Somebody Finally Did It

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sarcazmo:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gae:
"Diversity" training is BS.

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Says the woman who really needs it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That's funny!

My problem with "diversity" training is that its whole purpose is to point out differences instead of similarities. And, it gives "minorities" another opportunity to place the race card.

When I worked at BIG Company I had a manager who was black. She was also imcompetent, but to achieve "diversity" the department had to hire a black female. (That was a mandate from on high.) She wanted me to organize and clean her files (paper and electronic). I told her I'd be glad to, but I since I didn't know what was important and what wasn't, I'd need direction from her.

The result was that she went to her boss and said I was uncooperative because (yeah, you guessed it) she was black.

As a white female I'm basically pissed off that if I don't like a person of color, I'm a bigot. It can never be that I JUST DON'T LIKE THAT PERSON.

Been there too.

have had people say I dont like them because they are gay or black or whatever when the truth was I didnt like them because they were assholes.

That's just looking for excuses. Using a crutch. If the first thing you think of when yopu ralise someone doesnt like you is that it must be about race or something, then you are going to spend your entire life being paranoid over nothing.

I've actually worked with african americans who have yelled out that they hate white people. I've worked with people who say they hate jews.

I've never hated anyoen just based on somethign liek that, generally if I dont like someone it's because they are annoting or an asshole or even worse a whole ass or they are overly nosey or they are just a frickin moron.

Claiming racism when it isn't there is what makes it more difficult for those who are actually vicitms of it.

But gays arent a race or a reigion or a nationality or a creed or a sex.
(just thought I'd remind reason)

<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 10, 2005 11:44 AM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>

As someone who as recently as a year or two ago would have sounded just like the rest of you with regards to the diversity training thing, my experience with Issue 3 has made me rethink the concept. I guess I've become much much more aware about attitudes of those around me. I've even taken a much different look at the reactions of the black community after the riots.

I really want to go on and on about this, but I'm going to have to cut this short.

We can go on about anecdotes about the idiocy of diversity training and the use of the race card at work (a different issue, I say). I can provide a juicy story or two myself.

But in the end, I don't think there are any of us here who would exchange their pretty white skin for a black man's. I don't think there are any of us here who would want to exchange their white salary for a black salary. I don't think any of us here who would want to be the only white in a workplace room full of blacks.

I personally don't want to pretend to know what it's like to be black. I'm sure I wouldn't like it.

<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 10, 2005 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Sarcazmo ]</font>

I'm just saying that it's those who cry racism when there isnt any that make it difficult for those who do actually suffer from being discriminated against.

No one of any minority group or for that matter a group in the majority should have an attitude that suggests that the only reason people dont like you is because of you race, or religion or nationality or your sexual preferance...

Lets put it like this.
Lets say I cant stand someone who happens to be Iris. that's not why I cant stand them, but they decide that could be the only possible reason that I dont like them so they tell everyone that I hate the Irish.

Sounds pretty stupid doesnt it.

Let's say I work with an asshole that is gay, and I dislike him because he's an asshole but he decides that anyone who dislikes him only does so him because he is gay. So he lables me as someone who hates gays merely because he uses his sexual preferance as a crutch to avoid the reality that he may just be a non-likable person to some.
This person has now unfailrly labled me as someone who hates homosexuals all because he's too arrogant or stupid to realize that I really just think he's an ass and his sexual preferance has nothing to do with it.

That's the problem, when you come to the conclusion that someone can only dislike you because of you race, religion, nationality, sexual preferance or whatever is that you hurt them by placing the lable of racist (or hater) unfairly on them.

There are plenty who do hate one group of people for one reason or another, but not everyone is like that.

I'm A White Heterosexual Man
To too many, that's three strikes before I even get to bat.
And that's not cool.

<font color="#FFFFAA" size="1">[ February 10, 2005 07:12 PM: Message edited by: cincygreg ]</font>

I'm glad we have craig - fighting for the rights of oppressed, white, straight men. What would we do without him manning the front for this downtrodden group.

But not to worry. There are legions more, just like craig. Just turn on talk radio, WLW, in the afternoon. Dozens of white guys - angry - that some black guy stayed on while others got fired, or that gays are "forcing their lifestyle" down their throats.

Ahhhh...the poor white guy. After hundreds of years of getting his way, pushing his lifestyle down everyone elses throat, I guess it's one big surprise the rest of the world tries to push back.

If any city in the world needs diversity training it's this one. If there's anyone who needs diversity training, it's those who most ardently profess no need for it.

There's a perfect example.

The point of the post is that it's unfair to just go around labling people as racist or as haters of certain groups when they arent.

It's people like you that make it difficult for others.

I was simply saying that it is possible for people to not like persons of another race or religion or sexual preferance or nationality, without being a hater of the group that they are a part of.

The example is that I am a white man, if there is a black person that I dont like, it doesnt mean that I dont like them because they are black. There are other reasons to not like someone without being racist.

You missed the point because you are the problem.

I'm not encouraging hate or anything like that, just making a point.
But, once again you prove to be an idiot by missing the point completely.

Perhaps there are good programs, I know all I can state is anecdotal, but St. Paul's was the kind of program that seemed like a waste of time. And like I said, they don't use that company any more, so who knows maybe they fixed it.

But let me give you another example of what I'm talking about. As I said, when we logged onto our computers every morning, the first thing that came up was the company intranet newspaper. And often, you'd see a headline like "Chicago Office Promotes African-American Female to VP Position." And then they'd have a story about her, and much of the story would harp on her being a woman and/or black, and maybe touch on her past credentials.

Now, to me, that sounded tacky. I don't know if the employee found it demeaning, but I thought it was cheap on the company to write it that way. Why couldn't they have said "Chicago Office Promotes New VP" and then had her picture? That way, we could all see her, but in the article make it sound like you're more interested in who she is rather than what she is.

Anecodtal I know, but true to form.

Perhaps there are good programs, I know all I can state is anecdotal, but St. Paul's was the kind of program that seemed like a waste of time. And like I said, they don't use that company any more, so who knows maybe they fixed it.

But let me give you another example of what I'm talking about. As I said, when we logged onto our computers every morning, the first thing that came up was the company intranet newspaper. And often, you'd see a headline like "Chicago Office Promotes African-American Female to VP Position." And then they'd have a story about her, and much of the story would harp on her being a woman and/or black, and maybe touch on her past credentials.

Now, to me, that sounded tacky. I don't know if the employee found it demeaning, but I thought it was cheap on the company to write it that way. Why couldn't they have said "Chicago Office Promotes New VP" and then had her picture? That way, we could all see her, but in the article make it sound like you're more interested in who she is rather than what she is.

Anecodtal I know, but true to form.

My point is that you once again don't even understand the discussion.