You’re right, but one thing I’d like to point out about nature of voting in a democracy (and this isn’t about immigration itself): voter turnout is never 100% for anything, and winners are often decided by a handful (local elections) or couple of thousands of votes (state, federal).

Do you think that if leftists completely dropped any support for DEI and CRT that their opponents would suddenly support programs that aggressively attack wealth inequality?

No, but US wealth inequality is going to worsen now because of the US Dept. of Education being gutted, which is worse than DEI going away. I think education and welfare programs will make easier policies for majority of voters to vote for. More of the US population is poor than a minority of some kind. The danger I was alarmed by (admittedly a knee jerk reaction) is that increasing polarization is going to be used by authoritarians to win and install their own preferred systems. Poverty reducing efforts like in the Nordic model will be popular, but also something some types of politicians cannot favor because of their prior party stance.

Not me.

You’re right, that’s why Title VII and VIII were written to address those aspects

I meant politicians will abuse the intention of these policies to gain favor from poor white voters, and that nation state actors will cause polarization by highlighting the growing discontent in various ways.

I think policies in the Nordic model are more along those lines, tbh.

I am not angry about anything, and I didn’t look them up now, tbh. The issue I find is that well-meaning and useful policies are painted as something they’re not, or used by others to create polarization. So, my pov is that leftists and progressives are better off focusing on poverty alleviation. If minorities face generational wealth issues (they do) then poverty alleviation policies that don’t single them out in particular will be harder to attack by political opponents.

Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:

So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.

The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.

I added it.

Okay, I’ll add those.

It’s in the OP.

Look, if I am wrong I want to know. I said I won’t respond to those posts because it’s not meant to be an argument.

It’s shared in the OP.

No, I am giving you a pithy example of how people will say there isn’t any systemic racism.

I never said that there aren’t racists, but when you have anti-discrimination policies in place, the public believes that there isn’t “systemic racism”. So then the problem becomes that putting policies into place which favor minorities makes it seem like “only minorities are being favored”. That creates divisions and polarization. That’s separate from the issue that nation state actors will use this polarization to create issues in democracies.

That’s why, the best way forward for leftists is to favor policies which target systemic issues for the poor.

Maybe you’re right, and it’s too bad they did away with DEI before we got get any stats on its usefulness for the overall population. I remember that corporates starting removing DEI way before Trump started talking about it because they didn’t find that it did anything which contributed to their growth or leadership.

Edit this article shows why some people think removing DEI is racist. It’s true that anti-DEI is often favored by racist people as well.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-01/why-companies-are-scaling-back-dei-in-america

So if the “system” is racist, then why are some of the highest ranks in the current U.S. administration staffed by POC?

The only people who are not bothered by being called a racist or bigot are actually those things. If I had to guess these people know I am not those things, but they just don’t like what I’ve said. My guess is that it’s probably .ml alt accounts.

How can I convince you I am not a bigot or racist?

I agree with all of that, I’ve said similar things myself. I think the problem is that globalism changed the equation, and that’s why you now have Indian Americans who are a core part of Trump’s admin.

If anti-racial people keep saying that the system is rigged against minorities, then rich minorities are always going to be used as counterexamples. Because that’s the reality now, the power structures favor the wealthy, regardless of race, gender, or any other characteristic.

People trying to protect DEI and CRT will just come across as out of touch with reality, and appear as wanting favoritism, especially as the population of poor whites is also growing. If democrats want to win more elections, they should put forth policies that are in the Nordic model so that they help everyone. If anti-racists and inclusive folks want to build a better future for minorities, they have to think outside of the CRT/DEI box because the system now is not unfavorable to minorities, only the poor.

You’re using these labels against me because you want to bully me into being quiet. Because unless someone expresses the same fanatical and extremist beliefs then they’re a bigot. You’re a bigot.