AMD Named a Best Place to Work for LGBT Equality

[Caring1]

Man, what a crapshoot. I don't even know what to say without feeling like I'm gonna be judged in some way.

Everybody should just be who they are without worrying who everybody else is.

Exactly, a person's sexuality and preferences should have nothing to do with their employment.
I'm not even sure it is legal for an employer to ask that question.

 

[Joss]

a person's sexuality and preferences should have nothing to do with their employment

Unfortunately the opposite happens, which creates what they call "positive discrimination", which in turn has gays, blacks, women being hired just to fill predetermined quotas instead of being chosen for their competence.
I've seen the consequences of this; and the worst is not to have to compensate for their incapacity (I'm talking sheer stupidity in some cases) but the arrogance of someone who's being led to believe Society owns them something for being different. And Society is always white, male, heterosexual and (the horror) Christian.

 

[R-T-B]

Unfortunately the opposite happens, which creates what they call "positive discrimination", which in turn has gays, blacks, women being hired just to fill predetermined quotas instead of being chosen for their competence.
I've seen the consequences of this; and the worst is not to have to compensate for their incapacity (I'm talking sheer stupidity in some cases) but the arrogance of someone who's being led to believe Society owns them something for being different. And Society is always white, male, heterosexual and (the horror) Christian.

Did it ever occur to you it might be to counteract the fact that those groups are statistically less hired than they should be?

Even when choosing from the " gay/black/women/whatever" pool, no one says you have to hire a moron. There are plenty of skilled people in those demographics. If you're hiring incompetent workers, it's a hiring problem, not an affirmative action symptom.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Please look up what the Southern Strategy is before you continue to spout off such ignorance. While you are technically correct about Southern Democrats, the belief that the parties are ideologically still the same today as they were a hundred years ago is just literal stupidity. There's no other definition of it.


There are in fact no federal level laws that state it's illegal for you to be fired just because you're gay. Which is one of the reasons for recognition such as this. It's a shame you're such a sorry individual that you don't care about workplace discrimination.

First off, call people sorry when you know wtf you're talking about and who they are, 2. You bagged yourself as ignorant unless you think the segregationist Democrats of the mid to even late 1960's would be anywhere near 100 years ago, even with my none-common core math I can figure out that's roughly half as long ago as you spout off about . Also I could go through the litany of things Democrats of TODAY do to keep minorities on the plantation economically since you're stuck on this failed argument. I've read replies after mine and they correctly point out if anything people are scared shitless to even have the appearance of discrimination and may hire someone or not fire them due to them being gay etc and fearing being sued and other legal retribution. You sir, are a major league asshat, while being a jerk to everyone including me who simply were stating opinions.

Also that is just an utter lie to say there is no law against discriminatory hiring practices, so your math as well as your fact-checking skills are equally shit...that's just a fact...jack

 

[dalekdukesboy]

No need to be hostile. I'm aware the parties aren't the same, heck, the democrats aren't even the same party JFK was in.

But ignorant I am not. Unlike most people in this forum, my background, education and experience are decidedly untechnical...it is an International Studies degree, a Poli Sci degree, minors in history and English, half a military career, and a career in government service.

The point of my post was to cap off his ignorant comment that implied Trump supporters are racist, which didn't even belong here in the first place. Okay?

Calling him hostile was being kind not referring to his assholery in its' fullness as well as pointing out his very fleeting grip on reality and facts in this dimension most of us live in minus him. Also I'd further your point about JFK (if I get the mild jab at mr. notso solidstate) in that JFK would in most ways be a conservative Republican today with a few moderate'ish views but he'd literally not be able to govern as he did in 1960's in today's Democrat party, hell they'd probably lynch him. Regardless, that was a classic example of a pointy headed elitist hater who name calls us for stating our opinions while calling us stupid and haters while he's being a stupid hater...literally can't make this irony up folks.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Did it ever occur to you it might be to counteract the fact that those groups are statistically less hired than they should be?

Even when choosing from the " gay/black/women/whatever" pool, no one says you have to hire a moron. There are plenty of skilled people in those demographics. If you're hiring incompetent workers, it's a hiring problem, not an affirmative action symptom.

