Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "Are we ready to admit that Woke & DEI and woke wasn’t what was holding you back from success?"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.[/quote] +1 I haven’t seen any concrete examples either[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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.[/quote] 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. [/quote] 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. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics