Christianity

[Alexis Jacobi]

I think many blacks are right to laugh at Charlie Kirk's criticism of Michelle Obama. He said her degree was worthless, that coming from a college dropout. He didn't even try.

Here I think you are again missing an important element. You must understand the rising mood of resistance against an “anti-White” sentiment that has become, or had become, prevalent in social discourse in America certainly. If you read or listen to the more fringe people on the Dissident Right like Lana Lokteff, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor and others (all banned and demonetized from major platforms) you will better understand where their resistance and opposition comes from. (See The New Kulaks: Whites as an Enemy Class by Gregory Hood.)

The ideological “war against whiteness” is something you and your sort will not, and in fact cannot, even consider as having validity. But those theorists who are excluded and repressed make a decent case for their views.

Reaction tends to be reactionary. And most reactionaries tend to radical postures.

Again I would mention the dramatic and consequential demographic shifts as one of the causes of radical reaction. But to point this out is not to take one side or the other.

(And as you know some of the bitches in my harem are not perfect White specimens. I really do believe in equal opportunity).

[Gary Childress]

All disadvantaged minorities? Or just some?

Two boys, both from Mississipi, say...both born to single mothers in poverty. Both equally "oppressed," in that sense. One gets DEI advantages, and the other doesn't. Why? What's the belief that's sponsoring the visible-minority boy should get lower standards than the 'white' boy? And who holds that belief: the Left or the Right?

Are you arguing that DEI is an "entitlement" that is not deserved by people from minority backgrounds who suffered hundreds of years of oppression holding them back?

Both are equally "oppressed," remember? Why does one get it, and the other not?

And shall we add a Chinese boy, as well, first generation escaping from a Communist regime, or an Indian boy escaping grinding poverty in Delhi? Why should they have EVEN HIGHER standards to meet than either the first boy or the second?

What is the belief the DEIers have to hold, in order to do that? Is it not obvious? It's that "white" means "just fine," and "Indian and Chinese" means "advantaged and needing to be set back," and "black" means "I can't do it without DEI"?

That's racist. But that's the Left.

Of course there is unfairness. If both of the minority candidates you are referring to would not qualify for school except for a DEI position, and there's room for only one, then a choice will be made. All you're doing is trying to complicate things far more than they need to be. It says nothing against DEI other than it's an imperfect process. As far as DEI candidates not being educated, do you think people just don't learn anything in school when they attend? If a DEI person takes a class with a more "qualified" majority candidate, is the DEI attendee as ignorant as someone who didn't stay in college?

If you're truly worried about the minority that got passed over so the other minority could get a DEI scholarship or whatever (which I doubt you truly are), maybe you should advocate for open admission to all schools. Do away with elite schools and give everyone an equal education. That sounds like the only viable solution to your concern. But wouldn't that make you one of those terrible "socialists" you keep whining about?

[Gary Childress]

I think many blacks are right to laugh at Charlie Kirk's criticism of Michelle Obama. He said her degree was worthless, that coming from a college dropout. He didn't even try.

Here I think you are again missing an important element. You must understand the rising mood of resistance against an “anti-White” sentiment that has become, or had become, prevalent in social discourse in America certainly. If you read or listen to the more fringe people on the Dissident Right like Lana Lokteff, Greg Johnson, Jared Taylor and others (all banned and demonetized from major platforms) you will better understand where their resistance and opposition comes from. (See The New Kulaks: Whites as an Enemy Class by Gregory Hood.)

The ideological “war against whiteness” is something you and your sort will not, and in fact cannot, even consider as having validity. But those theorists who are excluded and repressed make a decent case for their views.

Reaction tends to be reactionary. And most reactionaries tend to radical postures.

Again I would mention the dramatic and consequential demographic shifts as one of the causes of radical reaction. But to point this out is not to take one side or the other.

(And as you know some of the bitches in my harem are not perfect White specimens. I really do believe in equal opportunity).

What "war against whiteness" are you referring to? Apparently, white households had a 33% advantage in median income in 2023 over black households. If there's a "war against whites" it sounds like blacks must be losing the so called "war".

