Evers angered Republicans in the ways he used partial vetoes, with some saying Wednesday that the Democratic governor was going back on deals he had made with them.
Evers was unable to undo the $32 million cut to the University of Wisconsin, which was funding that Republicans said would have gone toward diversity, equity and inclusion — or DEI — programming and staff.
How on earth do you justify cutting funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion?? Are those not things we as a country want to promote?
Conservatism has never been about conserving “things”, it’s always been about conserving power.
That’s what conservatism has stood for since its inception. The conservation of power by the rich elites. A conservative voter is basically a monarchist.
Almost literally, as conservatism as an ideology was created as a backlash to the French Revolution, except instead of worshiping bloodlines, it worships wealth. Which is often the same thing, but is slightly more open to new wealth joining the cause, and then that new wealth helping to keep everyone else poor.
Sort of, but they’re working so hard to undo progress that has already been made. They’re not just opposed to new things, they’re actively working to make things worse.
There’s a large base of people who think DEI initiatives are unnecessary. I agree with you in that the United States ought to strive for promoting these ideas, programs and staff - but there’s a huge push back from many people.
A common argument I’ll always fall into is the idea that if you work hard, you’ll be successful - no matter who you are and what you look like. We know this isn’t always true and it’s why we have DEI initiatives.
To the people who don’t want to promote it, I’m not sure how they can justify it.
I think some people fail to realize (or care) that not everyone comes from the same starting point. Imagine a foot race; if one person starts out 40 yards from the finish line, while another person starts 100 yards away, it doesn’t matter if the second person tries twice as hard and runs twice as fast, they still finish behind the first person. Unfortunately people from more impoverished communities and backgrounds tend to be like the second person with further to run.
That depends entirely on who you ask, and what they think this country is or should be. Diversity and inclusion represent an uncontested societal boon, unless you think there’s a ‘correct’ or ‘default’ ethnicity or heritage.
If it was your job to hand out food to people who needed it, and you showed up to town and saw on your left a bunch of starving people on the verge of death desperately needing food and on the right a bunch of fat people sitting at a picnic table, eating tons of food.
Do you think it would be fair to give them both the same amount of food?
Yes, it would be equal, but it would not be equitable or moral, and that’s the difference between equality and equity. Equality is nice on paper, but nearly
Impossible in an already unequal society.
Yes, that would be a form of equity, and if people would start seeing money as a tool instead of a real life global high score, we’d be so much better off.
How on earth do you justify cutting funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion?? Are those not things we as a country want to promote?
I can’t tell if this is a serious question. I mean, have you met Republicans?
Not if you are a conservative.
We cannot keep calling them “conservative.” Abolishing standards has nothing to do with conservatism.
Conservatism has never been about conserving “things”, it’s always been about conserving power.
That’s what conservatism has stood for since its inception. The conservation of power by the rich elites. A conservative voter is basically a monarchist.
Almost literally, as conservatism as an ideology was created as a backlash to the French Revolution, except instead of worshiping bloodlines, it worships wealth. Which is often the same thing, but is slightly more open to new wealth joining the cause, and then that new wealth helping to keep everyone else poor.
They are the opposite of progressives. They are regressives.
The correct Term would be “reactionary”
Sort of, but they’re working so hard to undo progress that has already been made. They’re not just opposed to new things, they’re actively working to make things worse.
Instead of calling them the Grand Old Party (GOP), can we just call them for what they are, the Fascist American Party (FAP)?
There’s a large base of people who think DEI initiatives are unnecessary. I agree with you in that the United States ought to strive for promoting these ideas, programs and staff - but there’s a huge push back from many people.
A common argument I’ll always fall into is the idea that if you work hard, you’ll be successful - no matter who you are and what you look like. We know this isn’t always true and it’s why we have DEI initiatives.
To the people who don’t want to promote it, I’m not sure how they can justify it.
I think some people fail to realize (or care) that not everyone comes from the same starting point. Imagine a foot race; if one person starts out 40 yards from the finish line, while another person starts 100 yards away, it doesn’t matter if the second person tries twice as hard and runs twice as fast, they still finish behind the first person. Unfortunately people from more impoverished communities and backgrounds tend to be like the second person with further to run.
Promote? Sure. Spend millions of tax dollars? Not necessary.
That depends entirely on who you ask, and what they think this country is or should be. Diversity and inclusion represent an uncontested societal boon, unless you think there’s a ‘correct’ or ‘default’ ethnicity or heritage.
Equity is the problem. Replace equity with equality and I’d agree with you.
Well, that’s a ridiculous take.
If it was your job to hand out food to people who needed it, and you showed up to town and saw on your left a bunch of starving people on the verge of death desperately needing food and on the right a bunch of fat people sitting at a picnic table, eating tons of food.
Do you think it would be fair to give them both the same amount of food?
Yes, it would be equal, but it would not be equitable or moral, and that’s the difference between equality and equity. Equality is nice on paper, but nearly Impossible in an already unequal society.
Take from the rich, give to the poor.
Yes, that would be a form of equity, and if people would start seeing money as a tool instead of a real life global high score, we’d be so much better off.
Seems like a waste of tax dollars to me. We can promote it without throwing money at it.
I know, this will upset those who want to get paid to do it.