So-called Anti-Woke, Anti-DEI policy catch-all

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 298
  • Views: 4K
  • Politics 
ZenMode said:
Of course not, but DEI isn't just about skin melanin. That's just one aspect that I referenced because it fit easily with hair melanin.

DEI is also about, among other things, whether you want your naughty parts touched by someone with the same genitals as you or different genitals than you and whether you believe, in your mind, you should have a penis or vagina.
Click to expand...
Congratulations on being the biggest possible piece of shit about other people's sexuality and gender. You've really set the bar on this for assholes everywhere.
 
StrangePackage said:
Congratulations on being the biggest possible piece of shit about other people's sexuality and gender. You've really set the bar on this for assholes everywhere.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Everything I said regarding sexuality applies to me. I have a preference on who touches my naughty parts and I have a thought about whether my genitals are correct.

Maybe try decaf. You seem to be wound a little too tight.
 
TarSpiel said:
Yea, I don't know what your direct experience is with DEI, but I've had a lot, and none of it is remotely close to what you've written here.
Click to expand...
There are varying aspects and views about DEI. If I'm not remotely close, as you said, then explain how straight, white, cis males fit into DEI.
Let me ask you something. 45.5/46 of our presidents have been white men.
Click to expand...
Did you just count Obama as half a president????
Do you think that's because white men are superior to white women, and to men and women of every other race?

If not, what factors do you think led to the situation we have now, 45.5/46 white presidents?
Click to expand...
I don't believe any race, gender, nationality, sex, etc is superior to any other. I don't believe that anyone having an objective and dispassionate discussion about differences between races, sexes, etc would use the term superior.

I think racism and sexism played a role, as did biological and environmental differences.
 
Last edited:
gtyellowjacket said:
Yeah. And how are they doing now?

I know blacks were treated poorly and in some cases they're still being treated poorly. I want to move away from that and move them closer to the status and integration of Irish Americans and Italian Americans.

And we didn't see those European Americans or other immigrants that have successfully integrated get those same affirmative action programs. I think that's the model that we need to follow.
Click to expand...

If decades of abuse, 60 years of mob rule in the cities, infiltration of drugs and drug running, violence, poverty, gang wars represent "successfully integrating" then we have different definitions of success.

A couple of things. (1) What most people assume is a DEI culture fostered at universities is really a corporate culture. Corporations either realize or want to make the appearance that a diverse workforce of different backgrounds and experiences makes a smarter and more productive workforce. Recruiting does not mean that candidates are not hired based upon merit.

(2) With occasional exceptions, DEI in academia is/was not pejorative but used to encourage diverse pools of candidates for admittance or hiring. The selection process remained based on merit and fit within the scholastic and working environment. In addition, students in Texas in the top 10% of districts regardless of depth of pocketbook or color of skin or religion. As a result of mass action, recruiting and an open.

Based on our definition of DEI (not the political one), there have been huge, volitional increases in Latino students and frankly they work harder and are better students than the "whites." You should probably watch the movie Giant for more "traditional" Texas values...or listen to one of Greg Abbott's speeches...or Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick or indicted AG Ken Paxton.

DEI in practice ensures openness. With the OBVIOUS good 'ol boy, racist, loyalist, insular, biased selection process in assembling the White House cabinet and inner circle.... whose wallets are the color GREEN (with billion$ of pixels) and favorite skin color of their fearless leader is ORANGE...it's clear a Greed, Corruption, and Malice (GCM) culture that sullies our current White House. NOT MERITOCRACY.
 
I'll note that Andrew Jackson jettisoned meritocracy in the WH for favoratism and loyalty and it didn't appear much until Grover Cleveland...it's not a coincidence that there were an awful lot of terrible Presidents during that run, with the exception of Lincoln.
 
ZenMode said:
"But it is exceedingly difficult to change hearts and minds."

I think it has been, at one time in our past, difficult to change hearts and minds, but hearts and minds have been changed and there is objective evidence of that. A two term black president being a big one. Not only a 2 term black president, but a two term black president with a Muslim-sounding name who won soon after 9/11. We also have a more and more diverse Congress.

I grew up with a dad who regularly used the n-word in an angry, hateful way. I now have two kids who would be absolutely horrified if I ever used that word. I mean absoluuuuuuuutely horrified. That's how I want it to be. Just that fast transformation happens.

I view our current "changing of hearts" as a domino pyramid. One knocks over two, knocks over 4, knocks over 8, etc. We are on the downside of a bell curve. The climb was difficult, but we're over the apex and are on the downside but the approach that some/much of the Democratic party is taking, I believe, is doing more harm than good. We don't need to fight discrimination with discrimination. We need to fight like hell to STOP focusing on irrelevant characteristics like skin color and nationality and sexual orientation. IMO Dems are getting greedy....over zealous. In their rush to fix every injustice, they're actually creating resentment and resistance.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right about changing hearts and minds. I'm less optimistic than you. In part, that's because "DEI hire" is being used as a sword. It diminishes the accomplishments of the person being described and implies that person did not earn their position, they were given it for reasons other than aptitude. It's happened on this thread. All the while, people like KBJ are the Ginger Rogers to Brett Kavanaugh's Fred Astaire. She's accomplished the same thing but backwards and in heels.
 
