Try To Be Less White

by minimus 113 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jeffro

  Anony Mous, read slowly so you understand... Coca-Cola didn’t remove, and didn’t need to remove, the course in question. The course was removed by the third-party provider, LinkedIn Learning, from their course offerings.

  All the claims about vague orders from managers are anecdotal. It is of course possible that some individuals endorsed the training but there is no evidence the course was mandatory. All the course offerings from LinkedIn Learning are available to its subscribers, including employees of Coca-Cola. This includes the course in question, until it was removed by LinkedIn Learning.

  I suppose you could argue that Coca-Cola subscribing to LinkedIn Learning implies an endorsement of all of LinkedIn Learning’s 16,700 course offerings (though it is doubtful that management reviewed all of them), but aside from that, there is no evidence of specific corporate endorsement of the course in question.
• 

  minimus

  Anony, you did your best. It doesn’t matter . You explained in detail everything you could possibly explain. You tried to reach a common ground with the Witness analogy. Your logical response is much appreciated. Don’t cast your pearls unnecessarily.
• 

  Jeffro

  Hahahaha. His 'explanations' were contradicted by facts, and lacking facts for unsupported claims, and his 'analogy' was entirely incongruent to the situation.

  He claimed that a screenshot showing the corporate logo in the vicinity of the training module 'proves' management endorsed the specific module, whereas all of the LinkedIn Learning modules were available to staff, and any of those would show the corporate logo on the webpage.

  He claimed Coca-Coca later removed the training module, though it was actually LinkedIn Learning that removed the module from their offerings.
  

  He claimed that management 'must' have examined all the available training material, though the provider has over 16,000 training courses available to subscribers, including 270 courses related to 'diversity'.

  He claimed that staff were required to do the training in question, but multiple sources, including various 'right-wing' sources, say staff were invited to undertake a package of 'diversity' training (in addition to reporting unsubstantiated claims by individual staff), with no evidence that the module in question was included in any 'mandatory training'. (For example, how about a screenshot of an email listing the required training?)
  

  The whole concept of 'diversity training' seems unnecessary to me, since people who are racist aren't going to become any less racist by undertaking such training, and many people who aren't racist would just find the material tedious. (Some of the 'news' sources refer to the training module in question as 'reverse racism', another nonsense term that has been popularised in recent years, though it is really just 'racism'.)

  If there is anyone to 'attack' over this little fiasco, it would be the creator(s) of the module (though DiAngelo claims she did not add the slide that has received the most focus) and LinkedIn Learning rather than Coca-Cola, which in reality is just where the material was brought to wider attention.

  But sure, feel free to attack me instead just because I don't just accept whatever drivel is 'trending' at the time. (I thought it was supposed to be 'the left' who insist that people just 'listen and believe' rather than expecting evidence.)
  
• 

  ThomasCovenant

  Jeffro, you did your best. It doesn’t matter . You explained in detail everything you could possibly explain. Your logical response is much appreciated. Don’t cast your pearls before swine unnecessarily.
  
• 

  minimus

  Lol, you guys!

  Coke knows what it’s doing. Nike does too. These companies including the NFL are trying to be woke. No one is confused here. Nothing got snuck by them.
• 

  Jeffro

  I don’t think anyone has claimed that Coke and other corporations aren’t on the ‘woke’ bandwagon. But the specific claims made about the training were not supported by the facts.
• 

  minimus

  Coca Cola’s training received backlash for training on how to be less white. Period. The whole think stinks. No one should be training people to be less white. It’s insulting. And it wasn’t someone just slipping it in the program. Someone should become an apologist for the Watchtower. Geeshhh
• 

  FedUpJW

  And it wasn’t someone just slipping it in the program.

  EXACTLY! Anyone who believes it was somehow, or by someone, accidentally and innocently slipped in has obviously never worked with a human resources department of a company the size of Coca-Cola.

  Training materials usually are chosen by a human resources manager or someone designated by them, then vetted by a corporate vice-president, then narrowed down to one or two selections, then finally sent to corporate legal department for approval, THEN the one that covers all the corporate bases is made available to the employees in general. At least that is how it was with the corporation I retired from that employed over 10,000 employees with a annual revenue of over 4.4 billion dollars (US) reported as of 2017.
  

  In the case of "Coke" does anyone believe that particular be 'less white' portion would have been removed had it not generated back-lash?
  
• 

  minimus

  Fed, I know one person who believes that the whole thing is just an oversight. Lol. And he thinks he’s the smartest person in the room. But I appreciate his fight. Admirable.
• 

  Jeffro

  Repeating a lie over and over again doesn’t make it true.

  LinkedIn Learning has over 16,000 courses including 270 on ‘diversity’. It is laughable to think management scrutinised every course available from the provider.

  But instead of bothering to consider any facts, some just prefer the most sensationalist position.