Charlie Kirk getting destroyed in debates

[jmdrake]

Agree. You brought up HBCUs, but it wasn't clear that it was an analogy. It seemed like an attempt to change the subject.

I am not debating HBCUs, so you have been debating yourself on the issue. I know and agree that HBCUs don't ban white people (or other non-blacks) by policy, or in practice. And I have in no way stated or implied that as a gross generalization that black people exclude white people.

But the fact remains that "black affinity housing" is a specific and separate case from your various other situations. The reality is, that in practice, white people are not living in "black affinity housing", no matter what the "official policy" may be.

If no white people choose to try to live in black affinity housing that's on them. If you wish to prove discrimination, which seems to be what you are wanting to prove, you need to find an instance of a white person who tried to get into black affinity housing and was denied. Otherwise this is just BS. In 1990 when Shoal Creek Country Club was planning on hosting the PGA, someone, on a whim, asked them if they had any black members. They came out and said they didn't allow blacks. (Yes that's legal for a private club to do.) If they said "Sure we allow blacks but none have applied" they would have had to risk a black person joining. Ultimately they changed there policy and asked a black person to join to avoid a boycott. So, this isn't hard. Rather than "asking Grok", if you want to prove whatever it is you're trying to prove you need to get a white person to try to get into a black affinity dorm. It shouldn't be that hard to do.

 

[sdsubball23]

The Greek widows (that's diversity) complained about not getting enough of the poor fund (that's equity) so they complained to the appostles who set up the office of deacon and all 7 of the first deacons had Greek names (that's inclusion.)


That's nice. But if you think your personal experience defines the entire world that's pretty myopic. I gave an example of how United Airlines used a DEI initiative to solve their pilot shortage problem by creating a training pipeline reaching out to untapped talent pools rather than just trying to hire other pilots from other airlines or from overseas.



You know the early Christian church was socialist as well right? A core tenant of Marxism is "from everyone according to his ability to everyone according to his need."

Act 4:32-35

"32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Now Jesus also talked about stewardship being "each according to his ability" (Matthew 25:15) but that wasn't about personal gain but rather working for the kingdom. There's absolutely nothing wrong with voluntary socialism. The problem comes when it's forced from a barrel of a gun rather than from the workings of the Holy Spirit and/or within loving community. In fact the poor fund mentioned in Act 6 was an outgrowth of the voluntary socialism in Acts 4.

For Acts 6, I think the concepts of diversity are present for sure, but I don't think this is the same as the DEI we have had to deal with in our country which has been based on a concerted effort to promote and pressure people into diversity. The diversity that occurred in that time was natural and God-ordained. Out of love for God and each other, the Christians were inclusive of other races from their region, not because they were trying to promote DEI.

I personally don't think the church was socialist. Socialism implies an organized effort towards common ownership. In Acts 4, there were needs within the church at Jerusalem, so the church decided to help each other out, but they didn't create a system of governance where everyone was forced to share ownership of their property and possessions. Acts 4 is just one example of how the church helped those in need. Everyone gave according their abilities when a need arose (see 1 Corinthians 16:1-3). We can learn from this and do the same for those in need in the church.

There's nothing wrong with diversity, it's been around for thousands of years. Forcing diversity through DEI programs is what I'm against. Let diveristy happen naturally and whenever it wants to.

 

[jmdrake]

For Acts 6, I think the concepts of diversity are present for sure, but I don't think this is the same as the DEI we have had to deal with in our country which has been based on a concerted effort to promote and pressure people into diversity. The diversity that occurred in that time was natural and God-ordained. Out of love for God and each other, the Christians were inclusive of other races from their region, not because they were trying to promote DEI.

In 2025 the Trump administration attempted to remove the Tuskegee Airmen and the WASPs from the U.S. Air Force training manual in the name of "promoting DEI."

One of last surviving Tuskegee Airmen criticizes Trump’s DEI purge

“I’ll tell him, ‘You’re a racist,’" Tuskegee Airman Col. James H. Harvey III said of the president's efforts to purge federal diversity programs.

www.militarytimes.com

Please explain to me how you or anybody else was hurt by learning about black and women military pilots in World War 2.

The Bible specifically mentioned Moses having a black wife and Miriam being struck with leprosy for complaining about it. Using your belief system combined with the way Donald Trump has attack any mention of blacks in military history (and there are MANY examples of this), the Bible is "wrong" because it gives an example of Miriam being "pressured" into accepting interracial marriage. Solomon wrote in Song Of Solomon about his lover being criticized for having dark skin. I guess that's another book of the Bible you would throw out.

I personally don't think the church was socialist. Socialism implies an organized effort towards common ownership. In Acts 4, there were needs within the church at Jerusalem, so the church decided to help each other out, but they didn't create a system of governance where everyone was forced to share ownership of their property and possessions. Acts 4 is just one example of how the church helped those in need. Everyone gave according their abilities when a need arose (see 1 Corinthians 16:1-3). We can learn from this and do the same for those in need in the church.

The Bible literally says "they held all things in common." That means there was an "organized effort towards common ownership." Further evidence of organization was the creation of the Deacon board, which I just mentioned. Yes it was 100% voluntary. That is despite the fact that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by the Holy Spirit for keeping back a portion of the money from the land they sold and lying about it. Peter clearly said "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Note that this story was between Acts 4 (the beginning of holding things in common) and Acts 6 (the creation of the Deacon board). That's why in this story they brought the money and "laid it at the apostles' feet." (Acts 5:2). In the original "organized effort towards common ownership" the Apostles collected and distributed the money directly. In Acts 6 the Deacons were put in charge of all of that. That's why in modern churches today the Deacons will collect tithes and offering. The "distributing to everyone in need" is what is missing. Yes there's a poor fund and most churches have food pantries and may sometimes pay a light bill. But that's not the same. As you say "We can learn from this and do the same for those in need in the church." You know what happens in many Western European countries today? The state takes care of the needy not just with tax financed foot (like the U.S.) and tax financed housing (sort of like the U.S. but quite limited), but tax financed education and a much more generous unemployment program. That's all socialism. That's what conservatives fight tooth and nail not to have happen here in the U.S. And forced socialism can lead to disastrous results. But voluntary socialism is an entirely different thing.

