In this clip, Trump shows us what
“No more DEI”
means.
“We’ve essentially killed DEI. Isn’t that nice? No more DEI.”
Then he turns around, looks at the law-enforcement officers behind him, and says:
“That’s not a DEI group, I can tell. It never was.”
That last sentence is the tell.
“It never was.”
He isn’t describing a hiring policy.
He is looking at a group that appears overwhelmingly white and male and using
“never”
as evidence that it is not DEI.
That turns the visible composition of the group into the baseline.
Not something to question.
Not something produced by history.
Just normal.
And anything deliberately designed to change that baseline can become “DEI.”
I’ve been called a race hustler, a bigot, inflammatory, a race-baiter. I’ve even gotten the dismissive:
"Oh, now you’re pulling the race card.”
But this?
This gets presented as
"righteous policy."
I’ve heard that language from a pastor speaking to a congregation I was part of at one point, before hearing this and leaving.
I was taught something simpler: when people tell you what they believe, take them seriously, especially when their actions and legal arguments line up with their words.
And they do.
The existing racial distribution gets treated as normal.
Deliberate efforts to change it get treated as discrimination.
And now DOJ is even treating race-neutral admissions policies as suspect when they are intended to produce racial diversity.
You don’t have to explicitly defend the status quo.
You just have to call the status quo “neutral.”
Why would you interpret "not a DEI group" as "white and male"? As opposed to just, "people that don't support Marxists theories of racial justice"?
It is righteous policy and not racial. The policy being implemented on the books is race-blind meritocracy.
It is.
They are.
Trump didn't get elected by campaigning on racism to win 80% of the White vote. He won 57% of Whites, 46% of Latinos, 40% of Asians, and 55% of Other through an ideological argument that the federal government should not be setting racial quotas.
Honest answer?
Because I watched the video.
I also look at this administration’s policies, from the federal government, to leveraging private institutions, to using contract law against race-conscious self-help programs, to challenging race-neutral admissions policies when they are intended to increase racial diversity.
That is far too broad to honestly reduce to:
The old system was broad and dismantling it is complicated. Because just like Jim Crow, the federal government has limited jurisdiction and ability to take down every stupid law that you put up. The new system, "ignore race and focus on producing market value" is very simple.
Race-conscious means there is no American people and we perpetuate a blood fued forever. It doesn't work for governing a multiracial society, much less one that was founded on a rejection of historical claims and grand narratives being used to collect taxes from individuals who don't share that history.
And your idea of race-conciousness is entirely based on superficial appearances. Gavin Newsom isn't just "white." He has English-Canadian ancestry. As an English-American I might as well be getting reparations from him for treason committed in 1776 if we want to play the ancestral vengeance game.
The persistent present effects of past racial injustice cannot be repaired by equal treatment alone. As the video I posted shows, that is not enough to repair what remains.
That's based on your subjective feelings. What does "repair" mean? Why not just get rid of the race in question if you feel like the discrimination never ends?
No. It's arithmetic. Equal treatment from unequal starting points does not erase the gap. Wealth compounds, advantages are inherited, and so are disadvantages.
Treating everyone equally today does not make yesterday's accumulated inequality disappear.
So at the very least, allow us to help ourselves without using contract law to stop those efforts.
That's how it should be. On a national level you as an English speaker and US citizen are inheriting these kinds of advantages. But for you to say that's not good enough and demand an equal footing to white Americans puts all those other inequalities that you benefit from in jeopardy.
That is what's happening. We're dismantling the federal government's ability to do anything about anything. If we separate economy from state then no racial discrimination is feasible.
That isn't what is happening. #1546689
Even though you couldn't come out and say it cleanly. I respect the fact that you tried.
Enough for me. At least you vaguely acknowledge that is what is being said.
The system was explicitly race-conscious when it created and administered inequality. Declaring the system race-blind afterward does not automatically erase the consequences of what that system produced.
Okay, so we're punishing people for the sins of their ancestors? Got it.
We're not "declaring" it race blind. We're rewriting the law so that it is race-blind. The system is Bitcoin. It's not going to block you from a transaction because of your race.
It does put you at a disadvantage depending on the wealth accumulated by your parents. Do you want to abolish wealth inheritance? Do you want your children to have to start from zero or do you want them to have an advantage over the rest of the world by virtue of being American citizens?
Now we’re talking. You acknowledge there are
So the wealth gap created by racial inequality has to matter too, if we’re being honest.
If your answer is “tough luck,” I get it. But say it out loud. I can respect someone who owns that position.
If inherited advantage is real, inherited disadvantage is too.
No, my first answer is, "here's some money, now go away." But after three or four generations the answer changes to "go away" because it's become obvious that no amount of reparations are going to be enough for you to stop asking.
US citizenship is an inherited advantage from a global perspective. You are better off from being born into a system where the answer is "tough luck" because your society overall will get richer if we're not forced to waste time micromanaging everyone's wealth to satisfy your historical grievances.
Don't you think it is a bit naive to take any politician, anywhere on any political spectrum, of any gender, age, race, religion, country of birth, social upbringing, education or other background "at their word"?
When I say at their word, I mean I believe my eyes and don’t doubt what I see. As is evidenced in the referenced clip, subsequent actions that support it are evident to anyone willing to see them.
Sure but why do you care? Because he lies? They all lie. They're incentivized to do so. Liars get more votes. Especially when the last guy fell through. Then you just lie the opposite narrative. "Vote for me and all will be fixed." You want a pony? You'll get one. And you, and you, and you
<insert Oprah>Lies upon lies upon lies upon lies. Don't let them get to you! It's all awful if you focus on these guys. We have a means now to do things. Independently. You're using it every time you write something here, or reload the page to read something: encryption.
Use it wisely and you can empower yourself to a level of indifference that is right about what this cat feels like:
Don’t waste your breath. If you don’t want to engage with the actual content, move on.
I’m not posting campaign promises and asking you to believe them. I’m showing what is happening in real time: what he says, what the administration does, and how the legal arguments line up with it.
That’s the point: the underlying agenda is visible in the words and the actions.
Okay. Just looking out. That was also the last time. Bye
I appreciate the attempt, but I post this because I believe ignoring it is not
for anyone.
This exchange is kind of ironic after reading your newer Bitcoin post.
@optimism basically told you that Bitcoin and encryption give us tools to become less dependent on politicians and the system. You told him "don't waste your breath" and "move on."
Then a few hours later you AI'd an entire post about...how Bitcoin gives us greater sovereignty from politicians and the system and discussion about exactly where that independence ends.
Seems like his point might have deserved a little more consideration than a "move on" (my line to you) as you felt it good enough to AI a post on the premise.
I find it interesting that none of the comments on this post actually address the content.