Adobe for All

From iGeek
Revision as of 11:24, 6 November 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

There's this program called "Adobe for All" -- which originated out of the Adobe for Women efforts. These were/are efforts that allow Women to shadow execs, Women to have Women speakers, and stuff like that that are denied/discouraged for men. Later, the "for All" really meant all minorities... straight white males need not apply. They try harder, and are slightly better than a Google or a Facebook at not being completely anti-white-male douches about it... but only slightly better. There's still an undertone and history that makes it fundamentally bigoted and flawed from the premise to the implementation. Men at Adobe know that while they created and built the company, they are second class civitizens, in the name of diversity indoctrination and hypocritical efforts to be politically correct.

Some background: Adobe Snowflakes : 3 items

For All - My company does "For All" sessions, to try to improve diversity, but since they are filtered to exclude many, it feels like it does the opposite.

AdobeProud - AdobeProud is a group, maillist and slack channel that was started so that the Adobe LGBT-community could connect and share LGBT events/issues. But since the LGBT community (especially in the bar area) demands conformity to far left marxists intolerance (cancel culture, etc), it quickly became a place to bully anyone that tries to inject balance and moderation. And HR seems to side with the mob.

Adobe Gender Pronouns - Fixing a non-problem: Adobe proudly claimed they'd solved the worlds problems by allowing people to pick their gender pronouns in Slack, and soon on Workday. Oh boy... there are at least a half a dozen people this impacts in a company of 20,000+, assuming those people are too snowflakey to handle the normal processes for selecting gender. I was pounding my head on the desk. There's two genders, period. Everything else is about sexual preference, which is none of corporate's business. The left demands that we destroy and re-invent the language, to prove we're part of the PC clique and willing to put conformity above sanity. But this impacts no one that should matter. I believe in giving my trans friends respect and going along with he or she as they wish. But I also believe if they want to demand I call them some made up shit like Ze or Zir, then I'm going to demand they call me Lord and Savior. If they don't honor my request, then we know they're just special snowflakes demanding special attention because they need to feel special and accommodated. None of that increase my respect for them as people that can empathize with others, and what they are truly demanding.

Attendance - This program requires that you apply to get in to the multi-day event and festivities. If you're a Women, LGBT, etc., you will get in. If you're a white male? You have to tell a compelling story to be allowed to go. They brag about their 50% of people that applied were allowed to go. They ignore that many white males, have learned that application to go is a waste of time, or don't feel welcomed to go... or at least, don't want to go where messages of inclusion for everyone BUT them, is going to be littered throughout. 50% alllowed to go is also saying that they blocked the other 50%, want to take bets on how many of those that couldn't go were white males? Or how many white males were in attendance? If this is about increasing diversity and tolerance, or "for all" then those were the ones that most likely should have been there.

Don't get me wrong, not all of the speakers are that bad. (We can watch some on video stream). But the overall tone is how to disadvantage white male patriarchy, so that we can get our quotas up. Even while they're claiming, "we don't believe in quotas"... but here's the numbers that we want to improve on anyway. You can't advantage some, without disadvantaging others.

The non-Quota/Quota - An example of one of the sessions was our Diversity Tsar (I like to think of it as our head of the Department of Rainbows) was bragging about pay parity percentages and how many Women and URM's (Under-represtented Minorities)... but that we shouldn't blog or tweet the numbers... and that “we aren’t aiming for a quota!” because that might incentivize the wrong things, we just wanted to get the numbers up by hiring the best people, and of course the flock of bigots cheered.

Think about that for a minute like you're not a far-left activist.

  • You can't make the numbers go up, without displacing White Men. It's corporate bigotry, just less than some other places.
  • They offered no material ideas of what the valley / tech norm is, to give us a baseline understanding of how we are, or where we should go. Nor how they derived at their numbers, to know if there's any merit at all to the claims. Not to mention the fallaciousness of assuming that general population is what fairness would look like.
  • The lack of a quota, means it's an infinite goal: you can keep displacing White Men forever. It could go well beyond “proportional representation”, because there's no goal/limit (quota).
  • Whether you have an official quota, or unofficial encouragement for it (as she was doing), you get what you incentivize. So as soon as corporate lackeys starts tracking a metric, there’s some over-achievers that are thinking, “I’m going to be on the good list”… and since the ends justifies the means, they’ll do it by being bigots to anything/anyone that doesn’t get them the gold star that showing an improving ratio would. Thus, it's not about the quality of the person, but the metric that is being measured and rewarded. (Even if the reward is just praise/attention)

The sheep cheered that?! I felt bad for them. There was nothing in that to be cheering.

Real Diversity - The more I attend these things (even by proxy) the less I care. They're such a fraud.

I was thinking Adobe has over-representation of Indians and Asians, because they're overachievers in academics and tech. And Leftists and LGBT because of offices in the Bay Area and Seattle (as well as NY and Boston). Also Autism and ADHD are likely over-represented because of Tech's asocial nature.

If Adobe cared about diversity, they'd be trying to do University Hires out of more than just a few top colleges. They'd be trying to hire more conservatives (under-represented), more middle eastern, more immigrants from 3rd world countries. They'd start punishing the Indians and the Gays for their over-representation. Now I don't agree with doing that, but numerically, that's a far more valid goal that picking on the minority White Guys. Adobe really only cares about doing a few symbolic gestures to placate the SJW's and pretend they care enough to be appealing to the snowflake graduates of a few top universities, and make the far left find richer targets for their hate.

If I was thinking like I do: a logical right winger, I don't care about these quotas -- I care that we're hiring the best regardless of race/gender preference/political view.

But if I was thinking like an intersectional grievance warrior leftist as they were encouraging, then that overrepresentation must be remedied for there to be Social Justice. It's not the White Males that are the problem, it's that many groups are over-represented, and through no fault of their own, they must be punished, since their numbers don't match some imaginary bean counters view of utopia! Of course the left isn't introspective enough to understand what they're actually preaching, so they cheer at all the wrong parts, and miss the irony of their own message. I needed a shower.


Again, I like Adobe. I like the company in general. And it's less obnoxious about this stuff than most of the bigots in Silicon Valley. But the efforts are still condescending, insulting, hypocritical, and bigoted. I feel anger towards the other companies that do it. I feel embarrassment when I see an otherwise good company doing it.... even if we're slightly less obnoxious about it than most.


📚 References

This MTV link talking about how great using They/Them and other gender neutral stuff, demonstrates the root of the argument: if they/them wants to be offended and you misgendering them, they get to -- and it can be hugely harmful to their psyche and identity. But they don't have the same burden of respect back to those who don't want to use those terms: because to the SJW snowflakes, respect and demands only has to travel in the direction they want. This is called a begging the question fallacy: if we assume they're right, then you're wrong. Never-mind that the assumption is wrong, and tolerance for others should be a two way street. E.g. they have just as much obligation for my desires at two genders, as I have towards respecting their new inventions of recognizing their sexual proclivities. Some believe, "Gender is binary: period. Sexual preferences are a spectrum. Those that don't recognize it, are offending them. Why aren't their feelings as important as the non-binary snowflakes feelings?" :