LOL. A paper tiger that controls inflation in US, UK and EU. Oh and the gas prices at the pump.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Procurement VP Departs Company After Vulgar TikTok Comment
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is wildly off topic, so I won't respond to you about this topic beyond this reply.
Russia is not the reason inflation is high throughout the globe. That's got everything to do with monetary policy during the pandemic and the resulting increase in demand, which supply could not match.
Re: gas prices. Russia is only responsible for 10% of the world's oil supply, and most of us in the West are fine enough with a temporary increase in prices to sanction Russia for their illegal invasion of a sovereign nation that we support. In the grand scheme of things it will mean very little as the first world moves on to electric vehicles.
Last edited:
It is incredible that this is your only line of argument.
No one denies that actions have consequences. What we are saying is that the consequence is disproportionate to the action. Your defense (“actions have consequence”) is ridiculous at best. The fact that every action has a consequence doesn’t meant that we gotta be ok with such consequence. Yours is a silly and dismissive line of argument that doesn’t face the concern at hand.
This would be the part where I shrug and say "oh well."
Society has deemed that this sort of behavior isn't ok and you've decided to be that guy who rages against reality as if it's going to have any effect. Ask every generation who came before us how much of an effect their whining and complaining had. Spoiler alert: none.
Society has done no such thing. A misguided portion of society has done so. You are one of the people who thinks that your viewpoint nd opinion is the only possible one and is therefore correct. Not open to other points of view, certainly not open to discussing other opinions and thinking that everything must adhere to your views. A very sad and worrisome way to go through life. Unfortunately this is very common amongst the younger population these days and some weak willed educational administrations are caving in. The snowflakes must be warned about and even shielded from any literature, films etc. that may shock or distress them. Nonsense but the pendulum will revert to the centre eventually.
Cool. Good luck with that "monetary policy" thing and the "temporary" increase in prices.
Apple doesn’t agree the consequences are disproportionate to the action. An executive of a company is most probably held to a different standard than lower level employees.
For a company that prides itself on DEI, the consequences of these action of this individual were not very well thought out.
Society clearly has, otherwise the right wouldn't be whining incessantly about "cancel culture" and playing the victim while hilariously trying to call others "snowflakes."
You can't deny that in the last decade, people who previously got away with abuse and harassment have been called out and are starting to face consequences for them. The emergence of and effect of things like #metoo are undeniable in this regard. The people who feel it's necessary to go on racist tirades in supermarkets or other public places get posted online and find themselves without jobs when their employers find out. This is pretty much a standard reaction to this type of incident now.
What other point of view am I supposed to be open to here? That hurtful and offensive comments are "just jokes" and we should all just chill out a bit? I'm a white dude, so I'm not the butt of any of these jokes, but I can certainly empathize with people who don't find these "jokes" funny, and instead would rather not hear them at all.
If it's absolutely necessary for you to make crude, vulgar, offensive, or racist comments in order to live a happy life, do it in private. You aren't going to lose your job over it, or be shamed online, because nobody will know about it. But if you chose to make that public, you're going to have to live with the consequences that society has deemed appropriate, and it certainly seems like you're not ok with that, so maybe take the hint?
I beg to differ. A very small but loud and vocal portion of society now controls what can and cannot be said and if anyone deviates from what this small but loud and vocal portion of society wants they are attacked. I have to admit that over the last 10 years what would be called the radical left has very effectively controlled the world dialogue under the threat of labeling individuals through corporations the absolute vilest things in order to control the conversation. There is no nuanced dialogue, there is compliance or you get labeled an -ist.
Most people just keep their heads down and publicly comply even though they might have a more nuanced opinion.
THIS!
And your solution is to be totalitarian tyrant fascists about it. Someone doesn't like what you say? Destroy their lives. Free speech only includes the speech that you want to hear? Got it. If you honestly don't understand that YOU are the problem in society, I honestly can't help you.
In my society, his basic needs would be taken care of regardless. They are not entitled to a platform or any status in society however.
You can beg to differ, but I'd love to hear how a "very small, but loud minority" has somehow forced society to do its bidding and everyone just goes along with it for reasons. Nothing about this makes any sense at all.
