Historically Black colleges and universities], clinical trial recruitment of underrepresented populations, and an internal Product Inclusion group implies that these efforts are charity causes not worthy of their own investment." Employees asked that spot bonuses be reinstated and called for the creation of a board of executives and employees to measure progress toward diversity goals. Alphabet, Verily's parent company, made $46.07 billion in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2019. Because of Alphabet's strong financial position, diversity and inclusion shouldn't be hard to invest in, the employees wrote.
Pandering with a side of slime (Score:5, Insightful)
More white people pandering to black people and making it all about white people again. So instead of these jerks showing up with their own money, they'll make the "contribution" for their employees.
Dirtbags.
yes and (Score:2)
referring to all the parent companies money in every bloody article is annoying. Yeah we get it Alphabet has a lot of money. That doesn't mean they'll spend all of it helping all the little bets they are making all over the place have a 200k a year director of diversity with a staff and endless brainwashing sessions to make sure everyone complies.
You can do meaningful things without robbing your employees sure. But you also shouldn't need to rob Google to pay for crap at Verily (which I'd never heard of). T
Re:yes and (Score:5, Interesting)
Punishing top-performing workers is an effective way to encourage diversity: they all quit making room for less well performing workers. It worked for Control Data Corp! Oh, wait, they went out of business.
Re:yes and (Score:5, Insightful)
Top performing workers in tech firms tend to be asian rather than white.
The fact is companies do not "lack diversity" due to discrimination, the lack of diversity has to do with the available talent pool. The qualified individuals who apply for the positions tend to be asian or white males who account for the VAST majority of applicants. A company cannot hire someone who doesn't even apply for the job.
I often have to interview people for several highly technical roles and virtually all the candidates (at least 95%) who apply are white or asian males, so subsequently the vast majority of hires are also from the same groups. Thankfully i don't have a "diversity quota" to fill, or else i would end up being forced to hire the 5% of "diverse applicants" irrespective of their skill level.
A company is out to make money, and will hire the best available talent at the lowest price they can get away with. The ethnicity or gender of the applicant is not relevant to the company.
If a worker requires mentoring and training then they are inherently less productive than one who does not, because the mentoring and training has a cost. The end result may be an equally productive worker, but the short term result will be a higher cost and less productive worker. You also run the risk that once trained, the worker will leave to find another employer who will pay them more as a fully trained and productive worker as the new employer will not have to pay the training overhead.
The fact is, the tech industry is dominated by white and asian males because these are the groups who are interested in technology at an early age and make the effort to study and gain marketable skills in the field. Companies cannot do anything about the lack of diversity because they are too late in the chain, if you want to increase diversity in a given field you have to look at children and think long term.
Go into a mixed race/gender school and ask the kids what they are interested in... Asian and white males will be more likely to have an interest in technology at a young age and this will usually result in studying in the field and ultimately jobs in the field. Other groups are far less likely, and those kids who do show an interest are likely to experience peer pressure and/or bullying to discourage them.
Re: (Score:1)
Thankfully i don't have a "diversity quota" to fill, or else i would end up being forced to hire the 5% of "diverse applicants" irrespective of their skill level.
It's called baby sitting. I've seen how this plays out where you have one or two "diverse" employees who suck so bad at their job, yet can't be fired, actually told to NOT do their job. Because them getting involved just makes matters worse. So yeah, sit down, play on Face Book, and stay out of the way. Best paycheck they've ever "earned".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This also allows for no change to the status quo. Are you OK with that?
Re: (Score:2)
Companies cannot change the status quo, they are too late in the chain. Companies have to hire from the available candidates.
If you want to change the status quo, you have to target kids and encourage them to learn marketable skills, and dissuade them from self destructive behaviour such as rejecting education.
Re: (Score:2)
Top performing is probably not the right term and I can see it being offensive. Most promoted? Highest profile? Not sure what the right phrase of it is.
My experience has been completely different but you could be right. My experience has been that asians are disproportionately represented at the individual contributor level in tech but most of the middle and senior management is white. At least that's been the case in the places I've worked.
Otherwise I agree part of things might just be a racial difference
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly... Discrimination is discrimination, someone benefits and someone else suffers.
And who wants to be a "diversity hire" ? That's a negative stigma all on its own. Do you want to get hired in the name of diversity, or do you want to be hired because you actually earned the job on your own merits?
"what is right and morally just" is equality of opportunity. Give everyone an equal chance, and as a society we are quite good at that.
But what they want to force, is equality of outcome which is just stupid...
