Are we ready to admit that Woke & DEI and woke wasn’t what was holding you back from success?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

That’s obviously because white men are not a part of a group who gets preferential hiring based on skin color.
or gender. That’s why black women have to answer that question. You didn’t know that?

You’re joking right? White men have been a preferential group since the inception of this country. And there were and are bonus points if white, male, with money. Such white men have traditionally been the only people considered for all jobs and positions of middle, upper and elite positions.

That’s illegal and also not universal. We are talking about law and modern day policy. White men are facing a disadvantage in modern day hiring. Go look at WMATA and tell me about average white men having an advantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Society is deciding that black skin inherently gives “certain perspectives that are not represented” when individual experience is determined by far more complex factors than skin color. I know plenty of black women who toe the line for wealthy and corrupt elements in our society and I know some white men who have very unique experiences that would be an asset for any organization. If you just look at skin color then you would miss this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being professionally very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Biden announced the pick would be a black woman. Of course skin color (and sex) mattered.

[Anonymous]

As ham-handed as it was, Romney's "binders full of women" was actually best-practice. Make sure you have a diverse pool of candidates that are up for serious consideration, then choose the best qualified from there. That has been shown to increase diversity while still ensuring at least the perception of meritocracy.

Of course, DEI is not the problem. The problem is a changing economic landscape alongside consolidation of wealth and power among a few. But we're pitting everyone against each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DEI splits society into oppressed and oppressors. Not having it means certain people will not be so labeled.

Um, no. You have it exactly backwards.

This is a very MAGA approach. Sweep inequality under the rug, pretend it doesn’t exist, and hey presto! It’s gone! Then nobody has to feel bad or do anything to resolve it.

This might shock you, but there are large numbers of impoverished white people who live in dangerous, drug infested communities with limited opportunities. But as they try to make their escape or improve their lot, they are discriminated against for being "privileged" and are also not considered a target market for democratic votes because they are demonized as white supremacists (notwithstanding the fact that they tend to have interracial families and are not, in fact, more racist than anyone else). The problem with DEI is that it chooses winners and losers in a sort of weird Hunger Games approach where people from the white "district" are looked down on and people from the minority "districts" are celebrated by the people of the capital city.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Society is deciding that black skin inherently gives “certain perspectives that are not represented” when individual experience is determined by far more complex factors than skin color. I know plenty of black women who toe the line for wealthy and corrupt elements in our society and I know some white men who have very unique experiences that would be an asset for any organization. If you just look at skin color then you would miss this.

A major part of SCOTUS’ job is to rule on cases that affect particular groups in society, usually out-groups. White men don’t have a great track record in safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups in this country. Some have stepped up when it counted, but many really don’t get it. They don’t see oppression because they don’t experience it in the same way that a woman does, or a black person does.

In a truly race and gender blind society, the makeup of the court (and Congress, and business leaders, etc.) would roughly reflect the makeup of the populace. Not saying we need to require X women and Y black people, but white men are overwhelmingly, disproportionately represented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Society is deciding that black skin inherently gives “certain perspectives that are not represented” when individual experience is determined by far more complex factors than skin color. I know plenty of black women who toe the line for wealthy and corrupt elements in our society and I know some white men who have very unique experiences that would be an asset for any organization. If you just look at skin color then you would miss this.

DEI was never about "just looking at skin color." The idea is that you take the qualified candidates, and if there are more than one candidates who are meet or exceed the qualifications in a similar way, THEN you look at demographics. So that DOES NOT mean passing over the uniquely qualified person who would be an unrivaled asset to the organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Society is deciding that black skin inherently gives “certain perspectives that are not represented” when individual experience is determined by far more complex factors than skin color. I know plenty of black women who toe the line for wealthy and corrupt elements in our society and I know some white men who have very unique experiences that would be an asset for any organization. If you just look at skin color then you would miss this.

A major part of SCOTUS’ job is to rule on cases that affect particular groups in society, usually out-groups. White men don’t have a great track record in safeguarding the rights of marginalized groups in this country. Some have stepped up when it counted, but many really don’t get it. They don’t see oppression because they don’t experience it in the same way that a woman does, or a black person does.