Voluntary socialism exists. There's even a name for it "anarcho socialism." And you can find examples of this. A kibbutz is socialist. So were the old hippie communes. The early Christian church was organized along a similar model. You're upset by it because of your own prejudice against the idea of socialism. But it is authoritarianism that makes socialism evil. If you listen to Christian radio you've probably heard of "Medishare." That's a Christian based healthcare cooperative. That's another examples of (limited) Christian voluntary socialism. Just because the socialism was voluntary doesn't mean there weren't rules. Rule 1, don't lie about your contribution. (See: Ananias and Sapphira). Rule 2. don't be lazy and just mooch off of others. (2 Thessalonians 3:10 "If a man does not work he should not eat.") That verse only makes sense in a Christian socialist framework. Paul wasn't talking about recipients of state welfare needing to work because state welfare didn't exist in the Roman empire and even if it did exist, Christians, who were being persecuted, would not qualify. It also doesn't make sense in a purely capitalist framework because people who are rich enough can eat and do all sorts of other things without working. It only makes sense if you're talking about someone in a system where his or her needs are taken care of just by virtue of membership in that system but then doesn't contribute anything to it.

Ultimately true Christians will be forced to return to a form of Christian socialism. When the "mark of the beast" is implemented, true Christians will not be able to engage in commerce (buy or sell). The only way to survive at that point will be to form voluntary Christian socialist cooperatives. You cannot be a capitalist without access to capital. When your bank account is wiped out and gold is made illegal to own (gold bullion was illegal to own in the U.S. from 1933 to 1974), and all crypto currency is forced to be auditable (that's on the way right now thanks to Trump), then Christians will have to rely on each other to take care of our needs. In fact persecution is the most likely explanation for the rise of voluntary socialism in the early Christian church.

There's nothing wrong with diversity, it's been around for thousands of years. Forcing diversity through DEI programs is what I'm against. Let diveristy happen naturally and whenever it wants to.

Acts 6 was by definition a "diversity program." You can pretend all you want that this was not the case, but that's what it was. And it wasn't just diversity, it was affirmative action and it had a "Greek speaking quota" built in. To bring it home to modern times, if you went to a church that had a large influx of refugees who spoke another language and the church board voted that at least 50% of the deacons needed to speak that language that would be a form of affirmative action. In the case of the early church 100% of the first deacons spoke Greek.

 

[jmdrake]

Agree. You brought up HBCUs, but it wasn't clear that it was an analogy. It seemed like an attempt to change the subject.

I am not debating HBCUs, so you have been debating yourself on the issue. I know and agree that HBCUs don't ban white people (or other non-blacks) by policy, or in practice. And I have in no way stated or implied that as a gross generalization that black people exclude white people.

But the fact remains that "black affinity housing" is a specific and separate case from your various other situations. The reality is, that in practice, white people are not living in "black affinity housing", no matter what the "official policy" may be.

Grok is not perfect by any means, and it's analysis is often flawed, but it can usually find examples when asked.

Q: Can you find any examples of white people living in black affinity housing.

Grok: No, based on extensive searches across news articles, university websites, academic studies, and discussions on platforms like Reddit, there are no documented examples of a publicly named white student who has lived in a black affinity dorm.

One more thing. Without an example of a single white person who has attempted to apply to "black affinity housing" and was denied, your argument lacks standing. You just can't claim "Discrimination" without an actual example of a particular person being discriminated against. In the case the all white "Return To The Land" community, the Hodge Twins have standing because they asked to be admitted and were denied. (They are too "buck broken" to sue). Since you and @TheTexan are so fond of Grok, I asked it about the discrimination investigation of the University Of Alabama's Greek program in 2013 and specifically brought up the question of "standing" and a comparison with a possible investigation of "black affinity housing." This is the response (note that my prompts is in italics, underlined and bold):

How did discrimination in Greek fraternities and sororities last until 2013 at the University of Alabama? What role did the legal principal of standing play in addressing this? And how does this compare to black affinity dorms? Specifically address the question of whether blacks applied to admission to Greek organizations and were denied and if such an application is required to legally challenge perceived discrimination in Greek organizations or "black affinity housing." Please be brief (under 1,000 words).

In 2013, the University of Alabama’s Greek system faced intense scrutiny for racial discrimination, particularly in its historically white sororities, which had systematically excluded Black women from membership. This issue, rooted in a long history of segregation, persisted due to a combination of institutional inertia, alumnae influence, and legal challenges related to standing. Below, I address the key points of your question, including the role of standing, comparisons to Black affinity dorms, and the necessity of applications for legal challenges.Persistence of Discrimination in Greek Life Until 2013Discrimination in the University of Alabama’s Greek system endured due to several factors:

1. Historical Legacy of Segregation: The university’s Greek system, like much of the South, was shaped by a history of racial segregation. Even after the university’s integration in 1963, Greek organizations remained largely segregated, with historically white sororities and fraternities maintaining all-white memberships. This was reinforced by traditions and social norms that resisted change.
   
   
   
2. Alumnae Influence: In 2013, the student newspaper The Crimson White reported that alumnae of white sororities blocked Black women from receiving bids, despite strong qualifications and support from current members. Alumnae wielded significant power, including threats to withdraw financial support if Black women were admitted, perpetuating discriminatory practices.
   
   
   
3. Lack of Administrative Oversight: Prior to 2013, the university administration had not taken decisive action to address segregation in Greek life. The absence of proactive measures allowed discriminatory practices to continue unchecked, despite federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
   
   
   
4. Cultural and Social Barriers: The Greek system’s recruitment process, known as “rush,” was opaque and relied on subjective criteria, which facilitated discriminatory decisions. Social pressures and the desire to maintain traditional chapter identities further discouraged integration.
   
   

The issue gained national attention in 2013 when two Black women, including the step-granddaughter of a university trustee, were denied bids to white sororities solely based on race. This prompted public outcry and university action, including policy changes to allow continuous open bidding and increase sorority membership caps to facilitate integration.



Role of Legal StandingLegal standing, the requirement that a plaintiff demonstrate a concrete injury, causation, and redressability to bring a lawsuit, played a significant role in addressing discrimination in Greek organizations. To challenge discriminatory practices under laws like Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (prohibiting discrimination in federally funded programs) or the Fair Housing Act (FHA), a plaintiff must show they were directly harmed—typically by applying and being denied membership due to race.