Ok, I disagree with you but unlike the self appointed history genius you jab us but do so with intent and passion. That said...those two sets of statements literally contradict each other so badly you basically make the point of positive discrimination he was talking about....

First off you point to statistics saying by the stats minority/gay/women etc may be underemployed, that may or may not be true for starters in any given instance. However by then going on to say you don't have to hire morons from that pool of minorities doesn't that beg this question....What if there aren't enough qualified applicants of the said pool to hire unless you hire someone utterly unqualified OR who is less qualified than this white young guy over here who applied?

This is why quotas (what you're talking about whether you realize it or not) DON'T and can't work. First off it's simply reversing discrimination which only keeps division alive all the more, and whether it's affirmative action specifically as you state or whatever the hell you want to call it for gays etc whatever happened to not judging a man by his character and not the color of his skin? None of this would fly if you ran it by Martin Luther King Jr., once you determine someone must be hired or NOT to fulfill a statistical need by their color, sex, race, who they screw etc, you are discriminating and this is not what freedom or what proper hiring looks like.

Period.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

You do realize he lost by 2 million plus in the "landslide" popular vote, right?

Either way, Trump belongs here about as much as any of this BS, so I guess have at. Absolutely none of this is on topic.

Sigh, I missed this earlier and YES I intentionally don't put 10 paragraphs in one post because no one would read it all!

my answer: You do realize popular vote doesn't elect presidents? and...If you take out either California or New York Trump won popular vote big league, do you want one nutty state voting for whole country? Also, we could get into actual election fraud and illegal voting etc, but I notice you addressed nothing else I said about snowflakes and their nutty behavior, so I just assume you agree it's Kosher that adults act that way.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Exactly, a person's sexuality and preferences should have nothing to do with their employment.
I'm not even sure it is legal for an employer to ask that question.

Just tell that to any islamic countries, lol.
When I applied for a job in Emirates, they were asking stupid ridiculously question like, what's your orientation, are you friend with a gay person, are you friend with a Jew person, what's your religion, do you plan to convert to Islam religion, do you drink alcohol, do you eat meat, do you have any piercing, do you have tattoos, etc, etc. I just canceled the interview in the middle.

 

[R-T-B]

You do realize popular vote doesn't elect presidents?

Of course. That doesn't make it right nor correct, at least in my mind. I've always maintained the electoral collage is antiquated, and frankly, stupid in our modern era. I just don't like people trying to say the election was a "landslide." The election wasn't. The representatives we elected to vote for us in the electoral collage is most likely going to be. It's the same irritant I get when people call us a "democracy." We aren't. We're at best, a representative republic.

That said...those two sets of statements literally contradict each other so badly you basically make the point of positive discrimination he was talking about....

No, it doesn't.

What if there aren't enough qualified applicants of the said pool to hire unless you hire someone utterly unqualified OR who is less qualified than this white young guy over here who applied?

That would imply mismanagement and a urge to hire more minorities than are proportional to the population. Ideally, unless you are implying that minorities are less likely to be educated or competent than white people (which is actually it's own problem if it exists) there should be about the same percentage in there of competent individuals. Of course, a history of oppression skews this, but let us dismiss that for a moment. You should have no problem finding qualified individuals provided the quotas are set up right. It really isn't rocket science.

I'm not saying the current system is set up that way, because it largely isn't. The current system is indeed set up to try to make up for the "history of oppression" by hiring a disproportionate amount of the populations of said groups. I don't agree with that personally. I think programs like you are reading about here, friendly hiring practices and such, work better, along with a little gentle proportional affirmative action. But the idea that affirmative action inherently leads to "reverse discrimination" and that my two statements are contradictory is patently false.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I've always maintained the electoral collage is antiquated, and frankly, stupid in our modern era.

Without it we would have a one party system, determined by California and New York predominately. The system we have is, as you correctly point out, a republic, and the electors keep things rotational.

Depending on the election, different party presidential hopeful can sway them his or her way, except for TX, CA, and NY. Personally, I want every state to have a say, not just NY and California, which a purely popular vote would do.

