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:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

We’re not owned yet. Maybe if you close some more rural hospitals and teach your kids more fake history and shoot yourselves in the foot a few more times.

We will continue to own you by winning election after election after election.

VA SD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
VA HD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
IA SD-35 1/28/25: Democrats win
MN SD-60 1/28/25: Democrats win
DE SD-1 2/15/25: Democrats win
DE SD-5 2/15/25: Democrats win
PA SD-36 3/25/25: Democrats win
SC HD-113 3/25/25: Democrats win
IA HD-78 4/29/25: Democrats win
LA HD-67 5/3/25: Democrats win
OK HD-71 6/10/25: Democrats win
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Democrats win
FL-1 and FL-6 (Matt Gaetz’ district): 15+ point D swing
Australia: center-left Labor Party wins in a landslide in 2025
Germany: far right AfD grossly underperforms in 2025 elections
Canada: Mark Carney wins, Liberal party maintains power in upset victory
Mexico: elects climate scientist and leftist Claudia Sheinbaum

Here’s some salt to go with your crow

SP. I believe the PP was referring to control of Congress and the White House.

Sorry, you don’t get to move the goalposts and retroactively insert your own qualifiers. PP only said elections. They have been proven wrong.

The fact that the Democrat left has now been reduced to bragging about winning the Mexican election is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

Yeah when that runs out what do you have? Answer the OP question.

Joyful memories and a sense of fulfillment. I doubt that there will ever be a time when it will stop being satisfying to own the libs.

In the meantime, I am getting secure borders, a society that is drifting back to a hierarchy of merit and away of a hierarchy of oppression.
I am getting lower taxes permanently instead of having them expire next year. AND I am getting more of my SALT tax deductions back.
My kid will be competing against fewer international students next year for college.
The overcrowding in schools will be alleviated as illegal aliens go back to their countries. My tax dollars will not be spent on very expensive ELL services for illegal aliens.
Social services will not be paying for services for illegal aliens.
I doubt there were many illegal alien criminals around here but I bet there were a few. They are mostly gone now.
The $2 TRILLION investment commitment by companies like TSMC, Apple, and NVIDIA will probably help the economy I live in.

AND the price of eggs is down and that is what really matters, amirite? I can't believe you guys lost an election because of the price of eggs ROFLMAO you can't make this sort of stuff up, truth is stranger than fiction. Fooken eggs ROFL.


What have you lost and why aren't you storming the gates over it? Oh that's right, you have neither the guns nor the courage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP, I'm mostly just happy that I don't have to look at ads with ugly people, spend every day of pride month being re-educated, or explain why I won't announce my pronouns at the start of a meeting.

Stock market is doing awesome. Everything is great. No complaints.

In other words, you think black people are ugly, you’re happy inside your bubble, and you work for a fictional company where everyone is required to recite their pronouns at the start of each and every meeting. I’m fascinated, which company is this? And why are black people ugly?

The stock market’s performance has nothing to do with DEI.

I'm pretty sure he's mostly talking about fat people. But it's interesting you immediately thought he was talking about black people.

Lol! I wrote that bit about ugly people and just saw this thing where a liberal immediately interpreted that to mean "black people." Wtf! Man, that's really gross to think black = ugly. The left is crazy racist.

That’s because the comment was made within the context of a discussion of race and DEI (reminder: this is a thread about DEI, which does not include fat people or ugly people), so it came across as “so glad I no longer have to look at black people in ads”.

The right loves to say vague shit like this, then try to weasel their way out by claiming “oh no, that’s not what I meant”. God forbid you ever actually say what you mean.

It would never have even occurred to me that people would equate black with ugly. We live in an age where Beyonce and Zendaya are A listers. It is just not a natural conclusion, even in the context of DEI.

DEI in ads was absolutely all about an androgynous aesthetic in which body hair was prominently featured and other items, like colostomy bags, were front and center. Look at Ella Emhoff's modeling work. Half the time she had visible, pus filled zits, usually had her eyebrows grown together like Frida, and wore her hair in an unfeminine way. This is all unnecessary. Normally people would do something about the giant zits before the photo shoot. But the woke agenda is to make us pretend this is the preferred, most attractive look. It's not.

It's not making fun of people with disabilities to say you dont want to look at colostomy bags while shopping for jeans. In normal life, I've never seen someone just letting it all hang out there. This "look at my armpit hair" "look at my poop bag" "it's all as beautiful as Sydney Sweeney" is just gas lighting and gross.

And maybe some of us don’t want to look at airbrushed, underweight models and be gaslit into thinking we’re inadequate because we don’t measure up to a fake ideal of Photoshopped perfection.

