Michael Schellenberger

Rank 46 of 47
|
Score -202
Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️
@realchrisrufo
·
1508d
To begin, the diversity trainers led a “free association” exercise, asking the Lockheed employees to list connotations for the term “white men.” The trainers wrote down “old, racist, privileged, anti-women, angry, Aryan Nation, KKK, Founding fathers, guns, guilty, can’t jump.”
1/22/2025, 4:27:41 AM
X
In reply to:
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
171d
US government contractors segregating and humiliating their employees through the use of racist and sexist stereotypes will go down as one of the worst moments in the Woke Reign of Terror. Bravo to @realchrisrufo for using it to dismantle structural racism, a.k.a. DEI.
Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️
@realchrisrufo
·
1508d
SCOOP: @LockheedMartin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, sent key executives to a three-day white male reeducation camp in order to deconstruct their “white male culture” and atone for their “white male privilege.”

I've obtained internal documents that will shock you.🧵

The statement criticizes a DEI training program, alleging it uses harmful stereotypes against 'white men' and likens it to cult-like behavior. The tone is accusatory and suggests the training is both 'evil and illegal.'

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement claims harm is being done through the training, suggesting it violates the principle of doing no harm. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    It argues that the training disrespects the dignity of individuals, potentially violating privacy and dignity. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding or empathy, instead using strong negative language. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive dialogue, instead using personal attacks and strong accusations. [-2]