• Application and Denial: In 2013, evidence confirmed that Black women applied to white sororities at Alabama and were denied bids explicitly because of their race. For example, a highly qualified Black student was rejected despite excellent recruitment scores, with sorority members citing alumnae interference. This clear instance of application and denial provided the necessary standing for potential legal challenges, as it demonstrated a specific injury (denial of membership) caused by racial discrimination.
  
  
  
• Legal Implications: The U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice investigated these allegations in 2013, indicating that the documented denials could support claims under anti-discrimination laws. The university’s swift response—implementing an action plan to combat discrimination—likely preempted formal lawsuits by addressing the issue administratively.
  
  

Without an application and subsequent denial, it would be difficult to establish standing, as courts require evidence of a tangible harm. Hypothetical or generalized claims of discrimination (e.g., “I didn’t apply because I knew I’d be rejected”) typically lack the specificity needed for legal action.

Comparison to Black Affinity DormsBlack affinity dorms, or housing designed to foster community among Black students, differ significantly from Greek organizations in purpose, structure, and legal context:

1. Purpose and Access: Black affinity dorms aim to provide supportive environments for underrepresented students, often in response to historical exclusion from campus life. They are typically open to all students but prioritize Black students’ cultural needs. In contrast, historically white Greek organizations at Alabama in 2013 actively excluded Black applicants, maintaining racial homogeneity.
   
   
   
2. Legal Framework: Greek housing, often university-affiliated or on-campus, may be subject to the Fair Housing Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in housing. A 2013 study suggested that segregated Greek housing could violate the FHA, as it did at Alabama, where Black applicants were denied access. Black affinity dorms, however, are not typically restrictive; they do not exclude based on race but rather offer optional, culturally focused housing. Thus, they are less likely to face FHA challenges unless they explicitly deny non-Black applicants, which is rare.
   
   
   
3. Application and Legal Challenges: To challenge discrimination in Black affinity dorms, a non-Black student would need to apply for residence and be denied based on race to establish standing. Without such an application and denial, a legal challenge would likely fail due to lack of concrete injury. Similarly, for Greek organizations, Black students needed to apply and be denied to pursue legal action, as seen in the 2013 Alabama case. The key difference lies in intent: Greek organizations excluded to maintain racial exclusivity, while affinity dorms aim to include and support.

Necessity of Application for Legal ChallengesFor both Greek organizations and Black affinity housing, an application and denial are generally required to establish standing for a legal challenge:

• Greek Organizations: The 2013 Alabama case demonstrated that Black students who applied and were denied membership due to race had standing to challenge discrimination under laws like Title VI or the FHA. Without applying, potential plaintiffs would struggle to prove they suffered a specific injury, as courts do not typically entertain speculative claims.
  
  
  
  
  
• Black Affinity Housing: Similarly, a legal challenge to Black affinity dorms would require a non-Black student to apply, be denied, and demonstrate that the denial was racially motivated. Since these dorms are generally inclusive, such denials are uncommon, making legal challenges rare.

ConclusionDiscrimination in Alabama’s Greek system persisted until 2013 due to historical segregation, alumnae influence, and inadequate administrative oversight. The legal principle of standing required Black students to apply and be denied membership to challenge these practices, as seen in the 2013 cases that spurred reform. Black affinity dorms, designed to support rather than exclude, face different legal scrutiny but also require an application and denial for a viable discrimination claim. The 2013 Alabama case underscores how documented denials were critical to exposing and addressing systemic racism in Greek life, while affinity housing operates under a distinct, inclusive framework.

Word count: 498

 

[sdsubball23]

In 2025 the Trump administration attempted to remove the Tuskegee Airmen and the WASPs from the U.S. Air Force training manual in the name of "promoting DEI."

One of last surviving Tuskegee Airmen criticizes Trump’s DEI purge

“I’ll tell him, ‘You’re a racist,’" Tuskegee Airman Col. James H. Harvey III said of the president's efforts to purge federal diversity programs.

www.militarytimes.com

Please explain to me how you or anybody else was hurt by learning about black and women military pilots in World War 2.

The Bible specifically mentioned Moses having a black wife and Miriam being struck with leprosy for complaining about it. Using your belief system combined with the way Donald Trump has attack any mention of blacks in military history (and there are MANY examples of this), the Bible is "wrong" because it gives an example of Miriam being "pressured" into accepting interracial marriage. Solomon wrote in Song Of Solomon about his lover being criticized for having dark skin. I guess that's another book of the Bible you would throw out.

The Bible literally says "they held all things in common." That means there was an "organized effort towards common ownership." Further evidence of organization was the creation of the Deacon board, which I just mentioned. Yes it was 100% voluntary. That is despite the fact that Ananias and Sapphira were struck down by the Holy Spirit for keeping back a portion of the money from the land they sold and lying about it. Peter clearly said "Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God." Note that this story was between Acts 4 (the beginning of holding things in common) and Acts 6 (the creation of the Deacon board). That's why in this story they brought the money and "laid it at the apostles' feet." (Acts 5:2). In the original "organized effort towards common ownership" the Apostles collected and distributed the money directly. In Acts 6 the Deacons were put in charge of all of that. That's why in modern churches today the Deacons will collect tithes and offering. The "distributing to everyone in need" is what is missing. Yes there's a poor fund and most churches have food pantries and may sometimes pay a light bill. But that's not the same. As you say "We can learn from this and do the same for those in need in the church." You know what happens in many Western European countries today? The state takes care of the needy not just with tax financed foot (like the U.S.) and tax financed housing (sort of like the U.S. but quite limited), but tax financed education and a much more generous unemployment program. That's all socialism. That's what conservatives fight tooth and nail not to have happen here in the U.S. And forced socialism can lead to disastrous results. But voluntary socialism is an entirely different thing.

Voluntary socialism exists. There's even a name for it "anarcho socialism." And you can find examples of this. A kibbutz is socialist. So were the old hippie communes. The early Christian church was organized along a similar model. You're upset by it because of your own prejudice against the idea of socialism. But it is authoritarianism that makes socialism evil. If you listen to Christian radio you've probably heard of "Medishare." That's a Christian based healthcare cooperative. That's another examples of (limited) Christian voluntary socialism. Just because the socialism was voluntary doesn't mean there weren't rules. Rule 1, don't lie about your contribution. (See: Ananias and Sapphira). Rule 2. don't be lazy and just mooch off of others. (2 Thessalonians 3:10 "If a man does not work he should not eat.") That verse only makes sense in a Christian socialist framework. Paul wasn't talking about recipients of state welfare needing to work because state welfare didn't exist in the Roman empire and even if it did exist, Christians, who were being persecuted, would not qualify. It also doesn't make sense in a purely capitalist framework because people who are rich enough can eat and do all sorts of other things without working. It only makes sense if you're talking about someone in a system where his or her needs are taken care of just by virtue of membership in that system but then doesn't contribute anything to it.

