I think it’s fair to say that when people are facing an existential threat they find it hard to criticize that which protects them. People should just be anti-genocide because leaders cannot be trusted all the time. But what are the chances that the Muslim citizens in Arab countries would protest if a genocide happens to their perceived enemies? Sometimes the best defense people have against authoritarianism is empathy, don’t let something happen to someone else that you don’t want happening to you.

Edit downvotes explain yourself? I am just being brigaded by extremists on every post.

White nationalists are just the same as white supremacists. If there are Jewish people who think Christian Nationalism will protect them, they’re forgetting that Nazis were and are very Christian.

Authoritarian leaders turn on their own people and supporters all the time, this has been proven time and again in history. Whatever America is now though, there is still hope in the judiciary and the constitution.

Either way the reason to attack DEI was always the same, to gain power without reguard to how many people get hurt along the way.

I think one of the issues which comes up are mandates. If there are underemployed minorities in society, then we have a problem. If that happens, then DEI should be brought back. I agree that some people are racist, and that life creates situations which kill individual potential.

That’s why it’s important to have these ideas be part of social discourse. I don’t agree with CRT (that legal and social systems help white people only), or that DEI addresses the core issues with bad luck creating uneven conditions for individuals. The core issue is that people of all races and cultures experience bad luck. Most people are not going to be rich enough to afford even an upper middle class lifestyle. So, if there is a policy which seems to favor only a certain type of people, it will only create resentment or jealousy, and divisions. Poor whites consistently vote republican because they don’t get the kind of help they need from democrats either. We need the Nordic model in the US.

I personally think education is the best option we have to counter the effect of bad luck on people’s lives and their outcomes. So, the ire that people are putting towards USAID or DEI going away should be firmly focused at ensuring that the Dept of Education remains intact for serving the most people.

Edit the danger, I think, is in thinking that just because someone is X they are moral or ethical. I think the inverse of that is that just because someone is not X, then they are immoral and unethical. The kind of reduction of personhood to arbitrary characteristics which forms the basis of predictive policing algorithms, so I can’t support that.

I don’t think all people have good intentions towards others, they most definitely do not, but CRT and it’s related concepts only create divisiveness.

This is my sad hill to die on, I guess, despite my personal feelings on why anti-discrimination across all aspects is important for society. But after reading some informed perspectives, I think I get where some of the DEI pushback is coming from.

It’s not about diversity, equity or inclusion individually, but DEI as a concept, ie as an actionable form of some underlying ideology. It doesn’t matter if the practitioners of DEI may not subscribe to any underlying ideology, the fact is that DEI opponents are unconvinced about the allegiances of DEI practitioners in special contexts, like the military.

I personally don’t care about having DEI in corporate or education contexts, but i think the concern there is that if the public thinks one way, then it will question why the military/govt doesn’t want to. So, I think I get why they removed DEI/CRT from corporate and education as well.

Per my understanding, the pushback is coming jointly from the military, and the main point of contention was the CRT-derived idea of “inherent racism” or “whites as oppressors”. For example,

CRT scholars argue that the social and legal construction of race advances the interests of white people[9][12] at the expense of people of color,[13][14] and that the liberal notion of U.S. law as “neutral” plays a significant role in maintaining a racially unjust social order,[15] where formally color-blind laws continue to have racially discriminatory outcomes.[16]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory

Here’s an article which says why DEI was necessarily started (the writer is an academic)

DEI policies and practices were created to rectify the government-sanctioned discrimination that existed and systemic oppression that persists in the United States.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-the-cubicle/202411/what-we-get-wrong-about-the-dei-backlash-narrative

You have to appreciate why some part of the American armed forces pushes back on these ideas when your CO may be white, and you a minority. There are practical considerations to having such ideas in the back of your mind when you’re supposed to act without question and as a unit.

Here’s some context for reading https://starrs.us/dei-how-to-have-the-conversation/

Here’s another perspective from a Stanford professor, https://amgreatness.com/2024/03/25/will-dei-end-america-or-america-end-dei/

Edit to clarify, I am not saying that we shouldn’t have anti-discrimination policies across different aspects of being a person. I am saying this is why some people don’t like/want DEI or CRT (which are distinct and separate from the existing anti-discrimination policies). And yes, I know the military has issues regarding race and sex discrimination. But I think people can address those without DEI or CRT.

Western democracies are learning a hard lesson right now. You can’t let any one player get too big or too strong.

Look, on the one hand I know they don’t have popular support. To me it’s less about supporting some hipster culture simply because it’s small, but more about getting annoyed by an idea being posited as inherently correct or morally superior

I am intellectually honest about what China has achieved

No thanks, they should pay more taxes for all the good they get out of society and it’s structure

People are setting up some processes to respond to all of this. Not everything is worth reacting to as it’s a distraction.

That’s precisely it, there’s lots of evidence which shows that welfare programs are better for creating stable societies.

And you’re just using a trite anti-west agenda talking point. The archaeological records shows existence of precolonial war

https://courses.washington.edu/war101/readings/Lambert--archy of N Am warfare.pdf

And when they got close, they killed each other. So to my point, maybe some people should just live on a different planet

No group of people has ever been peaceful with each other, let’s stop this anti-west fantasy and start talking about real problems, like how to fix democracies and capitalism

https://uapress.arizona.edu/book/north-american-indigenous-warfare-and-ritual-violence

I am not being insensitive, I am saying that there are nations who suffered and are doing well now because their leaders know how to govern.

A lot of the cry bully stuff Marxists do is to create guilt and make people in democratic nations hate their governments. They know that their corrupt leaders are not going to fix anything. If the leaders cared about their people, they’d figure out a way to work with the rest of the world, like the leaders in China, India, Brazil etc

Countries have been dicks to each other for fucking ever. Get over it. Many other counties did and are now doing just fine. Look at India or China or Brazil. The fact is that many countries which cry about colonialism still use it to distract their poor people from the corruption of their governments and leaders. There’s near overlap between being most corrupt on a corruption index and receiving the most aid from other countries

The only reason some people don’t like the Nordic model is because it has the word Nordic in it. If instead it was the Marxist model, I am sure they’d say it sprung forth from gods own asshole

Edit again, downvote brigade of Marxists butthurt on being called out, lol

Stalin is one good example of LWA leaders, others are Ho Chi Minh, Khrushchev etc. If given the chance and power, some fourth wave feminists would definitely become such leaders themselves. The core issue is tribalism and the belief that just because someone subscribes to your ideology they are “good”, and everyone else is “bad”.

That said, I think the thing authoritarianism denies people is self-actualization. As long as someone is not denying the self actualization of another, they’re not authoritarian. This isn’t about centrism or liberalism, this is about letting societies decide things for themselves while minimizing hurt to others because of sociopathy or callousness. From my pov, authoritarianism doesn’t respect human rights or freedoms in favor of tribalism.

The best response to a quran burning free speech troll is to copy their free speech, burn a bible etc. who cares? It’s all nonsense anyways, and people need to get over it. There’s no need for violence or bloodshed

That’s a bold prediction, but I really don’t think this is a body count type of situation. I think they’re trying to deter new illegal immigrants from coming in by scaring them about jailing them. At the very least, I hope all countries involved do the responsible adult thing, and help out the poor people who effectively dont have a home.

If it turns into a body count type of situation, that’s inviting civil war, and I don’t think anyone wants that. Whatever it is, at the end of it Republicans and Democrats are pro-America and pro-Americans.