Re: Pandering with a side of slime (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You know there's this wired thing where words have meanings that are commonly understood. The meaning of those words isn't "something that annoys rando on the internet". You are of course free to invent your own meaning for words, but you are also free to be not understood.
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
"Get woke, go broke" is free speech and the free market in action. Naturally, the vocal minority who want to impose a progressive agenda of so-called social justice on everyone else hate it that everyone else's pocketbooks speak louder than they can.
Re: (Score:2)
"Get woke, go broke" is free speech and the free market in action.
It would be if it happens, sure. I get the impression you're complaining about my signature. Funny thing is I never hear the left complaining about "get woke, go broke", only the right, so I guess it's another instance where the right seem to disapprove of the free market.
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, no, i know precisely what "diversity" means. You're simply using it deceptively, by ignoring the logically-compulsory (as I immediately evident the instant you attempt to elaborate on what you're saying) content of the word. By itself, it's a floating abstraction that is meaningless and applied to noting in particular. As soon as you apply it to any of the things you always intended to deceive about with the term, there is no avoiding either that fact or your motivations.
Perhaps you are successful in
Huh? (Score:2)
> ignoring the logically-compulsory (as I immediately evident ...
So that I don't misunderstand what you are saying, could you perhaps state it plainly, in more concrete terms?
Re: (Score:1)
Concrete, okay. You're advocating "diversity". "Diversity" of what? Ties and jacket versus t-shirts? Hair styles? Bicycle commuters versus cars?
Just directly specify what you want people to make special decisions based upon, and this should all clarify... immediately.
That's much more clear, thanks (Score:2)
That's much more clear, thanks.
When I read "ignoring the logically-compulsory (as I immediately evident ..." it kinda sounded like one of those fake, auto-generated papers that gets published in a social sciences journal.
> You're advocating "diversity".
I personally haven't advocated anything on this page.
I know what you mean, though - when people say "diversity", you think they should be more specific.
Re: (Score:2)
You're simply using it deceptively,
I am? Where?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You mean diversity of, say, haircut style? Jeans versus slacks?
You know you are referring to something in particular, why not go ahead and state the criteria factor you want people to make decisions based upon?
Re: (Score:2)
See the thing is, you know exactly what is being referred to here, you're just being intentionally obtuse. Why don't you just speak your mind.
It's either that or you've been living under a rock for the last 3 decades and that rock gave you brain damage.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it's just that you're being a hypocrite. I'm precisely right, in every way, from the top to here.
You, however, use words in a self-contradictory and irrational fashion. I'd check yourself for other evidence of brain damage.
And, clearly, by advocating "diversity", you're directly advocating racism. Just the kind you like.
Re: (Score:3)
You're precisely right? All you've done is ask stupid questions, how can a question be "right".
All I've literally done is ask you to speak your mind rather than ask stupid abstuse questions. After that, I haven't even advocated a position and here you are putting all sorts of labels on me.
Valuing clarity of communication and disliking truly stupid questions does not make me a racist. Asking stupid questions rather than just plainly speaking your mind and then just making shit up about me does make you an id
Re: (Score:2)
Correction: obtuse
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Diversity of what? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not sure who I'm disgusted with more in this scenario.
Management: Hey peons, you don't need those bonuses. Let's divert them towards some diversity-related projects, goals, and charities. It'll give the corporation some nice bonus points at the next Congressional hearings on diversity in tech.
Employees: Yeah, Black Lives Matters! Diversity, inclusion! Rah rah!... Wait... what the... That's OUR money!
I think my favorite line was this gem:
The move frustrated employees who said it implied the initiatives aren’t worthy of their own investment
That's the best spin on "you should fund this from corporate profits instead of our bonuses" I've ever heard in my life. Being pro-BLM, pro-diversity, pro-inclusive is pretty easy when all you have to do is pay lip-service to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe those employees are not pro-anything. Maybe they are neutral, as in "I will not take any sides".
In this particular case, the side has been chosen for them.
Re: (Score:2)
The employee letter made it pretty clear which side they were coming down on. The issue was just one of funding, and really, I agree with their beef. But I wish they were a bit more honest about their motivation. Well, I guess it's easy enough for anyone with a brain to read between the lines.
If there were any dissenting opinions, my guess is that they were too scared of going against the prevailing groupthink, and just shut the hell up. They've seen what happens to any nails that stick up a bit too far
Re:Diversity of what? (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that work, chronologically, came first, before bonuses. The extra work was done, the bonuses were then diverted. It really doesn't matter what for. People worked for those bonuses, and they expected to receive them.