Ultimately true Christians will be forced to return to a form of Christian socialism. When the "mark of the beast" is implemented, true Christians will not be able to engage in commerce (buy or sell). The only way to survive at that point will be to form voluntary Christian socialist cooperatives. You cannot be a capitalist without access to capital. When your bank account is wiped out and gold is made illegal to own (gold bullion was illegal to own in the U.S. from 1933 to 1974), and all crypto currency is forced to be auditable (that's on the way right now thanks to Trump), then Christians will have to rely on each other to take care of our needs. In fact persecution is the most likely explanation for the rise of voluntary socialism in the early Christian church.




Acts 6 was by definition a "diversity program." You can pretend all you want that this was not the case, but that's what it was. And it wasn't just diversity, it was affirmative action and it had a "Greek speaking quota" built in. To bring it home to modern times, if you went to a church that had a large influx of refugees who spoke another language and the church board voted that at least 50% of the deacons needed to speak that language that would be a form of affirmative action. In the case of the early church 100% of the first deacons spoke Greek.

I didn't know about what Trump did, but it was part of his efforts to remove DEI from the federal govt. I'm all for removing DEI due to what I've already stated before. I don't think his intent is to remove non-white history, it's to remove the "authoritarian" efforts to force DEI onto our country for the eventual goal of destroying western civilization and implementing socialism and communism in our country. This is the DEI that's I'm against. I'm not against diversity. Perhaps the Air Force made a mistake with the initial removal of Tuskegee Airmen and WASPs.

I feel as if you are misunderstanding me on diversity. Just to be clear, I'm against "Forced" DEI and diversity, where people get persecuted and canceled if they don't accept DEI. I'm not against diversity in general. I just think it should happen naturally, not by force. I don't think we need DEI programs for diversity.

I think you are correct that I have a prejudice against socialism. It probably just stems from a narrow view I have of socialism always being authoritarian. But what you describe about different aspects of socialism doesn't look bad at all and I can agree with you on those aspects. I'm not against people voluntarily sharing with each other, as long as it's voluntary, and if that's called socialism to you. then so be it. I have just defined it differently. I'm just against the political movement of socialism where the country is forced to implement it as an economic policy and implement communism as the type of government. When I see European countries have different gov't programs such as free education, I see that as capitalism with high taxes rather than socialism because socialism to me would imply an economic policy in place. I'm not opposed to that as long it works for everyone and doesn't cause other issues.

I still disagree with you on your DEI views of those biblical texts. I see no promotion or forced acceptance of DEI in Acts 6. The context of those verses show that there was a need within the church and the church found a way to resolve those needs. They didn't purposely try to diversify the church as our modern DEI practices seem to promote. They were already naturally diverse. The church didn't go looking for Greek speakers. Greek was the common language of that region. Most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek. If anything, these verses help prove that it's ok to be diverse in the church.

 

[Invisible Man]

I don't think his intent is to remove non-white history, it's to remove the "authoritarian" efforts to force DEI onto our country for the eventual goal of destroying western civilization and implementing socialism and communism in our country.

Trump is not motivated by ideological principles like that.

 

[jmdrake]

I didn't know about what Trump did, but it was part of his efforts to remove DEI from the federal govt. I'm all for removing DEI due to what I've already stated before. I don't think his intent is to remove non-white history, it's to remove the "authoritarian" efforts to force DEI onto our country for the eventual goal of destroying western civilization and implementing socialism and communism in our country. This is the DEI that's I'm against. I'm not against diversity. Perhaps the Air Force made a mistake with the initial removal of Tuskegee Airmen and WASPs.

What you're engaging in is called circular resoning. You've narrowly defined DEI as "authoritaian" efforts with the goal of "destroying western civilization." And your ignoring actual examples of DEI that aren't authoritarian while giving Trump a complete pass on actual authoritiarianism.

Let's go back to the original example Charlie Kirk brought up in the video. Can you honestly debate that? United Airlines, facing a worldwide pilot shortage, decided to deal with the shortage and work to increase diversity at the same time by creating their own flight school and encouraging women and minorities to apply. The first class was 80% women and minorities which means white men were still allowed to attend. Tell me how is a private company implementing its own diveristy program "authoritarian" or how will it lead to destruction of western civilization?

And no. The airforce didn't make a "mistake" in removing the Tuskgee Airmen and the WASPs. That was deliberate. And the "eracism" (erasure racism) is still going on. Trump is trying to have exhibits removed from the African American history museum. Harriet Tubman was taken

I feel as if you are misunderstanding me on diversity. Just to be clear, I'm against "Forced" DEI and diversity, where people get persecuted and canceled if they don't accept DEI. I'm not against diversity in general. I just think it should happen naturally, not by force. I don't think we need DEI programs for diversity.

Again with the strawmen. Are you capable of actually discussing the United Airlines approach? Nobody was "persecuted" or "cancelled." You just made that up.

I think you are correct that I have a prejudice against socialism. It probably just stems from a narrow view I have of socialism always being authoritarian. But what you describe about different aspects of socialism doesn't look bad at all and I can agree with you on those aspects. I'm not against people voluntarily sharing with each other, as long as it's voluntary, and if that's called socialism to you. then so be it. I have just defined it differently. I'm just against the political movement of socialism where the country is forced to implement it as an economic policy and implement communism as the type of government. When I see European countries have different gov't programs such as free education, I see that as capitalism with high taxes rather than socialism because socialism to me would imply an economic policy in place. I'm not opposed to that as long it works for everyone and doesn't cause other issues.

United Airlines implemented voluntary DEI with its capitalism. It didn't cause any issues except in the minds of small minded people like Charlie Kirk (and you maybe though that's hard to tell because you keep arguing against a straw man.)

