You can post as many examples as you want, there's still no way I'd participate in an activity like this.

What if you were labeled as a bigot for refusing to participate in mandatory diversity training?

You can certainly make that choice for yourself, but the system will not reward your behavior with promotion to a position of power where you get to call the shots on whether trainings like this are held.

> What if you were labeled as a bigot for refusing to participate in mandatory diversity training?

"The gay guy who wouldn't go into the room we labelled as 'for homos' is such a bigot for not Going Along"

This diversity exercise was so poorly conceived it was used as a plot for a mainstream sitcom. Evidently, NBC thought that - even for mainstream television - the exercise is enough of a farce that most of their viewers would see it as such, and find humor in it.

If a company is so spineless and devoid of morals as to gate promotions against such a poorly-thought exercise, maybe it's not the most worthwhile promotion to have on a resume to begin with.

> What if you were labeled as a bigot for refusing to participate in mandatory diversity training?

Easy. I'd quit.

Exactly. And the system therefore selects for people who would accept that training, and those people end up deciding what trainings are acceptable.

> and those people end up deciding what trainings are acceptable

In an ideal world companies like these would be arbitraged away, so to speak, as the people who decided to quit when presented with this stupidity are presumably smarter/more intelligent compared to the ones that decided to stay and play the whole charade, so the companies hiring those smarter people would in the long run be more efficient i.e. more profitable compared to the original companies which went down the "stupid diversity training" way.

Again, this is what would happen in an ideal world. The problem with companies like Google is that they're de-facto monopolies so there's no way for the market to arbitrage them away in the foreseeable future.

This particular training seems like a management aptitude filter for Google.

That might be wise. There seem to be an infinitude of ways this could go off the rails very badly.

> The first member of each group should now display the card so that the small group can see the identifying word. During the next three minutes, the remaining group members are to take turns expressing stereotypical remarks about the category of persons named by that sign. The remarks do not necessarily need to be reflective of opinions held by the group members but may reflect things they may have heard or seen growing up in your family, at school, at work, or in the media.

Guess what we used to call this kind of thing:

"...the session is held, ostensibly, to benefit the target, by eliminating all traces of […] reactionary thinking. […]s resisted this at first, because […] conflicted with the […] concept of saving face, but […]s became commonplace at […] meetings during the […]'s due to public popularity"

I'm struggling to see the connection.

It’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Struggle_session

Sorry for my pun. Thanks for the link.

What's wrong with stereotypes if they don't lead to discrimination?

Stereotypes are inherently inaccurate. Believing them inevitably leads to discrimination.

Yes, but they are funny.