As I've already pointed out, society and social norms will do what they've always done, and that's to continue to evolve. Where once black people lived segregated lives, they do not anymore. Where once women could not vote, they now can. Where once powerful men could get away with sexually abusing and/or harassing women they work with, they are now being exposed and made to pay the price for their actions.
It's not hard to be a good person, and to think of others before you say something hurtful or offensive, or uncomfortable. While my preference would certainly be for people to think before speaking, and to be empathetic towards others, if they aren't going to, and they decide to be awful, in a very public way, I'd be lying if I said I didn't take enjoy watching them squirm at first, toss out fake apologies next, and then eventually go back to who they really are, and blame everyone else except themselves for the problems they're now facing.
Take abortion. Since the recent Roe v Wade decision there are small but vocal groups on each side of the debate. One says "no abortions ever for any reason", the other says "abortions up to the moment of delivery without question". I would argue that the "radical left" side is currently controlling the conversation, if anyone even tries to set any parameters outside of "abortions up to the moment of delivery without question" they are labeled as sexist, against women, etc. Is there really no room for conversation? This conversation is so controlled at this time that even the White House will not comment on support for any limitations what so ever. See how this works? A small minority is controlling the entire narrative to the point that even the President is afraid to comment.
For the record I am pro-choice but I cannot get behind anyone deciding at 8 months to terminate for no reason other than "they want to" and that is exactly what some are advocating for. I also cannot get behind the idea that one cannot terminate a pregnancy for any reason what so ever, that is equally stupid thinking.
All of these things are great, I am glad that they happened and are continuing to happen.
However, how are any of these things at all related to an off-hand, flippant comment to two people, one of whom was holding a phone?
I agree 100% but do you really believe that people are at their best 100% of the time? Do you really believe that mistakes cannot be made?
Do you really believe that Mr Blevins was purposefully trying to be hurtful and/or offensive with that comment? There were 2 people there and the one who might have had reason to be hurt of offended by all appearances wasn't. At no time was Mr Blevins asked if he was ok with his off the cuff comment being blasted to the entire world. It is sad that we "need" to have consent for sex but not for publishing a person to the world. We cannot secretly record people and use it as evidence but we can run up to a private citizen with a recording camera, ask them random questions and then post them to the world, that is just plain wrong.
The fact that you admit to enjoying the suffering of others, especially that one that has lost a lucrative career because of an off-hand 5 second comment speaks volumes.
So there is no room for redemption? No room for a person who had an off-hand comment broadcasted to the world to atone? Because he was caught in a "gotcha" moment he is forever cast as "bad"?
That is the very definition of "cancel culture".
Last edited:
First things first, stop using the term "radical left." This is a made up term by Republicans. In reality, the left in America is basically center right for the rest of the planet. I live in the United States but I'm not from here, and I laugh whenever I hear someone seriously say "radical left."
Second, I don't know ANYONE that's arguing that a person should be able to have an abortion at 8 months simply because they don't feel like having the baby anymore. Honestly, I don't know of anyone, or any group that is seriously arguing for this. That's absolutely ridiculous.
Third, nobody is "controlling the conversation," it's just happening. Surprise surprise, women don't like a bunch of old white men telling them what they can and can't do with their bodies.
No, but I was giving you an example of society evolving to become more civil, more fair, more equal, more equitable for all. The fact of the matter is that this man made an inappropriate and unprofessional comment, on a video, that went viral on Tik Tok and it brought Apple the kind of attention it doesn't want. I can't speak for why Apple made it's decision, but as I've already mentioned in other comments, I can speculate that they probably wondered if comments like this would make women that he works with at Apple, or through business relationships that Apple has, uncomfortable. They probably wondered if this man now looks like a clown to others that they do business with, and whether that's something they're comfortable with. Like it or not, we live in a world where everyone has a camera on them at all times. Don't say or do things in public that you wouldn't want the rest of the world knowing about, because it's quite likely it'll end up out there.