Re: (Score:2)
These were *spot* bonuses, not the regular end-of-year bonuses. Spot bonuses are awarded at a manger's discretion to retroactively reward above-and-beyond work. In other words, employees never expect to get a spot bonus, it always comes as a surprise. (Source: I have received many spot bonuses at Alphabet.)
Re: (Score:2)
Well they certainly were a surprise this time!
Re: (Score:2)
Neutrality in these situations is never merely neutral—preserving the status quo when the status quo is unfair is a position of its own.
I'm honestly sure that most of these people are on the side of BLM and workplace diversity, and I'd even wager that many of them HAVE donated money of their own. The problem is that a hugely rich company decided that it was going to take money it had allocated—and that was understood to be allocated—for employee bonuses and divert it. It's a bait and switc
Re: (Score:3)
Are you pro fed-children Dutch Gun?
Hahah, you caught me. In fact, I'm actually pro starved-children. Well, unless we can figure out a more humane way to be rid of them, of course. Can't stand the little buggers. Seriously, we'd be better off without them - a hideous drain on our world-wide resources. Have you even seen one? They're messy, smelly, and loud. Always laughing, giggling, playing... Ugh. And shockingly ignorant besides. Nothing but questions, questions, questions... I'm pretty sure they carry all sorts of nasty diseases
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You're a homeless-man in the street with a loaf of bread. Another homeless-man comes to you and asks you to share, and you say no. Are you disgusted? Maybe they should show some compassion to their fellow homeless.
You're a homeless-man in the street with a loaf of bread. Larry Ellison drives up, gets out of his Ferrari while eating a bowl of caviar and asks you to share...
Do you still feel the same way?
There's a difference between asking a rich person to share their wealth, and asking a poor person. Honestl
Re: (Score:2)
You're a homeless-man in the street with a loaf of bread. Another homeless-man comes to you and asks you to share, and you say no. Are you disgusted? Maybe they should show some compassion to their fellow homeless.
You're a homeless-man in the street with a loaf of bread. Larry Ellison drives up, gets out of his Ferrari while eating a bowl of caviar and asks you to share...
Do you still feel the same way?
You left out the part where the homeless man with the bread was telling everyone "To each according to their needs." At that point, I would find it appropriate for Larry to take half your bread and give it to the other homeless.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right that this is completely a dick move by management. They shouldn't be unilaterally shifting money from bonuses to charity works. I fully agree that if they want to support these causes, don't do it with discretionary funds that was previously rewarding your employees. Incredibly lame, and demotivating for employees. There were a thousand better ways to do this.
But let's be blunt here. The employees could very well have said "we've worked hard for those bonuses, and we don't think it's appro
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming employees did give lip-service to the causes. Also, supporting a cause verbally is better than not supporting it at all, provided one cares about that cause enough.
Making an Excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
The correct headline is, "Alphabet-owned Verily Makes Excuse for Suspending Employee Bonuses."
They decided to connect two unrelated things to have an excuse for suspending the bonuses. If it weren't this, it would have been the economy. My company stopped the 401K match and annual pay raises, but at least didn't blame it on some initiative the company is undertaking.
Re:Making an Excuse (Score:5, Insightful)
This. The Quaker Oats company made a big deal about the Aunt Jemima change, but in the past few years, they have been dealing with lawsuits from the family claiming unpaid royalties on the likeness. I suspect they are just using this to get "good" publicity out of a brand change to get out from beneath any future liability. Why waste a good crisis, right?
Re: (Score:2)
On that note: Please put Wilford Brimley on the bottle! DIE-AH-BEATIS Syrup.
Re:Making an Excuse (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Even if internally the executives decided to trade one for the other, they should've kept that reasoning silent and simply announce bonuses are being cancelled due to difficult economic times, period.
I hope those executives don't get a bonus. They should get a penalty for being bone-headed.
Re:Making an Excuse (Score:4, Insightful)
It's deliberate. It sows resentment for the people asking for the diversity program. It teaches the lesson to the employees: "be careful what you ask for, don't agitate for change, or you might lose one of the bones we are currently throwing you." Pitting labor against each other along racial lines has been a tactic to weaken the labor movement since the beginning.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Making an Excuse (Score:2)
Sadly one of our presidents saw this coming over a century ago..Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21 1864
Wrong.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Making an Excuse (Score:2)
Yeah, see, that just makes you look like a lunatic. Snopes isn't perfect but they're certainly one of the most credible sites on the net.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it an excuse? Turn on the TV. Look at a website. Look outside, on the street. What do you see: people that demand more action for inclusivity. It's so important that it's even more important than social distancing! Now Google is listening to everyone's demands, and reprioritizing as demanded.
