Any comments on what I said about post modernism, socialism, communism and where that leads?
Sorry, yes, got caught up in the rest.
I see the link, absolutely. That's why I think we have to tread carefully with decisions we make. In my opinion, it's vital to correct the wrongs of yesterday that are still impacting today, but also vital that we don't repeat the very same behavior in the opposite direction today. When I say I don't have a solution, I mean it.
I'm a free-market, fully capitalist, Libertarian. In my opinion, any Social Justice implementations need to come from the private sector as a response to consumers and employees deciding it's important to them, except where government is the cause, which is fairly limited I think at this point.
I see the link, absolutely. That's why I think we have to tread carefully with decisions we make. In my opinion, it's vital to correct the wrongs of yesterday that are still impacting today, but also vital that we don't repeat the very same behavior in the opposite direction today. When I say I don't have a solution, I mean it.
I'm a free-market, fully capitalist, Libertarian. In my opinion, any Social Justice implementations need to come from the private sector as a response to consumers and employees deciding it's important to them, except where government is the cause, which is fairly limited I think at this point.
Thanks again for an honest opinon. It seems many companies are jumping full in anyway, maybe there will be backlash, or failure for not hiring the most qualified and the market will even it self out. But if it works like socialism, it wont. Those who disagree with social justice will be punished, and not by a free market. The successful would support the unsuccessful until the entire house of cards cannot hold itself up any longer.
One of the things I think we disagree on is that equity of outcome is achievable, or should be, which is what seems to be "the" way to "correct the wrongs of yesterday".
One of the things I think we disagree on is that equity of outcome is achievable, or should be, which is what seems to be "the" way to "correct the wrongs of yesterday".
No, I don't want equity of outcome.
I want equity of opportunity, which we don't have due to a myriad of factors that we can never, and should never fully control. But if you can get closer, then that's progress, and I do think there is room for that progress without getting into socialist territory. What someone does with that opportunity is entirely on them. I do not want equity of outcome.
Good to hear. Thats what hiring and firing based on race is trying to do. I agree hiring and firing based on race is not wanted. What stinks is they now make people do it.
As for getting too close to socialist territory, I think we already went too far. Not just in what we do but what we teach.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-08-2021).]
Due to where I sit, I have had to learn a lot about this. It structures a company’s goals and HR approach. Of course it is relevant to everyone, but not everyone has had to have so much training. Don’t mistake my comment.
Oh, there was no mistaking it, it came across loud and clear. You aren't nearly the 1st person to climb the ladder and join the group that believes they see things so much more clearly than the world below due to the lofty heights where the air is so much more clear and cool.
I think it was 1972 when as a senior enlisted in my dept I was asked (not that I had a choice) to help write what was then called a Race Relations Directive for the Navy base near Memphis Tenn. (you were probably srtill in knee pants). I found the whole endeavor to be distasteful tho the Lt Cmdr thought the finished product wonderful right up until the upper muky mucks (junior grade officers looking for a feather to add to their caps) altered it so much the enlisted men of all races and color all but refused to attend it. That was one of my first experiences of seeing what happens when people look at the world as they are and not as it is. (I was 22)
It was then, and still is elitism, and it began long long before that. "We must convert these ignorant unwashed savages to live, work, act, speak and think as we do"
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-08-2021).]
When I made the transition into management, I was surprised and disappointed at how immature, ill-informed and arrogant the "office staff" was. I will always have more respect for the guys who do the actual work.
In my younger days, most who were in management worked their way up. They knew the industry (lumber, in my case) "soup to nuts". Sometime in the eighties or nineties, much of the old guard was replaced by educated pencil pushers, wannabe yuppies.
[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-08-2021).]
Oh, there was no mistaking it, it came across loud and clear.
Well, I didn’t remotely mean it that way. It would have been better just to say “through my work,” I guess. I can’t change how you interpreted it, though I figured you may have known me a bit better.
Well, I didn’t remotely mean it that way. It would have been better just to say “through my work,” I guess. I can’t change how you interpreted it, though I figured you may have known me a bit better.
Used to.
I read today, that the term "Third World" is offensive and is to be avoided in all cases. "There is no third world.. only the oppressors and the oppressed!". And no, can't use 'resource deficit nations' either, as that implies the people of that nation are 'less' than everywhere else. I wonder who 'up at the top' in the clear cool air came up with those pearls of wisdom?