[Immanuel Can]

Are you arguing that DEI is an "entitlement" that is not deserved by people from minority backgrounds who suffered hundreds of years of oppression holding them back?

Both are equally "oppressed," remember? Why does one get it, and the other not?

And shall we add a Chinese boy, as well, first generation escaping from a Communist regime, or an Indian boy escaping grinding poverty in Delhi? Why should they have EVEN HIGHER standards to meet than either the first boy or the second?

What is the belief the DEIers have to hold, in order to do that? Is it not obvious? It's that "white" means "just fine," and "Indian and Chinese" means "advantaged and needing to be set back," and "black" means "I can't do it without DEI"?

That's racist. But that's the Left.

Of course there is unfairness. If both of the minority candidates you are referring to would not qualify for school except for a DEI position, and there's room for only one, then a choice will be made.

But all is not equal. Some score lower on entrance exams. Should they be promoted despite their failure? And if it should be done for some, why not for others who are visibly minority? Why give DEI advantages only to black Americans, while discriminating against Indians and Chinese?

All you're doing is trying to complicate things far more than they need to be.

Not at all. I'm simply describing exactly what Harvard did.

It says nothing against DEI other than it's an imperfect process.

No, it says it's aggressively racist one.

If you're truly worried about the minority that got passed over so the other minority could get a DEI scholarship or whatever (which I doubt you truly are), maybe you should advocate for open admission to all schools.

What? No standards? That would be fun. Then "higher" education would truly be an oxymoron.

Do away with elite schools and give everyone an equal education.

What makes a school "elite"? Is it its standards? Why would we want to have no standards? That doesn't sound at all like a way to make education better; rather it sounds like a way to make education less educational...equally bad.

Would you say that Harvard was an "elite" school? Would you be arguing for its dissolution, even though it had DEI policies? Should Harvard have the same educational level as Fred's Local College and Rug Emporium?

But you'll have to explain to me just how you think race enters into it. You seem to be arguing that American blacks, who haven't seen hide or hair of slavery in over 150 years, need lower standards than a Vietnamese boat person or a brand new refugee from Bangladesh. And I'm waiting to see what makes you think that. If you've got a non-racist explanation, I'm happy to hear it.

[Gary Childress]

@ AJ. The only thing white conservatives are doing is playing the social struggle game. Only they are upset that any whites are being excluded at all from the elite class. If they were worried about economic class fairness, then they would be espousing social programs. Most the Charlie Kirk's of the world a "free market" voodoo believers who think unruly markets make a fair determination of who deserves to be rich and who deserves to be poor. They think they would be on top of the world if it weren't for all those pesky DEI programs elevating blacks above them. No, they're being held back by all those "affirmative action" programs.

[Gary Childress]

Both are equally "oppressed," remember? Why does one get it, and the other not?

And shall we add a Chinese boy, as well, first generation escaping from a Communist regime, or an Indian boy escaping grinding poverty in Delhi? Why should they have EVEN HIGHER standards to meet than either the first boy or the second?

What is the belief the DEIers have to hold, in order to do that? Is it not obvious? It's that "white" means "just fine," and "Indian and Chinese" means "advantaged and needing to be set back," and "black" means "I can't do it without DEI"?

That's racist. But that's the Left.

Of course there is unfairness. If both of the minority candidates you are referring to would not qualify for school except for a DEI position, and there's room for only one, then a choice will be made.

But all is not equal. Some score lower on entrance exams. Should they be promoted despite their failure? And if it should be done for some, why not for others who are visibly minority? Why give DEI advantages only to black Americans, while discriminating against Indians and Chinese?

All you're doing is trying to complicate things far more than they need to be.

Not at all. I'm simply describing exactly what Harvard did.

It says nothing against DEI other than it's an imperfect process.

No, it says it's aggressively racist one.

If you're truly worried about the minority that got passed over so the other minority could get a DEI scholarship or whatever (which I doubt you truly are), maybe you should advocate for open admission to all schools.

What? No standards? That would be fun. Then "higher" education would truly be an oxymoron.