YEAH!!!!

Ugly people want to see themselves represented in clothing commercials too!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP, I'm mostly just happy that I don't have to look at ads with ugly people, spend every day of pride month being re-educated, or explain why I won't announce my pronouns at the start of a meeting.

Stock market is doing awesome. Everything is great. No complaints.

In other words, you think black people are ugly, you’re happy inside your bubble, and you work for a fictional company where everyone is required to recite their pronouns at the start of each and every meeting. I’m fascinated, which company is this? And why are black people ugly?

The stock market’s performance has nothing to do with DEI.

I'm pretty sure he's mostly talking about fat people. But it's interesting you immediately thought he was talking about black people.

Lol! I wrote that bit about ugly people and just saw this thing where a liberal immediately interpreted that to mean "black people." Wtf! Man, that's really gross to think black = ugly. The left is crazy racist.

That’s because the comment was made within the context of a discussion of race and DEI (reminder: this is a thread about DEI, which does not include fat people or ugly people), so it came across as “so glad I no longer have to look at black people in ads”.

The right loves to say vague shit like this, then try to weasel their way out by claiming “oh no, that’s not what I meant”. God forbid you ever actually say what you mean.

It would never have even occurred to me that people would equate black with ugly. We live in an age where Beyonce and Zendaya are A listers. It is just not a natural conclusion, even in the context of DEI.

DEI in ads was absolutely all about an androgynous aesthetic in which body hair was prominently featured and other items, like colostomy bags, were front and center. Look at Ella Emhoff's modeling work. Half the time she had visible, pus filled zits, usually had her eyebrows grown together like Frida, and wore her hair in an unfeminine way. This is all unnecessary. Normally people would do something about the giant zits before the photo shoot. But the woke agenda is to make us pretend this is the preferred, most attractive look. It's not.

It's not making fun of people with disabilities to say you dont want to look at colostomy bags while shopping for jeans. In normal life, I've never seen someone just letting it all hang out there. This "look at my armpit hair" "look at my poop bag" "it's all as beautiful as Sydney Sweeney" is just gas lighting and gross.

And maybe some of us don’t want to look at airbrushed, underweight models and be gaslit into thinking we’re inadequate because we don’t measure up to a fake ideal of Photoshopped perfection.

I don't understand why seeing beauty makes you feel inadequate.

The purpose of ads is to sell products. It’s not an art museum. They’re not showing us these images for our aesthetic viewing pleasure. Advertisers feed on people’s insecurities to make money.

Personally, I get tired of the same old cookie cutter look being held up as the only beauty standard. I like seeing a variety of real, unretouched people using the products. I relate better to an ad that says “hey look, everyday people enjoy this” than something that says “this product is for glamorous, wealthy supermodels”. That doesn’t mean I don’t know or appreciate physical beauty, it just means I interact differently with ads and am less susceptible to being sold jeans by a pair of cheekbones.

Okay. I'm not talking about normal people. I'm talking about having to look at close ups of pus filled zits and armpit hair that looks like it hasn't seen a shower in weeks. Nobody wants to look at that. But they kept pumping it out and insisting it's beautiful- no. Its. Not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

It sounds like you grew up around a lot of racist messages and you may want to examine what that's done to your view of black people. Nothing in my statement, or the context, would have pointed to black people. I could have meant trans, enbies, fat people- literally any category, and you went immediately to black, which isn't a logical progression at all. What I meant was ugly people. Ugly ones. I shouldn't need to further clarify because we all understand what's attractive and what's repulsive. But if I were a black person reading this, I'd be horrified that someone immediately equated black with ugly, and you should really think about that. In your quest to demonize maga, you said something UGLY.

Demonizing ugly and disabled people and saying they don’t belong in ads is equally gross, and doesn’t exactly help with your case for being superior and enlightened. You need to examine why you have these attitudes, and why people might be quick to see racism in MAGA comments about DEI. For example, Pete Hegseth’s DoD scrubbed all mention of black, female, and Latino servicepeople’s contributions from the Arlington Cemetary website, but left white male content in place. Care to explain that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

We’re not owned yet. Maybe if you close some more rural hospitals and teach your kids more fake history and shoot yourselves in the foot a few more times.

We will continue to own you by winning election after election after election.