I just work relatively high up in Corporate America, where Social Justice is extremely relevant.
No you don't and no it isn't.
IF you were ever sufficiently "high up in Corporate America" (sic) YOU wouldn't be so absorbed in silly, ancillary, nonsense that ISN'T the goal or "extremely relevant" to "corporate America" or anyone in senior management, control or ownership.
What YOU claim to be "extremely relevant" is mostly assigned to lower level functionaries and HR managers (that, purposefully, is a position now inhabited by young SJW's that are hired to fill their role of keeping equal opportunity nuisance lawsuits away from the corporation while actual business is conducted by the productive people of the company.)
I suspect that you really have no clue what is actually "extremely relevant" to corporate America.
By the way your capitalizing "Corporate America" (sic) is both unimpressive, unconvincing, and indicative of someone who isn't as "relatively high up" as he thinks he is or is attempting to convince others he is.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-08-2021).]
I want equity of opportunity, which we don't have due to a myriad of factors that we can never, and should never fully control. But if you can get closer, then that's progress, and I do think there is room for that progress without getting into socialist territory. What someone does with that opportunity is entirely on them. I do not want equity of outcome.
I don't EVER want equality of opportunity.
I don't want the blind or downs syndrome crawling into cockpits. I don't want aids or herpes hookers at brothels. I sure as hell NEVER want to hear the unable struggling to play a screaching cat <err, I mean fiddle> and I sure as **** do not ever want a taxi driver with direaha !!!!!
People do not get the same opportunities. Based on birth, location, physical condition, mental ability, and a myriad of other factors. Thats life. Its not fair.
Get used to it.
Its long past time to get rid of this liberal "equality" bullshit, take off the rose glasses and see life for what it is.
[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 01-08-2021).]
IF you were ever sufficiently "high up in Corporate America" (sic) YOU wouldn't be so absorbed in silly, ancillary, nonsense that ISN'T the goal or "extremely relevant" to "corporate America" or anyone in senior management, control or ownership.
What YOU claim to be "extremely relevant" is mostly assigned to lower level functionaries and HR managers (that purposefully is a position now inhabited by young SJW's that are hired to fill their role of keeping equal opportunity lawsuits away from the corporation while actual business is conducted by the productive people of the company.)
I suspect that you really have no clue what is actually "extremely relevant" to corporate America.
By the way your capitalizing "Corporate America" (sic) is both unimpressive, unconvincing, and indicative of someone who isn't as "relatively high up" as he thinks he is or is attempting to convince others he is.
Randye, damn. You're brutal, man lol. You're not wrong, though. The positions are on the deficit side of the ledger, but it's been made mandatory in corporate America.
IF you were ever sufficiently "high up in Corporate America" (sic) YOU wouldn't be so absorbed in silly, ancillary, nonsense that ISN'T the goal or "extremely relevant" to "corporate America" or anyone in senior management, control or ownership.
What YOU claim to be "extremely relevant" is mostly assigned to lower level functionaries and HR managers (that, purposefully, is a position now inhabited by young SJW's that are hired to fill their role of keeping equal opportunity nuisance lawsuits away from the corporation while actual business is conducted by the productive people of the company.)
I suspect that you really have no clue what is actually "extremely relevant" to corporate America.
By the way your capitalizing "Corporate America" (sic) is both unimpressive, unconvincing, and indicative of someone who isn't as "relatively high up" as he thinks he is or is attempting to convince others he is.
It doesn’t really matter what you think of my job. My intent was only to show why I’m invested. You can believe what you will, otherwise.
It doesn’t really matter what you think of my job. My intent was only to show why I’m invested. You can believe what you will, otherwise.
It's pretty obvious that young SJWs unhappiness and perennial discontent with life is a direct result of their compulsive bad investments and bad judgment.
Hey someone has to do the job, right? Plus it's lucrative for the skill level required. Gets a person paid for mining trigger words, insensitivities, offenses from the English language or behavior. Wonder what sort of formal college achievement is required? Of course one must be a POC or qualifying homosexual, transexual, bisexual if not a POC.
Director of Snowflake Awareness and Training
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 01-09-2021).]
Hey someone has to do the job, right? Plus it's lucrative for the skill level required. Gets a person paid for mining trigger words, insensitivities, offenses from the English language or behavior. Wonder what sort of formal college achievement is required? Of course one must be a POC or qualifying homosexual, transexual, bisexual if not a POC.
