Try To Be Less White

by minimus 113 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jeffro

  minimus:

  Jef, keep your blinders on.

  Haha, yes I kind of expected some kind of trite personal attack. Though it's not really clear what you imagine I'm 'blind' to. I indicated, correctly, that there is no evidence the training in question was mandatory for Coca-Cola employees. But you're acting as though I either endorse the racist training or deny it exists at all. You're so clouded by your own biases that you feel the need to attack anyone who disagrees with the smallest element of what you say, whereas you automatically accept the weakest of claims as 'evidence' if it supports your existing views.

  Anony Mous:

  the NY Post is one of the oldest newspapers founded by Alexander Hamilton

  So? It was bought by Murdoch in the 1970s and transformed into a tabloid analogous to the UK's Sun newspaper. If you're pointing out that it's sad that a once great institution has decayed into an unreliable source of sensationalist nonsense, yes I agree.
  
• 

  Anony Mous

  @Jeffro: don’t you think labeling a source solely because it doesn’t agree with your political viewpoint is very close to saying that they are “apostates” and therefore no argument they make, regardless if it is correct or not, can be trusted.

  You claimed a secondary source, I claimed a primary source, you claim a secondary source with clearly distorted language, which does not dispute but rather editorializes the primary source is more trustworthy because the primary source is run by your political “apostate”.

  If you can claim a primary source where CocaCola says that they did not run the class and/or that the primary sources somehow fabricated their evidence (there are screenshots). They claimed ipso facto it being available in their training regiment that it does not mean mandatory (why would you green-light unverified, racist training module as a corporation that large is beyond me), but there are 3 witnesses that says it was.

  I already said, it is entirely possible, training is not mandatory for all employees but that some managers may have exceeded their authority. Again, where does Coca Cola state that they have reprimanded the managers that forced the training on these employees?
• 

  Jeffro

  No one has presented any evidence that the training was mandatory. The best they can do is a screenshot showing the training exists. If it were mandatory there would typically be an email to staff listing mandatory training. So where is the evidence?
• 

  Anony Mous

  Okay, I’ve now quoted three times that there are MULTIPLE witnesses, Coca Cola stated they “invited” their employees to do the training as part of an “extension” of their mandatory inclusiveness and anti-racism (anti-racism is defined as the belief that everyone that is not black is individually and systematically racist) training. The corporate statement is a lot of weaselwords, they removed the training later on. They did admit to requiring the racist anti-racist training, just that portion highlighted was somehow the only non-mandatory part.

  Again, I already stated, they should fire or reprimand whoever included or required the racist anti-racist theory part of the training to take place, to my knowledge they have not done so.

  All you have done is moved the goalpost. You say it wasn’t true, then when pointed out, you wanted evidence, then when pointed out you want more evidence to every minute detail of the claim.

  And to prove they are talking out of their ass here is Coca Cola’s own statements: https://www.coca-colacompany.com/shared-future/diversity-and-inclusion/racial-equity/external-action

  they have a pretty large page devoted to the notion of (racist) racial equity (not equality as demanded by law). Equality is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities. Meanwhile, equity refers to proportional representation (by race, class, gender, etc.) regardless of their skill and qualifications in those same opportunities. So Coca Cola admits they do care about equity (and as a consequence promoting racism, sexism and classism) and thus it is as a corporation diametrically opposed to equality (which is currently the law of the land and has been since the Civil Rights Acts of the 1950s and 1960s).
• 

  MeanMrMustard

  *sigh*

  Why does it matter if the training is mandatory or not? Why is there training *at all* that advocates for explicit racism?

  This isn’t a “conspiracy”. It’s part of Critical Race Theory. Utter cancer.

  Woke Person 1: “What should we call our brand of racism?”

  Woke Person 2: “How about anti-racism?”

  Woke Person 1: “No, no, I think you misunderstand, we are definitely racist so we can’t say that we are....... ohhhhh. Yes, gotcha.”
• 

  Jeffro

  The typical misrepresentations of the source and also of what I’ve said. (Just one example, the course in question was later removed by LinkedIn Learning from their course offerings, not ‘removed from mandatory training by CocaCola’; it was the course that was removed rather than just one slide from it.) No wonder I don’t participate much on this forum anymore.
  