VA SD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
VA HD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
IA SD-35 1/28/25: Democrats win
MN SD-60 1/28/25: Democrats win
DE SD-1 2/15/25: Democrats win
DE SD-5 2/15/25: Democrats win
PA SD-36 3/25/25: Democrats win
SC HD-113 3/25/25: Democrats win
IA HD-78 4/29/25: Democrats win
LA HD-67 5/3/25: Democrats win
OK HD-71 6/10/25: Democrats win
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Democrats win
FL-1 and FL-6 (Matt Gaetz’ district): 15+ point D swing
Australia: center-left Labor Party wins in a landslide in 2025
Germany: far right AfD grossly underperforms in 2025 elections
Canada: Mark Carney wins, Liberal party maintains power in upset victory
Mexico: elects climate scientist and leftist Claudia Sheinbaum

Here’s some salt to go with your crow

SP. I believe the PP was referring to control of Congress and the White House.

Sorry, you don’t get to move the goalposts and retroactively insert your own qualifiers. PP only said elections. They have been proven wrong.

The fact that the Democrat left has now been reduced to bragging about winning the Mexican election is laughable.

The entire world thinks Trump is a pathetic loser.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

It sounds like you grew up around a lot of racist messages and you may want to examine what that's done to your view of black people. Nothing in my statement, or the context, would have pointed to black people. I could have meant trans, enbies, fat people- literally any category, and you went immediately to black, which isn't a logical progression at all. What I meant was ugly people. Ugly ones. I shouldn't need to further clarify because we all understand what's attractive and what's repulsive. But if I were a black person reading this, I'd be horrified that someone immediately equated black with ugly, and you should really think about that. In your quest to demonize maga, you said something UGLY.

Demonizing ugly and disabled people and saying they don’t belong in ads is equally gross, and doesn’t exactly help with your case for being superior and enlightened. You need to examine why you have these attitudes, and why people might be quick to see racism in MAGA comments about DEI. For example, Pete Hegseth’s DoD scrubbed all mention of black, female, and Latino servicepeople’s contributions from the Arlington Cemetary website, but left white male content in place. Care to explain that?

I never said I had an issue with disabled people. I said I don't want to look at colostomy bags. FWIW, I don't want to see Sydney Sweeney taking a crap either, but still think she's a good model.

You're illustrating exactly why wokeness is dying. It should go without saying that people don't want to look at poop bags while shopping for jeans. They could have done the NORMAL thing and hidden the bag behind the model or edited it out. It's this- the insistence that to accept people we must also look at photos of their poop, their cellulite, their unflattering angles-- and pretend that its just like Kendall Jenner. GTFO, no its not. And you try to bully people into submission with this crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

We’re not owned yet. Maybe if you close some more rural hospitals and teach your kids more fake history and shoot yourselves in the foot a few more times.

This is the social compact breaking down. We need urgency to restore it:

1 - Mass [twitter]deportations
2 - Stop the H-1B scam
3 - Dramatically reduce LEGAL Immigration
4 - End chain migration and the Visa Lottery
5 - Build 10 million homes for Americans
6 - Crush the College Cartel

[twitter] https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1956044288573497681?s=46[/twitter]

No, we need people to start honoring the social compact again and stop voting for people to burn it all down.

If you want that, then you have to convince people to vote for your candidates.
Stop accusing anyone that disagrees with you of supporting trump, because if you keep telling them they support trump, they just might.

You may not get everything you want immediately but the alternative is presidents like trump.

I like Sarah McBride's interview with Ezra Klein on this topic

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP, I'm mostly just happy that I don't have to look at ads with ugly people, spend every day of pride month being re-educated, or explain why I won't announce my pronouns at the start of a meeting.

Stock market is doing awesome. Everything is great. No complaints.

In other words, you think black people are ugly, you’re happy inside your bubble, and you work for a fictional company where everyone is required to recite their pronouns at the start of each and every meeting. I’m fascinated, which company is this? And why are black people ugly?

The stock market’s performance has nothing to do with DEI.

I'm pretty sure he's mostly talking about fat people. But it's interesting you immediately thought he was talking about black people.

Lol! I wrote that bit about ugly people and just saw this thing where a liberal immediately interpreted that to mean "black people." Wtf! Man, that's really gross to think black = ugly. The left is crazy racist.

That’s because the comment was made within the context of a discussion of race and DEI (reminder: this is a thread about DEI, which does not include fat people or ugly people), so it came across as “so glad I no longer have to look at black people in ads”.

The right loves to say vague shit like this, then try to weasel their way out by claiming “oh no, that’s not what I meant”. God forbid you ever actually say what you mean.

It would never have even occurred to me that people would equate black with ugly. We live in an age where Beyonce and Zendaya are A listers. It is just not a natural conclusion, even in the context of DEI.