And? Like I said, it's certainly my preference for people to behave themselves and not making others feel uncomfortable with their comments, but if they aren't going to, yeah, it's funny to watch them do whatever they can in the interest of self preservation. The apologies are meaningless, and only because they got caught, and when the apologies don't wipe the slate clean, they go back to who they really are, which is a person who thinks it's ok to say and do whatever they want, and they blame everyone else for their own failings. Yeah, it's funny.
Sure, of course there is, but people aren't magically reformed in an instant just because they got caught. There's consequences, like losing your job maybe, and beyond that, they're going to have to work on themselves to understand why what they did was problematic, demonstrate an honest attempt to be better. You don't just get to say "Oh crap, I got caught, well guys, I'm terribly sorry, this isn't who I am, etc." That's practically boilerplate by now. It doesn't mean anything. Actions speak louder than words, so by all means, get to work.
Should Speaker Pelosi be fired and canceled because she thinks immigrants should just "pick the crops" in Florida? Personally I find this comment to be far more offensive than a joke from a movie!
Maybe you will come out as being against Joy Behar and Justin Trudeau for having been in black face? Or do you accept their apologies at face value and let them move on with their careers and lives as if nothing happened?
Should Alec Baldwin have been fired and canceled for using homophobic slurs? https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/15/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/alec-baldwin-gay-slur/index.html or do you give him a pass?
Do you denounce Elizabeth Warren's attempt to use race to further her education and career, made worse by the fact that they were false claims? Maybe you just let that slide huh? Why let an old, privileged white lady get away with that?
Should Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut have resigned immediately for having stolen valor or don't you mind that?
Should Whoopi Goldberg be forced to resign in shame or be fired for "a joke" about Lindsay Graham or did you find that "joke" acceptable and funny? Why does Whoopie get to come back from commercial break and just say "it was a joke" and have zero consequences?
"Sometimes I make jokes, and it was a joke. Nothing more than that," she said.
Goldberg appeared flustered as she went on, apparently alluding to an off-camera conversation with producers.
"I just got a whole conversation about people misunderstanding the joke. I mean, OK. I should probably never do this show again," she said, gesturing at someone off-screen. "If this is what it's coming to. It was a joke, guys."
Why is that ok? I guess Whoopie just on the side of the political spectrum where things like this get ignored?
All of these are, imho, far more offensive than Mr Blevins comment. If you reply please don't cherry pick, reply to all examples with your detailed and exact feelings on if they should also have been fired for their offensive acts.
Last edited:
Exactly. If anything Mr Blevins acted very typical for a guy with "a smaller size predicament" who always tries to compensate by being the funniest guy in a room. I would think that most women will probably get it and will not get offended.
I'm happy to go through these indivually, but let's leave Republican rhetoric at the door, shall we? Republicans invented the term "cancelled." I don't use that term myself.
Here's what Pelosi said:
“We have a shortage of workers in our country, and you see even in Florida, some of the farmers and the growers are saying, ‘Why are you shipping these immigrants up north? We need them to pick the crops down here,'” she said at a press briefing.
Do I think Nancy Pelosi should face consequences for paraphrasing Florida farmers? No.
Both are cringe worthy today, yes, but neither occurred today, they occurred in the past when we hadn't gotten to the point we're at today. I also don't think either (especially Trudeau, given that it was literally for a performance) come from a place of malice or cruelty. Still, it's good that they've apologized. If they were whining about how it's not that big of a deal, and people should just be allowed to do it and be fine, I think we'd have having a different conversation. To that point, look at Christmas celebrations in the Netherlands. Zwarte Piet is a tradition there, and despite everyone in the Netherlands now knowing how awful it comes off, that people don't like it, and that their lies for exactly what Zwarte Piet have been exposed, it's pretty cringe, and an example of the wrong way to handle that situation. I lived in the Netherlands for a while and I was quite vocal about my opposition to what they were doing. There's no regret or remorse from the Dutch on that subject though.
No, I don't give Alec Baldwin a pass. I think he's got anger issues, and he's said a lot of regrettable things and has had to make many apologies over the years for his behavior. He's a classic example of someone who apologizes when he gets caught, because he got caught. He's got a lot to learn.