If you disagree, maybe you should have spoken out when you had a chance.
double disrespect (Score:4, Interesting)
So they dissed their own employees who had been working like ...uh... slaves to get their employer's high priority work done (for free, as a result of this decision) during their personal time.
And then they donate the money to help right the wrongs caused by the legacy of... uh... slavery?
Is it me or does that whole dynamic feel a bit ironic, even a wee bit sociopathic?
Re: (Score:3)
So they dissed their own employees who had been working like ...uh... slaves to get their employer's high priority work done (for free, as a result of this decision) during their personal time.
And then they donate the money to help right the wrongs caused by the legacy of... uh... slavery?
Is it me or does that whole dynamic feel a bit ironic, even a wee bit sociopathic?
It is total bullshit - as in this company is lying. I bet your sex organs that those asshole executives just want to give themselves a bigger bonus and are using a politically charged excuse.
If any of those employees have half a brain, they would be getting their resumes up to date.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to be horrified. But i've become immune...
Re: (Score:2)
From the deserving to the undeserving (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is any group of workers who should be getting bonuses right now, it's the people in healthcare. Verity could pass the hat internally for the cause of "diversity and inclusion," whatever that actually means, so that workers could make up their own minds about what charities to support. But one surefire hallmark of SJW contamination is that people are not allowed to make up their own minds about a cause - the Self-Anointed Ones make up their minds for them.
They wouldn't want anyone deciding to donate to some small black-owned business that had been burned out, or any such off-the-message activity.
Re: (Score:2)
What really bothers me is how many emotional, unscientific, and downright illogical arguments are used in that effort. It's true that a lot of political arguments are illogical, but programmers need to have at least a little understanding of logic. We can do better.
absolutely unacceptable (Score:2)
How is this news? (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this news — this has been happening for decades. Every professor of "Women Studies", every professor of "African-American Studies", every lecturer on "Diversity and Inclusion" are paid for bullshit — at the expense of everything else. Every class, that students are obligated to take with them, is at the expense of the same kids learning something actually useful. That'd be true even if these educators were genuinely nice people — which is not always [dailymail.co.uk] true [fox61.com] either.
Likewise, every HR worker, charged with "improving diversity" at a business, is paid at the expense of other employees there — and to the detriment of the firm's actual business.
The cost to society is — and has been for many years — very large, but these snowflakes are only triggered now, when they learn it comes out of their pockets directly. Well, whatever it takes to make you understand the cause-and-effect chain, folks...
It should not be invested in, because it is bullshit to begin with. Rent-seeking demagogues justifying their own existence with religion-worthy logical marvels like "denial of racism is evidence of racism" [nytimes.com] should be mocked out of town regardless of how they are paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise, every HR worker, charged with "improving diversity" at a business, is paid at the expense of other employees there — and to the detriment of the firm's actual business.
That doesn't make sense. Increased diversity benefits a company's bottom line. Company's invest in diversity because it makes them more profitable. This is the invisible hand of the free market changing companies in ways that money tells them, even if you don't agree. Those HR diversity employees are making the company measurably more profitable.
cite: "Companies that have more diverse management teams have 19% higher revenue due to innovation"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/a... [forbes.com]
cite: "The effect of shared ethn
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wonderful, but corellation is not causation, remember?
Now cite evidence, that their success is due to deliberately seeking diversity — rather than simply trying to hire the best, whatever sex or race...
Re: (Score:2)
Wonderful, but corellation is not causation, remember?
You're right. The alternative you're implicitly proposing is that there exists a common cause, some facet of business which leads both to them being more profitable and to them employing a more diverse workforce. I don't know what word to use for your conjectured common cause. Let's call it "being enlightened" for want of a better term. So, your argument is that greater diversity in hiring is caused by being more enlightened, and getting higher revenue is caused by being more enlightened.
That said, as a hir
Re: (Score:2)
Are you, perhaps, paid for advocating "diversity and inclusion"?
A study going over a number of companies, which stagnated until they hired diversity consultants (or employees) to do the encouraging you're talking about. Controlling for other factors — like the economy g
Re: (Score:2)
Are you, perhaps, paid for advocating "diversity and inclusion"?
No - I'm just paid to invent write software and manage a software team.
Presumably they did account for all those factors — you wouldn't have cited them otherwise, would you have?
I'm not sure if you're being snarky or serious. Of course I didn't. The original post had made the extraordinary claim that HR investment in diversity is a drain on companies. It's extraordinary because (1) it suggests that vast numbers of companies make these investments in ignorance of the impact on their bottom line, (2) it only makes sense in conjunction with some other hypothesis about the correlation between diversity and profitabi
SMACKBAM!! (Score:2)
Wait...the employees are upset by this? (Score:3)
Didn't they DEMAND that Google (let's stop shilly-shallying with the corporate-name squaredance?) expand diversity and a whole bunch address a bunch of other 'woke' concerns?
Did they think someone else was going to pay for it, particularly the mighty google? Did they think Page and Brin accumulated $60 BILLION in net worth each by being generous?
Re:Wait...the employees are upset by this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Didn't they DEMAND that Google
Indeed they did. Google. Not them. Being one of the worlds most wealthy and most profitable companies while suspending employees bonuses is just a dick move that you'd normally only attribute to rich arseholes like Larry Ellison.
Re: (Score:2)
Page and Brin accumulated $60B by making a really good search engine.
I wish Alphabet would do that. That Google thing people seem to like isn't very good and keeps getting worse.
Good luck with employee loyalty and retention (Score:1)
The decision maker(s) should be fired and fast, and an apology issued. The company's reputation has taken a serious hit.
200+ years of skin color focus (Score:5, Interesting)
Alphabet is wedded to the Democrat party, with a huge revolving door between the White House and the Obama administration for employees and staffers going back-and-forth and Eric Schmidt actually going to meetings with President Obama more often than some of his cabinet members (look it up, it's documented in the White House logs). This relationship will force alphabet to engage in boldly racist (making decisions about individual humans by looking at their skin color instead of considering them as individuals) actions, and this should surprise nobody. A little history is in order here:
First, the Democrats owned all the black slaves, because: skin color
When stripped of their slaves, they kept people poor as sharecroppers on the former plantations and intimidated them with their Klansmen, while imposing gun control to keep them from arming for self defense, because: skin color
When some of their former slaves managed to become self-sufficient, they were still kept separate by Democrat-created "Jim Crow" laws, which told them where to sit, eat, drink, live, go to school, etc because: skin color
When President Eisenhower broke that dam of segregation with the National Guard and Democrats realized the whole system was collapsing, they came up with a new plan, which took over a decade to shift to --- give enough freebies to their former slaves to make them feel good but not enough to escape, and make some of it contingent on fathers not being married and living at home with their families to destroy their families because : skin color. (there's a President Johnson quote on this and how long he'd have the former slaves eating out of the hands of the Democrats, which people should study)
After the previous plans unexpectedly made the Democrat party actually dependent upon the votes of the very people they drove to dependency, the plan changed again to pandering to the descendants of their former slaves by promising them political positions and guaranteed positions in government and business, because: skin color
For the ENTIRE history of the Democrat party, they have judged people based upon skin color, and they will NEVER stop. There was a day when Democrats celebrated the founders of the KKK at their national presidential convention, now they allocate seats at their convention using skin color as a criteria so they can look "diverse" on TV. At the end of the civil war, the Democrat party should have been treated like the National Socialist German Workers Party was at the end of WWII - that party should have been disbanded its leaders punished, and its average members told they could create or join other parties but could never return to that evil ideology.
The superficial skin color fixation makes no more sense than hair color or eye color fixation, whether you are using it to oppress people or to reward people or to punish people or to compensate people. It's just fundamentally wrong to judge people on a genetic characteristic over which they as individuals have no control or responsibility.
It should be a reminder to people that decades ago, Donald Trump earned the wrath of Florida's wealthy Democrats when he, then just a business guy, opened a new club down there and allowed blacks to be members. He got so much flak for it that he ended up shoving the classic film "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" at them as a poke-in-the-eye to the racist rich Democrats who pretend to be inclusive.
NOTE: the one form of "diversity" and "inclusion" the left will never tolerate is the one that matters most: diversity of opinions thoughts and beliefs.
Rand was right again (Score:2)
"We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it -- for observing it. The more you tried to live up to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man's dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of a law of goodness? . . . What was it we were supposed to w
Past History (Score:2)
Unfortunately only 2% of engineers on the market in Oregon were women.
It didn't work very well and neither will these kinds of initatives.
