6 ms·

This is from LinkedIn's learning portal, which is used by numerous companies (like Coca-Cola). The training claims to be created by Dr. Robin DiAngelo (author o

This is from LinkedIn's learning portal, which is used by numerous companies (like Coca-Cola). The training claims to be created by Dr. Robin DiAngelo (author of books such as White Fragility). Dr. DiAngelo has a statement on her website claiming that she had nothing to do with this content and it was created without her consent: Dr. DiAngelo was not the creator or facilitator of the LinkedIn Learning course “Confronting Racism, with Robin DiAngelo.” She was unaware that her name, image, and work were being presented in this way and did not participate in or agree to the creation and distribution of an educational resource based on her research. The course consisted of a selection of clips from an interview Dr. DiAngelo did for the outlet Big Think in 2018, in promotion of her book. The videos were re-edited and presented as an anti-racism training resource by LinkedIn Learning, who licensed the clips from Big Think. She did not provide the slides that were included with the video, and they do not represent the work she does for her virtual or in-person presentations, trainings, and workshops. The course was removed voluntarily by the owners and creators of the content when it was brought to their attention that it was being used without her knowledge.

mc32 6y ago
Part of the problem here is this kind of training has become “an industry”. There is a positive feedback loop and people want to cache in. To make more money you create demand. How do you create demand? You make it obligatory training. This one is about devaluing a culture for political reasons. But there are other topics like coöperation, teamwork, time management, etc. occasionally there are good insights. Mostly it’s regurgitated bullshit that has a stamp of approval and ticks off a compliance box somewhere. It’s a goldmine.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  And how do you make it obligatory training? By (perhaps implicitly) threatening a company that a howling mob will destroy their image if they don't show that they're fully committed to the position that the training is supposed to achieve. And how do you show that you're fully committed? By having the training. And what does the training teach you to do? To confront racism wherever you see it. Thus the training recruits you to become part of the howling mob to threaten the next business with. It's so perfect that I can't tell if that's just an accidental side effect of following an ideology, or if it's a deliberate mafia-style shakedown with the added genius of a positive feedback loop that amplifies the threat as time goes on.
- malandrew 6y ago
  It’s a full on Diversity and inclusion industrial complex at this point and exemplary of the Shirky principle (they are preserving the problem to which they are the solution), which is why the goals of such people are never put in specific and measurable terms. This allows the goal posts to be continually moved no matter how much progress is made since these people want to keep the firehouse of corporate money flowing.
kardianos 6y ago
That's great. Will Dr. Diangelo also retract and denounce her paper: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1065640.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1065640.pdf where she states: > raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse Feel free to read the full context. So no, she may have not provided the slides. But yes, this is on point for her if you read even the smallest bit of her papers.
- rayiner 6y ago
  > raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse That's off the rails! How many Fortune 500 companies were circulating her books in "recommended reading lists?"
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > where she states: > raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse But she doesn't state that; she states that someone else characterized an effect that DiAngelo is discussing in those terms. You just clipped that sentence to obscure that: “Acknowledging this, Thandeka (1999) argues that raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse because...”
  - kardianos 6y ago
    So is she disagreeing with this?
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > So is she disagreeing with this? They (it's not a sole-author paper) are very clearly not endorsing it as a literal description, while also quite explicitly endorsing the detailed and nuanced description of the effects of inculcating White identity which Thandeka uses to explain that rather inflammatory summary description, and also, implicitly through scare-quoted back-reference, adopting the summary as a metaphor, though implicitly as one not free of problems.
      - 6y ago
omginternets 6y ago
>The training claims to be created by Dr. Robin DiAngelo (author of books such as White Fragility). Dr. DiAngelo has a statement on her website claiming that she had nothing to do with this content and it was created without her consent Typical moat-and-bailey argumentation from the woke. These people are just dripping with bad faith, as if this Coca Cola presentation isn't in ideological lock-step with DiAngelo. The saddest part is that this madness is already fueling anti-black resentment.
- Anthony-G 6y ago
  For what it’s worth, that’s not an example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. It’s a simple denial and does sound plausible – though I agree that the sentiments expressed by both DiAngelo and the training seem similar.
  - omginternets 6y ago
    I see what you mean, but I do think it's a case of motte-and-bailey. The flow is generally as follows: 1. Make statement X that implies action Y should be taken. 2. Someone takes action Y, citing X. 3. Deny that your usage of X implies Y. And this is extremely typical of woke rhetoric. In the present case, it's summarized by "Coca Cola didn't have my permission to use my ideas", with the implication that the idea was somehow used incorrectly. Perhaps there's a better term, but it resembles motte-and-bailey to the extent that it involves playing on ambiguity to retreat to a more defensible position.

