they're a bunch of liars and hypocrites themselves. blaming trump for not forcefully denouncing white supremacists on the get go after the charlottesville fallout, they easily fall for fake news and quickly associate white marchers at charlottesville with white supremacy groups. what's wrong with protesting the takedown of robert e. lee's statue? just because black groups are offended by lee's statue the city has to take it down? what do they want? erase history and never mention the civil war again?
when some extreme hate groups from both sides join in the fray to create trouble it does not equate to everyone marching as a white supremacist. there were genuine groups and individuals keen on preserving the general's statue. he was a good general, brilliant in much of the war, won majority of battles, outfought the north most of the time, respected by both north and south, feared by the north, and lived his final years teaching in a local university. before he passed away he kept a low profile during reconstruction and asked his supporters not to erect his statue. in fact, he wanted that part of history erased from american memory. many statues of american leaders including those of the confederacy are still around in public buildings in washington d.c. afterall, these are american leaders whether you like them or not. it's like anti-colonialists in sg heckling the sg parliament to take down the statue of raffles, or remove city hall as it was built by the british for overlording over coolies from china, jagas from punjab, laborers from tamil nadu, and malay plantation workers. again? what's wrong with protesting the removal of statues of historic individuals? given the current political correctness trend, one day washington's statue at wall street will be taken down too....because he was a white founding father who also happened to own black slaves.
and this pussy bunch of politically-correct ceo's are ready to join the fake media and label every lee statue supporter as a supremacist hateful of everyone else. what kind of bs is that? and immediately after the fallout the intel ceo resigned from trump's council and gave a speech about how his company is not bigoted but provides opportunities to minorities to balance and undo the race divide in the tech world. now we know with the report out that his speech was pure political correct bovine scatology. when you look closer at the chart, you'll find that all his claims are bogus. he even conjure the facade by hiding real numbers behind this category of employees called urm - under-represented minorities. wtf? is he going to be so politically correct that the board will allow him to throw the company under the "diversity" bus? no way, intel is competing in a tough and brutal market, and no political correctness and affirmative action will beat the competition and keep the company afloat. they need the best and brightest, and right now 69% of employees are either white and asian males or a shade of the two in between (asian means neh and chinks too). i'm calling him out and i'm gonna shame him with facts.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-apos-diversity-report-shows-205100970.html
Intel CEO Brian Krzanich condemned hate speech and white supremacy on Twitter after the horrifying events in Charlottesville this weekend. On Monday, he resigned from Trump's American Manufacturing Council to "call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues..." Now, alongside a mid-year diversity report that documents some slow and flat growth in diversity at Intel, Krzanich is touting his company's "fast march" toward the full representation of women and unrepresented minorities in Intel's US-based workforce by 2018. That's only one year away.
In the blog post, Krzanich says that Intel is two years ahead of the original plan, which aimed to create a diverse, inclusive workforce. "We set out to achieve by 2020 an inclusive workforce that reflects the diversity we see every day in the world around us," he writes. "Doing this would bring the number of female, Hispanic, African-American and Native American employees in Intel's 50,000-strong U.S. workforce to full representation." The new goal, he says, is now moved up to 2018.
The mid-year report states that the five-year plan is on track to equally represent women, African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans in both technical and non-technical jobs. "In December of 2014, our gap to full representation was 2,300 employees. Today that gap has narrowed to 801 people – a 65 percent improvement."
While it's nice to see a move toward a more diverse Intel workforce, it's hard to not feel discouraged with such a slow rate of growth over the past three years. White men are at the top of every chart in Intel's 2017 diversity report. With only a 0.3 percent growth in female employees across all sectors of the company (and a flat rate of growth for African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans), how can Krzanich say his company will be on track in just one more year? By defining "full representation" as a function of "market availability."
Intel defines full representation as the full market availability of women and underrepresented minorities, which means that it bypasses any actual efforts to create more space for diverse people in the workforce in the first place. The company has updated the way it measures market availability, which tracks how many skilled workers exist in both the US labor market as well as within Intel's own employee base, but it hasn't been updated since 2014.
As with the rest of the tech industry, Intel says that white and Asian males continue to represent more than 90 percent of mid- to senior-level technical roles. Intel is also having a hard time retaining minorities, too, though it has added "diversity playbooks" and other programs to help (predominantly white) managers hire and retain workers. Intel claims it's on track to train all of its more than 13,000 managers by the end of the first quarter in 2018, but is that enough? If nothing else, the company should be looking to programs to increase the market availability of the women and other underrepresented minorities in the first place.
when some extreme hate groups from both sides join in the fray to create trouble it does not equate to everyone marching as a white supremacist. there were genuine groups and individuals keen on preserving the general's statue. he was a good general, brilliant in much of the war, won majority of battles, outfought the north most of the time, respected by both north and south, feared by the north, and lived his final years teaching in a local university. before he passed away he kept a low profile during reconstruction and asked his supporters not to erect his statue. in fact, he wanted that part of history erased from american memory. many statues of american leaders including those of the confederacy are still around in public buildings in washington d.c. afterall, these are american leaders whether you like them or not. it's like anti-colonialists in sg heckling the sg parliament to take down the statue of raffles, or remove city hall as it was built by the british for overlording over coolies from china, jagas from punjab, laborers from tamil nadu, and malay plantation workers. again? what's wrong with protesting the removal of statues of historic individuals? given the current political correctness trend, one day washington's statue at wall street will be taken down too....because he was a white founding father who also happened to own black slaves.
and this pussy bunch of politically-correct ceo's are ready to join the fake media and label every lee statue supporter as a supremacist hateful of everyone else. what kind of bs is that? and immediately after the fallout the intel ceo resigned from trump's council and gave a speech about how his company is not bigoted but provides opportunities to minorities to balance and undo the race divide in the tech world. now we know with the report out that his speech was pure political correct bovine scatology. when you look closer at the chart, you'll find that all his claims are bogus. he even conjure the facade by hiding real numbers behind this category of employees called urm - under-represented minorities. wtf? is he going to be so politically correct that the board will allow him to throw the company under the "diversity" bus? no way, intel is competing in a tough and brutal market, and no political correctness and affirmative action will beat the competition and keep the company afloat. they need the best and brightest, and right now 69% of employees are either white and asian males or a shade of the two in between (asian means neh and chinks too). i'm calling him out and i'm gonna shame him with facts.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-apos-diversity-report-shows-205100970.html
Intel CEO Brian Krzanich condemned hate speech and white supremacy on Twitter after the horrifying events in Charlottesville this weekend. On Monday, he resigned from Trump's American Manufacturing Council to "call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues..." Now, alongside a mid-year diversity report that documents some slow and flat growth in diversity at Intel, Krzanich is touting his company's "fast march" toward the full representation of women and unrepresented minorities in Intel's US-based workforce by 2018. That's only one year away.
In the blog post, Krzanich says that Intel is two years ahead of the original plan, which aimed to create a diverse, inclusive workforce. "We set out to achieve by 2020 an inclusive workforce that reflects the diversity we see every day in the world around us," he writes. "Doing this would bring the number of female, Hispanic, African-American and Native American employees in Intel's 50,000-strong U.S. workforce to full representation." The new goal, he says, is now moved up to 2018.
The mid-year report states that the five-year plan is on track to equally represent women, African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans in both technical and non-technical jobs. "In December of 2014, our gap to full representation was 2,300 employees. Today that gap has narrowed to 801 people – a 65 percent improvement."
While it's nice to see a move toward a more diverse Intel workforce, it's hard to not feel discouraged with such a slow rate of growth over the past three years. White men are at the top of every chart in Intel's 2017 diversity report. With only a 0.3 percent growth in female employees across all sectors of the company (and a flat rate of growth for African Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans), how can Krzanich say his company will be on track in just one more year? By defining "full representation" as a function of "market availability."
Intel defines full representation as the full market availability of women and underrepresented minorities, which means that it bypasses any actual efforts to create more space for diverse people in the workforce in the first place. The company has updated the way it measures market availability, which tracks how many skilled workers exist in both the US labor market as well as within Intel's own employee base, but it hasn't been updated since 2014.
As with the rest of the tech industry, Intel says that white and Asian males continue to represent more than 90 percent of mid- to senior-level technical roles. Intel is also having a hard time retaining minorities, too, though it has added "diversity playbooks" and other programs to help (predominantly white) managers hire and retain workers. Intel claims it's on track to train all of its more than 13,000 managers by the end of the first quarter in 2018, but is that enough? If nothing else, the company should be looking to programs to increase the market availability of the women and other underrepresented minorities in the first place.
Last edited: