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

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: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][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]

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?
[/quote]

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

Didn't say I supported that. I said I supported ending DEI. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

Only in America do we argue that citizens are a favored group. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

This is ridiculous nonsense. [/quote]

I stopped reading after this sentence.  You failed to address the point.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.
[/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