Party / Platform topic - on DEI (not public opinion)

[TBayXXXVII 2,667]

How does the results of the DEI initiative not convince people that the Democrat Party platform's sole purpose is to create and capitalize on victimhood?

 

Arguments:

According to a the far-left activists group, the ACLU, DEI(A)'s purpose was to:

Quote

 

What is Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility?
DEIA is not an abstract concept; it is a framework for building institutions where everyone belongs and is able to thrive, while addressing systemic barriers that have historically excluded marginalized communities.

Diversity ensures representation among qualified persons across race, national origin, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, socioeconomic status, military status, shared ancestry, parental status, persons who live in rural communities, and more so that institutions reflect the communities they serve.

Equity recognizes that inequalities exist and works to dismantle the barriers that disproportionately harm marginalized communities, ensuring fairness in access to resources and opportunities.

Inclusion ensures that institutions are not just diverse, but that all individuals, especially those historically excluded, can fully participate and contribute without fear of discrimination or bias.

Accessibility expands opportunities for individuals of all abilities by removing physical, technological, and systemic barriers that may prevent full participation in society through reasonable accommodations, inclusive work and public spaces, and more.

 

 

So, DEI(A), was supposed to help people (mainly of color), but also women, at the expense of men (mainly white), but also Asians.  So, it promotes racism and discrimination.  Aside from that fact, let's focus on the results.  The results were that white women were substantially the biggest beneficiary.  Looking at this from the perspective of the purpose of the agenda, the past and present remarks of special interest groups and party leaders, they claim that DEI is successful and working.

As we, from the outside looking at things, we should see....

• Women, mainly white, saying that thanks to DEI women are no longer oppressed and equal. - Note, we're not seeing that.
• Minorities, mainly black, saying that thanks to DEI, they're getting better treatment. - Note, they are saying that... but the results are not bearing that out.  In fact, it's worse.  Blacks are being less helped than before, to the benefit of mainly, white women.

 

Women (especially white), are being given special treatment, yet the "Progressive" message is that they're still oppressed.  How, they've been getting special treatment?

Black people were flat out lied to by the "Progressive" arm of the country, yet the "Progressive" message is that the Conservatives are the problem (even though they're the ones who pushed against the agenda that didn't help [and actually hurt], black people).

 

Just curious on how our left-wingers don't see the reality that the Democrat party actively tries to create victims and then capitalize on them?  Also curious as to why @peenie has supported a party that has literally lied to her, her entire life, and still makes policies promotes the degradation of the black community.

[SaintsInDome2006 642]

Fwiw I agree on the maga/GOP stance on DEI in principle, problem is Trump has had his own DEI hires. This isn’t the way to convince people

[TimHauck 3,304]

11 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

As we, from the outside looking at things, we should see....

• Women, mainly white, saying that thanks to DEI women are no longer oppressed and equal. - Note, we're not seeing that.
• Minorities, mainly black, saying that thanks to DEI, they're getting better treatment. - Note, they are saying that... but the results are not bearing that out.  In fact, it's worse.  Blacks are being less helped than before, to the benefit of mainly, white women.

You realize there’s a middle ground between better than before, and equal, right?

Speaking of, what is the source for your claim that blacks are being less helped than before?  Thanks in advance.  If what you say is even true and white women are the primary beneficiaries, that’s not mutually exclusive from blacks being “more helped than before.”

[zsasz 384]

The Right Wing  has their own version of DEI or Persecution Politics.  

[dogcows 1,063]

31 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

How does the results of the DEI initiative not convince people that the Democrat Party platform's sole purpose is to create and capitalize on victimhood?

 

Arguments:

According to a the far-left activists group, the ACLU, DEI(A)'s purpose was to:

 

So, DEI(A), was supposed to help people (mainly of color), but also women, at the expense of men (mainly white), but also Asians.  So, it promotes racism and discrimination.  Aside from that fact, let's focus on the results.  The results were that white women were substantially the biggest beneficiary.  Looking at this from the perspective of the purpose of the agenda, the past and present remarks of special interest groups and party leaders, they claim that DEI is successful and working.

As we, from the outside looking at things, we should see....

• Women, mainly white, saying that thanks to DEI women are no longer oppressed and equal. - Note, we're not seeing that.
• Minorities, mainly black, saying that thanks to DEI, they're getting better treatment. - Note, they are saying that... but the results are not bearing that out.  In fact, it's worse.  Blacks are being less helped than before, to the benefit of mainly, white women.

 

Women (especially white), are being given special treatment, yet the "Progressive" message is that they're still oppressed.  How, they've been getting special treatment?

Black people were flat out lied to by the "Progressive" arm of the country, yet the "Progressive" message is that the Conservatives are the problem (even though they're the ones who pushed against the agenda that didn't help [and actually hurt], black people).

