Yep. They define the context and, wouldn't you know it, the Christian always loses and the Alphabet activist always wins.

Why risk losing your job arguing with a fag at work when you can risk your job arguing with a fag online from the comfort of your own home!

way slicker with their policy. It runs scenarios

Ooh - ditto where I worked (retired in 2017 and almost had forgotten about that).

If you didnt know they were actors in the videos, you would think that zero straight, white, Christian, Veteran unburdened, well-adjusted people worked for the largest DoD/Aerospace contractor on Earth (was that doxing? sooo fuckin sorry). What made it tolerable was my department's manager thought like most of us did and ran the minimum (3) scenarios required by corporate, he let us choose which ones from the list, and understood that nobody had any interest in lengthy discussion or debate. So, watch the clip, ID the behavior, state a preferred behavior, move the fuck on.

After all, America's work was waiting for us to tend to.

Yes. We even have a Director of "Diversity and Inclusion" at my fortune 500 company. Corporate pushes this excrement 24/7 and are super proud to be recognized for it by the Left. We have ERGs (Employee Resource Groups) for every group under the sun except White males. (Unsurprisingly)

I started a job with a based company a few months ago and everyone had to watch the "diversity" video training. Fortunately, the training never got into anything controversial or political. Basically, if you say or do things around the workplace that any reasonable person would find offensive, you will get disciplined. Common sense shit for the most part.

Micro Aggression Training is a Micro Aggression

Mandatory or optional?

My company is doing a lot of this stuff too, but they're making it optional at least. It seems to satisfy the woke crowd while the normal people can get on with life.

Wear a body cam.

Ever notice there’s no “woke diversity” shit in investment banking?

Theres a lot of bankers rubbing their hands together over this whole cashless-society BS. What happens when you have no choice but to allow unaccountable 3rd parties to store your wealth? For sure they are going to exploit that power.

Every time they refuse to give you what's yours, you should be able to come back with police and handcuff and jail every staff member you can find at the branch. You cant 'not allow' when its not yours, fuckers.

Large withdrawals matter.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at their next board meeting.

Here is the Original source it was very much real. I know people that where at the meeting and they had to sign that they talked about it.

They didn't say that it wasn't real...they said that it was not issued by corporate office. Just like the government says that they don't have any emails for FOIA...because the work was all run through private contractors. it doesn't mean that it didn't happen, or that there aren't emails...it means that they have promulgated policy via outside policies so as to not be directly linked....which is tacit acknowledgment that what they are doin is wrong...because they are HIDING IT.
But unless and until someone sues Goodyear and runs through discovery....it will still occur...except even more "discreetly"

They are in the Government now. The military and government contractors are pushing diversity and other Marxist nonsense.

My contracting company has mandatory BLM Diversity training. It's really just a circle jerk of black folks complaining about white folks and white folks apologizing.

I was in school about a decade ago, but at that time the big buzzword was "stakeholder." In pure economics, and in reality, the C-suite's job is to maximize profits for shareholders. Period. But under the doctrine of "shareholder interests" business leaders have been trained to balance the interests of all parties - from employees, to vendors, to communities, to local governments, and to shareholders too. It always infuriated me because, while it sounds all warm and fuzzy, it's demonstrably false. If you're going to stay with an expensive vendor rather than their cheaper competitor because you're looking out for the interests of that stakeholder, it's an objectively bad business decision. It's the same perverse situation that globalists are in on the world stage, where diplomats are afraid to stand up for their own nation's best interests, instead obsessing over what the other guy wants and achieving "win/win" results.

Anyway, in my opinion the current hysteria started with the stakeholder logic. Today, such logic is used to justify poor policies like supplier diversity initiatives, where companies commit to buying inferior products at inflated prices if they're from a "diverse" vendor.