TarSpiel said:
You're not being serious here, are you?
Click to expand...
I'm actually going to run with this. Gingers largely had Scottish or Irish ancestry (DNA evidence suggestViking, non-Viking, and thus were not taken seriously and indeed abused by the Norman aristocracy, who were mostly French and therefore had darker hair along with light brown and blonde from their Viking ancestors). Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were exceptions from their Plantagenet roots. There's Prince Harry from his "commoner" but popular mother Diana.

Spanish, Portuguese Royalty had dark brown hair. William of Orange (Netherlands) had dark hair. Gingers in American society were not taken seriously because Irish were not taken seriously. The Scotch-Irish protestants from northern England and southern Scotland were transported by England into Ulster (No. Ireland) and largely had dark hair...they were use to tamp down the Irish rebellion.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
I hope you're right about changing hearts and minds. I'm less optimistic than you. In part, that's because "DEI hire" is being used as a sword. It diminishes the accomplishments of the person being described and implies that person did not earn their position, they were given it for reasons other than aptitude. It's happened on this thread. All the while, people like KBJ are the Ginger Rogers to Brett Kavanaugh's Fred Astaire. She's accomplished the same thing but backwards and in heels.
Click to expand...
Trump said he was going to select a woman to the SCrOTUS. Amy Coney Barrett is a DEI hire in the political sense of the word.
 
ZenMode said:
What are you talking about? Everything I said regarding sexuality applies to me. I have a preference on who touches my naughty parts and I have a thought about whether my genitals are correct.

Maybe try decaf. You seem to be wound a little too tight.
Click to expand...
Decaf wouldn't make you any smarter or less odious. I have no interest in any of your opinions, I just want you to understand that I regard you as a slinky - you're useless but I'd enjoy watching you tumble down stairs.
 
Duke Mu said:
I'm actually going to run with this. Gingers largely had Scottish or Irish ancestry (DNA evidence suggestViking, non-Viking, and thus were not taken seriously and indeed abused by the Norman aristocracy, who were mostly French and therefore had darker hair along with light brown and blonde from their Viking ancestors). Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were exceptions from their Plantagenet roots. There's Prince Harry from his "commoner" but popular mother Diana.

Spanish, Portuguese Royalty had dark brown hair. William of Orange (Netherlands) had dark hair. Gingers in American society were not taken seriously because Irish were not taken seriously. The Scotch-Irish protestants from northern England and southern Scotland were transported by England into Ulster (No. Ireland) and largely had dark hair...they were use to tamp down the Irish rebellion.
Click to expand...
The Normans were vikings. William the conqueror had red or maybe reddish brown hair. Accounts differ.
 
TangledUpInBlue06 said:
I hope you're right about changing hearts and minds. I'm less optimistic than you. In part, that's because "DEI hire" is being used as a sword. It diminishes the accomplishments of the person being described and implies that person did not earn their position, they were given it for reasons other than aptitude. It's happened on this thread. All the while, people like KBJ are the Ginger Rogers to Brett Kavanaugh's Fred Astaire. She's accomplished the same thing but backwards and in heels.
Click to expand...
“"DEI hire" is being used as a sword. It diminishes the accomplishments of the person being described and implies that person did not earn their position,”

I agree, but for a different reason. I think reducing people to an irrelevant characteristic, particularly one over which they have no control, diminishes their value. That’s what DEI does, IMO, DEI is about basically anything not straight, white, cis male. Is that all KBJ wants to be? Does she want to a be reduced to a series of check boxes that shows she’s far enough from being a straight, white, cis male to get the job?
 
ZenMode said:
“"DEI hire" is being used as a sword. It diminishes the accomplishments of the person being described and implies that person did not earn their position,”

I agree, but for a different reason. I think reducing people to an irrelevant characteristic, particularly one over which they have no control, diminishes their value. That’s what DEI does, IMO, DEI is about basically anything not straight, white, cis male. Is that all KBJ wants to be? Does she want to a be reduced to a series of check boxes that shows she’s far enough from being a straight, white, cis male to get the job?
Click to expand...
If you're asking whether I think a President or anyone else should announce they'll only consider one gender/race/etc, no I don't think they should. It was a mistake for Biden to do it and it was a mistake for Trump to do it.

If you're asking whether I think it is worthwhile for our government to look like our populace, yes I think that is a good thing.
 
nycfan said:
Click to expand...

Haven’t the Trumplicans already erased the Tuskegee Airmen from history?

The 761st Tank Battalion is next. They set a record for consecutive days in combat…..something like 183 days. In a battle with the Nazis, the SS wouldn’t surrender to the black tankers…….the 761st found a random white guy and the Germans surrendered to him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top