Do away with elite schools and give everyone an equal education.

What makes a school "elite"? Is it its standards? Why would we want to have no standards? That doesn't sound at all like a way to make education better; rather it sounds like a way to make education less educational...equally bad.

Would you say that Harvard was an "elite" school? Would you be arguing for its dissolution, even though it had DEI policies? Should Harvard have the same educational level as Fred's Local College and Rug Emporium?

But you'll have to explain to me just how you think race enters into it. You seem to be arguing that American blacks, who haven't seen hide or hair of slavery in over 150 years, need lower standards than a Vietnamese boat person or a brand new refugee from Bangladesh. And I'm waiting to see what makes you think that. If you've got a non-racist explanation, I'm happy to hear it.

Gee, are you proxy offended on behalf of Indians and Chinese people? Maybe lobby for them to get a DEI program if you're worried about it. Don't come whining to me.

"Fred's College" and "Rug Emporium"? Sounds like you need to throw in whatever school you attended in that category. Apparently they teach that a talking snake tricked a woman into eating an apple in the "beginning".

[Alexis Jacobi]

@ AJ. The only thing white conservatives are doing is playing the social struggle game. Only they are upset that any whites are being excluded at all from the elite class. If they were worried about economic class fairness, then they would be espousing social programs. Most the Charlie Kirk's of the world a "free market" voodoo believers who think unruly markets make a fair determination of who deserves to be rich and who deserves to be poor. They think they would be on top of the world if it weren't for all those pesky DEI programs elevating blacks above them. No, they're being held back by all those "affirmative action" programs.

I am working hard to try to get you to understand positions foreign to those installed in you. Were I to succeed in this, and I do not suffer under that illusion, you would of your own volition read the writings of (for example) Jared Taylor (Paved With Good Intentions) or — gasp! — The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I could list a dozen additional. My view? It is your civic duty to understand the views of those different, opposed, to yours.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that part of ‘the game’ as you call it is one of social struggle. Again, one clear example: the out-demographied Whites of London. Unlike you, I do not dismiss or vilify their concerns. I consider them. Or, take the thesis of Renaud Camus which, naturally, you will not lend any legitimacy to. To even consider his position sends you into moral convulsions. It is very hard for me, given my far wider reading than you ignorant assholes, to dismiss their concerns, even if I do not embrace them as an activist.

If you want to understand the present, you are going to have to become willing to examine POVs different from your own. And to consider moral questions from alternative perspectives.

I have an example: a video presentation by Matt Walsh about the take-over of Dearborn by Muslim immigrants. He says This is our country, not your country, and we are justified in our right to say “No” to the establishment of an alternative culture in an American city (I paraphrase). Listen to him and try to grasp his perspective.

As to “anti-Whiteness” I can guide you to resources but I cannot make you read what those who define it, or notice it, have to say. You are extremely sheltered if you are not aware of what has been occurring culturally and ideologically in America over the last 15 years. Unlike you I have paid attention.

Now what is happening is the result of the seeding of ideas that are contrary to those of hyper-liberalism. A threshold has been crossed. The assassination of Charlie Kirk represents a turning-point, whether you care to recognize it or not!

If you think that I regard all of this as without problematic aspects, you will be thinking wrongly. Reaction reacts, and all reaction has problematic aspects.

[Gary Childress]

@ AJ. The only thing white conservatives are doing is playing the social struggle game. Only they are upset that any whites are being excluded at all from the elite class. If they were worried about economic class fairness, then they would be espousing social programs. Most the Charlie Kirk's of the world a "free market" voodoo believers who think unruly markets make a fair determination of who deserves to be rich and who deserves to be poor. They think they would be on top of the world if it weren't for all those pesky DEI programs elevating blacks above them. No, they're being held back by all those "affirmative action" programs.

I am working hard to try to get you to understand positions foreign to those installed in you. Were I to succeed in this, and I do not suffer under that illusion, you would of your own volition read the writings of (for example) Jared Taylor (Paved With Good Intentions) or — gasp! — The White Nationalist Manifesto by Greg Johnson. I could list a dozen additional. My view? It is your civic duty to understand the views of those different, opposed, to yours.

