How can we take seriously a response by someone who doesn't even know the definition of color blindness. He cites to an article that is fundamentally flawed because it misunderstands the principal of colorblindness. Colorblindness simply means we treat people equally. We do not discriminate based on race. It does not mean we pretend not …
How can we take seriously a response by someone who doesn't even know the definition of color blindness. He cites to an article that is fundamentally flawed because it misunderstands the principal of colorblindness. Colorblindness simply means we treat people equally. We do not discriminate based on race. It does not mean we pretend not to see race because of course we do. Coleman made this clear in his talk. Yet, the criticism of Coleman is based on this flawed idea that color blindness means pretending not to see race.
But this is to be expected. Because those like Adam Grant who believe that we should discriminate based on race can't simply come out and say that. They have to weasel around it to make their ideas more palatable. That's exactly what Adam Grant is doing here. If he wants to be honest, he needs to come out and say that he thinks we should discriminate based on race and list out the reasons why. But, he knows he'll lose that argument if he states his position clearly and honestly.
This is also what all debaters need to do when debating those who want to discriminate based on race. Hold their feet to the fire. When they say they are against color blindness then ask them "so you want to discriminate based on race?" And keep pushing them to admit that and explain how, why, and when they think racial discrimination is acceptable.
I’d agree if it were anything other than virtue signaling and playing to endowments. This dude is a total fraud and he knows it. Anderson is no better. He’s an amalgamation of every director and c-suite in tech that I’ve ever worked with or for. Just a walking buzzword. Never met a workshop he didn’t love. Never missed a media training course. Probably calls himself something that he thinks is clever like, “the velvet hammer.”
How can we take seriously a response by someone who doesn't even know the definition of color blindness. He cites to an article that is fundamentally flawed because it misunderstands the principal of colorblindness. Colorblindness simply means we treat people equally. We do not discriminate based on race. It does not mean we pretend not to see race because of course we do. Coleman made this clear in his talk. Yet, the criticism of Coleman is based on this flawed idea that color blindness means pretending not to see race.
But this is to be expected. Because those like Adam Grant who believe that we should discriminate based on race can't simply come out and say that. They have to weasel around it to make their ideas more palatable. That's exactly what Adam Grant is doing here. If he wants to be honest, he needs to come out and say that he thinks we should discriminate based on race and list out the reasons why. But, he knows he'll lose that argument if he states his position clearly and honestly.
This is also what all debaters need to do when debating those who want to discriminate based on race. Hold their feet to the fire. When they say they are against color blindness then ask them "so you want to discriminate based on race?" And keep pushing them to admit that and explain how, why, and when they think racial discrimination is acceptable.
I’d agree if it were anything other than virtue signaling and playing to endowments. This dude is a total fraud and he knows it. Anderson is no better. He’s an amalgamation of every director and c-suite in tech that I’ve ever worked with or for. Just a walking buzzword. Never met a workshop he didn’t love. Never missed a media training course. Probably calls himself something that he thinks is clever like, “the velvet hammer.”
To paraphrase Shelby Steele: Race has always and only been used for political power.