DEI in ads was absolutely all about an androgynous aesthetic in which body hair was prominently featured and other items, like colostomy bags, were front and center. Look at Ella Emhoff's modeling work. Half the time she had visible, pus filled zits, usually had her eyebrows grown together like Frida, and wore her hair in an unfeminine way. This is all unnecessary. Normally people would do something about the giant zits before the photo shoot. But the woke agenda is to make us pretend this is the preferred, most attractive look. It's not.

It's not making fun of people with disabilities to say you dont want to look at colostomy bags while shopping for jeans. In normal life, I've never seen someone just letting it all hang out there. This "look at my armpit hair" "look at my poop bag" "it's all as beautiful as Sydney Sweeney" is just gas lighting and gross.

And maybe some of us don’t want to look at airbrushed, underweight models and be gaslit into thinking we’re inadequate because we don’t measure up to a fake ideal of Photoshopped perfection.

I don't understand why seeing beauty makes you feel inadequate.

The purpose of ads is to sell products. It’s not an art museum. They’re not showing us these images for our aesthetic viewing pleasure. Advertisers feed on people’s insecurities to make money.

Personally, I get tired of the same old cookie cutter look being held up as the only beauty standard. I like seeing a variety of real, unretouched people using the products. I relate better to an ad that says “hey look, everyday people enjoy this” than something that says “this product is for glamorous, wealthy supermodels”. That doesn’t mean I don’t know or appreciate physical beauty, it just means I interact differently with ads and am less susceptible to being sold jeans by a pair of cheekbones.

Okay. I'm not talking about normal people. I'm talking about having to look at close ups of pus filled zits and armpit hair that looks like it hasn't seen a shower in weeks. Nobody wants to look at that. But they kept pumping it out and insisting it's beautiful- no. Its. Not.

What were the pus filled zits selling? Was it an ad for zit cream? Genuinely curious.

I hate the Taboola ads that show toenail fungus and such, but those are utilitarian ads that claim to be solving a particular problem rather than peddling glamor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ Of course, the "love your body" movement lost traction with weight loss drugs. Go to the Diet and Nutrition forum where everyone is trying to get their hands on it.

Those drugs are just appetite suppressants.
If you were fat before them, then you just lacked self control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love how people immediately shifted the racism from the person making the gross comment to the person who called out the gross comment. MAGA are masters of projection.

Because my original comment wasnt about race. It was about ugly people. If you think black people are ugly that's on you, and IS racist, because black people as a category are objectively not ugly. You'd have to be uncomfortable with and judgemental of black people to think that.

Also you don't get to say that black people are ugly and then claim that's what I really meant. Okay? All flavors welcome here.

And now you’re putting words in my mouth. I never, ever, not once, claimed that black people were ugly. I interpreted YOU as saying that, because my MAGA relatives have said on several occasions they find black people objectively less attractive than white people, and I was concerned that you might be expressing a similar sentiment. Since DEI includes black people and race was mainly what was being discussed at that point, saying “thank God I no longer have to look at ugly people (thanks to DEI)” implies that the category “ugly” includes black people. It’s a reasonable interpretation. That’s why I called it out.

All you had to do was say “no, that’s not what I meant” and explain what you actually meant. By trying to twist it around and accuse me of racism for questioning what I saw as racism, you’re doing the same thing. Questioning a thing isn’t the same as doing the thing.

Let’s agree that there are extremely attractive black people and they should be in ads.

And THAT is called projection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

We’re not owned yet. Maybe if you close some more rural hospitals and teach your kids more fake history and shoot yourselves in the foot a few more times.

We will continue to own you by winning election after election after election.

VA SD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
VA HD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
IA SD-35 1/28/25: Democrats win
MN SD-60 1/28/25: Democrats win
DE SD-1 2/15/25: Democrats win
DE SD-5 2/15/25: Democrats win
PA SD-36 3/25/25: Democrats win
SC HD-113 3/25/25: Democrats win
IA HD-78 4/29/25: Democrats win
LA HD-67 5/3/25: Democrats win
OK HD-71 6/10/25: Democrats win
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Democrats win
FL-1 and FL-6 (Matt Gaetz’ district): 15+ point D swing
Australia: center-left Labor Party wins in a landslide in 2025
Germany: far right AfD grossly underperforms in 2025 elections
Canada: Mark Carney wins, Liberal party maintains power in upset victory
Mexico: elects climate scientist and leftist Claudia Sheinbaum

Here’s some salt to go with your crow

SP. I believe the PP was referring to control of Congress and the White House.

Sorry, you don’t get to move the goalposts and retroactively insert your own qualifiers. PP only said elections. They have been proven wrong.

If it makes you feel better that democrats won the election for the town dogcatcher in sheboygan, well, good for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know, OP, I'm mostly just happy that I don't have to look at ads with ugly people, spend every day of pride month being re-educated, or explain why I won't announce my pronouns at the start of a meeting.