You are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT that part of ‘the game’ as you call it is one of social struggle. Again, one clear example: the out-demographied Whites of London. Unlike you, I do not dismiss or vilify their concerns. I consider them. Or, take the thesis of Renaud Camus which, naturally, you will not lend any legitimacy to. To even consider his position sends you into moral convulsions. It is very hard for me, given my far wider reading than you ignorant assholes, to dismiss their concerns, even if I do not embrace them as an activist.

If you want to understand the present, you are going to have to become willing to examine POVs different from your own. And to consider moral questions from alternative perspectives.

I have an example: a video presentation by Matt Walsh about the take-over of Dearborn by Muslim immigrants. He says This is our country, not your country, and we are justified in our right to say “No” to the establishment of an alternative culture in an American city (I paraphrase). Listen to him and try to grasp his perspective.

As to “anti-Whiteness” I can guide you to resources but I cannot make you read what those who define it, or notice it, have to say. You are extremely sheltered if you are not aware of what has been occurring culturally and ideologically in America over the last 15 years. Unlike you I have paid attention.

Now what is happening is the result of the seeding of ideas that are contrary to those of hyper-liberalism. A threshold has been crossed. The assassination of Charlie Kirk represents a turning-point, whether you care to recognize it or not!

If you think that I regard all of this as without problematic aspects, you will be thinking wrongly. Reaction reacts, and all reaction has problematic aspects.

Apparently, Mein Kampf didn't mention anything about Jews in concentration camps. Should I read it just to figure out what Richard Spencer might believe? I'm sure he's a likable guy (if you aren't a black person in an 'affirmative action' program). I've always wanted to sympathize with white supremacists, maybe that will help me understand them?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Apparently, Mein Kampf didn't mention anything about Jews in concentration camps. Should I read it just to figure out what Richard Spencer might believe? I'm sure he's a likable guy (if you aren't a black person in an 'affirmative action' program). I've always wanted to sympathize with white supremacists, maybe that will help me understand them?

This odd type of outburst, as if an argument, illustrates and typifies a “structure of interpretation” that I describe as having been installed in you.

How to combat that? How to get around it? I cannot offer any help.

The point, however, is to see clearly that such rigid constructs exist. They are bolstered by people who (I guess) find them useful. I find them entirely stupid. It will not help you to understand counter-reaction in our present.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course there is unfairness. If both of the minority candidates you are referring to would not qualify for school except for a DEI position, and there's room for only one, then a choice will be made.

But all is not equal. Some score lower on entrance exams. Should they be promoted despite their failure? And if it should be done for some, why not for others who are visibly minority? Why give DEI advantages only to black Americans, while discriminating against Indians and Chinese?

All you're doing is trying to complicate things far more than they need to be.

Not at all. I'm simply describing exactly what Harvard did.

It says nothing against DEI other than it's an imperfect process.

No, it says it's aggressively racist one.

If you're truly worried about the minority that got passed over so the other minority could get a DEI scholarship or whatever (which I doubt you truly are), maybe you should advocate for open admission to all schools.

What? No standards? That would be fun. Then "higher" education would truly be an oxymoron.

Do away with elite schools and give everyone an equal education.

What makes a school "elite"? Is it its standards? Why would we want to have no standards? That doesn't sound at all like a way to make education better; rather it sounds like a way to make education less educational...equally bad.

Would you say that Harvard was an "elite" school? Would you be arguing for its dissolution, even though it had DEI policies? Should Harvard have the same educational level as Fred's Local College and Rug Emporium?

But you'll have to explain to me just how you think race enters into it. You seem to be arguing that American blacks, who haven't seen hide or hair of slavery in over 150 years, need lower standards than a Vietnamese boat person or a brand new refugee from Bangladesh. And I'm waiting to see what makes you think that. If you've got a non-racist explanation, I'm happy to hear it.

Gee, are you proxy offended on behalf of Indians and Chinese people?

