|
| There was a time when there was no support, or rather not enough support, for many of the new sexual classifications. That is the slippery slope that both you and I talked about. The concept of a slippery slope is literally based upon small steps that continuously take a person farther and farther down a path. That is the reason that what is now called the LGTBQ+ movement has had to continuously add new letters. It took small steps to get to this point. At each of those steps the next one was too far to get support until the last one was accepted, then they moved on to the next.
Actually, it is a definite possibility, a certainty in my opinion, that the trans community targeting children and the push for childhood gender surgeries, and exposing them to sexualized books at an early age when children normally don’t really even care about sexuality is all just part of that same slippery slope. Over time society gets more comfortable with the sexualization of children. At some point in the future some members of the public will be conditioned enough to it that they will accept and even vote for leaders that push for pedophilia being legalized because those adults are just Minor Attracted People. Like every other designation, society will be forced to accept them as “normal”.
There appears to be quite a mixture of ethnicities within this administration. Many of them are in mixed marriages as well. There is at least one guy that is gay also. I suspect that the issue people have who make the claim that you did are actually upset with who is in the administration, not with an actual lack of ethnicity or gender.
The whole premise of DEI is to hire based on the gender and the sexual orientation of who gets hired. The proper way to achieve what you claim that effort is about is to exclude any box or reference to gender and race. DEI does the opposite. They require those boxes to be checked on all sorts of forms that those categories have no reason to be on other than to promote or exclude people based on their race and gender. The DEI movement is literally the cause of racism and gender discrimination.
A different take on the situations you mention is that the news sources will only mention racism as a cause if it is white violence against a black person, never in the opposite direction. Similar situations happen across the board in all aspects of news including any interactions between straight people and the LGBTQ community.
As far as situations like you mentioned to be blunt it often is the truth that there were more qualified people for the job that literally got overlooked because they didn’t fit the categories that DEI requires. The DEI movement has literally killed people due to their forcing of hiring policies.
It is important to note that throughout this entire exchange it is only you that is making gender and sexual preferences important, which is exactly what I said the left is known for several posts back now. As I have said, I really don’t care about that. I just want the best person for the job to be hired. DEI literally thwarts that ability.
Edit to add: You made a comment in an earlier post that people on the right see the USAID as simply numbers on a paper that can be cut. This is another example of how different people think and why we shouldn’t assume others use the same metrics when assessing a situation as we do ourselves. The process of thinking that you accused the right of is exactly the method used by the DEI movement that you are defending. The DEI movement requires a certain percentage of hires to be people who fit the various boxes of sexuality and gender. The left supports the use of numbers who fit a DEI category to determine who gets hired.
The right does not simply consider USAID as numbers on a paper to cut the way that the left uses numbers on a DEI score sheet to determine who to hire. The right does not use the same simplistic method as the left does. At least in these cases.
Edited by havin’funfarming 4/23/2025 12:59
| |
|
Vietnam Cleverly Outsmarts trumps trade war
