But this is all very consistent. Most people noticed many years ago that the people who most loudly claim to be fighting racism are always huge racists themselves. This is so common, and so obvious, the only reason it's attracting attention at all is because somewhat unusually it's Jews who are the target today, instead of white men. If the same quote about war had been made with white men instead of Jews nobody at Google would have cared. And arguably they don't care at all because the guy is not fired, just re-assigned, which tells you everything you need to know about what that company has become.

And it's not really surprising that the target are Jews. In America this doesn't seem to be the case so much, but in Europe when the left engage in racism, it's always against their own countryfolk or Jews. Diversity programs, however they started, long ago became a left wing movement.

Frankly it's a lot more shocking when someone working in diversity does not turn out to be racist or sexist. Those are very rare people indeed. Oddly, I vaguely recalled the Google head of diversity making some sensible comments some years ago, but I don't recognize this name. It seems he's actually just "a" head of diversity, not "the" head.

In case anyone is confused by this person’s definition of racism, I enjoyed this description of the essential impossibility of “racism against whites,”[1] as well as this Sociology of Racism[2].

[1]: https://www.dailydot.com/irl/racism-against-white-people-doe...

[2]: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/matthewclair/files/clair_d...

> For a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers

Such a cunning rhetorical device that it became indistinguishable. What utter dreck.

I'm sure people are so confused by someone using the long established English dictionary definition of racism and not the new far left interpretation of the word that now includes social power structures that conveniently allows non-whites to be racist without being called out.

Identifying the flaws in “reverse racism” is nothing new.

you can substitute “racist” for “prejudiced” in their comment if you want, but I feel like 99% of the English speaking population would characterize what Google’s diversity officer wrote about Jewish people as racist so I don’t really see the need.

I was responding to a comment that was referring to racism against white men. I was not responding to a comment about the Google diversity officer’s language.

Given the Farhud, the Holocaust, and the persecution of Soviet Jews both remain in living memory and shape our lives today, I'd say that if you think you've got logic to prove the "essential impossibility" of antisemitism, you've taken a wrong turn somewhere.

I definitely was not demonstrating anything of the sort. You are misreading my comment.

Anyone confused by my post should use a dictionary to refresh their memory of what this very basic and simple word means, not some random academic papers.

Ha, yes, the dictionary: the ultimate authority for explaining power dynamics in society.

I understand the draw of believing in “reverse racism.” When I was in junior high, and was targeted for being a white boy, it made sense to me. And it felt unfair. But then I gained more perspective through a better understanding of sociology and history.

The dictionary is the authority for what words mean. If someone genuinely wants to "explain" power dynamics they would do so in ways designed to communicate clearly and illuminate. If they want to manipulate and confuse they would try to redefine the meaning of common words to mean something totally different and then accuse people who speak English properly of misusing words.

By the way, sociology is nonsense, surely everyone knows that by now. Their papers are usually pseudo scientific.

Yeah, at this point, having been left-wing my whole life, I'm more surprised when a DEI activist type isn't an antisemite than when they are. "The Jews are greedy, bloodthirsty, and evil" is part of the canon for this ideology.