simple schoolboy wrote:
I can't imagine this will be long lived, but after the Sandia Labs kerfuffle, it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types...
"it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types ... " - Men, when they started Sexual Harassment trainings.
CRT trainings where you segregate employees by race is not exactly the same thing as sexual harassment training.
simple schoolboy wrote:
I can't imagine this will be long lived, but after the Sandia Labs kerfuffle, it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types...
"it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types ... " - Men, when they started Sexual Harassment trainings.
CRT trainings where you segregate employees by race is not exactly the same thing as sexual harassment training.
But I'm not sure why anyone would be broken into race groups. Sounds like a "hire new trainers" situation.
Its entirely consistent with CRT and is what occured at Sandia Labs (allegedly). To have BIPOC individuals listen to their white colleagues "do the work" is emotional labor. Its taxing and unfair to them.
Hence breaking the group into ethnically based struggle sessions:
simple schoolboy wrote:
I can't imagine this will be long lived, but after the Sandia Labs kerfuffle, it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types...
"it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types ... " - Men, when they started Sexual Harassment trainings.
CRT trainings where you segregate employees by race is not exactly the same thing as sexual harassment training.
But I'm not sure why anyone would be broken into race groups. Sounds like a "hire new trainers" situation.
Its entirely consistent with CRT and is what occured at Sandia Labs (allegedly). To have BIPOC individuals listen to their white colleagues "do the work" is emotional labor. Its taxing and unfair to them.
Hence breaking the group into ethnically based struggle sessions:
OK, so I've heard that. But again, Trump didn't replace this with a different theory of diversity or sensitivity training. He just cancelled everything.
Everything's perfectly all right now. We're fine. We're all fine here, now, thank you. How are you?
simple schoolboy wrote:
I can't imagine this will be long lived, but after the Sandia Labs kerfuffle, it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types...
"it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types ... " - Men, when they started Sexual Harassment trainings.
CRT trainings where you segregate employees by race is not exactly the same thing as sexual harassment training.
But I'm not sure why anyone would be broken into race groups. Sounds like a "hire new trainers" situation.
Its entirely consistent with CRT and is what occured at Sandia Labs (allegedly). To have BIPOC individuals listen to their white colleagues "do the work" is emotional labor. Its taxing and unfair to them.
Hence breaking the group into ethnically based struggle sessions:
OK, so I've heard that. But again, Trump didn't replace this with a different theory of diversity or sensitivity training. He just cancelled everything.
What are these trainings supposed to accomplish? Implicit Bias training tends to make things worse. If your workplace needs diversity or sensitivity training, it sounds like someone already should have been fired.
Should it just be rattling off a list of protected classes? Explain who you can be a dick to without getting fired or causing liability for your employer?
I'm 99 percent certain whatever the argument for why CRT training is valuable will end up being some Motte and Bailey BS about what the simplistic, high minded "just be considerate" version of CRT as opposed to what it IS.
simple schoolboy wrote:
I can't imagine this will be long lived, but after the Sandia Labs kerfuffle, it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types...
"it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types ... " - Men, when they started Sexual Harassment trainings.
CRT trainings where you segregate employees by race is not exactly the same thing as sexual harassment training.
But I'm not sure why anyone would be broken into race groups. Sounds like a "hire new trainers" situation.
Its entirely consistent with CRT and is what occured at Sandia Labs (allegedly). To have BIPOC individuals listen to their white colleagues "do the work" is emotional labor. Its taxing and unfair to them.
Hence breaking the group into ethnically based struggle sessions:
OK, so I've heard that. But again, Trump didn't replace this with a different theory of diversity or sensitivity training. He just cancelled everything.
What are these trainings supposed to accomplish? Implicit Bias training tends to make things worse. If your workplace needs diversity or sensitivity training, it sounds like someone already should have been fired.
Should it just be rattling off a list of protected classes? Explain who you can be a dick to without getting fired or causing liability for your employer?
I'm 99 percent certain whatever the argument for why CRT training is valuable will end up being some Motte and Bailey BS about what the simplistic, high minded "just be considerate" version of CRT as opposed to what it IS.
simple schoolboy wrote:
I can't imagine this will be long lived, but after the Sandia Labs kerfuffle, it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types...
"it seems like these type of trainings are bad for workplace culture.
Unless we want federal agencies and contractors to be staffed entirely by 30 or younger HR types ... " - Men, when they started Sexual Harassment trainings.
CRT trainings where you segregate employees by race is not exactly the same thing as sexual harassment training.
But I'm not sure why anyone would be broken into race groups. Sounds like a "hire new trainers" situation.
Its entirely consistent with CRT and is what occured at Sandia Labs (allegedly). To have BIPOC individuals listen to their white colleagues "do the work" is emotional labor. Its taxing and unfair to them.
Hence breaking the group into ethnically based struggle sessions:
OK, so I've heard that. But again, Trump didn't replace this with a different theory of diversity or sensitivity training. He just cancelled everything.
What are these trainings supposed to accomplish? Implicit Bias training tends to make things worse. If your workplace needs diversity or sensitivity training, it sounds like someone already should have been fired.
Should it just be rattling off a list of protected classes? Explain who you can be a dick to without getting fired or causing liability for your employer?
I'm 99 percent certain whatever the argument for why CRT training is valuable will end up being some Motte and Bailey BS about what the simplistic, high minded "just be considerate" version of CRT as opposed to what it IS.
took me a while to understand that ‘equity analyst’ was not referring to stonks
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
96583UP wrote:took me a while to understand that ‘equity analyst’ was not referring to stonks
We were raised on the idea that you treat everyone equally, which is now a sin:
The terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably; however, they differ in important ways. Equality is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities. Meanwhile, equity refers to proportional representation (by race, class, gender, etc.) in those same opportunities. To achieve equity, policies and procedures may result in an unequal distribution of resources.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
96583UP wrote:took me a while to understand that ‘equity analyst’ was not referring to stonks
We were raised on the idea that you treat everyone equally, which is now a sin:
The terms equality and equity are often used interchangeably; however, they differ in important ways. Equality is typically defined as treating everyone the same and giving everyone access to the same opportunities. Meanwhile, equity refers to proportional representation (by race, class, gender, etc.) in those same opportunities. To achieve equity, policies and procedures may result in an unequal distribution of resources.
with stimulus checks they could afford to be inside the park.
I am posting from a table at the teriyaki place where I am eating lunch.
Customer just said this to the guy working the counter: “When I was growing up when we went out for Chinese food my sister always wanted to bring food from McDonalds and eat that instead. I was wondering when Chinese people eat at a steakhouse or something do the little kids ask to bring noodles “
Bammer wrote:I am posting from a table at the teriyaki place where I am eating lunch.
Customer just said this to the guy working the counter: “When I was growing up when we went out for Chinese food my sister always wanted to bring food from McDonalds and eat that instead. I was wondering when Chinese people eat at a steakhouse or something do the little kids ask to bring noodles “
Wow.
I don't know what I'm more offended by, the general racial overtone or that he thought teriyaki was Chinese.
Bammer wrote:I am posting from a table at the teriyaki place where I am eating lunch.
Customer just said this to the guy working the counter: “When I was growing up when we went out for Chinese food my sister always wanted to bring food from McDonalds and eat that instead. I was wondering when Chinese people eat at a steakhouse or something do the little kids ask to bring noodles “
Wow.
I don't know what I'm more offended by, the general racial overtone or that he thought teriyaki was Chinese.