From what I know of the situation, she was told by her family that she has Native American blood in her, and most people tend to believe the things their families tell them about their ancestry. It's somewhat questionable that she used that on an application though, and I think the criticism or at the very least a discussion about the situation is fair. What I don't think is ok is referring to her by racist names.
I think that's a personal decision on whether or not to resign. I can see how this issue could upset a lot of people who have served in the military, but if we're making an apples to apples (no pun intended) comparison here, it's really up to the people he serves to determine if what he did is a fireable offense. Personally if I got caught in an outright lie regarding military service, I would resign. I would also think twice about voting for someone that's been caught telling lies like this.
I think that should be up to the people that employ Whoopi Goldberg. If she'd been fired for it, I couldn't care less.
There's no sense in comparing which is the worst offense because all that matters is how Apple feels about it. Blevins worked for them, and he made a comment about fondling "large breasted women" that went viral online and Apple didn't like the attention he brought the company. Perhaps another company would have been content to keep him as an employee. That's really up to the employer.
The point I've made over and over again in this thread is that actions have consequences. All of the individuals you just mentioned, and Mr. Blevins should be smart enough to know what will and won't fly with the general public, and their employes/elecorate, etc.
Here's what Pelosi said:
“We have a shortage of workers in our country, and you see even in Florida, some of the farmers and the growers are saying, ‘Why are you shipping these immigrants up north? We need them to pick the crops down here,'” she said at a press briefing.
Do I think Nancy Pelosi should face consequences for paraphrasing Florida farmers? No.
Both are cringe worthy today, yes, but neither occurred today, they occurred in the past when we hadn't gotten to the point we're at today. I also don't think either (especially Trudeau, given that it was literally for a performance) come from a place of malice or cruelty. Still, it's good that they've apologized. If they were whining about how it's not that big of a deal, and people should just be allowed to do it and be fine, I think we'd have having a different conversation. To that point, look at Christmas celebrations in the Netherlands. Zwarte Piet is a tradition there, and despite everyone in the Netherlands now knowing how awful it comes off, that people don't like it, and that their lies for exactly what Zwarte Piet have been exposed, it's pretty cringe, and an example of the wrong way to handle that situation. I lived in the Netherlands for a while and I was quite vocal about my opposition to what they were doing. There's no regret or remorse from the Dutch on that subject though.
No, I don't give Alec Baldwin a pass. I think he's got anger issues, and he's said a lot of regrettable things and has had to make many apologies over the years for his behavior. He's a classic example of someone who apologizes when he gets caught, because he got caught. He's got a lot to learn.
From what I know of the situation, she was told by her family that she has Native American blood in her, and most people tend to believe the things their families tell them about their ancestry. It's somewhat questionable that she used that on an application though, and I think the criticism or at the very least a discussion about the situation is fair. What I don't think is ok is referring to her by racist names.
I think that's a personal decision on whether or not to resign. I can see how this issue could upset a lot of people who have served in the military, but if we're making an apples to apples (no pun intended) comparison here, it's really up to the people he serves to determine if what he did is a fireable offense. Personally if I got caught in an outright lie regarding military service, I would resign. I would also think twice about voting for someone that's been caught telling lies like this.
I think that should be up to the people that employ Whoopi Goldberg. If she'd been fired for it, I couldn't care less.
There's no sense in comparing which is the worst offense because all that matters is how Apple feels about it. Blevins worked for them, and he made a comment about fondling "large breasted women" that went viral online and Apple didn't like the attention he brought the company. Perhaps another company would have been content to keep him as an employee. That's really up to the employer.
The point I've made over and over again in this thread is that actions have consequences. All of the individuals you just mentioned, and Mr. Blevins should be smart enough to know what will and won't fly with the general public, and their employes/elecorate, etc.
Last edited:
@ninethirty , reasonable discourse, thank you.
I only have a couple things to more say as I am sure we agree to disagree about Mr Blevins.
IIRC Trudeau has been caught 3 times in blackface, were they all performances? He cannot even define the number of occasions he has been in black face.
Do you really think Mr Blevins's comments came from a place of malice or cruelty? And if you don't wouldn't you agree that his dismissal over this "joke" was a bit harsh? Shouldn't he have been sent to a few hours of sensitivity training and allowed to fall back into a world where very few people know who he is?
