This is Why Anti DEI Supporters and Anti DEI Policies are Racist.

[AZrailwhale]

Wake up ! So-called DEI measures didn't just come out of nowhere. The ERA began in 1972 to combat widespread discrimination in the workforce. Less than 2% of the federal workforce was minorities. That number gradually rose to 40% , which is about right , by 2023. Now you want to go back to the old pattern of discrimination. No way! We finally got something right for a change , after 53 years.

At least get the name right, the ERA (EQUAL Rights Amendment) was proposed in 1972 to establish equal rights for WOMEN, not minorities.
"

Equal Rights Amendment​

20 languages​

• Article​
• Talk​

• Read​
• Edit​
• View history​

Tools​

Appearance

hide​

Text

• Small
  Standard
  Large

Width

• Standard
  Wide

Color (beta)

• Automatic
  Light
  Dark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the amendment on the New York State ballot in 2024, see 2024 New York Proposal 1.

This article is part of a series on the
Constitution of the United States
Preamble and Articles
Preamble I II III IV V VI VII
Amendments to the Constitution
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments: Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights
History
Drafting and ratification timeline Convention Signing Federalism Republicanism Bill of Rights Reconstruction Amendments
Full text
Preamble and Articles I–VII Amendments I–X Amendments XI–XXVII Unratified Amendments

[td]

• 
  United States portal
• Law portal
• Politics portal

[/td]

[td]

• v
• t
• e

[/td]​

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. It is not currently a part of the Constitution, though its ratification status has long been debated. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and first introduced in Congress in December 1923. With the rise of the women's movement in the United States during the 1960s, the ERA garnered increasing support, and, after being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that year, and by the U.S. Senate in 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification, as provided by Article Five of the United States Constitution. A seven-year, 1979, deadline was included with the legislation by Congress. A simple majority of Congress later extended the deadline to 1982. Both deadlines passed with the ERA three short of the necessary 38 states for ratification. Even so, there are ongoing efforts to ratify the amendment.
The purpose of the ERA is to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. In the early history of the Equal Rights Amendment, middle-class women were largely supportive, while those speaking for the working class were often opposed, arguing that women should hold more domestic responsibility than men and that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and employment hours. Modern proponents assert it would end legal distinctions between men and women in matters including divorce, property, and employment. Opponents have argued that it would remove protections from women and open women to be drafted into the military.

Resolution text​

[edit]
The resolution, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women", reads, in part:[1]

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission by the Congress:
"ARTICLE —
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
"Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.""

 

[EvilCat Breath]

No one cares, you know. Racism has been screeched (you passed screamed awhile ago) so much that it has become meaningless. Unless, it is worth a giggle. In the main, calling someone racist gets a shrug and a move on. Just like Nazi.

 

[Stann]

This country has had a bi-partsan consensus on equality for minorities since the mid 60s.

THe idea that there are large portions of the population seething with a desire to put down teh black man or some such shit, is nonsense.


Now, the policy you are defending, is clearly anti-WHITE racism and discrimination.


That you support because you think it is justified becasue of past and current... discrimination. That you are sure is still going on, despite all the generations of indoctrination that has been done to the American whites.



COme on buddy. Think about it.


"Current anti-white discrimination is needed to balance out past anti-black discrimination and CURRENT anti-black discrimination that I know is out there, somewhere."


Read that. Isn't that really how you feel?

Admit that dei is anti-white discrimiation and we can have a real discussion of whether or not it is justified or it's pros and cons.


BUt you stonewalling on pretending to not understand that the block of wood is gone, is just you being... stuck on...something...

Making an over correction doesn't solve anythng it just recreates the old problems.

 

[Correll]

Making an over correction doesn't solve anythng it just recreates the old problems.

And the anti-white discrimination of Affrimative Action/DEI/ECT has been a massive over correction that has "recreated" many "old problems".


It is time to end it. Join us in ending it, adn celebrating it's end.


All those poor white guys, that have been fucked over and over again? Let's hear a nice round of applause as we stop fucking them.

 

[Stann]

And the anti-white discrimination of Affrimative Action/DEI/ECT has been a massive over correction that has "recreated" many "old problems".


It is time to end it. Join us in ending it, adn celebrating it's end.


All those poor white guys, that have been fucked over and over again? Let's hear a nice round of applause as we stop fucking them.

In your opinion . It got the workforce to reflect the national complexion. That's a plus no matter how you look at it.

 

[Correll]

In your opinion . It got the workforce to reflect the national complexion. That's a plus no matter how you look at it.

And by "it" you mean the anti-white discrimination that you think is justified, but you can't bring yourself to admit exists?


That is sad. Very weak of you.


You clearly support it, but you refuse to be honest about it.



Because you know that you cannot defend it, honestly, based on looking at the pros and cons.


You want to make fun of poor white guys some more?

 

[Stann]

And by "it" you mean the anti-white discrimination that you think is justified, but you can't bring yourself to admit exists?


That is sad. Very weak of you.


You clearly support it, but you refuse to be honest about it.



Because you know that you cannot defend it, honestly, based on looking at the pros and cons.


You want to make fun of poor white guys some more?

I have always been a poor white guy. I just don't gripe about it.

 

[Stann]

At least get the name right, the ERA (EQUAL Rights Amendment) was proposed in 1972 to establish equal rights for WOMEN, not minorities.
"

Equal Rights Amendment​

20 languages​

• Article​
• Talk​

• Read​
• Edit​
• View history​

Tools​

Appearance

hide​

Text

• Small
  Standard
  Large

Width

• Standard
  Wide

Color (beta)

• Automatic
  Light
  Dark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the amendment on the New York State ballot in 2024, see 2024 New York Proposal 1.