No. I'm just asking about consistency. I'm sure they're advocating for their own interests, as the site I posted to Will shows.

Why is the Left so patronizing to one set of folks, and at the same time, so utterly indifferent and even hostile to folks who have a) a more recent and worse history of being oppressed, and b) are just as "minoritized" and "disadvantaged" as the set the claim to care about? And I'm asking why they think black folks are less capable -- because if they don't believe that, then why the double standard, and why the DEI for one, and active discrimination against the other?

Why does Harvard believe that blacks need lower standards, but whites need regular standards and Asians need higher ones? What does that tell you about their beliefs about race? And since we can now not know which were admitted under DEI, and which actually earned their places and degrees, what does it suggest about the value of the certifications they now issue? Does this not threaten the standing of their degrees, at least to those minorities they admitted under DEI?

[Gary Childress]

But all is not equal. Some score lower on entrance exams. Should they be promoted despite their failure? And if it should be done for some, why not for others who are visibly minority? Why give DEI advantages only to black Americans, while discriminating against Indians and Chinese?


Not at all. I'm simply describing exactly what Harvard did.
No, it says it's aggressively racist one.
What? No standards? That would be fun. Then "higher" education would truly be an oxymoron.


What makes a school "elite"? Is it its standards? Why would we want to have no standards? That doesn't sound at all like a way to make education better; rather it sounds like a way to make education less educational...equally bad.

Would you say that Harvard was an "elite" school? Would you be arguing for its dissolution, even though it had DEI policies? Should Harvard have the same educational level as Fred's Local College and Rug Emporium?

But you'll have to explain to me just how you think race enters into it. You seem to be arguing that American blacks, who haven't seen hide or hair of slavery in over 150 years, need lower standards than a Vietnamese boat person or a brand new refugee from Bangladesh. And I'm waiting to see what makes you think that. If you've got a non-racist explanation, I'm happy to hear it.

Gee, are you proxy offended on behalf of Indians and Chinese people?

No. I'm just asking about consistency. I'm sure they're advocating for their own interests, as the site I posted to Will shows.

Why is the Left so patronizing to one set of folks, and at the same time, so utterly indifferent and even hostile to folks who have a) a more recent and worse history of being oppressed, and b) are just as "minoritized" and "disadvantaged" as the set the claim to care about? And I'm asking why they think black folks are less capable -- because if they don't believe that, then why the double standard, and why the DEI for one, and active discrimination against the other?

Why does Harvard believe that blacks need lower standards, but whites need regular standards and Asians need higher ones? What does that tell you about their beliefs about race? And since we can now not know which were admitted under DEI, and which actually earned their places and degrees, what does it suggest about the value of the certifications they now issue? Does this not threaten the standing of their degrees, at least to those minorities they admitted under DEI?

Of course, the US is going to give a special place to blacks for the time being. We only had them in slavery for 400+ years. Then segregation within our country which only ended two or three generations ago. Don't you think it's fair to bring them up to speed after what our ancestors did? We ought to do the same for American Indians (aka "Native Americans").

The rest of the world can do what it wants. You all don't need to follow US practices if you see them as inappropriate to your circumstances. Not sure why other countries seem to think they need to follow identical practices concerning diversity if they haven't had our specific history.

[Immanuel Can]

Gee, are you proxy offended on behalf of Indians and Chinese people?

No. I'm just asking about consistency. I'm sure they're advocating for their own interests, as the site I posted to Will shows.

Why is the Left so patronizing to one set of folks, and at the same time, so utterly indifferent and even hostile to folks who have a) a more recent and worse history of being oppressed, and b) are just as "minoritized" and "disadvantaged" as the set the claim to care about? And I'm asking why they think black folks are less capable -- because if they don't believe that, then why the double standard, and why the DEI for one, and active discrimination against the other?

Why does Harvard believe that blacks need lower standards, but whites need regular standards and Asians need higher ones? What does that tell you about their beliefs about race? And since we can now not know which were admitted under DEI, and which actually earned their places and degrees, what does it suggest about the value of the certifications they now issue? Does this not threaten the standing of their degrees, at least to those minorities they admitted under DEI?