I still disagree with you on your DEI views of those biblical texts. I see no promotion or forced acceptance of DEI in Acts 6. The context of those verses show that there was a need within the church and the church found a way to resolve those needs. They didn't purposely try to diversify the church as our modern DEI practices seem to promote. They were already naturally diverse. The church didn't go looking for Greek speakers. Greek was the common language of that region. Most of the New Testament was originally written in Greek. If anything, these verses help prove that it's ok to be diverse in the church.

The Apostles did not speak Greek. They mostly spoke Aramaic. If everybody was speaking Greek then the Pentecost miracle of speaking in tongues would have been totally unnecessary.

Acts 2:5-8
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

You're basically making up arguments out of whole cloth to avoid an obvious conclusion that makes you uncomfortable. The diversity of the church didn't happen "naturally" as you falsely claim. It happened supernaturally by the will of God to give the apostles the gift of tongues in order to preach to multiple nationalities at the same time. God did the reverse of what He did at the Tower Of Babel. God ordained the diversity. The apostles then sought out men with Greek names to take leadership positions (inclusion) in order to make sure the poor fund was equitably distributed.

Now bring that home to 2025. America is naturally diverse as people from around the world have come here by choice or in the case of African slaves hundreds of years ago, by force. For various reasons there is inequity. Is every attempt address inequity legitimate? Of course not. But it's dishonest to pretend that attempts to address inequity similar to what happened Acts 6 aren't happening today. What United Airlines did is simply one example.

But let's go with your argument that everybody spoke Greek. That only weakens your argument because it means the reason the Greek widows were being neglected was not because of benign issues like a language barrier but rather straight up bigotry and ethnic prejudice.
Edit: I put the question to ChatGPT.
What are the likely reasons the Greek widows in Acts 6 were neglected?

Great question — Acts 6:1 describes a tension in the early Jerusalem church:

“In those days, when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food.”

Scholars and commentators usually identify several likely reasons why the Greek (Hellenistic) widows were neglected:

---

1.​

• The early church in Jerusalem included two Jewish groups:
  
  • Hebraic Jews: Aramaic-speaking, locally born, closely tied to temple and synagogue traditions.
  • Hellenistic Jews: Greek-speaking, often from the Jewish diaspora, more culturally “Greek” in outlook.
• Language barriers and cultural differences probably made the Hellenists feel like outsiders. Widows depending on communal care may have been unintentionally overlooked due to these divides.

---

2.​

• The church had grown explosively (Acts 2–5). Organizing food distribution for thousands was complex.
• Administrative gaps and lack of structure could easily have led to accidental neglect, especially of minorities less connected to the leadership networks.

---

3.​

• Hellenistic Jews were often immigrants or visitors who had settled in Jerusalem. Their widows may not have had extended family support or close community ties, unlike Hebraic widows who had kin nearby.
• This lack of embeddedness could have contributed to their being overlooked in food allocation.

---

4.​

• Although Luke does not accuse the Hebraic believers of deliberate discrimination, the complaint suggests at least a perception of favoritism.
• It’s possible unconscious bias or even subtle preference for “our own people” played a role.

---

5.​

• The daily distribution (“diakonia”) may have relied on informal neighborhood or synagogue networks. Hebraic widows were plugged into these networks, while Hellenistic widows were on the periphery.
• Without intentional inclusion, the Hellenists would be missed.

---

Summary​

The neglect of the Greek widows was most likely a combination of rapid church growth, cultural-linguistic differences, weaker family networks for immigrant widows, and possible bias. The apostles’ solution (appointing seven men—all with Greek names) shows they recognized both the reality of neglect and the need for trusted leaders from the Hellenistic group to ensure fairness.

 

[sdsubball23]

What you're engaging in is called circular resoning. You've narrowly defined DEI as "authoritaian" efforts with the goal of "destroying western civilization." And your ignoring actual examples of DEI that aren't authoritarian while giving Trump a complete pass on actual authoritiarianism.

Let's go back to the original example Charlie Kirk brought up in the video. Can you honestly debate that? United Airlines, facing a worldwide pilot shortage, decided to deal with the shortage and work to increase diversity at the same time by creating their own flight school and encouraging women and minorities to apply. The first class was 80% women and minorities which means white men were still allowed to attend. Tell me how is a private company implementing its own diveristy program "authoritarian" or how will it lead to destruction of western civilization?

And no. The airforce didn't make a "mistake" in removing the Tuskgee Airmen and the WASPs. That was deliberate. And the "eracism" (erasure racism) is still going on. Trump is trying to have exhibits removed from the African American history museum. Harriet Tubman was taken



Again with the strawmen. Are you capable of actually discussing the United Airlines approach? Nobody was "persecuted" or "cancelled." You just made that up.



United Airlines implemented voluntary DEI with its capitalism. It didn't cause any issues except in the minds of small minded people like Charlie Kirk (and you maybe though that's hard to tell because you keep arguing against a straw man.)



The Apostles did not speak Greek. They mostly spoke Aramaic. If everybody was speaking Greek then the Pentecost miracle of speaking in tongues would have been totally unnecessary.

Acts 2:5-8
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?

8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

You're basically making up arguments out of whole cloth to avoid an obvious conclusion that makes you uncomfortable. The diversity of the church didn't happen "naturally" as you falsely claim. It happened supernaturally by the will of God to give the apostles the gift of tongues in order to preach to multiple nationalities at the same time. God did the reverse of what He did at the Tower Of Babel. God ordained the diversity. The apostles then sought out men with Greek names to take leadership positions (inclusion) in order to make sure the poor fund was equitably distributed.

Now bring that home to 2025. America is naturally diverse as people from around the world have come here by choice or in the case of African slaves hundreds of years ago, by force. For various reasons there is inequity. Is every attempt address inequity legitimate? Of course not. But it's dishonest to pretend that attempts to address inequity similar to what happened Acts 6 aren't happening today. What United Airlines did is simply one example.

But let's go with your argument that everybody spoke Greek. That only weakens your argument because it means the reason the Greek widows were being neglected was not because of benign issues like a language barrier but rather straight up bigotry and ethnic prejudice.
Edit: I put the question to ChatGPT.
What are the likely reasons the Greek widows in Acts 6 were neglected?

