zlacker

>>sn_mas+(OP)
The quote in the title of the article is really an inappropriate way to try to describe inclusiveness. It’s not about being less, it’s about including others more.

>>philis+Cg
Don't try to justify racism. The slides literally told employees to "be less white".

>>gthtjt+1i
If that instruction was contextually intended to support non-white employees who felt like they had to "play white" in order to succeed, I think the advice is generally good ("be yourself").

If that was contextually directed primarily towards white employees, it's offensive and inherently racist.

I didn't (and now can't) see the context, but context matters. "White before black" is offensive/racist in many contexts, but not in the rules of chess.

>>sokolo+Ii
Funny how people are jumping out of the woodwork to defend racism. There's literally no context where attributing qualities to people based on their skin color is OK.

When did we go back to the 1950s? I sure hope you don't feel comfortable being this racist in real life.

>>gthtjt+Mj
> There's literally no context where attributing qualities to people based on their skin color is OK.

Strongly disagree. Talking about likelihood of having sickle cell anemia without talking about race would be absurd.

This probably sounds pedantic, but my point is that we should stop all of these emotionally charged over reactions, on both sides. Saying "attributing any characteristic based on skin color is racist" is almost as absurd as what you're arguing against. There has to be room for nuance.

>>seneca+Pp
> This probably sounds pedantic

It doesn't just sound pedantic, it is pedantic.

The topic is clearly about personality traits not medical conditions.

>>gthtjt+Kq
> The topic is clearly about personality traits not medical conditions.

Contextualizing it would make sense if you had not said "literally no context". This is my point, black and white language like this repels nuance.