I've recently been reading/watching some videos and writings by Robin Diangelo on systemic racism - here's a great starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7mzj0cVL0Q. She also wrote the book "White Fragility".
Thinking about that, I'm just wondering how different it would be if one of those people who mistook the employee for the CEO instead turned to the CEO and said "I'm sorry, please excuse me for the instance of racism I just perpetrated against you, I promise it won't happen again." I realize how outlandish that may sound writing that out, but I'd propose that the fact that it does sound outlandish is the main problem. Everyone in the US was raised in an environment that inculcated certain racial ideas, subconsciously or not. We can't address them if we're so embarrassed by their existence as to pretend they don't exist.
Even within her book she claims that no amount of training will solve the issue, it seems that "White Fragility" is just another way for White people to tamp down the anxiety of race relations in the United States, rather than take any meaningful action towards changing it.
If your goal is to truly understand the Black american experience, it's best to start with actual Black authors. The House That Race Built by Wahneema Lubiano is a great set of essays about race and class structures.
Further explanation:
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/06/intellectual-fraud-robin-d...
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/why-third-...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jonathan-haidt-on-the-cultural-...
https://unherd.com/2020/01/modern-politics-is-christianity-w...
Acting like it's an accepted logical fallacy is ridiculous. It's a term ESR made up because people kept rightly calling him a sexist and racist and he didn't like it and threw a tantrum.
Seems it's a perfectly accepted logical fallacy; and the only people who deny it are the sjw crowd largely because it is such a favoured tactic within their ranks.
And desperately clinging to any page-not-found of whatever website you can find to display it isn't exactly the most secure display of debate.
Nobody but libertarians looking for excuses for racism use that term, deal with it.
> Using a kafkatrap against an opponent you can't beat in debate when they have just pointed out the tactic is probably ill advised; perhaps try something else; Ad hominem or motte and bailey for example.
Allow my to quote from one your trusted sources: https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/...
> Ad hominem: This is an attack on the character of a person rather than his or her opinions or arguments.