Hey someone has to do the job, right? Plus it's lucrative for the skill level required. Gets a person paid for mining trigger words, insensitivities, offenses from the English language or behavior. Wonder what sort of formal college achievement is required? Of course one must be a POC or qualifying homosexual, transexual, bisexual if not a POC.
Director of Snowflake Awareness and Training
Speaking as someone who has interviewed and approved the hiring of multiple HR managers over the course of my career, I can assure you that I didn't inquire about their sexual preferences and I don't know of anyone else who did.
I never asked about their politics or racial ideas either.
That said, one HR manager I approved for hire later turned out to have an odd inability to find any qualified candidates for positions in the company other than young Puerto Rican females, which she "coincidentally" was herself, (as well as her being possessed of the habit of loudly expressing her Leftist politics and personal racial grievances.)
That in itself wouldn't have been an insurmountable problem IF the candidates she found later turned out to be qualified, productive and fit well into the company, however a few turned out to have falsified resumes, which should have been very easily screened out by the HR manager, and most of the rest that were hired proved to be spectacularly incapable at their jobs or were abrasive with coworkers, angry, confrontational and such a disruption within the company that we had to let them go before their 90 day probationary hiring was completed.
The young HR manager soon followed them into unemployment.
Of course she immediately filed a "discrimination" lawsuit which she also lost by summary judgment.
If allowed to take root, "social justice" activism within a company is like a cancer. It will gradually disable the company from proper functioning and will eventually kill it.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-09-2021).]
My last employer outsourced to a contractor to come in and teach us how not to offend anyone, because look what happened to Starbucks when they asked the 2 Black men to leave for not buying anything.
Social justice is interesting. It's often that there is no right decision, just one that is more correct than another. Take the following statements and possible actions as an example:
White men make up more of senior leadership at F500 companies than their "share" of the population. That's not necessarily an issue on its own, just a fact.
White people made up a SIGNIFICANT majority of citizens in this country from Revolutionary times to present time. Obviously the native Americans lived here first, but they did not exist in the same numbers as those that came here. They fought constantly amongst themselves and killed themselves off. We have a pristine idea of Native American Indians as being one with Earth, but largely they were warring tribes that barbarically killed eachother. Super-awesome culture, but never the less, they did not exist in enormous numbers like the Colonists did. From the founding of the United States, to even just ~30 years ago, whites made up almost 80% of the population in the United States.
Fortune 500 is a list of 500 American companies. Since at the time most of these CEOs were born, white people dominated the population, it would only make sense that the overwhelming vast majority of these would be run by white people.
Incidentally, we've had massive immigration from all over the world in the span of the last 30 years, and the United States is now more diverse than it's ever been in 30 years, I expect the Fortune 500 companies to be reflective of the population break-out as it exists *TODAY*, not 30 years from now.
Incidentally, white people are a minority in overall world population. The top 10 wealthiest people, 8 of them are white, and 7 of them are American. This is because the United States is also the wealthiest nation in the world... for a variety of reasons:
1 - We didn't get our country completely destroyed during WW2 since the battle was fought in Europe and in Asia 2 - We have (had?) the most successful free-market system in the world which coupled with #1, allowed us to quickly become the dominant economy in the world
Both of these led to where we are with Fortune 500 companies.
You're both missing an extremely relevant point that some people you think are White don't identify as White themselves. A large percentage of the Fortune 500 are those people. The owners of the professional Basketball and Football teams are made up of these people too. All the top media TV/Cable news networks are made up of these people with 1 exception.
If we're going to demand F500 companies have equal parity in diversity then we need to demand professional sports teams do the same thing.
White people made up a SIGNIFICANT majority of citizens in this country from Revolutionary times to present time. Obviously the native Americans lived here first,
They're technically American Indians with Asiatic DNA. No people are truly native here. And parts of South and Central America show Samoan/Polynesian types were here first. There's the Clovis people still in flux too off the East Coast.
Either way, they were Stone Aged people.
quote
They fought constantly amongst themselves and killed themselves off. We have a pristine idea of Native American Indians as being one with Earth, but largely they were warring tribes that barbarically killed eachother. Super-awesome culture, but never the less, they did not exist in enormous numbers like the Colonists did. From the founding of the United States, to even just ~30 years ago, whites made up almost 80% of the population in the United States.