Great question — Acts 6:1 describes a tension in the early Jerusalem church:



Scholars and commentators usually identify several likely reasons why the Greek (Hellenistic) widows were neglected:

---

1.​

• The early church in Jerusalem included two Jewish groups:
  • Hebraic Jews: Aramaic-speaking, locally born, closely tied to temple and synagogue traditions.
  • Hellenistic Jews: Greek-speaking, often from the Jewish diaspora, more culturally “Greek” in outlook.
• Language barriers and cultural differences probably made the Hellenists feel like outsiders. Widows depending on communal care may have been unintentionally overlooked due to these divides.

---

2.​

• The church had grown explosively (Acts 2–5). Organizing food distribution for thousands was complex.
• Administrative gaps and lack of structure could easily have led to accidental neglect, especially of minorities less connected to the leadership networks.

---

3.​

• Hellenistic Jews were often immigrants or visitors who had settled in Jerusalem. Their widows may not have had extended family support or close community ties, unlike Hebraic widows who had kin nearby.
• This lack of embeddedness could have contributed to their being overlooked in food allocation.

---

4.​

• Although Luke does not accuse the Hebraic believers of deliberate discrimination, the complaint suggests at least a perception of favoritism.
• It’s possible unconscious bias or even subtle preference for “our own people” played a role.

---

5.​

• The daily distribution (“diakonia”) may have relied on informal neighborhood or synagogue networks. Hebraic widows were plugged into these networks, while Hellenistic widows were on the periphery.
• Without intentional inclusion, the Hellenists would be missed.

---

Summary​

The neglect of the Greek widows was most likely a combination of rapid church growth, cultural-linguistic differences, weaker family networks for immigrant widows, and possible bias. The apostles’ solution (appointing seven men—all with Greek names) shows they recognized both the reality of neglect and the need for trusted leaders from the Hellenistic group to ensure fairness.

I have no intention of using circular reasonings or strawman arguments. I'm simply stating what I currently believe about DEI.

How do you define DEI?

This video sums up what I believe DEI is:



Read some of the comments on that video as well. It's possible we may be defining DEI differently. Most of us at RPF and people on the right see DEI as portrayed in the video.

I haven't looked into what Boeing did, but from Kirk's perspective, he was more concerned with whether Boeing lowered their hiring standards. That's a concern many of us have regarding DEI hiring practices. If the standards weren't lowered, then great. If they were, then that's concerning.

If a private business wants to use DEI for hiring that's up to them. But my concern has been that the whole country has been promoting DEI for the past 10-15 years or so and I think it's part of a greater Marxist movement to tear down western civilization. There is sometimes false information presented in the DEI trainings such as topics regarding white guilt, etc., that appear to blame white people for alleged shortcomings that minorities have. This sounds like Marxism to me.

See links below for proof that DEI has led to people who are against DEI, being canceled, reprimanded, threatened, etc. This shouldn't happen.

https://www.thecollegefix.com/hs-st...sing-preferred-pronouns-ripping-dei-measures/

https://www.ifs.org/news/federal-ju...y-professor-bruce-gilley-in-free-speech-case/

https://www.thecollegefix.com/liberal-professor-fired-after-protesting-his-universitys-dei-dogma/

https://www.thecollegefix.com/amher...-goes-after-student-following-anti-dei-op-ed/

I made a mistake assuming the church spoke Greek. I do believe some did speak Greek and the apostles must've understood Greek because they all read from the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) during that time. I think you are correct that they spoke Aramaic and maybe some Hebrew among each other.

Anyways, here is what I said earlier about diversity and DEI in Acts 6:

"For Acts 6, I think the concepts of diversity are present for sure, but I don't think this is the same as the DEI we have had to deal with in our country which has been based on a concerted effort to promote and pressure people into diversity. The diversity that occurred in that time was natural and God-ordained. Out of love for God and each other, the Christians were inclusive of other races from their region, not because they were trying to promote DEI. "

I specifically said diversity was God-ordained, but I also said it was natural. By natural I mean that the church saw diversity as normal and naturally became diverse rather than through an agenda or concerted efforts. They didn't purposely try to add more Greeks or Egyptians or whoever. They just naturally wanted them in the church because all races were welcome by God in the New Covenant.

The church didn't enact a DEI agenda to fulfill a need of helping the Greek widows. If you want to call that DEI, then more power to you. I don't see it as DEI, like the DEI we have today. There was no goal of meeting a specific quota in the church of having Greek speakers. They just found some within the church that could help them resolve an issue. In Today's DEI, it appears that there is a concerted effort to add more minorities to academics and businesses. Instead of letting it happen naturally, there are intentional in their efforts to try to hire minorities. The church did not function like that in the 1st century and should not function like that today.

 

[jmdrake]

I have no intention of using circular reasonings or strawman arguments. I'm simply stating what I currently believe about DEI.

How do you define DEI?

It's self explanatory. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.

This video sums up what I believe DEI is:

^That is like saying "Hitler was a nationalist so all nationalists are like Hitler." That is VERY DISHONEST. And that as being THE DEFINITION of DEI is debunked by Charlie Kirk in the video I posted in the OP. The program that HE DESCRIBED as DEI has NOTHING to do with the small subset of DEI in the above video.

Again, United Airlines, facing a worldwide pilot shortage, decided to kill to birds with one stone and hire more people and more minorities at the same time. They didn't take a damn thing away from white people. The recruited more women and minorities to train to become pilots. When are you going to actually discuss that as opposed to trying to come up with other DEI programs to attack?

Read some of the comments on that video as well. It's possible we may be defining DEI differently. Most of us at RPF and people on the right see DEI as portrayed in the video.

Again, none of that has to do with what Charlie Kirk actually was talking about in the OP video. The Trump administration has also shown what DEI really meant by attacking the Tuskegee Airmen, Harriet Tubman etc. I saw Charlie Kirk attacking private industry programs to simply recruit more women and minorities. That's what we're talking about here.

I haven't looked into what Boeing did, but from Kirk's perspective, he was more concerned with whether Boeing lowered their hiring standards. That's a concern many of us have regarding DEI hiring practices. If the standards weren't lowered, then great. If they were, then that's concerning.

I haven't mentioned Boeing in this thread! I was talking about United Airlines because Charlie Kirk was talking about United Airlines! I gave you links and explained to you exactly what was going on. Are you even trying to discuss the actual thread topic?

If a private business wants to use DEI for hiring that's up to them. But my concern has been that the whole country has been promoting DEI for the past 10-15 years or so and I think it's part of a greater Marxist movement to tear down western civilization. There is sometimes false information presented in the DEI trainings such as topics regarding white guilt, etc., that appear to blame white people for alleged shortcomings that minorities have. This sounds like Marxism to me.