 

Just curious on how our left-wingers don't see the reality that the Democrat party actively tries to create victims and then capitalize on them?  Also curious as to why @peenie has supported a party that has literally lied to her, her entire life, and still makes policies promotes the degradation of the black community.

Cry more

[TBayXXXVII 2,667]

1 hour ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Fwiw I agree on the maga/GOP stance on DEI in principle, problem is Trump has had his own DEI hires. This isn’t the way to convince people

From knowing Trump a little bit, he's not like that.  He hires people that agree with him and doesn't give two sh!tz about race or gender.  He wants to surround himself with people who will find ways to get done what he wants, plain and simple.  That's not DEI, it's closer to the exact opposite.

[Fnord 2,509]

48 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

 He hires people that agree with him and doesn't give two sh!tz about race or gender.  He wants to surround himself with people who will find ways to get done what he wants, plain and simple.  That's not DEI, it's closer to the exact opposite.

Yeah, not buying this. A quick google confirms:

91% of his appointment nominees in the first 200 days of this term were white.

Of 24 cabinet appointments, only four were non-white.

88% of confirmed senior employees were male, only 12% female. This represents the lowest share of women among confirmed nominees compared to the previous four administrations. The women he does nominate are either big money donors (Linda McMahon) or traditionally attractive (pretty much all of them other than his COS, Susie Wiles).

I'm sure this won't change your opinion but felt it should be shared.

[SaintsInDome2006 642]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

From knowing Trump a little bit, he's not like that.  He hires people that agree with him and doesn't give two sh!tz about race or gender.  He wants to surround himself with people who will find ways to get done what he wants, plain and simple.  That's not DEI, it's closer to the exact opposite.

See to me, that’s disqualifying. He’s hiring people not because of merit but servility. The fact these people are quite frequently TV/media personalities just means he thinks they’re attractive too, & again to me that’s not merit. And IMO they’re being of a certain type fits as part of that as well. And I’m probably going to agree with you all day long about DEI generally. 

[MDC 7,874]

I laughed when Hegseth talked about a merit based military. He was probably less qualified to be SOD than anyone in that audience.  

[TBayXXXVII 2,667]

1 hour ago, Fnord said:

Yeah, not buying this. A quick google confirms:

91% of his appointment nominees in the first 200 days of this term were white.

Of 24 cabinet appointments, only four were non-white.

88% of confirmed senior employees were male, only 12% female. This represents the lowest share of women among confirmed nominees compared to the previous four administrations. The women he does nominate are either big money donors (Linda McMahon) or traditionally attractive (pretty much all of them other than his COS, Susie Wiles).

I'm sure this won't change your opinion but felt it should be shared.

Go argue with @SaintsInDome2006.  He said Trump was a DEI guy.  I said he wasn't.  Glad we agree.

[TBayXXXVII 2,667]

47 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

See to me, that’s disqualifying. He’s hiring people not because of merit but servility. The fact these people are quite frequently TV/media personalities just means he thinks they’re attractive too, & again to me that’s not merit. And IMO they’re being of a certain type fits as part of that as well. And I’m probably going to agree with you all day long about DEI generally. 

I never said he hired based on merit, I said he's the opposite of DEI.  There's no "diversity", "equity", or "inclusion".  It's all about who agrees with him and do they convince him that they could do the job.

[TimHauck 3,304]

2 hours ago, TBayXXXVII said:

From knowing Trump a little bit, he's not like that.  He hires people that agree with him and doesn't give two sh!tz about race or gender.  He wants to surround himself with people who will find ways to get done what he wants, plain and simple.  That's not DEI, it's closer to the exact opposite.

Well we know if they’re women he wants them to be attractive about 95% of the time.

[Ron_Artest 2,194]

29 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

I never said he hired based on merit, I said he's the opposite of DEI.  There's no "diversity", "equity", or "inclusion".  It's all about who agrees with him and do they convince him that they could do the job.

The MAGA argument we hear all the time is that race or color shouldn't factor into hiring decisions, right?  It should be 100% merit, best person for the job.

Well clearly Trump doesn't do that.  He hires whoever will do what he wants.  And it just so happens they are all white.

[TimHauck 3,304]

I like how @TBayXXXVII says this “isn’t opinion,” but provides no data or sources to back up his claims.

Typical

[Fnord 2,509]

47 minutes ago, TBayXXXVII said:

Go argue with @SaintsInDome2006.  He said Trump was a DEI guy.  I said he wasn't.  Glad we agree.

I don't argue with SID. He brings receipts nobody else does, stays respectful, asks uncomfortable questions that regularly piss you guys off to the point where you treat him like crap despite how respectful he is, and I agree with most of what he says.

We DO NOT agree, to be clear. Your guy's practices are far worse than even the most overblown, made up aspects of DEI. He DGAF about merit. He cares about subservience and appearance, in that order. Pretty much the worst possible hiring manager attributes.