Stock market is doing awesome. Everything is great. No complaints.

In other words, you think black people are ugly, you’re happy inside your bubble, and you work for a fictional company where everyone is required to recite their pronouns at the start of each and every meeting. I’m fascinated, which company is this? And why are black people ugly?

The stock market’s performance has nothing to do with DEI.

I'm pretty sure he's mostly talking about fat people. But it's interesting you immediately thought he was talking about black people.

Lol! I wrote that bit about ugly people and just saw this thing where a liberal immediately interpreted that to mean "black people." Wtf! Man, that's really gross to think black = ugly. The left is crazy racist.

That’s because the comment was made within the context of a discussion of race and DEI (reminder: this is a thread about DEI, which does not include fat people or ugly people), so it came across as “so glad I no longer have to look at black people in ads”.

The right loves to say vague shit like this, then try to weasel their way out by claiming “oh no, that’s not what I meant”. God forbid you ever actually say what you mean.

It would never have even occurred to me that people would equate black with ugly. We live in an age where Beyonce and Zendaya are A listers. It is just not a natural conclusion, even in the context of DEI.

DEI in ads was absolutely all about an androgynous aesthetic in which body hair was prominently featured and other items, like colostomy bags, were front and center. Look at Ella Emhoff's modeling work. Half the time she had visible, pus filled zits, usually had her eyebrows grown together like Frida, and wore her hair in an unfeminine way. This is all unnecessary. Normally people would do something about the giant zits before the photo shoot. But the woke agenda is to make us pretend this is the preferred, most attractive look. It's not.

It's not making fun of people with disabilities to say you dont want to look at colostomy bags while shopping for jeans. In normal life, I've never seen someone just letting it all hang out there. This "look at my armpit hair" "look at my poop bag" "it's all as beautiful as Sydney Sweeney" is just gas lighting and gross.

And maybe some of us don’t want to look at airbrushed, underweight models and be gaslit into thinking we’re inadequate because we don’t measure up to a fake ideal of Photoshopped perfection.

YEAH!!!!

Ugly people want to see themselves represented in clothing commercials too!!!

You are incredibly rude and your sarcasm isn’t funny at all pp. and furthermore, you appear ignorant of the ugly breadth of oppression in all its ugly forms. See: the wheel of oppression, for starters

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has been able to list a single thing that the elimination of DEI and woke has benefited them personally. Not talking about owning the libs or feeling smug about the country in general. Have you been promoted at work now that the pesky females and black folk are out of the way? Has your child decided they are in fact not gay now that they aren’t being “programmed” at school? Has your business thrived more now that there are no migrants? I want real examples.

You didn't seem to appreciate how important owning the libs was in all of this. How much the rest of the country wanted you to just shut up.

And even after all this you can't shut your mouth. Not a hint of self reflection. Not a whiff of humility in your loss. Well, I guess we'll have to do it again in 2028 until you're fellow travelers are the ones screaming at you to just shut the fook up.

It just feels so good to own the libs.

We’re not owned yet. Maybe if you close some more rural hospitals and teach your kids more fake history and shoot yourselves in the foot a few more times.

We will continue to own you by winning election after election after election.

VA SD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
VA HD-32 1/7/2025: Democrats win
IA SD-35 1/28/25: Democrats win
MN SD-60 1/28/25: Democrats win
DE SD-1 2/15/25: Democrats win
DE SD-5 2/15/25: Democrats win
PA SD-36 3/25/25: Democrats win
SC HD-113 3/25/25: Democrats win
IA HD-78 4/29/25: Democrats win
LA HD-67 5/3/25: Democrats win
OK HD-71 6/10/25: Democrats win
Wisconsin Supreme Court: Democrats win
FL-1 and FL-6 (Matt Gaetz’ district): 15+ point D swing
Australia: center-left Labor Party wins in a landslide in 2025
Germany: far right AfD grossly underperforms in 2025 elections
Canada: Mark Carney wins, Liberal party maintains power in upset victory
Mexico: elects climate scientist and leftist Claudia Sheinbaum

Here’s some salt to go with your crow

SP. I believe the PP was referring to control of Congress and the White House.

Sorry, you don’t get to move the goalposts and retroactively insert your own qualifiers. PP only said elections. They have been proven wrong.

The fact that the Democrat left has now been reduced to bragging about winning the Mexican election is laughable.

The entire world thinks Trump is a pathetic loser.

As they line up to beg him to place a tariff on their exports to the US. They don't like him, because he is taxing their exports.

[Anonymous]