Totally true. The Cherokee haven't been in the South longer than Vikings in North America. The Cherokee formed from Northern tribes and invaded, the Mound Builder people are one group they invaded. Where'd those people go? If land in GA, TN, VA, NC is going back to original people, it can be proven it wasn't the Cherokee here first. The Cherokee have a reservation in NC, so the precedent is set that you can invade and claim right to a land.
quote
Fortune 500 is a list of 500 American companies. Since at the time most of these CEOs were born, white people dominated the population, it would only make sense that the overwhelming vast majority of these would be run by white people.
They also have to answer to the share holders. Not Social Justice warriors. Where did people start buying their disposable razors recently?
quote
Incidentally, we've had massive immigration from all over the world in the span of the last 30 years, and the United States is now more diverse than it's ever been in 30 years, I expect the Fortune 500 companies to be reflective of the population break-out as it exists *TODAY*, not 30 years from now.
The USA is trending down now. We're being looted.
quote
Incidentally, white people are a minority in overall world population. The top 10 wealthiest people, 8 of them are white, and 7 of them are American. This is because the United States is also the wealthiest nation in the world... for a variety of reasons:
I guarantee they don't all ID as White. People of one religious persuasion say they aren't White. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk are White. But Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Sheldon Adelson, Bloomberg are in the group said to be not White.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 01-10-2021).]
I guarantee they don't all ID as White. People of one religious persuasion say they aren't White. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Elon Musk are White. But Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Ellison, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Sheldon Adelson, Bloomberg are in the group said to be not White.
On official government documents, there is no where to put "Jewish" as a race. My wife is Jewish, and she puts white because she is white.
I also put white, because I am white, and my heritage is Hispanic, because my mom was born in Argentina.
There's no where to put "mixed" race either, which is a pet peeve of mine. The gov lead the charge on self IDing as one thing when it's clear that many are not just one race.
The US government is now calling Arabs and Iranians White. It helps inflate the White numbers from being the minority quicker, imo.
You make a good point that people that aren't White as we perceive them are classed as White by the US government. And people who are mixed with African are usually steered to select African American even when they're mostly or half European. For one, it's obvious to see African influence when they are, and two, it's beneficial in higher education and work place hiring for them.
Plenty of Whites in Argentina. And yes I'm aware that the USA doesn't categorize Jewish people in a separate column. That was done on purpose. Are Hispanics really Hispanic if they have no Spanish ancestry?. Mestizo is a mix of Spanish and American Indian but nobody uses that category. Just HIspanic.
The Jewish religion, and specifically the Jewish people came from 12 tribes which eventually merged into 4. Regardless of whether you believe they came from the 12 sons of Abraham or they were 12 nomadic clans that were influenced into the religion... they are all of largely different backgrounds. Some Jews are middle eastern, others are truly white. I can assure you my wife's nipples are pink. My experience with nipples from a variety of women in my young adulthood leads me to believe that my wife is in fact 100% white.
I totally accept what you're saying. But I haven't said what I believe or know about who they are. Just repeated what is said by those of the official voice of the people. So I might agree with you.
Here's my major deal, it's a hypersensitivity to political correctness and false identities of all people. I reject not properly IDing people by what they truly are. If I have a minor admixture of Central Asian and Neanderthal does it mean I'm non White? Mixed people are forced to falsely ID. And not far from that you get institutional racism against the race of one of their historical makers by erasing it while you look at them and see it.
It's just ridiculous and some other nations don't do that. Vietnamese don't allow it. Chinese don't. South Africa doesn't either. Btw, I had a Semitic acquaintance once. Truly semitic. Not Jewish. Not Arab either. I saw her bare chest but don't remember color much. Skin color was olive everywhere. But along my strong resistance at accepting non-sequiturs, how stupid is it to call an Arab antisemitic? Got to be one of the stupidest things to exist.
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 01-11-2021).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The Jewish religion, and specifically the Jewish people came from 12 tribes which eventually merged into 4. Regardless of whether you believe they came from the 12 sons of Abraham or they were 12 nomadic clans that were influenced into the religion... they are all of largely different backgrounds. Some Jews are middle eastern, others are truly white. I can assure you my wife's nipples are pink. My experience with nipples from a variety of women in my young adulthood leads me to believe that my wife is in fact 100% white.
Damn, I had no idea that was an identifier. You learn something every day....
