Reply to Who is more responsible for this Democrat train wreck

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Who is more responsible for this Democrat train wreck"

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]One lost election does not a train wreck make. 
What makes it a train wreck is who's coming, but if this is a serious question I'll weigh in.

It might not be a popular answer among my fellow Democrats, but DEI. Not because I think it's wrong, but because it's misunderstood and easily manipulated into easy, hate-filled talking points. But also (this is where I'll duck for cover from my fellow Democrats) it went too far. It was in response to hateful rhetoric but in my opinion (just mine, not even two cents worth) it took it too far. It was a social experiment in terms of a civil rights movement that, in this point in time, wasn't accepted. Maybe later, maybe not. I wished it was toned down to allow for real conversation, but no real conversation was ever allowed to happen because people retreated to their extreme corners and stayed there because any compromise on either side felt like weakness.

So that's my take. I think we as a country aren't able to do DEI correctly. I see it as microcosms in well-intentioned businesses and departments, but utterly failed execution of DEI. So we need to regroup and accept that we aren't there. We need to take baby steps and not beat people over the heads with it.

If we don't learn from this, and how to promote diversity, equity and inclusion in a very organic, real way, THAT will be the train wreck. It's not a department. It's not a training to check off your annual training list. IMHO. [/quote]

How much DEI was given to Hispanics -- maybe that's why they voted for Trump.[/quote]
At my workplace (a "Catholic" hospital) DEI means first black, then transgender, then Muslim. No one else even merits a mention.
New black manager immediately tried to fire Hispanic supervisor and replace him with a friend of hers. He told HR that she obviously had it out for him since he's been in that job for years and all previous managers gave him stellar reviews..HR said he was the biased one and sent him for re-educating. Wonder who he voted for.[/quote]

What specific law did Biden and the Democrats pass requiring your Catholic hospital to put those policies in place?

Oh, don't bother answering, we already know the answer is "none."[/quote]

He took an 80 year old desegregation act to the stratosphere.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/06/25/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs-executive-order-advancing-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-accessibility-in-the-federal-government/
[/quote]

You seem very confused or grossly misled.

Executive Orders are about how the Federal government runs and implements things and that has absolutely nothing to do with how your Catholic hospital runs or hires.  And even in Federal government employment they do not do the "evil DEI things" you claim are happening at your own place of employment.[/quote]

I do not believe you are literate.

Maybe a 6 year old learning how to use ChatGPT?

The whole pronoun thing came from this Executive Order and required all contractors to comply with this new world order.

Advances equity in the workplace for LGBTQ+ public servants. For too long, LGBTQ+ employees have faced discrimination and harassment in the workplace. To advance opportunity for LGBTQ+ employees in the Federal workforce, the Executive Order directs agencies to ensure that the Federal health benefits system equitably serves LGBTQ+ employees and their dependents by expanding access to comprehensive gender-affirming health care. Agencies are also directed to take steps to ensure that federal benefits like sick leave and life insurance equitably serve LGBTQ+ individuals and all families with diverse family structures.  The Order charges all agencies to ensure that the usage of gender markers and pronouns in the Federal employment process respects transgender, gender non-conforming and non-binary employees, and directs all agencies to take steps to expand access to gender-neutral facilities inside federal workplaces. Finally, the Order charges all agencies with ensuring that their employee support services equitably serve LGBTQ+ employees, including, transgender and gender non-conforming and non-binary employees who wish to legally, medically, or socially transition.[/quote]

I think you are the one who is illiterate.  No, this EO *DOES NOT* require all contractors to comply.  Nor does it apply to the Catholic church example given above.  It simply does not, and the quotation you posted does not support that conclusion either.

And in fact even within federal agencies (the only place the EO did apply) most of it was taken as optional.  Pronouns *ARE NOT* mandatory in any federal agency that I know of.

Again, you are proving to me that you are anti-trans to the point of hysterical about it (which in and of itself is bizarre because a pronoun never killed anyone), and that you DON'T actually know what you're talking about.  You keep confirming that quite solidly.

Trying to shout the same wrong info louder and posting quotations that don't support your premise is not a winning strategy.[/quote]

I get it, your are way passed your bedtime and ChatGPT is still hard and cannot discern this part of the executive order:

“ Finally, the Order charges all agencies with ensuring that their employee support services equitably serve LGBTQ+ employees, including, transgender and gender non-conforming and non-binary employees who wish to legally, medically, or socially transition.”

I will give you a hint as you plug this in to AI - “employee support services” were translated to contract support.[/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