I think companies are not going more and more woke but they are appeasing to the crybabies so their profits won’t diminish in the long term.

So they are doing something worse, knowing the demands of these highly offended crowd are bullshit but they prefer to look like they agree with them, so some retard do not start a twitter thread about how github supports slavery by naming default branch master.

In the meantime, this appeasement emboldens and make those children bolder demands, like a baby wailing inside a mall to force parents to buy a candy.

I think the same, to companies it's just business. It's good in the short term but in the long run it just gives more power to the snowflakes. If every company just said "stop bitching, this is nonsense" people would just stop pretending to be offended since it has no effect, but it's too late now. If a company were to do that today it would basically get "canceled".

As a side note: it seems that nowadays it's cool to be "woke". "Everyone pretends to care about everything, so it's cool to be offended and I want to be cool, so I'll do the same". No one says this out loud, but I'm pretty sure that (at least in a subconscious level) this is true.

The only thing companies care about is replacing you with cheaper line item labor and having only management as actually FTEs.

The wokescreen is distracting people from what actually matters.

@SortOfTested what is FTE?

@aviophile Full Time Equivalent (employee workforce).

Oh and as long as they only fool the crybaby suckers, they make profit - but when they let such folks take over the company, it goes downhills.

The previous Intel CEO had been caring a lot about "diversity" crap and conflict-free minerals and such. Yeah, but their products stagnated over years because their "diverse" workforce couldn't do shit, and now AMD is ripping them a second asshole.

The irony? That "diversity" Intel CEO is a white man, i.e. not even "diverse" himself.

AMD's CEO is a woman with migration background. OK, she also holds a PhD in EE and is as qualified for the job as one could possibly be, which is why she didn't need "diversity quotas" in the first place.

@Fast-Nop
Here diverse means 65% indian, 94% male.

@SortOfTested In terms of diversity, race trumps sex.

As white woman, you are more diverse than white men, but you lose against anyone else. You're only safe as long as there are white men to target, but with them removed, you're next in line.

@Fast-Nop
Don't I know it.

But yeah, they just use indians to fill the quota and cut the cost at the same time, and the program fails the groups it was designed to help because no one actually gives a shit.

@SortOfTested Such programs were designed primarily to replace existing expensive work force with cheaper other workers, at the very least by increasing supply. Why else would big corps have supported all that stuff?

@Fast-Nop
Have to disagree with that from a historical context. The one that started it all was "affirmative action." In the time period it was created, wages in the US weren't nearly as disparate across professions as they are today and offshoring of labor hadn't even started. AA was also employment law, rather than just a bland corporate policy.

The problems it attempted to counter were implicit bias by simply forcing people to consider it might exist in their justification for not hiring someone. It was fairly toothless and rarely enforced outside of class actions that helped no one.

Fast forward 50 years and like all outdated legislation, it's just been weaponized for corporate malfeasance.

@SortOfTested "Affirmative action" has always been about hiring people just because of their race or sex and let the non-diverse workforce do the actual work. There is no "reverse racism" and no "reverse sexism" because they're the text book definition of racism and sexism.

@Fast-Nop
Just responding to your previous statement that it was about cheaper workers.

There was no prescribed implementation, so companies did the bare minimum to check the box.