 

[R-T-B]

Without it we would have a one party system, determined by California and New York predominately. The system we have is, as you correctly point out, a republic, and the electors keep things rotational.

Depending on the election, different party presidential hopeful can sway them his or her way, except for TX, CA, and NY. Personally, I want every state to have a say, not just NY and California, which a purely popular vote would do.

That would be true if Republicans always lost the poular vote in our nation, or if it mattered where you campaigned vs who you campaigned towards, neither of which are true in our modern era. I don't buy it.

As it stands, my vote never counts. Why? Because I live in Washington, which votes democrat everything. Unless I vote democrat, I am literally unrepresented in the general election. Swell system...

I want every person to have a say, and the states can suck eggs.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Without it we would have a one party system, determined by California and New York predominately. The system we have is, as you correctly point out, a republic, and the electors keep things rotational.

Depending on the election, different party presidential hopeful can sway them his or her way, except for TX, CA, and NY. Personally, I want every state to have a say, not just NY and California, which a purely popular vote would do.

This....you can whine about popular vote etc all you want but riddle me this batman, wasn't it the entire mainstream media and every pundit and democrat out there that said before the election "Trump has no path..." to 270? Everyone on the left was fine and even happy thinking the system was in favor of Hillary and democrats due to the electoral college and how the states lean as of that time. IF we had a popular only vote both candidates would have campaigned 180 degrees differently, so also you'd have to have an entire do over with a new system if we were to judge this election based on different standards. As RTW correctly points out if you think your vote doesn't count now, many times over would that problem be exacerbated if only 3-4 states and only a handful of cities mattered in the election. System works just fine, it elected Obama twice and everyone else since George Washington and if you factor in the entire media, the entire republican establishment, every Democrat in every position, and Hillary ran against Trump so it was him on everyone...and he won. Oh he spent way less money than Hillary to win as well. Sorry, you lost, we won. Those were Obama's words once after winning, if you don't like the rules of the game change them before you play, not blame them after you lose.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Of course. That doesn't make it right nor correct, at least in my mind. I've always maintained the electoral collage is antiquated, and frankly, stupid in our modern era. I just don't like people trying to say the election was a "landslide." The election wasn't. The representatives we elected to vote for us in the electoral collage is most likely going to be. It's the same irritant I get when people call us a "democracy." We aren't. We're at best, a representative republic.



No, it doesn't.



That would imply mismanagement and a urge to hire more minorities than are proportional to the population. Ideally, unless you are implying that minorities are less likely to be educated or competent than white people (which is actually it's own problem if it exists) there should be about the same percentage in there of competent individuals. Of course, a history of oppression skews this, but let us dismiss that for a moment. You should have no problem finding qualified individuals provided the quotas are set up right. It really isn't rocket science.

I'm not saying the current system is set up that way, because it largely isn't. The current system is indeed set up to try to make up for the "history of oppression" by hiring a disproportionate amount of the populations of said groups. I don't agree with that personally. I think programs like you are reading about here, friendly hiring practices and such, work better, along with a little gentle proportional affirmative action. But the idea that affirmative action inherently leads to "reverse discrimination" and that my two statements are contradictory is patently false.

Again thanks for making your argument and attempting to back it up rather than call me names, and then running away. Sorry I'm still laughing at that schmuck personally insulting two people in one short post while name calling and not backing up what he said, then running away as he's discredited by several people even those not insulted. I bring this up again for a couple reasons, but I'll go back on point and not bore you with my philosophy.

However I'd buy the argument of never liking the electoral college except as I just posted everyone pre-election results was pounding that Trump had no path to 270 and the map was "very difficult" for any Republican and even a few commentators mentioned he could win popular vote but it doesn't matter he can't win the electoral map as it's laid out. Obviously I can't speak for your individual view on this but come on, the rules for this game are as old as the country and they are great if first woman who's a Democrat wins but when she loses it's the systems fault? That's like playing a game of football and your team gets 500 yards and 14 points with touchdowns, and the other team gets 300 yards and got 21 points with one more touchdown, well your team got more yards why didn't we win??? Sorry, game was played with rules no one groused about publicly till the game was lost. I'll have a discussion on why you're wrong about the electoral college, but don't blame it for your candidates' loss when she played the game under that set of rules with the intent to win every state she could and win every elector she could.

