I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but sometimes I pretend Michael Jackson was silenced because he was years ahead of everyone in terms of how he thought about race. Everything he said in 1991's Black or White was shoved in the trash by this filthy generation who likes to separate people for characteristics that they didn't even choose.
Not sure what posting this image changes.. white people being unable to discuss racism without getting overly defensive, denying it's existence, etc. is what is being described negatively. It's not "whiteness" that is negative, it's the inability for white people to recognize that we need to discuss race in ways that they seem to be rejecting.
Which is.. what you are demonstrating here. You are just rejecting far more nuanced thoughts as "white = bad" when that is absolutely not the point of discussing things like "white fragility."
It's the opposite that is true. The accusation of "whiteness" are based in associating white people of all the negative derrogatory terms in the book, and these in turn are used to push forward the idea that white people refuse to accept a narrative that is forcibly pushed down their throats by racist left leaning people who view everything under the lens of race and sex.
If white people refuse this narrative, then it is in their right to do because they have the right to defend their position and themselves. They have the right to discriminate. You wish to deprive them of such a fundamental right, calling such a right a "flaw" or a "sin" on their part.
In other words, you want white people to be put in a position where they have no say in the matter against accusation and dehumanizations thrown at them, and any attempt to present an argument in their defense is demonized and prohibited by a convenient narrative that depends on circular logic, where white people are inherently bad and they have no grounds to defends themselves and argue in their defense because the act of going against the sjw demands and threats is something inherently evil as well. In the end there is no escape or way to argument against the sjw under their narrative, which is what they want, and is a demonstration of a totalitarian mindset from their part.
So no, you can't criticize white people for making the act of putting forward an argument or narrative you disagree with, if you do so then you are denying a group of people of any independent thought and you are creating a system which is ripe for totalitarian abuse from one side.
You can't argue for the existence of something (in this case systemic racism) by starting from the position that white people are at fault by arguing against it and this denying on the part of white people is in turn proof that systemic racism exists. This is circular logic, impossible to defeat and a contradiction, because no means to counter your argument from the very beginning is allowed, no system for checking its validity is allowed from the very beginning. You are making sure you put your adversaries against an impossible obstacle from the very beginning in hopes that no counter argument to your exists.
This is why your argument has no intellectual merit and should not be considered valid.
It's not "whiteness" that is negative, it's the inability for white people to recognize that we need to discuss race in ways that they seem to be rejecting.
But they are discussing it, and are presenting valid arguments. What is ironic is your adamant refusal of any counter arguments and thus relying on a narrative of demonizing the other party for "refusing to participate" or "being defensive", as if the act of valuing their own interests or just presenting an argument in opposition to you is something to be demonized . By doing this you guarantee that there is no possible way white people can present an acceptable argument under your narrative. Any argument will always be rejected by default under the excuse that they are "refusing to participate", which in sjw terms "participate" means "concede, submit and accept our judgement".
Ironically, and once again through the art of projection, of which sjws and the left are umparalleled at doing it, it is them who are refusing to participate in the debate of whether systemic racism exists, because they already reached a conclusion and want to enforce it by any means necessary.
You are essentially creating a narrative trap were you preemptively make sure that no argument made by those in opposition to you gets accepted or settle the debate. Not only that, but you are putting forwards a conclusion, and using that conclusion as the basis for your argument, or in other words, putting the cart before the ox.
This is something normally done by groups who know their narratives stand on shaky ground and a weak logic basis. Or in other words, dishonest cowards.
Well that place sounds like an ideological shit show
And that press release had so much fluff i couldn't breathe.
"With the goal of celebrating and uplifting Black employees at the studio, the Black at Bungie Inclusion Club has been on the vanguard of not only setting an example of what Inclusion Clubs can be for Bungie employees, but also helping to facilitate and navigate vital conversations during a pivotal moment in modern society. Created and powered by Bungie employees, Inclusion Clubs (ICs) are groups that exist to connect those of similar cultural backgrounds"
Translated: we made up groups to take people we group together based on race to be woke. Inclusion club is where people talk about woke stuff. Bungie employees made it up so the people we group together (colored folk) can be in a club (group) together. For... Reasons. Simply being hired at bungie isnt inclusive enough.