If I was not an IC now, I would definitely be trying to cut discussions like that in a bud.
If you're seeing discrimination in the workplace then it's no longer about politics, it's about the workplace and professionalism among staff.
edit: Even saying 'I am apolitical' is a political statement.
When you manage a group of people that have to work together while trying to maximize workplace outcomes within existing legal framework, organizations have a professional motivation to cover topics like workplace fairness, bias, respectful behavior, etc.
I think we disagree in that I don't believe many of these issues can be avoided. If you're seeing caste-based discrimination in your workplace (for instance, just to use an issue that isn't legally mandated to address), any attempt to avoid it is a tacit endorsement of the practice. There are no sidelines upon which to stand.
It’s difficult to say that we can all agree to not be racist when some ideologues from whom’s political ideas companies base DEI initiatives on claim that racism is an immutable characteristic that many of us are born with.
If the people creating these programs/talks don't understand this, they don't deserve the platform. And if they do understand it, they are evil and intentionally trying to make race/bigotry tensions worse. In cases such as this where the relevant psychology of the issue is essential to the career, I tend to assume the worst of anyone doing it.
Whether they use the N word, or saying "being on time" is "whiteness", racism is always defined as "not what I'm doing".
Actually the only real definition of racism I would say is "mentioning race in any way, except the way I do it".
For your 99.999%, I would say that WAY more than one in a hundred thousand would overtly say that their group (race, religion, skin color, gender) is "better" than another. Especially as you leave western countries.
Though in some countries their racism doesn't even place themselves at the top.
27% of Americans say that homeopathy is an effective treatement. I've never met anyone who would admit to this. I know someone who believes in crystals and fortune tellers though.
I don't know how many people are pro-racism, but it's not three orders of magnitude less than people who believe in the power of nothing.
It is an odd frame of mind.
>>> For your 99.999%, I would say that WAY more than one in a hundred thousand would overtly say that their group (race, religion, skin color, gender) is "better" than another. Especially as you leave western countries.
Is it possible you are conflating racism with xenophobia ( which has slightly expanded to include foreigners )?
I'm saying one in a hundred thousand is too few. The US has more than 3000 people who judge even by phrenology, I'm sure.
Why is that relevant to the discussion?
The issue is that any and everything can be claimed to be racist, and therefore transferred to your special pre-political exemption.
Now, if were to look for a biological definition from Webster(1), race would be defined as:
a group within a species that is distinguishable (as morphologically, genetically, or behaviorally) from others of the same species
How is skin color not a distinguishable trait?
Now.. it might not be politically polite thing to say, but it does not change the outcome here.
I do happen to think that, where there are clear physical differences ( gasp ) between white and black people, it may be a good idea not to try to cover it with yet another social construct. Unless, naturally there is a disagreement that there are real physical differences ( for example, if we wanted to move from skin pigment, there are documented issues that affect black people more than whites ). Are those issues racist?
That said, it is somewhat interesting that the main quote on the website provided does not come from a renowned representative of the group, but relatively unknown historian ("[Racism] is not about how you look, it is about how people assign meaning to how you look"). Quite frankly, that is not racism. That is otherism and it goes back to the previous comment about how the waters and definitions are muddied further to pigeonhole something for one reason or another.
To be blunt, there is a good reason for a society ( and its members ) to not be focused on race, but pretending race does not exist is a disservice to that society as it is hiding the reality from its members.
Maybe I am approaching it the wrong way. Maybe I should try Socratic method here.
Are there black people?
Still, as a show of good faith, I did just that. Needless to say, I was not impressed, but I would be more than happy to discuss my contentions.
Separately, I also allowed myself to dig deeper under ESI-0307843 that funded this project and one of the first things that came up was an evaluation of the website.
You will note that under 'expectations not fulfilled' some complaints do stand out(1):
-"There are no clear definitions of terms or comparisons of biological race v. social race, ethnicity, etc" -"I expected to find more scientific studies about races, at least as a complement." -"Maybe some more information about the concept of ethnicity and 'clear' definitions" -"I expected a professional explanation given to a public audience as happens with so many effective professionals associated with museums, freshman teaching or public programs in the social sciences and humanities." -"Everything was about self-reflection and self-confirmation about American conceptions and categorization. I expected a step beyond that." -"I expected to find a mention of R. Lynn's Race Differences in Intelligence (Washington Summit Publishers, 2006) for an important exposition."
(1)https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/RaceWebs...
Can you show me the same good faith and engage in a frank and honest intellectual debate?