Anonymous wrote:Having read it, I'd describe it as a book that's making an argument about the ways in which power has been racially distributed -- and which also advocates for certain ways to deal with the distribution that it's claiming.

If the book is required reading in preparation for a free and open discussion that can include dissent, that's fine. If the idea behind requiring you to read the book is that it presents "the truth," then, yes, that's concerning.

Cue folks jumping on me and calling me uneducated. To them, I say: DiAngelo's work is not broadly respected among serious academics, including many (POC, if it matters) colleagues whose work focuses on the intersection of race and power in the United States.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You, honey, are the definition of white fragility.

LOL so true.

Anonymous wrote:You are pretty fragile if you can't even skim the book OP.
Just don't read it if you don't want to. I'm sure plenty of co-workers won't read any book because they feel they don't have the time.

What school system is this, by the way? How do we know you are not just a troll trying to stir things up?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The book will only be inflammatory because some people will not like the truths they hear. It challenges you to understand your implicit biases, or contributions to allowing discriminatory systems to continue. It is hard to hear. And, while I didn't necessarily agree with everything, it was quite eye opening.

If you're turned off by the title (I was too), you are someone who should read it.

If you think hearing what she has to say (noted above) is "offensive" or "inflammatory", you DEFINITELY should read the book. It talks about that defense mechanism quite effectively.

Since when do we just bury our heads in the sand b/c we may not like something? Quit being a baby and give it a read before you start complaining. Geez.

Having a worldview by which any objection is met by "our worldview predicted that and you're just proving its accuracy!" is not a point in favor. "You don't think sin exists? That just proves you're sinful and you need Jesus!" Well, gosh, when you put it that way, I'm totally convinced.

In English, please? What I -think- you're saying is not at all what it argues. You'd know if you read it. And frankly, I'm not going to argue about what it says with someone who cannot be bothered to do so.

Was it was the word "worldview" giving you trouble? I already dumbed it down for you by avoiding "epistemic closure" but I guess not enough. The part of this that I find the most entertaining is when its converts assume everyone who doesn't buy into it is rejecting it out of ignorance. Is ignorance why you're not a Scientologist? Is it because you just haven't read Dianetics? Or, perhaps, did you make a judgement that something wasn't worth your time based on other facts you know about the world? And, just maybe, are other people doing the same thing with this -- or alternatively, maybe they actually are familiar with this, have more context for it than you do, and reject it on the basis of that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "book" is basically

white people are always racist

black people can't be racist ever

Yep. That is the summary.

Which is a shame. In contrast my organization has had some short Virtual trainings that a corporate diversity trainer does and they are VERY well done. She is relatable, uses more neutral language (everyone needs to “X” vs just “White people need to...”). And definitely comes at it from a sense that seems to convey “hey we are all good faith and nice people here, but sometimes we do some hurtful things accidentally without realizing it. Let me tell you about what some of those are to help make it easier to avoid those unintended slip ups”.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The "book" is basically

white people are always racist

black people can't be racist ever

Yep. That is the summary.

Which is a shame. In contrast my organization has had some short Virtual trainings that a corporate diversity trainer does and they are VERY well done. She is relatable, uses more neutral language (everyone needs to “X” vs just “White people need to...”). And definitely comes at it from a sense that seems to convey “hey we are all good faith and nice people here, but sometimes we do some hurtful things accidentally without realizing it. Let me tell you about what some of those are to help make it easier to avoid those unintended slip ups”.

Anonymous wrote:The book will only be inflammatory because some people will not like the truths they hear. It challenges you to understand your implicit biases, or contributions to allowing discriminatory systems to continue. It is hard to hear. And, while I didn't necessarily agree with everything, it was quite eye opening.

If you're turned off by the title (I was too), you are someone who should read it.

If you think hearing what she has to say (noted above) is "offensive" or "inflammatory", you DEFINITELY should read the book. It talks about that defense mechanism quite effectively.

Since when do we just bury our heads in the sand b/c we may not like something? Quit being a baby and give it a read before you start complaining. Geez.

Anonymous wrote:The "book" is basically

white people are always racist

black people can't be racist ever

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The book will only be inflammatory because some people will not like the truths they hear. It challenges you to understand your implicit biases, or contributions to allowing discriminatory systems to continue. It is hard to hear. And, while I didn't necessarily agree with everything, it was quite eye opening.

If you're turned off by the title (I was too), you are someone who should read it.

If you think hearing what she has to say (noted above) is "offensive" or "inflammatory", you DEFINITELY should read the book. It talks about that defense mechanism quite effectively.

Since when do we just bury our heads in the sand b/c we may not like something? Quit being a baby and give it a read before you start complaining. Geez.

Having a worldview by which any objection is met by "our worldview predicted that and you're just proving its accuracy!" is not a point in favor. "You don't think sin exists? That just proves you're sinful and you need Jesus!" Well, gosh, when you put it that way, I'm totally convinced.

In English, please? What I -think- you're saying is not at all what it argues. You'd know if you read it. And frankly, I'm not going to argue about what it says with someone who cannot be bothered to do so.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The book will only be inflammatory because some people will not like the truths they hear. It challenges you to understand your implicit biases, or contributions to allowing discriminatory systems to continue. It is hard to hear. And, while I didn't necessarily agree with everything, it was quite eye opening.

If you're turned off by the title (I was too), you are someone who should read it.

If you think hearing what she has to say (noted above) is "offensive" or "inflammatory", you DEFINITELY should read the book. It talks about that defense mechanism quite effectively.

Since when do we just bury our heads in the sand b/c we may not like something? Quit being a baby and give it a read before you start complaining. Geez.

Having a worldview by which any objection is met by "our worldview predicted that and you're just proving its accuracy!" is not a point in favor. "You don't think sin exists? That just proves you're sinful and you need Jesus!" Well, gosh, when you put it that way, I'm totally convinced.

Anonymous wrote:The book will only be inflammatory because some people will not like the truths they hear. It challenges you to understand your implicit biases, or contributions to allowing discriminatory systems to continue. It is hard to hear. And, while I didn't necessarily agree with everything, it was quite eye opening.

If you're turned off by the title (I was too), you are someone who should read it.

If you think hearing what she has to say (noted above) is "offensive" or "inflammatory", you DEFINITELY should read the book. It talks about that defense mechanism quite effectively.

Since when do we just bury our heads in the sand b/c we may not like something? Quit being a baby and give it a read before you start complaining. Geez.

Anonymous wrote:Obviously the author means White Christian people because Jewish people, even white ones, have absolutely no problem discussing racism. We experience it regularly -- some of us daily. We are acutely aware of racism against us based on nothing but our DNA for many of us who do not consider ourselves religiously Jewish, but just had one grandparent who was Jewish and so our family was sent off to death camps. And because of our own experience with racism, we are able to talk about it when we see it happening to other peoples, too. I do understand how White Christian people may have this problem, but White Jewish, White Muslim, White ____[Add minority status here] does not have this problem. We experience it firsthand.