Even if this were an honest effort to change things, giving money to black universities isn't going to help much when blacks (and whites) in underfunded urban schools aren't equipped for university when they graduate from high school.
It's easy to support any cause... (Score:5, Insightful)
... with someone else's money.
Resentment (Score:2)
Seems like a terrific passive aggressive way to instill feelings of resentment.
Looking at the comments here, it is already working.
It's SPOT bonus, not annual bonus (Score:1)
Tax benefit (Score:2)
Put your money where your mouth is (Score:2)
As usual, most slashdotters miss the points.... (Score:2)
Let's see:
1. Why are they working so many hours? If they were "good and productive", they wouldn't need to... unless it's all moronic managers who have no idea what they do, and go along with the insane schedules received from On High (in the company).[1][2]
2. What profit was made by the company? Why wasn't some of *that* invested in the diversity programs.
3. STFU if at least 12% of the people you work with aren't Black.
1. Why, yes, I worked for Ameritech in the mid-nineties, worked insane hours (swore I'd
Typical SJW bullsh*t (Score:1)
Again the majority is punished because a crybaby minority has an axe to grind.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, about 1.5B Chinese, about 1.3B Indians, at least a billion Africans... right, that makes *you* the whining minority, social injustice snowflake.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, in China and India and Africa....nobody gives a sh*t....Alphabet is traded on the US Stock market...not China, India, or the whole continent of Africa....to take people's bonuses is bullsh*t, and you can go f*ck yourself.
Stop discrimination (Score:1)
The best way to stop discrimination is to - STOP DISCRIMINATION.
All this "diversity" crap does is promote people that don't deserve it. If they deserved it they would be in those positions.
Re:Fucking Out of Control (Score:5, Insightful)
* They are releasing prisoners due to covid in these cities.
* They support and protect the "protesters". Those destroying the communities, just get released to do it again.
* They are lowering the ability of the police to protect the community if not removing them all together.
* Police are quitting or retiring in mass.
* Businesses(including those run by black americans) are being looted and burnt down in these black communities.
* Businesses are now moving out of run cities run by this party.
* The same party is pushing for never ending covid lockdowns that are also destroying businesses and leaving community jobless.
They really don't care about the black communities. They divide us by race, religion, sex, age, class and identity for power and control. Its all about the communist uprising and destroying anything in their path.
Re:Fucking Out of Control (Score:4, Interesting)
Arguments well made in epi 14 of Moe Factz on victimization mentality. Argues pretty clearly that affirmative action, busing to charter schools for well scoring students, scholarships to Ivy League etc instead of actually building up the bad communities themselves just splits up the black community. The guys that can dribble or the very smartest get invented to join white society and leave the neighborhood. Everyone else is left in their shit hole and pandered to to make sure that the dems have 12% of the vote locked in for them without actually having to do anything for them.
Re:Fucking Out of Control (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is also cultural. When these 'lifted off the swamp' who succeeded in breaking the vicious circle for themselves come back to help others - and are ostracized, "You're now one of THEM". Active divide in the black society between these who want to adapt, be productive, successful, lawful, and these who want to stick it to the White Man, and treat the former as traitors of the race. Anti-white racism is rampart in the black communities, and these people will undermine any attempt to make things better (other than outright handouts maybe) just because they feel it's the white man intruding into their culture and identity.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is inherently cultural..
This "stick it to the white man" attitude is EXTREMELY self destructive. If you really want to stick it to the white man, get a proper education, be better than the white man and take his job. Companies are out to make profit, if you're a better candidate they will hire you, there is no conspiracy here.
There are also groups in the white community who are self destructive in much the same way too. Your typical "white trash" also shuns education, also ostracises anyone who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a matter of where you put the effort. If the affirmative action plan, or college scholarships or busing is always take "them" out of the bad place and put "them" in the good place your still leaving a mess for everyone else. Not everyone is going to be good at hoops, or a scholar. You could though make sure that the ghetto's schools aren't the worse in town by a big margin, that they have a representative sample of the smart kids, not have them pouched away to the white schools, that it's easier
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.seattletimes.com/s... [seattletimes.com]
Most Handguns, Carbines ect are sold out
the only way this ends is badly.
Re: (Score:3)
you forgot. . .
-They are then blaming it all on Donald Trump.
Andrew Cuomo literally blamed Trump for his policy of sending sick people to nursing homes.
Re: (Score:2)
I would argue that the party running these cities(you can guess which one) is knowingly making it much worse than before for the black communities.
Well, if they solve the problem, what will there be to lead the charge against?
I mean, this is how cults work.