​

​

Constitution of the United States
Preamble and Articles
Amendments to the Constitution
History
Full text
This article is part of a series on the
Preamble I II III IV V VI VII
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII Unratified Amendments: Congressional Apportionment Titles of Nobility Corwin Child Labor Equal Rights D.C. Voting Rights
Drafting and ratification timeline Convention Signing Federalism Republicanism Bill of Rights Reconstruction Amendments
Preamble and Articles I–VII Amendments I–X Amendments XI–XXVII Unratified Amendments

[td]

• • 
    United States portal
  • Law portal
  • Politics portal

[/td]

[td]

• v
• t
• e

[/td]​

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution that would explicitly prohibit sex discrimination. It is not currently a part of the Constitution, though its ratification status has long been debated. It was written by Alice Paul and Crystal Eastman and first introduced in Congress in December 1923. With the rise of the women's movement in the United States during the 1960s, the ERA garnered increasing support, and, after being reintroduced by Representative Martha Griffiths in 1971, it was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives that year, and by the U.S. Senate in 1972, thus submitting the ERA to the state legislatures for ratification, as provided by Article Five of the United States Constitution. A seven-year, 1979, deadline was included with the legislation by Congress. A simple majority of Congress later extended the deadline to 1982. Both deadlines passed with the ERA three short of the necessary 38 states for ratification. Even so, there are ongoing efforts to ratify the amendment.
The purpose of the ERA is to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex. In the early history of the Equal Rights Amendment, middle-class women were largely supportive, while those speaking for the working class were often opposed, arguing that women should hold more domestic responsibility than men and that employed women needed special protections regarding working conditions and employment hours. Modern proponents assert it would end legal distinctions between men and women in matters including divorce, property, and employment. Opponents have argued that it would remove protections from women and open women to be drafted into the military.

Resolution text​

[edit]
The resolution, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women", reads, in part:[1]

Yes and it was expanded over the years to include more and more maligned and persecuted minorities. Expanding the freedoms we have.

 

[Correll]

I have always been a poor white guy. I just don't gripe about it.

Ignoring a harm doesn't make it go away. You might feel that you need to pay for the sins of your ancestors, that doesn't mean all poor white guys do.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Ignoring a harm doesn't make it go away. You might feel that you need to pay for the sins of your ancestors, that doesn't mean all poor white guys do.

People like him don’t seem to understand than endless preferential treatment programs don’t help the recipients, they hurt them.

 

[Correll]

People like him don’t seem to understand than endless preferential treatment programs don’t help the recipients, they hurt them.

That too. He's isn't admitting ANYTHING, so no real discussion can take place.

 

[Stann]

Ignoring a harm doesn't make it go away. You might feel that you need to pay for the sins of your ancestors, that doesn't mean all poor white guys do.

I don't feel put out that our ancestors didn't plunder other peoples and the world more than they did. Did you really think the wealth of the US was gotten without ill gains. And what better purpose than to lift all of mankind up with it. Go ahead be selfish , see how far that gets you.

 

[Correll]

I don't feel put out that our ancestors didn't plunder other peoples and the world more than they did. Did you really think the wealth of the US was gotten without ill gains. And what better purpose than to lift all of mankind up with it. Go ahead be selfish , see how far that gets you.

You like to be vague. But you won't admit the specifics that what you are really talking about is justifying, discrminating against poor white guys.

YOu are trying to justify your policy but you won't admit the cost.

Because you know that it is immoral, what you want.

 

[Stann]

You like to be vague. But you won't admit the specifics that what you are really talking about is justifying, discrminating against poor white guys.

YOu are trying to justify your policy but you won't admit the cost.

Because you know that it is immoral, what you want.

Whatever be an asshole all you want. I'll have no part of it. You're not worth any more trouble. You just can't learn from the mistakes of our past.

 

[Correll]

Whatever be an asshole all you want. I'll have no part of it. You're not worth any more trouble. You just can't learn from the mistakes of our past.

Dude. If you really believed what you were saying, you would admit what the action is, that you are trying to justify.


The way that you are denying it, while trying to justify it, is you being too cowardly to be honest about your policy.



YOu do that, because the moment that anyone really thinks about your policy, they realize that it is completely immoral and unjust.


AND YOU KNOW THAT. YOU JUST DON'T CARE.

 

[Nostra]

Hey TheProgressivePatriot can you provide examples of awesome DEI hires?

Hey IM2 can you provide a list of awesome DEI hires?

He can’t, so I’ll open this up to anyone.

Anyone have a list? A single example?

Hey Stann can you provide a list of awesome DEI HIRES?

: crickets: from
Stann
IM2
TheProgressivePatriot

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Oh, he ain't all black people now, that one there is one fucked up bird.

.

He ain't even one black person. A whiny self-loathing white.


.

 

[Stann]

Dude. If you really believed what you were saying, you would admit what the action is, that you are trying to justify.


The way that you are denying it, while trying to justify it, is you being too cowardly to be honest about your policy.



YOu do that, because the moment that anyone really thinks about your policy, they realize that it is completely immoral and unjust.


AND YOU KNOW THAT. YOU JUST DON'T CARE.

Unlike you I actually do care about everyone. You do not.

 

[Stann]

That too. He's isn't admitting ANYTHING, so no real discussion can take place.

You mean I'm not having your conversation. That's true , I want no part of this latest bullshit.

 

[Stann]

: crickets: from
Stann
IM2
TheProgressivePatriot

Not playing your dick games.