In a truly race and gender blind society, the makeup of the court (and Congress, and business leaders, etc.) would roughly reflect the makeup of the populace. Not saying we need to require X women and Y black people, but white men are overwhelmingly, disproportionately represented.

You keep talking about white men as if they are a monolith. That’s the problem. White men are so diverse that it’s impossible (and lazy) to generalize in any meaningful way. Economics is far more decisive to how an individual relates to society so why not use that measure instead? Who cares if a black man is on the SCOTUS if he is a corrupt and wealthy Clarence Thomas? Why does his skin color matter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Society is deciding that black skin inherently gives “certain perspectives that are not represented” when individual experience is determined by far more complex factors than skin color. I know plenty of black women who toe the line for wealthy and corrupt elements in our society and I know some white men who have very unique experiences that would be an asset for any organization. If you just look at skin color then you would miss this.

DEI was never about "just looking at skin color." The idea is that you take the qualified candidates, and if there are more than one candidates who are meet or exceed the qualifications in a similar way, THEN you look at demographics. So that DOES NOT mean passing over the uniquely qualified person who would be an unrivaled asset to the organization.

Ha. That might be the original intent, but that is not how it plays out in reality. At all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Society is deciding that black skin inherently gives “certain perspectives that are not represented” when individual experience is determined by far more complex factors than skin color. I know plenty of black women who toe the line for wealthy and corrupt elements in our society and I know some white men who have very unique experiences that would be an asset for any organization. If you just look at skin color then you would miss this.

DEI was never about "just looking at skin color." The idea is that you take the qualified candidates, and if there are more than one candidates who are meet or exceed the qualifications in a similar way, THEN you look at demographics. So that DOES NOT mean passing over the uniquely qualified person who would be an unrivaled asset to the organization.

Ok, then explain why black students at Harvard have dramatically lower test scores than Asian and white students. In your version of events, they'd all be roughly the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

That’s obviously because white men are not a part of a group who gets preferential hiring based on skin color.
or gender. That’s why black women have to answer that question. You didn’t know that?

You’re joking right? White men have been a preferential group since the inception of this country. And there were and are bonus points if white, male, with money. Such white men have traditionally been the only people considered for all jobs and positions of middle, upper and elite positions.

That’s illegal and also not universal. We are talking about law and modern day policy. White men are facing a disadvantage in modern day hiring. Go look at WMATA and tell me about average white men having an advantage.

DC is a city that's historically been majority black, it stands to reason that a majority of applicants and hires would also be black. That's hardly evidence of discrimination against whites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MAGA assumes if you’re black or female you are not qualified and that DEI is the only possible reason (or slept your way to the top) you might have gotten promoted or admitted to a school. So with that logic, white men should be doing great in their careers now.

And DEI gives them a reason to think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK MAGA, tell us how your life has improved now that you can be outwardly racist and misogynistic and you’ve put LGBTQ in their place? I want real life examples, not hypotheticals like bathrooms in some other county or school system that has nothing to do with you. Real examples of how you (or your white DH) have gotten ahead in your career, your kid has excelled in sports, etc. now that others can be decremented against again.

This thread has been done multiple times. Do a search. In the meantime, what do you think you're achieving here?

What do you think? Looking for real examples of how people’s lives have improved now that DEI and Woke are out of their way. It’s a simple question. Yet no one can answer.

Well for one thing, it helped take power from the DNC. So that's a win-win right there.

Military bases are being renamed back to what they were before. Your whole outlook of grievance politics based on 200 year old colonialism has been undermined.

The trans nonsense in the military has been KO'd. Reflecting upon it, democrats chose poorly and it's coming back to haunt them. Bigly.

It also has you opening threads about it. So, I guess you should tell us how it has disturbed you, your ideology and your forward progress on artificial grievances for 0.1% of the population that lead to monetary concessions.


Your turn.

The question was concrete examples of how your own life have improved. You haven’t listed any.

I gain immense satisfaction from the abundance of liberal- tears. All your whinging is like music to my ears. It is almost as enjoyable to me as watching an unqualified black kid get into Harvard is for you.

