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:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

It’s basically admitting that Americans aren’t competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

It’s basically admitting that Americans aren’t competitive.

And that blacks are hypocrites that like to exploit foreigners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

It’s basically admitting that Americans aren’t competitive.

And that blacks are hypocrites that like to exploit foreigners.

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

We have repeatedly told you. We don't like your brand of Klu Klux Communism and are happy to see it diminished. We are getting what we want, and all you're telling us is that you don't understand what we want.

We asked specifically for examples of how you are no longer being held back from success. You still haven't given any. Babbling nonsensically about "Klu Klux Communism" isn't responsive to that question. It's a deflection.

Sorry that we aren't fitting into your faulty framing of the issue. I've never been held back. I'm not a victim, and I completely reject your oppressor/oppressed framing. As I've said before in this thread, you're not going to get the answer you're looking for because the right simply doesn't see the world the way you see it.

For us, seeing Beyonce wearing Levi's and hanging out in a 1950s dinner is #winning. We don't need to get promoted or whatever to enjoy the demise of DEI. Happiness is all around us, and we are enjoying it.

So after all of the pages of flailing you’ve now finally admitted outright that you were never “held back” by DEI, which was the original question that OP . That means the entire grievance narrative pushed by MAGA media, that white men were losing jobs, promotions, or opportunities to “unqualified” women and minorities was nothing but a manufactured victimhood lie from the right wing. Your own side's "oppressor/oppressed" framing and rationale for getting rid of DEI was built on a lie, and you've exposed that lie.

If your idea of “winning” is just watching Beyoncé in a Levi’s ad while nothing in your own life has changed, then you’ve proved the OP’s point: DEI wasn’t holding you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. The only thing that’s actually been exposed here is how hollow the right’s supposed “oppression” and grievance about DEI really was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

It’s basically admitting that Americans aren’t competitive.

And that blacks are hypocrites that like to exploit foreigners.

Anonymous wrote:
Huh?

Category | Obama as Symbol | Obama as Exploiter
----------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------
Race & Civil Rights | First Black president, seen as the | Provided moral cover for preserving status quo;
| culmination of civil rights struggles | racial symbolism used to mask structural continuity

Wall Street / Banks | Stabilized economy after 2008 crash | Massive bailouts for banks; millions of
| | foreclosures devastated working class & minorities

Healthcare (ACA) | Expanded coverage to millions; | Cemented employer-based system; high deductibles,
| “historic reform” narrative | tiered insurance (platinum vs bronze), insurers thrived

Labor & Wages | Pro-worker rhetoric; modest support | Wage stagnation continued; no major minimum
| for unions | wage push; trade policies undercut labor

Immigration | Symbol of diversity; DACA offered | Record deportations (“Deporter-in-Chief”);
| protection to DREAMers | immigrant labor kept vulnerable & exploitable

Skilled Labor (H-1B) | Promoted as “innovation” & global talent | Tech firms used H-1B to replace U.S. workers
| pipeline; celebrated diversity in STEM | with cheaper labor; immigrant workers semi-indentured

Education | Promised reform & better outcomes | Pushed charters/testing reforms; weakened unions;
| for minority students | created precarious education labor force

Foreign Policy | Symbol of diplomacy, Nobel Peace Prize | Drone wars, Libya intervention, expanded security
| | state—military labor & surveillance economy grew

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

I will never understand how the concept of “America first” can be so anathema to *other Americans*. It’s a special brand of awful when people put the interests of other countries’ citizens above those of their own fellow citizens. The mind boggles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

It’s basically admitting that Americans aren’t competitive.

And that blacks are hypocrites that like to exploit foreigners.

Anonymous wrote:
Huh?

Category | Obama as Symbol | Obama as Exploiter
----------------------|------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------
Race & Civil Rights | First Black president, seen as the | Provided moral cover for preserving status quo;
| culmination of civil rights struggles | racial symbolism used to mask structural continuity

Wall Street / Banks | Stabilized economy after 2008 crash | Massive bailouts for banks; millions of
| | foreclosures devastated working class & minorities

Healthcare (ACA) | Expanded coverage to millions; | Cemented employer-based system; high deductibles,
| “historic reform” narrative | tiered insurance (platinum vs bronze), insurers thrived

Labor & Wages | Pro-worker rhetoric; modest support | Wage stagnation continued; no major minimum
| for unions | wage push; trade policies undercut labor

Immigration | Symbol of diversity; DACA offered | Record deportations (“Deporter-in-Chief”);
| protection to DREAMers | immigrant labor kept vulnerable & exploitable

Skilled Labor (H-1B) | Promoted as “innovation” & global talent | Tech firms used H-1B to replace U.S. workers
| pipeline; celebrated diversity in STEM | with cheaper labor; immigrant workers semi-indentured

Education | Promised reform & better outcomes | Pushed charters/testing reforms; weakened unions;
| for minority students | created precarious education labor force

Foreign Policy | Symbol of diplomacy, Nobel Peace Prize | Drone wars, Libya intervention, expanded security
| | state—military labor & surveillance economy grew

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

I will never understand how the concept of “America first” can be so anathema to *other Americans*. It’s a special brand of awful when people put the interests of other countries’ citizens above those of their own fellow citizens. The mind boggles.

For starters, “America First” has a dark past. It began as an isolationist movement, but by the 1940s it attracted vocal anti-Semites and openly pro-Nazi fascists. People who know history are uneasy at the echoes and not convinced that this “America First” movement won’t end up the same way. The GOP doesn’t have a good track record of policing itself and denouncing these things. Anybody remember the CPAC stage shaped like the Nazi symbol?

