Just to confirm this, I read a lot of time about black/asian people attacking those of the same ethnicity who don't agree on "white patriarchy" as being "just white inside!".

I even read of people claiming they are trans-black because they inside them feel black (and I am quoting literally) and so other people must see them that way.

You find this on tumblr, on pseudo-feminism propaganda sites, etc... a lot of this is collected in the subreddit reddit.com/r/tumblrinaction

> I even read of people claiming they are trans-black because they inside them feel black (and I am quoting literally) and so other people must see them that way.

Wouldn't that constitute cultural appropriation?

Ideological intolerance is part of it, but it's clearly not the only part, given that the very first point in her slide is "this is not work for white folks to lead", i.e. she doesn't want white allies. I don't see how much more explicit this lady can make the fact that she hates white people as such.

As for German or Russian philosophers - that seems far fetched. This is an American phenomenon, and in its explicit and mainstream form, it is a fairly recent one.

What, you can't even picture a white person being an ally if it's not as the leader of the group?

I can't picture a white person being an ally if white people are explicitly excluded from leadership.

BTW, do you want to get started on explaining away "we can't teach white male managers empathy or compassion"?

If you read Marcuse, specially his work on "repressive tolerance" you'll see this bs borrows heavily from that kind of pseudo-intellectualism.

> "this is not work for white folks to lead", i.e. she doesn't want white allies

Not wanting to be an ally unless you're allowed to be in charge is a pretty perfect illustration of why the slide exists.

It's a department at a company. You're not allowed to say that 'people of ethnicity X will never be given a leadership position'. That's blatant racism.

I'd argue the point is "don't stomp in and make it all about you".

No, the point is "this isn't a place where the white folk will lead".

"the white folk"? That's pretty close to "you people"/"those people".

It's not just any department, but a department that specifically deals with diversity and race issues.

Do white-passing gay people not get to have a say in diversity issues?

I really don't like this trend of painting everyone with white-ish skin as a homogenous oppressor class. It's pretty clear to me that a diversity department that explicitly bans white people from leadership positions will not represent my interests if I am discriminated against.

Doesn't get it a free pass under discrimination law.

How stupid can you be to post a "no white leadership", in writing?