This thread isn't about you or your concerns. It's about Charlie Kirk getting his hat handed to him in a debate with regards to him attacking the DEI program of United Airlines. Try to stick with the actual topic.

See links below for proof that DEI has led to people who are against DEI, being canceled, reprimanded, threatened, etc. This shouldn't happen.

Another straw man argument. What you are doing now is called moving the goalpost. I never said that every DEI program ever implemented was good. You're like the person who said "Christians in America owned slaves therefore all Christianity is bad" in response to someone talking about Billy Graham.

I made a mistake assuming the church spoke Greek. I do believe some did speak Greek and the apostles must've understood Greek because they all read from the Greek Old Testament (Septuagint) during that time. I think you are correct that they spoke Aramaic and maybe some Hebrew among each other.

It's unlikely that the apostles spoke Greek prior to Pentecost. The Pharisees were surprised at Jesus' knowledge.
John 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

Post Pentecost the apostles could speak whatever language they needed to but they didn't want to use all of their time administering the poor fund which is why they created the office of Deacon in the first place.

Regardless, lets say you're right (you're not) that language wasn't a barrier. That only makes what was happening to the Greek widows worse and it puts the apostles solution more in line with DEI in a way that, based on everything you've said so far, you would feel uncomfortable about if it happened at your church today! So the Greek widows were being neglected not because of a language barrier but because of racism and/or cultural bias? And to solve this the apostles appointed Deacons with Greek names, not because that fixed the language barrier, but because of a need to fit some racial / cultural quota in administration? Because that's where your argument actually leads you.

Anyways, here is what I said earlier about diversity and DEI in Acts 6:

"For Acts 6, I think the concepts of diversity are present for sure, but I don't think this is the same as the DEI we have had to deal with in our country which has been based on a concerted effort to promote and pressure people into diversity. The diversity that occurred in that time was natural and God-ordained. Out of love for God and each other, the Christians were inclusive of other races from their region, not because they were trying to promote DEI. "

I specifically said diversity was God-ordained, but I also said it was natural. By natural I mean that the church saw diversity as normal and naturally became diverse rather than through an agenda or concerted efforts. They didn't purposely try to add more Greeks or Egyptians or whoever. They just naturally wanted them in the church because all races were welcome by God in the New Covenant.

They purposefully appointed all Greek Deacons to be over the poor fund. You're using another straw man argument that doesn't actually advance your position. I never said the Greeks joining the church was from a "concerted effort." (Although Paul specifically said in Ephesians 3 that God sent him to be the apostle to the Gentiles so even there you are dead wrong). But before Paul was specifically sent to the Gentiles (the Greeks in Acts 6 were Jews, either proselyte Greeks or Hellenized Jews), the Apostles specifically appointed people with Greek names to be the ones over the poor fund. Again, it would be like if there was an influx of Spanish speaking people to your church and the church decided that every Deacon would be Latino. It's not that your church was intentional about bringing in Latinos but it would be that your church was intentional about putting Latinos in positions of leadership to better serve the new arrivals. You'd have a cow about that. I know you would.

The church didn't enact a DEI agenda to fulfill a need of helping the Greek widows.

That's literally what Acts 6 says. DEI was literally done to fulfill a need of helping the Greek widows.

 

[Invisible Man]

It's self explanatory. Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.



^That is like saying "Hitler was a nationalist so all nationalists are like Hitler." That is VERY DISHONEST. And that as being THE DEFINITION of DEI is debunked by Charlie Kirk in the video I posted in the OP. The program that HE DESCRIBED as DEI has NOTHING to do with the small subset of DEI in the above video.

Again, United Airlines, facing a worldwide pilot shortage, decided to kill to birds with one stone and hire more people and more minorities at the same time. They didn't take a damn thing away from white people. The recruited more women and minorities to train to become pilots. When are you going to actually discuss that as opposed to trying to come up with other DEI programs to attack?



Again, none of that has to do with what Charlie Kirk actually was talking about in the OP video. The Trump administration has also shown what DEI really meant by attacking the Tuskegee Airmen, Harriet Tubman etc. I saw Charlie Kirk attacking private industry programs to simply recruit more women and minorities. That's what we're talking about here.



I haven't mentioned Boeing in this thread! I was talking about United Airlines because Charlie Kirk was talking about United Airlines! I gave you links and explained to you exactly what was going on. Are you even trying to discuss the actual thread topic?



This thread isn't about you or your concerns. It's about Charlie Kirk getting his hat handed to him in a debate with regards to him attacking the DEI program of United Airlines. Try to stick with the actual topic.



Another straw man argument. What you are doing now is called moving the goalpost. I never said that every DEI program ever implemented was good. You're like the person who said "Christians in America owned slaves therefore all Christianity is bad" in response to someone talking about Billy Graham.


It's unlikely that the apostles spoke Greek prior to Pentecost. The Pharisees were surprised at Jesus' knowledge.
John 7:15 And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?

Post Pentecost the apostles could speak whatever language they needed to but they didn't want to use all of their time administering the poor fund which is why they created the office of Deacon in the first place.

Regardless, lets say you're right (you're not) that language wasn't a barrier. That only makes what was happening to the Greek widows worse and it puts the apostles solution more in line with DEI in a way that, based on everything you've said so far, you would feel uncomfortable about if it happened at your church today! So the Greek widows were being neglected not because of a language barrier but because of racism and/or cultural bias? And to solve this the apostles appointed Deacons with Greek names, not because that fixed the language barrier, but because of a need to fit some racial / cultural quota in administration? Because that's where your argument actually leads you.



They purposefully appointed all Greek Deacons to be over the poor fund. You're using another straw man argument that doesn't actually advance your position. I never said the Greeks joining the church was from a "concerted effort." (Although Paul specifically said in Ephesians 3 that God sent him to be the apostle to the Gentiles so even there you are dead wrong). But before Paul was specifically sent to the Gentiles (the Greeks in Acts 6 were Jews, either proselyte Greeks or Hellenized Jews), the Apostles specifically appointed people with Greek names to be the ones over the poor fund. Again, it would be like if there was an influx of Spanish speaking people to your church and the church decided that every Deacon would be Latino. It's not that your church was intentional about bringing in Latinos but it would be that your church was intentional about putting Latinos in positions of leadership to better serve the new arrivals. You'd have a cow about that. I know you would.