Of course, the US is going to give a special place to blacks for the time being. We only had them in slavery for 400+ years.

Slavery has been banned for 150 years. Not one of the present day DEI beneficiaries have ever lived in it, nor even in Segregation, by a couple of generations, as you point out. By contrast, many Chinese and Indians have experienced political repression of the cruelest kinds, and grinding poverty, and experienced it personally. Yet they're the wealthiest, fastest-rising and most succesful general demographic in America right now.

So it doesn't seem that hard times are the answer. And I suggest that skin colour isn't the answer either. That DEI advocates think it is, might well speak of their contempt for the capacities of black Americans. And if so, that's clearly racist.

Let's put it this way: why should a black kid from the middle-class suburbs of Chicago get DEI advantages, and a lower-class shopkeeper Indian's kid get none?

You all don't need to follow US practices if you see them as inappropriate to your circumstances.

We're just trying to establish whether or not DEI is "appropriate to" non-racism, rational consistency or moral fairness. And we're trying to figure out how it might debase education, as well.

It seems you're conceding the problem, and then just saying, "Well, it's our house, so we get to be irrational, discriminatory and unfair in it if we want to, and you don't get to question."

That might be your position, but it won't stop the question or make it less legitimate.

[Gary Childress]

No. I'm just asking about consistency. I'm sure they're advocating for their own interests, as the site I posted to Will shows.

Why is the Left so patronizing to one set of folks, and at the same time, so utterly indifferent and even hostile to folks who have a) a more recent and worse history of being oppressed, and b) are just as "minoritized" and "disadvantaged" as the set the claim to care about? And I'm asking why they think black folks are less capable -- because if they don't believe that, then why the double standard, and why the DEI for one, and active discrimination against the other?

Why does Harvard believe that blacks need lower standards, but whites need regular standards and Asians need higher ones? What does that tell you about their beliefs about race? And since we can now not know which were admitted under DEI, and which actually earned their places and degrees, what does it suggest about the value of the certifications they now issue? Does this not threaten the standing of their degrees, at least to those minorities they admitted under DEI?

Of course, the US is going to give a special place to blacks for the time being. We only had them in slavery for 400+ years.

Slavery has been banned for 150 years. Not one of the present day DEI beneficiaries have ever lived in it, nor even in Segregation, by a couple of generations, as you point out. By contrast, many Chinese and Indians have experienced political repression of the cruelest kinds, and grinding poverty, and experienced it personally. Yet they're the wealthiest, fastest-rising and most succesful general demographic in America right now.

So it doesn't seem that hard times are the answer. And I suggest that skin colour isn't the answer either. That DEI advocates think it is, might well speak of their contempt for the capacities of black Americans. And if so, that's clearly racist.

Let's put it this way: why should a black kid from the middle-class suburbs of Chicago get DEI advantages, and a lower-class shopkeeper Indian's kid get none?

You all don't need to follow US practices if you see them as inappropriate to your circumstances.

We're just trying to establish whether or not DEI is "appropriate to" non-racism, rational consistency or moral fairness. And we're trying to figure out how it might debase education, as well.

It seems you're conceding the problem, and then just saying, "Well, it's our house, so we get to be irrational, discriminatory and unfair in it if we want to, and you don't get to question."

That might be your position, but it won't stop the question or make it less legitimate.

Why should an Indian (I'm assuming you mean citizen of the country next to China) shopkeeper's son receive benefits from Americans in going to an American school. I guess I don't understand what it is that that solves or helps us accomplish or why it's necessary?

[Immanuel Can]

Of course, the US is going to give a special place to blacks for the time being. We only had them in slavery for 400+ years.

Slavery has been banned for 150 years. Not one of the present day DEI beneficiaries have ever lived in it, nor even in Segregation, by a couple of generations, as you point out. By contrast, many Chinese and Indians have experienced political repression of the cruelest kinds, and grinding poverty, and experienced it personally. Yet they're the wealthiest, fastest-rising and most succesful general demographic in America right now.

