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:

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

[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.

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

+1. If this is the attitude, why even issue visas to these foreign students? Much less use taxpayer expenses to fund their research?

[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.

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.

I stopped reading after this sentence. You failed to address the point.

[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:

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.

I stopped reading after this sentence. You failed to address the point.

You made no point to address. You said something that equates to, Nazis ate beans therefore beans create Nazis. It's just a nonsensical point to avoid real discussion.

[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

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.

Thanks for clarifying. But again, you actually reinforced the point rather than undermining it. If you go back and re-read, the original question wasn’t whether you personally felt held back, but whether the rollback of DEI has meaningfully removed barriers to success for anyone. If you weren’t held back, and you’re now celebrating the demise of DEI without any tangible improvement in your own life or career, then the anti-DEI grievance narrative collapses under its own weight.

You’re free to enjoy Beyoncé in a Levi’s ad, but that’s not a policy outcome, it’s a vibe. And vibes aren’t evidence. If the entire rationale for dismantling DEI was built on the idea that it was unfairly elevating "unqualified" people and suppressing others, then surely someone should be able to point to a concrete example of that suppression ending.

Instead, what we’re seeing is a shift in cultural signaling, not structural change. That’s fine if that’s what you value, but it’s not the argument that was originally made. And it’s certainly not any kind of rebuttal to the OP’s question.

[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:

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.

I stopped reading after this sentence. You failed to address the point.

You made no point to address. You said something that equates to, Nazis ate beans therefore beans create Nazis. It's just a nonsensical point to avoid real discussion.

Beans and Nazis? Schools really need to teach critical thinking skills, then maybe America could compete with the rest of the world.

I pointed out the history of “America First”. It’s actual history. Facts. You don’t get to just wave it away as nonsense. Then I oberved that today’s GOP, far from denouncing the same elements that sullied the original “America First” movement, appears to embrace them. The CPAC stage was an example of that. It was a clear dogwhistle. The stage design made absolutely no sense otherwise. The layout was too weird and impractical to be a coincidence. When the resemblance was pointed out, the response wasn’t “whoops, that was unfortunate, our apologies”, it was belligerent gaslighting. That response made it clear that the symbolism was intentional. That’s what I mean when I say we don’t trust the right not to follow down the same path as the original “America First” movement.

All of these are observable facts. You’re the one avoiding the discussion here.

[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:

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

+1. If this is the attitude, why even issue visas to these foreign students? Much less use taxpayer expenses to fund their research?

Because we benefit from their research.

[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.

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

Does this apply to other industries? I see lots of gov funding and grants directed to private companies. We should stop that.

[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:

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

Does this apply to other industries? I see lots of gov funding and grants directed to private companies. We should stop that.

The fossil fuel has had tremendous subsidies and propping-up by the US government for over 100 years, to the detriment of anything else in the energy sector.

[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

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.

Thanks for clarifying. But again, you actually reinforced the point rather than undermining it. If you go back and re-read, the original question wasn’t whether you personally felt held back, but whether the rollback of DEI has meaningfully removed barriers to success for anyone. If you weren’t held back, and you’re now celebrating the demise of DEI without any tangible improvement in your own life or career, then the anti-DEI grievance narrative collapses under its own weight.

You’re free to enjoy Beyoncé in a Levi’s ad, but that’s not a policy outcome, it’s a vibe. And vibes aren’t evidence. If the entire rationale for dismantling DEI was built on the idea that it was unfairly elevating "unqualified" people and suppressing others, then surely someone should be able to point to a concrete example of that suppression ending.

Instead, what we’re seeing is a shift in cultural signaling, not structural change. That’s fine if that’s what you value, but it’s not the argument that was originally made. And it’s certainly not any kind of rebuttal to the OP’s question.

Lady, that is what I value, I keep telling you that and you ignore it. Culture matters and winning the culture back has a host of downstream effects that I think are better for America than the vision the race communists have.

[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.

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

What money are we "giving" to Harvard?

Should foreigners be barred from our casinos, sporting events (in taxpayer-supported arenas), hotels, office buildings, churches (tax-exempt!), homes that have received FEMA aid in the past, etc etc.

What you are asserting makes no sense.

[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:

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.

I stopped reading after this sentence. You failed to address the point.

You made no point to address. You said something that equates to, Nazis ate beans therefore beans create Nazis. It's just a nonsensical point to avoid real discussion.

Beans and Nazis? Schools really need to teach critical thinking skills, then maybe America could compete with the rest of the world.

I pointed out the history of “America First”. It’s actual history. Facts. You don’t get to just wave it away as nonsense. Then I oberved that today’s GOP, far from denouncing the same elements that sullied the original “America First” movement, appears to embrace them. The CPAC stage was an example of that. It was a clear dogwhistle. The stage design made absolutely no sense otherwise. The layout was too weird and impractical to be a coincidence. When the resemblance was pointed out, the response wasn’t “whoops, that was unfortunate, our apologies”, it was belligerent gaslighting. That response made it clear that the symbolism was intentional. That’s what I mean when I say we don’t trust the right not to follow down the same path as the original “America First” movement.

All of these are observable facts. You’re the one avoiding the discussion here.

It sounds like you've assembled a bunch of disparate facts to make a conspiracy theory that a government working on behalf of its citizens is secretly Nazi. It's frankly a bizarre argument. I have never heard of this CPAC swastika thing, but the US Navy has a swastika shaped building in San Diego- are they part of this Nazi plot?

The bottom line is that you think Americans shouldn't be protected and defended by their government. You can say that there is a "dark history" but there's a dark history to practically everything. It has no relevance on the issue.

[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:

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

What money are we "giving" to Harvard?

Should foreigners be barred from our casinos, sporting events (in taxpayer-supported arenas), hotels, office buildings, churches (tax-exempt!), homes that have received FEMA aid in the past, etc etc.

What you are asserting makes no sense.

There isnt a global market for education in the sense that there is a global market for casinos. Education is considered a public good. I can't just enroll in school in China. I can't tell if you're just really naive to how the world functions or if you think everyone else is.

[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:

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.

So, our state the original state institution as it is, shouldn't be giving money to or permitting foreign enrollment to Harvard, a private institution which has no allegiance to America.

What money are we "giving" to Harvard?

Should foreigners be barred from our casinos, sporting events (in taxpayer-supported arenas), hotels, office buildings, churches (tax-exempt!), homes that have received FEMA aid in the past, etc etc.

What you are asserting makes no sense.

There isnt a global market for education in the sense that there is a global market for casinos. Education is considered a public good. I can't just enroll in school in China. I can't tell if you're just really naive to how the world functions or if you think everyone else is.

Uh yes there is a global market for education! *Public education* is a public good. Private schools and institutions are NOT public. Absolutely you can go enroll in a private institution in China. (I myself went to summer school at a university in China! I already had a visa, so I signed up, paid, and went to class. Not hard! And that was a public university.)

If you don't understand the difference in public universities and private ones, than you are flat-out ignorant.

[Anonymous]

To answer OP's question - I'm not sure. For example, did Virginia Tech roll back their diversity initiative strategic goal?

"Reaching 40 percent URM/USS in 2022 was a key strategic goal proposed by Virginia Tech President Tim Sands in his 2017 State of the University Address and included in the university’s 2019 strategic plan, "The Virginia Tech Difference: Advancing Beyond Boundaries."

How would we know if less qualified students were accepted over more qualified applicants without some kind of audit?