The Jewish religion, and specifically the Jewish people came from 12 tribes which eventually merged into 4. Regardless of whether you believe they came from the 12 sons of Abraham or they were 12 nomadic clans that were influenced into the religion... they are all of largely different backgrounds. Some Jews are middle eastern, others are truly white. I can assure you my wife's nipples are pink. My experience with nipples from a variety of women in my young adulthood leads me to believe that my wife is in fact 100% white.
truly this is going to take more research. Honestly, my exposure to pink nipples has been mostly online. Direct access has been more of a tan variety with a pink undertone. But if we are going to start using this as a way of labeling people instead of race then I am you man!!
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: White people made up a SIGNIFICANT majority of citizens in this country from Revolutionary times to present time. Obviously the native Americans lived here first, but they did not exist in the same numbers as those that came here. They fought constantly amongst themselves and killed themselves off. We have a pristine idea of Native American Indians as being one with Earth, but largely they were warring tribes that barbarically killed eachother. Super-awesome culture, but never the less, they did not exist in enormous numbers like the Colonists did. From the founding of the United States, to even just ~30 years ago, whites made up almost 80% of the population in the United States.
Fortune 500 is a list of 500 American companies. Since at the time most of these CEOs were born, white people dominated the population, it would only make sense that the overwhelming vast majority of these would be run by white people.
Incidentally, we've had massive immigration from all over the world in the span of the last 30 years, and the United States is now more diverse than it's ever been in 30 years, I expect the Fortune 500 companies to be reflective of the population break-out as it exists *TODAY*, not 30 years from now.
Incidentally, white people are a minority in overall world population. The top 10 wealthiest people, 8 of them are white, and 7 of them are American. This is because the United States is also the wealthiest nation in the world... for a variety of reasons:
1 - We didn't get our country completely destroyed during WW2 since the battle was fought in Europe and in Asia 2 - We have (had?) the most successful free-market system in the world which coupled with #1, allowed us to quickly become the dominant economy in the world
Both of these led to where we are with Fortune 500 companies.
Agreed with this, with the addition that White people not only dominated in population, but they were the only ones allowed to own property and businesses in some states for a long time, a time when some of these companies were started.
I think what people are wrestling with, is how long this perpetuates. Say your great-grandfather built a fortune off the exploitation of Black people who didn't have other options. Maybe he built a distillery, I don't know. Then he passes that on to his family, passes it down to you. You did nothing wrong, and it shouldn't be taken from you. At the same time, kinda sucks that you're thriving off a foundation built on exploitation. No answers here, because I don't have them, but wealth perpetuates (within a few generations usually), and economic hardship perpetuates. Some make it out, some even turn it into a fire of opportunity (like many first-generation immigrants). It's difficult to just ignore all of the history and nuance and pretend like we should all move on, though.
I do want to be clear, I don't believe in providing for or holding back based on the color of someone's skin or what is between their legs. I do believe in the power of diversity to provide valuable insight to a team, but this diversity is primarily going to be diversity of thought and experiences.
truly this is going to take more research. Honestly, my exposure to pink nipples has been mostly online. Direct access has been more of a tan variety with a pink undertone. But if we are going to start using this as a way of labeling people instead of race then I am you man!!
So I told my girlfriend about this. She gave me the full of **** face, then asked me what color hers were. I don't know if you planned this or not but I got to see her nips in the middle of the day and was getting paid to do it
Pink and she was shocked to find out she was white.
BDub, once was heard a discussion locally with Black and White political activists about Affirmative Action wherein the Black guy said he'd like to see 6 generations of AA so families could build generational wealth in some similar fashion as the norm.
Got a sibling who was the first in our family to earn a 4 year. So, not a lot of wealth was going around. Just normal middle class.
You did nothing wrong, and it shouldn't be taken from you. At the same time, kinda sucks that you're thriving off a foundation built on exploitation. No answers here, because I don't have them, but wealth perpetuates (within a few generations usually), and economic hardship perpetuates. Some make it out, some even turn it into a fire of opportunity (like many first-generation immigrants). It's difficult to just ignore all of the history and nuance and pretend like we should all move on, though.
I do want to be clear, I don't believe in providing for or holding back based on the color of someone's skin or what is between their legs. I do believe in the power of diversity to provide valuable insight to a team, but this diversity is primarily going to be diversity of thought and experiences.