If we truly wanted to put America first, we would value education instead of defunding it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

We have repeatedly told you. We don't like your brand of Klu Klux Communism and are happy to see it diminished. We are getting what we want, and all you're telling us is that you don't understand what we want.

We asked specifically for examples of how you are no longer being held back from success. You still haven't given any. Babbling nonsensically about "Klu Klux Communism" isn't responsive to that question. It's a deflection.

Sorry that we aren't fitting into your faulty framing of the issue. I've never been held back. I'm not a victim, and I completely reject your oppressor/oppressed framing. As I've said before in this thread, you're not going to get the answer you're looking for because the right simply doesn't see the world the way you see it.

For us, seeing Beyonce wearing Levi's and hanging out in a 1950s dinner is #winning. We don't need to get promoted or whatever to enjoy the demise of DEI. Happiness is all around us, and we are enjoying it.

With AI, you could have seen Beyonce wearing Levis in a 1950s diner without getting rid of DEI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

I will never understand how the concept of “America first” can be so anathema to *other Americans*. It’s a special brand of awful when people put the interests of other countries’ citizens above those of their own fellow citizens. The mind boggles.

For starters, “America First” has a dark past. It began as an isolationist movement, but by the 1940s it attracted vocal anti-Semites and openly pro-Nazi fascists. People who know history are uneasy at the echoes and not convinced that this “America First” movement won’t end up the same way. The GOP doesn’t have a good track record of policing itself and denouncing these things. Anybody remember the CPAC stage shaped like the Nazi symbol?

If we truly wanted to put America first, we would value education instead of defunding it.

This is ridiculous nonsense. Every government has an obligation to cater to its citizens because we fund it. It takes 37% of my income, and sends some of that to Harvard. It takes 0% of a Chinese person's salary. And you really don't understand why we think that America's policies should favor Americans? You think the government has no mutual obligations with its citizens? If it wants to be neutral on America, it can stop taking my money by threat of force.

Please, let people know that DEI hasnt gone far enough and now the government will favor random rich Chinese students. Be sure to call them a bigot if they object. People find this so persuasive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s aabout tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

That's actually not true. China, Saudi Arabia, and some other Asian and Middle Eastern states treat foreigners differently in many ways. Of course, those are also a lot of the same countries known for human rights abuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

We have repeatedly told you. We don't like your brand of Klu Klux Communism and are happy to see it diminished. We are getting what we want, and all you're telling us is that you don't understand what we want.

We asked specifically for examples of how you are no longer being held back from success. You still haven't given any. Babbling nonsensically about "Klu Klux Communism" isn't responsive to that question. It's a deflection.

Sorry that we aren't fitting into your faulty framing of the issue. I've never been held back. I'm not a victim, and I completely reject your oppressor/oppressed framing. As I've said before in this thread, you're not going to get the answer you're looking for because the right simply doesn't see the world the way you see it.

For us, seeing Beyonce wearing Levi's and hanging out in a 1950s dinner is #winning. We don't need to get promoted or whatever to enjoy the demise of DEI. Happiness is all around us, and we are enjoying it.

So after all of the pages of flailing you’ve now finally admitted outright that you were never “held back” by DEI, which was the original question that OP . That means the entire grievance narrative pushed by MAGA media, that white men were losing jobs, promotions, or opportunities to “unqualified” women and minorities was nothing but a manufactured victimhood lie from the right wing. Your own side's "oppressor/oppressed" framing and rationale for getting rid of DEI was built on a lie, and you've exposed that lie.

If your idea of “winning” is just watching Beyoncé in a Levi’s ad while nothing in your own life has changed, then you’ve proved the OP’s point: DEI wasn’t holding you back, and its rollback hasn’t lifted you up. The only thing that’s actually been exposed here is how hollow the right’s supposed “oppression” and grievance about DEI really was.

Well, you haven't asked, but I'm a minority, an "intersectional" one at that. I never claimed to be held back by DEI. You claimed I was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:16 pages in and there's still no meaningful response to the OP about what's changed and is no longer "holding anyone back" professionally now that "woke" and "DEI" are gone.

I'd say that's a fail for the right wing, no matter how much they flail about some random company's ad campaigns or whatever else.

Note also that no Democrat ever mandated ad campaigns featuring acne or ostomy or whatever else. That was entirely a private sector decision.

+1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either

The OP’s question is secondary to the fact that the libs have been wholly owned.

But here is an answer - we all benefit when educational and job opportunities are awarded based on merit, not race, gender, or sexual orientation.

If you need medical help, do you want a doctor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best doctor.

If you need legal help, do you want a lawyer who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best lawyer.

If you need financial advice, do you want a financial advisor who got their position through DEI? No, you want the best financial advisor.

Nobody in their right mind wants DEI hires serving themselves or their families in their own personal lives.

So why do you think it makes sense as a national policy?

If you want only the best, then why restrict international students from coming to Harvard?

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI.

It’s on the White House fact sheet as a stated reason for revoking visas for international students:

“Harvard has persisted in prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in its admissions, denying hardworking Americans equal opportunities by favoring certain groups, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against its race-based practices.”

How can we say a Harvard educated doctor is the best if the pool is restricted?

DP. I'm in favor of restricting the pool because America First. Those spots in an American institution should be given to Americans. It's Havard, not Hogwarts.

So removing DEI isn’t about merit, it’s about tipping the playing field to benefit favored groups. Got it. Wasn’t that your major complaint about DEI in the first place?

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group.

I will never understand how the concept of “America first” can be so anathema to *other Americans*. It’s a special brand of awful when people put the interests of other countries’ citizens above those of their own fellow citizens. The mind boggles.

Harvard is not a state institution. Who are you to decide who Harvard does business with?

And you are dense not to understand that having a global student body and faculty *is* part of the education.