So it doesn't seem that hard times are the answer. And I suggest that skin colour isn't the answer either. That DEI advocates think it is, might well speak of their contempt for the capacities of black Americans. And if so, that's clearly racist.

Let's put it this way: why should a black kid from the middle-class suburbs of Chicago get DEI advantages, and a lower-class shopkeeper Indian's kid get none?

You all don't need to follow US practices if you see them as inappropriate to your circumstances.

We're just trying to establish whether or not DEI is "appropriate to" non-racism, rational consistency or moral fairness. And we're trying to figure out how it might debase education, as well.

It seems you're conceding the problem, and then just saying, "Well, it's our house, so we get to be irrational, discriminatory and unfair in it if we want to, and you don't get to question."

That might be your position, but it won't stop the question or make it less legitimate.

Why should an Indian (I'm assuming you mean citizen of the country next to China) shopkeeper's son receive benefits from Americans in going to an American school.

Wow. You're getting very nationalistic now. I thought you Dems loved migrants...or at least wanted us to think you did, even if you don't.

I'm suggesting that competent candidates for anything don't need DEI. And since some people claim DEI is necessary, it must be the case that they think the recipients are incompetent. Otherwise, they'd have no need of DEI. And Asians get none, need none, and do exceeding well, even if they've suffered terrible circumstances and discrimination personally. So why do DEI advocates believe that's impossible for blacks?

I can think of two reasons, and not mutually exclusive at all: one is that they secretly think blacks are inferior, and thus apt for their patronage. The other is that the whole thing is a grift, and having a "pet" demographic to service is essential to their DEI industry.

Both are good hypotheses, I'd say. They explain the irrational selectivity of DEI very well.

[Gary Childress]

Slavery has been banned for 150 years. Not one of the present day DEI beneficiaries have ever lived in it, nor even in Segregation, by a couple of generations, as you point out. By contrast, many Chinese and Indians have experienced political repression of the cruelest kinds, and grinding poverty, and experienced it personally. Yet they're the wealthiest, fastest-rising and most succesful general demographic in America right now.

So it doesn't seem that hard times are the answer. And I suggest that skin colour isn't the answer either. That DEI advocates think it is, might well speak of their contempt for the capacities of black Americans. And if so, that's clearly racist.

Let's put it this way: why should a black kid from the middle-class suburbs of Chicago get DEI advantages, and a lower-class shopkeeper Indian's kid get none?

We're just trying to establish whether or not DEI is "appropriate to" non-racism, rational consistency or moral fairness. And we're trying to figure out how it might debase education, as well.

It seems you're conceding the problem, and then just saying, "Well, it's our house, so we get to be irrational, discriminatory and unfair in it if we want to, and you don't get to question."

That might be your position, but it won't stop the question or make it less legitimate.

Why should an Indian (I'm assuming you mean citizen of the country next to China) shopkeeper's son receive benefits from Americans in going to an American school.

Wow. You're getting very nationalistic now. I thought you Dems loved migrants...or at least wanted us to think you did, even if you don't.

I'm suggesting that competent candidates for anything don't need DEI. And since some people claim DEI is necessary, it must be the case that they think the recipients are incompetent. Otherwise, they'd have no need of DEI. And Asians get none, need none, and do exceeding well, even if they've suffered terrible circumstances and discrimination personally. So why do DEI advocates believe that's impossible for blacks?

I can think of two reasons, and not mutually exclusive at all: one is that they secretly think blacks are inferior, and thus apt for their patronage. The other is that the whole thing is a grift, and having a "pet" demographic to service is essential to their DEI industry.

Both are good hypotheses, I'd say. They explain the irrational selectivity of DEI very well.

I can't speak for everyone but I'm for due process and humaneness in handling illegal migrants and for reciprocity with American Blacks and Native Americans. That's hardly "nationalism", when I think of the word "nationalism" I think of "my country right or wrong".

I don't see it as "incompetence" that an American black kid might not be able to make it into a school due to grades or test scores, I see it more as white American complicity in a 400 year old immoral practice.