We can say we don't have the answers, that we don't believe in holding folks back due to their skin color, surely few will say they do.
But do we condone it by what we do at work? What we say? What we promote? What we don't say? Do we look the other way? Does our social environment make us feel like we have to edit our common sense?
Also, if we are considering how certain "groups" came to power:
First we must use racism or its cousin to classify the groups.
Secondly, what will we consider an infraction in this system? Since the beginning of time people have disagreed, fought, tribe vs tribe, nations have conquered nations, culture vs culture. How do the brilliant racists suggest we track backwards through all of recorded history and undo all of this? Which infractions do we ignore? Sounds tongue in cheek but it can't be.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-12-2021).]
We can say we don't have the answers, that we don't believe in holding folks back due to their skin color, surely few will say they do.
But do we condone it by what we do at work? What we say? What we promote? What we don't say? Do we look the other way? Does our social environment make us feel like we have to edit our common sense?
Also, if we are considering how certain "groups" came to power:
First we must use racism or its cousin to classify the groups.
Secondly, what will we consider an infraction in this system? Since the beginning of time people have disagreed, fought, tribe vs tribe, nations have conquered nations, culture vs culture. How do the brilliant racists suggest we track backwards through all of recorded history and undo all of this? Which infractions do we ignore? Sounds tongue in cheek but it can't be.
In my opinion, it’s more (X)ist to completely ignore someone’s (color/sex/gender/etc) as a component of their identity, than it is to see how it is a part of them and contributes to their uniqueness. So I don’t see it as using the “cousin” of racism to do so, though I certainly see the value in that train of thought.
Whiteness was power for a long time in America. And that power shifted to different access of resources that still contribute to an imbalance of power today. Ignoring that doesn’t address it, and failing to address it continues the imbalance.
For what it’s worth, I see this conversation as an exchange of ideas. I don’t have the answers and don’t know how to address the “issues” I’ve described.
In my opinion, it’s more (X)ist to completely ignore someone’s (color/sex/gender/etc) as a component of their identity, than it is to see how it is a part of them and contributes to their uniqueness. So I don’t see it as using the “cousin” of racism to do so, though I certainly see the value in that train of thought.
Whiteness was power for a long time in America. And that power shifted to different access of resources that still contribute to an imbalance of power today. Ignoring that doesn’t address it, and failing to address it continues the imbalance.
For what it’s worth, I see this conversation as an exchange of ideas. I don’t have the answers and don’t know how to address the “issues” I’ve described.
Thats the diversity kool aid they would like us all to drink, in order to endlessly categorize people, and separate us into identity groups to be used as tools.
Of course, yes we are exchanging ideas.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but everything I say here is for everyone who ever reads it. Ending each thought with I dont have the answers, and I can see the value of the opinion I do not share, is something easier to do than to decide what one believes. It works until beliefs are tested. It works until its too late.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-13-2021).]
Originally posted by 2.5: Thats the diversity kool aid they would like us all to drink, in order to endlessly categorize people, and separate us into identity groups to be used as tools.
Of course, yes we are exchanging ideas.
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but everything I say here is for everyone who ever reads it. Ending each thought with I dont have the answers, and I can see the value of the opinion I do not share, is something easier to do than to decide what one believes. It works until beliefs are tested. It works until its too late.
Sure it’s easier, but just because you take a stance doesn’t mean your stance is correct. I know diversity of ideas benefits performance at a company and on a team, and I believe that’s very important. I don’t know how I feel about achieving that. I know White people overall benefited by long-held power in this country, and that power still impacts today. I don’t know how I feel about rectifying that (especially considering it’s not a 1x1 rule). I know grouping us all as humans does not address that imbalance, and don’t think “not seeing race” is a virtue. My wife is a POC and her life is still impacted by that today, and the worst offenders are not people acknowledging her race, they’re all White men who claim they don’t see race.
I’m very comfortable saying I don’t know on this one.
At least you have an opinion on part of it, and shared it. Thanks.
One thing I've noticed is many of the people outspoken on the diversity side of it, (the ones that arent just sheep without a reason) seem to have a family member or friend who they see as a victim. Someone who is oppressed, so they need to identify an oppressor. You seem to have identified one, but see that it doesnt make sense to act on it. Doesnt that mean there is a flaw in the thought pattern logic?
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-13-2021).]
You learn something every day.... 