Ok, but I'd feel you were debating in good faith if you stood up, on record, as saying Whoopie's attempt at a "joke" about an individuals sexuality is not ok. She didn't even really apologize. Seems to me you are going out of your way not to condemn her "joke" as offensive but holding Mr Blevins feet to the fire for an arguably a lesser offense. Whoopie has a nationally (maybe even internationally) televised TV show and Mr Blevins spoke to 2 people and had that posted without his consent.
Of course my overall point is that some people are allowed to slide on offenses that would see others "canceled" and that usually depends on where you stand on the political spectrum.
If we don't hold everyone accountable to the same code of conduct we just have mob rules.
I only have a couple things to more say as I am sure we agree to disagree about Mr Blevins.
IIRC Trudeau has been caught 3 times in blackface, were they all performances? He cannot even define the number of occasions he has been in black face.
Do you really think Mr Blevins's comments came from a place of malice or cruelty? And if you don't wouldn't you agree that his dismissal over this "joke" was a bit harsh? Shouldn't he have been sent to a few hours of sensitivity training and allowed to fall back into a world where very few people know who he is?
Ok, but I'd feel you were debating in good faith if you stood up, on record, as saying Whoopie's attempt at a "joke" about an individuals sexuality is not ok. She didn't even really apologize. Seems to me you are going out of your way not to condemn her "joke" as offensive but holding Mr Blevins feet to the fire for an arguably a lesser offense. Whoopie has a nationally (maybe even internationally) televised TV show and Mr Blevins spoke to 2 people and had that posted without his consent.
Of course my overall point is that some people are allowed to slide on offenses that would see others "canceled" and that usually depends on where you stand on the political spectrum.
If we don't hold everyone accountable to the same code of conduct we just have mob rules.
Last edited:
Strange, I don’t remember voting in that referendum.
Good to know where you would’ve stood on the Galileo trials or in worse situations. You know, society deemed many times that [race/type/category] was inferior, so that excused everything, including out of proportions consequences to those who voiced their disagreement.
Last edited:
Most of the US is "at-will" employment as I understand it, Cali included. Even if some of the popular MacRumors vote seems indicate Mr. Blevins did nothing wrong, Apple was well within their rights to terminate him (or ask him to resign)
Apple was absolutely within their right to do so, I do lament that we are not all held to the same code of conduct.
One would think that the Disney company would find Whoopie Goldberg's "joke" about someones sexuality abhorrent and terminate her. I guess as @ninethirty stated, "society has deemed" Whoopie acceptable but not Blevins.
This is one crazy world, I guess we have not progressed as far as we think.
Last edited:
I can't offer anything new to the Trudeau situation that isn't already described in the news or by him. I'll re-iterate what I said earlier though which is through the lens of today, what he did then was wrong, but blackface was certainly more prevalent and less controversial then, and the context does matter. I'll also say again that if he was moaning about how there's no big deal and this is all just a distraction, and clearly showed no understanding of why what he did is considered hurtful by others, I'd feel differently about it.
Regarding Whoopi, she's a comedian, and I'm not in favor of censoring comedy at any time, for any reason. It doesn't matter if the comic is a conservative, or liberal, I believe they should say what they want to say, and audiences will either show up, or they won't. Specifically in the case you described, I said the same thing that I'm saying regarding Mr. Blevin. It's up to the employer. Had the producers of The View fired her, I couldn't care less. If Whoopi made similar jokes in a stand up performance and the audience turned on her, or nobody showed up for subsequent performances, that's something she'd have to live with. She needs to know her situation, and her audience.
Mr. Blevin is not a comedian though, and joke or not, it's inappropriate and unprofessional for someone at that level within Apple to be talking about "fondling large breasts." If Apple hadn't have fired the guy, I couldn't care less either, but I certainly understand why they did.
True. The line for acceptable standards is blurry. But I can see how Apple could take a different stance with an executive than an entertainment company with a “star”. No matter even within entertainment there seems to be some that can get away with saying anything and some can’t.