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.

You didn't even understand the question yet you're complaining that we don't understand what you want.

Meanwhile, we do understand what you want. You want to be allowed to be racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, ableist, homophobic and in every other way nasty and vicious, and it shows. We understand it perfectly.

Please. You people want to come on here and talk about how black people are ugly and then say, oh, I was only saying what you think! Honestly, it's the most racist, ugliest garbage I've read in a long time. Black people don't need your help. Also, with "allies" like you, who needs enemies? This thread has shown an enormous amount of racism and it isnt from the right.

I stand by my comments about poop and armpit hair. If that makes me a fascist, so be it.

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.

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.

You didn't even understand the question yet you're complaining that we don't understand what you want.

Meanwhile, we do understand what you want. You want to be allowed to be racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, ableist, homophobic and in every other way nasty and vicious, and it shows. We understand it perfectly.

Please. You people want to come on here and talk about how black people are ugly and then say, oh, I was only saying what you think! Honestly, it's the most racist, ugliest garbage I've read in a long time. Black people don't need your help. Also, with "allies" like you, who needs enemies? This thread has shown an enormous amount of racism and it isnt from the right.

I stand by my comments about poop and armpit hair. If that makes me a fascist, so be it.

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.

You didn't even understand the question yet you're complaining that we don't understand what you want.

Meanwhile, we do understand what you want. You want to be allowed to be racist, misogynistic, antisemitic, ableist, homophobic and in every other way nasty and vicious, and it shows. We understand it perfectly.

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?

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.

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?

I also don’t want a white male financial advisor who got his position because he’s a white male. See the flip side here?

Indeed I do. Which is exactly why I posted that we need the best regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The word "regardless" is key here but it seems to not be sinking in for some on this board.

So unless it’s a white male it’s not the best?

I think the Biden presidency showed us every day that a white male is not always the best.

ok, but clearly Hunter: he was the best!

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?

I also don’t want a white male financial advisor who got his position because he’s a white male. See the flip side here?

Indeed I do. Which is exactly why I posted that we need the best regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The word "regardless" is key here but it seems to not be sinking in for some on this board.

So unless it’s a white male it’s not the best?

I think the Biden presidency showed us every day that a white male is not always the best.

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.

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?

I also don’t want a white male financial advisor who got his position because he’s a white male. See the flip side here?

Indeed I do. Which is exactly why I posted that we need the best regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The word "regardless" is key here but it seems to not be sinking in for some on this board.

So unless it’s a white male it’s not the best?

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?

I also don’t want a white male financial advisor who got his position because he’s a white male. See the flip side here?

Indeed I do. Which is exactly why I posted that we need the best regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation.

The word "regardless" is key here but it seems to not be sinking in for some on this board.

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?

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?

I also don’t want a white male financial advisor who got his position because he’s a white male. See the flip side here?

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?

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?