• 

  Corney

  Jeffro

  There are countless instances of the insane Woke religion being promoted and imposed by government agencies and public schools, not just by corporate bureaucracy. The Coca-Cola case is just another brick in the wall, so i doubt someone needs to dig up for evidence.
• 

  Jeffro

  Corney:
  

  There are countless instances of the insane Woke religion being promoted and imposed by government agencies and public schools, not just by corporate bureaucracy.

  Yes, I'm quite aware that this kind of nonsense is widespread (a woeful and poorly received Gillette campaign also springs to mind), and also well aware that some people imagine that misrepresenting or ignoring the facts of a matter is fine so long as it supports the narrative.
  
• 

  Anony Mous

  @Jeffro: You said: If they actually endorsed the training course in question, they would have no reason to deny it.

  You said later "it was the course that was removed rather than just one slide from it"

  So if they didn't endorse the training after the fact, why did they endorse the training in the first place? If I want to offer training to my company, and I brand it with my logo or provide my employees with a link, doesn't that imply that I reviewed and endorsed ALL the training that is under the branded site? If you get a vague statement from your boss to complete this mandatory training and the link contains a bunch of modules, that may or may not be mandatory from corporate, and you do them anyway because it's under the same link, doesn't that imply that they were at least believed to be mandatory.

  If not, again, this may be a rogue manager or VP deciding they make things mandatory without input from legal and the C-suite. In that case, Coca Cola should DENOUNCE the practice, heads should roll, but nobody is doing that either because if you DENOUNCE DeAngelo's training, you are considered a racist and should be cancelled.

  To give you a comparison: it's well known that the WTBTS keeps lists of sex offenders. When this came out, they said, well our "congregations don't keep lists of sex offenders" and if authorities then happen to find a file in a red folder that the secretary of the congregation has "the WTBTS did not endorse this congregation keeping a list of sex offenders" which is true but a lie of omission, per WTBTS instructions the sex offender has to be passed onto WTBTS HQ and the records in the congregation destroyed. But we all know some elders either don't know about this guidance or don't want to give up control over their own little kingdom and thus keep records the WTBTS doesn't want you to keep.

  By your logic, we have to give the WTBTS a pass and pretend everything is okay because they never publicly stated that they didn't keep a list of sex offenders and any congregation that didn't follow their strict guidelines we have to ignore as well, because WTBTS clearly didn't endorse the independent decision making of it's CO and Elders in the congregations. Also, Elders and CO's that didn't follow the guidelines don't get called out publicly because by doing so you would admit to covering up a bunch of other crap you don't want the public to know about.

  We all know that is BS, everything that happens in WTBTS-land is controlled to some extent by WTBTS and they should be held responsible and liable for everything that happens in WTBTS land, which is what courts generally agree in abuse cases but also in employment cases. If your managers decides to sexually harass you and your company doesn't immediately investigate and/or fire the responsible party, they become liable.

  Now replace congregation with division, WTBTS with Coca Cola and sex offender with racist training session.I'm giving Coca Cola all the benefit of the doubt here, I'm not accusing Coca Cola of demanding the racist training, but unless they publicly state they have investigated and taken action against those that demanded it, they are liable to the same extent they would be liable for sexual harassment and other issues they decide to cover up. Right now all we have is a statement from Coca Cola with a bunch of weasel words that still leave it sufficiently vague as to whether some or all of the training was mandatory across their entire company. They never denied the accusation it wasn't offered in their official curriculum, regardless of it's mandatory-ness, they actually admitted it was on there but they didn't apologize, they didn't claim it wasn't true that some employees could've interpreted it as mandatory, they have no counter-evidence, including e-mail that said what was and wasn't mandatory because if they did, they would have.
• 

  frozen2018

  John Brennan, ex CIA Chief laments that he is a white male.

  Brennan is a war criminal who should be in a Colorado supermax prison cell. I lament that he is considered human.