Also on quotas etc, I didn't say anything about likelihood of education etc, you did however make a false assessment that there should be no problem finding plenty of qualified minorities if you set quotas up right...you are making an assertion with nothing to base it on. Also that aside, I will point out you say "gentle affirmative action" what is that? Kudos you correctly point out the reverse discrimination as it's done is wrong on many levels as I point out. But when is it ever right to mandate a private business to hire people solely based on skin color however "gentle" the rules? However to me you are simply favoring a lesser form of discrimination somehow justifying it under the guise of being "fair" to....make up for " A history of oppression"? If you make any rule favor or disfavor anyone due to their sexual orientation or skin color etc, it is discrimination and again you can just throw away all of Martin Luther Jr's quotes because discrimination is wrong and immoral whoever it's against white or black, "gentle" or by Isis throwing gays off of buildings. Fixing discrimination with discrimination is no solution.

 

[R-T-B]

by gentle I meant "proportional" essentially. Thought I explained that.

As for the election, you'll get no qualms from me that we lost, at least unless some kinda pre-electoral collage vote upset happens (really unlikely). I just don't think it should be how things are done. I've thought that since I was a young teen (yeah, Al-Gore may have had something to do with it back then, but my reasoning is more refined now).

 

[dalekdukesboy]

by gentle I meant "proportional" essentially. Thought I explained that.


As for the election, you'll get no qualms from me that we lost, at least unless some kinda pre-electoral collage vote upset happens (really unlikely). I just don't think it should be how things are done. I've thought that since I was a young teen (yeah, Al-Gore may have had something to do with it back then, but my reasoning is more refined now).

Don't be snarky, doesn't suit you. "Thought I explained that" is usually code for I can't explain it once properly nevermind again so this is my out. Seriously man, I appreciate you at least trying to engage me with purpose, but I knew what you were saying and explained in detail why gentle vs death blow didn't matter once you base any aspect of hiring on anything you shouldn't; color, race, religion, sex, sexual orientation etc it is discrimination and will only ultimately lead to more division and is morally wrong and won't solve the problem. I thought I explained that? Difference is I was explicit with no vagueries the first time, and willingly did so in an abridged fashion again here to re-explain.

That is the correct answer, losing is losing winning is winning. I'm fine with Democrats living in denial so they lose for another generation but I admit it grates on me to hear the whining and excuses about the system and rigging day in and day out...when these same people were badgering Trump and Republicans for months if they didn't immediately accept the election results (no matter what) we were committing something akin to treason, again the irony....yeah no need re explaining with my chainsaw vs butter knife analogy.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

I do commend you RTB however for your dead on assessment on that we are NOT a Democracy, that irks me as well that people totally misunderstand that, we are a representative republic exactly as you said. You said that a few posts back but didn't get to reference it with every other point I had to hit first.

 

[R-T-B]

Don't be snarky, doesn't suit you.

I'm not being snarky. I did explain it, but wasn't sure when I wrote it so I said "thought" (as in, uncertainity). If I'm sounding snarky it's because I'm being overly academic.

Here, I'll fetch a quote:

That would imply mismanagement and a urge to hire more minorities than are proportional to the population. Ideally, unless you are implying that minorities are less likely to be educated or competent than white people (which is actually it's own problem if it exists) there should be about the same percentage in there of competent individuals. Of course, a history of oppression skews this, but let us dismiss that for a moment. You should have no problem finding qualified individuals provided the quotas are set up right. It really isn't rocket science.

What I failed to do was link them together strongly in my paragraphs.

 

[dalekdukesboy]

Snark/haughty I told you alreadyism=yes . Academic=erm I'll be charitable. Failed=definitely.

 

[R-T-B]

Snark/haughty I told you alreadyism=yes .

I didn't actually mean it as snarky, but if you ended up viewing it that way I can't help that I suppose. Just wasn't my intention. I was only pointing you to previously made statements. I wouldn't blame you for pulling a tl;dr in some of these posts.

 

[m1ch]

I just left the AMD ship...