mc32 6y ago

Part of the problem here is this kind of training has become “an industry”. There is a positive feedback loop and people want to cache in. To make more money you create demand. How do you create demand? You make it obligatory training. This one is about devaluing a culture for political reasons. But there are other topics like coöperation, teamwork, time management, etc. occasionally there are good insights. Mostly it’s regurgitated bullshit that has a stamp of approval and ticks off a compliance box somewhere. It’s a goldmine.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
And how do you make it obligatory training? By (perhaps implicitly) threatening a company that a howling mob will destroy their image if they don't show that they're fully committed to the position that the training is supposed to achieve. And how do you show that you're fully committed? By having the training. And what does the training teach you to do? To confront racism wherever you see it. Thus the training recruits you to become part of the howling mob to threaten the next business with. It's so perfect that I can't tell if that's just an accidental side effect of following an ideology, or if it's a deliberate mafia-style shakedown with the added genius of a positive feedback loop that amplifies the threat as time goes on.
malandrew 6y ago
It’s a full on Diversity and inclusion industrial complex at this point and exemplary of the Shirky principle (they are preserving the problem to which they are the solution), which is why the goals of such people are never put in specific and measurable terms. This allows the goal posts to be continually moved no matter how much progress is made since these people want to keep the firehouse of corporate money flowing.

kardianos 6y ago

That's great. Will Dr. Diangelo also retract and denounce her paper: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1065640.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1065640.pdf where she states: > raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse Feel free to read the full context. So no, she may have not provided the slides. But yes, this is on point for her if you read even the smallest bit of her papers.

rayiner 6y ago
> raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse That's off the rails! How many Fortune 500 companies were circulating her books in "recommended reading lists?"
dragonwriter 6y ago
> where she states: > raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse But she doesn't state that; she states that someone else characterized an effect that DiAngelo is discussing in those terms. You just clipped that sentence to obscure that: “Acknowledging this, Thandeka (1999) argues that raising White children to be White is a form of child abuse because...”
- kardianos 6y ago
  So is she disagreeing with this?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > So is she disagreeing with this? They (it's not a sole-author paper) are very clearly not endorsing it as a literal description, while also quite explicitly endorsing the detailed and nuanced description of the effects of inculcating White identity which Thandeka uses to explain that rather inflammatory summary description, and also, implicitly through scare-quoted back-reference, adopting the summary as a metaphor, though implicitly as one not free of problems.
    - 6y ago

omginternets 6y ago

>The training claims to be created by Dr. Robin DiAngelo (author of books such as White Fragility). Dr. DiAngelo has a statement on her website claiming that she had nothing to do with this content and it was created without her consent Typical moat-and-bailey argumentation from the woke. These people are just dripping with bad faith, as if this Coca Cola presentation isn't in ideological lock-step with DiAngelo. The saddest part is that this madness is already fueling anti-black resentment.

Anthony-G 6y ago
For what it’s worth, that’s not an example of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. It’s a simple denial and does sound plausible – though I agree that the sentiments expressed by both DiAngelo and the training seem similar.
- omginternets 6y ago
  I see what you mean, but I do think it's a case of motte-and-bailey. The flow is generally as follows: 1. Make statement X that implies action Y should be taken. 2. Someone takes action Y, citing X. 3. Deny that your usage of X implies Y. And this is extremely typical of woke rhetoric. In the present case, it's summarized by "Coca Cola didn't have my permission to use my ideas", with the implication that the idea was somehow used incorrectly. Perhaps there's a better term, but it resembles motte-and-bailey to the extent that it involves playing on ambiguity to retreat to a more defensible position.