Something about leopards and face eating

Face eating leopards will eat everyone's faces.
There are no exceptions.

There wasn't a major pro gay Republican candidate until 2015

Like if anything the US collectively is getting more progressive

I'm not sure what planet planet your living on my guy, cause I have never in my life seen more racist and bigoted rhetoric being openly spewed in the last 16 years of my life than within the last year

Deporting people isn't "racist"

Literally every single other country in the world does it and no one bats an eye

"Well this guy also does it, so I'm not in the wrong."
Also, lets not pretend like the DEI thing isn't rooted in some bad stuff. Trump paid respects to the Ronald Reagan airport crash for 5 seconds before IMMEDIATLY going "It was the minorities fault!"

It is a tu quoqoe fallacy but I think it applies because leftists tend to claim it's a problem specifically with America

And that's Trump being f**king Trump, I am not a huge fan of him
I oppose DEI because it's actually just stupid and racist

The reason they are mostly talking about America is because they live in America. They wouldn't have much say in what other countries do. Also, for the most part, DEI isn't "I will hire you souly for you being black", it's "I can't be discriminatory and refuse to hire you souly because your black"

The term "diversity, equity, and inclusion" specifically refers to hiring practices.

Anti-discrimination laws are already literally covered in the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Yes, not being discriminatory while hiring affects hiring practices, I wasn't arguing that it wasn't, I was saying that it's not what people think it is.
Also, DEI isn't just a race and sex thing, it also promotes veterans with physical disabilities and people of a separate gender identity and sexuality, things not addressed by the civil rights act

The objective of DEI is to include diversity within a workplace.

The problem is that it assumes diversity to be good. It can be, but it's really not necessary in most cases. I don't want a disabled person working in, say, a fire department, even if it "promotes diversity". Because someone inadequate at a job like that could lose lives. And I don't give a shit if you're straight, gay, bi or trans - only if you can meet the standard that a job requires.

When you create a standard of hiring which is above skill, you create an incentive for a system which is no longer meritocratic. And it also often tries to "fix" problems that are not even that big. The problem with that is that it usually ends up overcorrecting - which, in turn, results in an even greater amount of discrimination.

DEI practices don't just go on with ignoring characteristics of people and treat everyone equally. They are literally incentivized to promote minorities over others. For example, imagine being a teacher in a high school. Fights often happen in the hallways, and the teacher is usually called on to stop the fighting. That creates an incentivize for the teachers being hired to generally be stronger or more physically active than normal. Then imagine a hiring program that decides to include people much more physically weaker than others, because of "diversity". That's what DEI is doing.

Okay, first of all, if someone physically can't do a job, obviously they shouldn't be in the job. But DEI isn't doing that. That's the main reason why Trump saying the crash was because of DEI was blatantly false, for example. You literally can't fly unless you meet a health standard, and to become a pilot or a flight control operator is is extremely difficult as it is. They aren't shoving someone who physically can't do that job into that job.

Also, you may see the LGBTQ that way, but many hirers don't, that's the whole reason it's a thing, because many wouldn't hire them despite the fact they are qualified because they're queer. You can meet all the standards out there, but if the hirer is a bigot, you won't get hired.

Yes, it is creating an incentive to hire diverse people, but there is always the assumption that the person who is being hired ISN'T also qualified. It's a strawman argument to say that someone who was hired because of DEI was put above someone who is more qualified. There are so many more factors that go into that. They aren't hiring bumbling bafoons because tey are a minority while not hiring an ultra genius, that just doesn't happen.

Teachers are hired for their ability to teach primarily. Going purely off physical ability in that situation is ignoring that the minority being hired could be better at the thing their job surrounds, to teach. That's a strawman that ignores the other numerous details and factors that go into that.