Your frustration at watching Trump break your DEI like a bull in a China shop instead of surgically removing the offensive parts brings me as much joy as the frustration of an Asian kid that was discriminated against brings to you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

You’re not getting it. Choosing a black woman is perfectly fine. Choosing a person BECAUSE she is a black woman is no better than choosing someone BECAUSE he is a white man. I know you likely don’t agree with that statement. But that’s how many Americans feel— that choosing people based on race doesn’t become “right” just because it’s a different race being chosen.

Prior PP is saying the woman was chosen because, in addition to being very well qualified, she has a background that gives her certain perspectives that are not represented on the bench but are a big part of our population. It’s not “BECAUSE she’s a black woman.”

Society is deciding that black skin inherently gives “certain perspectives that are not represented” when individual experience is determined by far more complex factors than skin color. I know plenty of black women who toe the line for wealthy and corrupt elements in our society and I know some white men who have very unique experiences that would be an asset for any organization. If you just look at skin color then you would miss this.

DEI was never about "just looking at skin color." The idea is that you take the qualified candidates, and if there are more than one candidates who are meet or exceed the qualifications in a similar way, THEN you look at demographics. So that DOES NOT mean passing over the uniquely qualified person who would be an unrivaled asset to the organization.

Ok, then explain why black students at Harvard have dramatically lower test scores than Asian and white students. In your version of events, they'd all be roughly the same.

Because DEI was elevated above merit. The premise was that those individuals with lower test scores were the result of poverty, discrimination, lack of opportunities, etc... The assumption was that if they were given the same opportunity as those who had earned it through meritorious achievement, they would perform the same. Statistics showed the exact opposite result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DEI = racism.

Are democrats seriously still supporting racism??

I've heard both Kamala Harris and Ketanji Brown Jackson referred to as "DEI hires" by people like you. But which is more racist - the fact that they are the first Black female VP and SC justice respectively, or the fact that nobody who occupied those positions between 1789 and 2021 was a Black female?

NP. People said that because Biden literally said he was going to choose a woman of color for each of those positions. Why didn’t he just say he was going to choose the best person & then pick them anyway? He is partially at fault for this perception.

And yes of course racism & sexism kept people like them out for centuries.

That's the whole problem. There are TONS of qualified women and people of color who could serve as Vice President or SCOTUS justices, it's racism and acting like it's somehow unfair for any of them to be chosen that has kept them out of office.

Brett Kavanaugh isn’t exactly the finest legal mind of the 21st century, but nobody questioned his fitness on the grounds of his skin color or gender. It was just assumed he was qualified.

White men get a free pass on this stuff. If a black woman is chosen: “why didn’t he pick the best person?” The unexamined assumption there is that the real best person is somewhere out there among the ranks of white men, getting unfairly passed over.

Kavanaugh was elevated by the Heritage Foundation and chosen by Trump to enact a specific right wing judicial agenda that has nothing to do with how smart he is or how unbiased he is or where he went to law school. If Biden decides he wants a black woman on SCOTUS, it’s because he wants to diversify the bench with different perspectives. From that standpoint, such a candidate is indeed the best person.

That’s obviously because white men are not a part of a group who gets preferential hiring based on skin color.
or gender. That’s why black women have to answer that question. You didn’t know that?

You’re joking right? White men have been a preferential group since the inception of this country. And there were and are bonus points if white, male, with money. Such white men have traditionally been the only people considered for all jobs and positions of middle, upper and elite positions.

That’s illegal and also not universal. We are talking about law and modern day policy. White men are facing a disadvantage in modern day hiring. Go look at WMATA and tell me about average white men having an advantage.

DC is a city that's historically been majority black, it stands to reason that a majority of applicants and hires would also be black. That's hardly evidence of discrimination against whites.

You are not arguing in good faith. The demographics of the WMATA workforce do not match the city demographics at all.

WMATA Workforce overall:
74% black
13% white
6% asian
5% hispanic

https://www.wmata.com/rider-guide/upload/2022-2025-Equal-Employment-Opportunity-Program.pdf

Those numbers do not reflect the population.