That's literally what Acts 6 says. DEI was literally done to fulfill a need of helping the Greek widows.

You say self-explanatory, but at least one of those terms, equity, is commonly used with a loaded meaning today that I think isn't self-explanatory. There is a reason they say "equity" instead of "equality." A lot of people use the term equity deliberately because they want to distinguish what they're talking about from equality. They want equal outcomes, not equal rights. Kamala made this a major talking point of her presidential campaign, and it seems to me that she was not an outlier.

 

[jmdrake]

You say self-explanatory, but at least one of those terms, equity, is commonly used with a loaded meaning today that I think isn't self-explanatory. There is a reason they say "equity" instead of "equality." A lot of people use the term equity deliberately because they want to distinguish what they're talking about from equality. They want equal outcomes, not equal rights. Kamala made this a major talking point of her presidential campaign, and it seems to me that she was not an outlier.

Let's take this back to Acts 6. When the Greek widows were complaining about not getting enough of the poor fund, what do you think they meant? If, at the end of the day, they were still getting less of the poor fund than the Hebrews, do you think an answer of "Well you have equal access to apply for it" would have made a difference? Yes or no? Answer that question and it should be clear of what I mean by "equity." This really ain't that complicated.

 

[Invisible Man]

Let's take this back to Acts 6. When the Greek widows were complaining about not getting enough of the poor fund, what do you think they meant? If, at the end of the day, they were still getting less of the poor fund than the Hebrews, do you think an answer of "Well you have equal access to apply for it" would have made a difference? Yes or no? Answer that question and it should be clear of what I mean by "equity." This really ain't that complicated.

I think that this doesn't sound like what Kamala referred to as equity. It sounds more to me like equality.

 

[jmdrake]

I think that this doesn't sound like what Kamala referred to as equity. It sounds more to me like equality.

You're being disingenuous. Forget about what Kamala is referring to. This is what you said.

They want equal outcomes, not equal rights. Kamala made this a major talking point of her presidential campaign, and it seems to me that she was not an outlier.

If you belonged to an organization that had a poor fund and the poor of your group was getting less of the poor fund than the poor of other groups would you care about "equal rights" or "equal outcomes?"

Again Acts 6 "6 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration."

There is no suggestion that there was a "Hebrews only" sign at the charity window. That would have been on inequality of rights. Instead the complaint was the widows were being neglected. That shows an inequality of outcomes. The problem is that you've been conditioned into thinking that someone complaining about an inequality of outcomes is necessarily bad. So even though the Word of God clearly tells you that's what was going on in Acts 6, you can't bring yourself to believe your lying eyes and you have to pivot to what Kamala Harris supposedly said. This has nothing to do with Kamala Harris. She didn't write the Bible.

 

[Invisible Man]

You're being disingenuous. Forget about what Kamala is referring to. This is what you said.

They want equal outcomes, not equal rights. Kamala made this a major talking point of her presidential campaign, and it seems to me that she was not an outlier.

If you belonged to an organization that had a poor fund and the poor of your group was getting less of the poor fund than the poor of other groups would you care about "equal rights" or "equal outcomes?"

Again Acts 6 "6 And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration."

There is no suggestion that there was a "Hebrews only" sign at the charity window. That would have been on inequality of rights. Instead the complaint was the widows were being neglected. That shows an inequality of outcomes. The problem is that you've been conditioned into thinking that someone complaining about an inequality of outcomes is necessarily bad. So even though the Word of God clearly tells you that's what was going on in Acts 6, you can't bring yourself to believe your lying eyes and you have to pivot to what Kamala Harris supposedly said. This has nothing to do with Kamala Harris. She didn't write the Bible.

I disagree.

 

[nikcers]

All DEI did was create a culture war that changed the social rules and made it permissible to be racist and then people were rewarded for being racist as long as they were racist against the culture that they were at war with and wanted to cancel.

This did make a lot of libertarian minded people pick a side in the culture war.

The libertarian minded people are generally pretty socially liberal which means they tolerate people doing whatever they want and they don't believe in social rules.

That all began to change when the social rules were rewritten and the culture war was declared.

The libertarian minded people wanted to be neutral but its impossible to be neutral when other people are at war with you.

 

[jmdrake]

I disagree.

Of course you do. And Terrance Howard disagrees with people who say that 1 x 1 = 1. (He thinks it equals 2). You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. (Something I used to hear conservatives say before Trump). Acts 6 is all about widows wanting en equitable share of the poor fund. There is nothing in Acts 6 to suggest that this was about "equality of access." The was "equal outcomes" they were pushing for, not "equal rights."

An example of widows pushing for equal rights is what Moses did in Deuteronomy 24-25 where a woman who's husband died without a male heir, his brother was required to marry her to giver her a male heir since women couldn't inherit property.

Day Three - Deuteronomy 24:14-25:10 - Sweet Selah Ministries

Day 3 - Deuteronomy 24:14-25:10 We entered into the dense field of Jewish law today. God had Moses write down laws for His people as they wandered the desert and then settled in the land. God wanted His people to live orderly, kind lives, not taking advantage of one another.…

www.sweetselah.org

 

[otherone]

Again, United Airlines, facing a worldwide pilot shortage, decided to kill to birds with one stone and hire more people and more minorities at the same time.

I suppose the idiom you chose is appropriate when discussing aviation safety.

 

[otherone]

You say self-explanatory, but at least one of those terms, equity, is commonly used with a loaded meaning today that I think isn't self-explanatory. There is a reason they say "equity" instead of "equality." A lot of people use the term equity deliberately because they want to distinguish what they're talking about from equality. They want equal outcomes, not equal rights. Kamala made this a major talking point of her presidential campaign, and it seems to me that she was not an outlier.

Remember "EEOC"? The intent of the civil rights act was to prevent workplace discrimination, with race being the driving motivator.. Selecting, or not selecting, employees based on skin color is the definition of Racism. Employment must be performance driven. How many Asian Americans are in the NBA?

 

[jmdrake]

I suppose the idiom you chose is appropriate when discussing aviation safety.

Remember "EEOC"? The intent of the civil rights act was to prevent workplace discrimination, with race being the driving motivator.. Selecting, or not selecting, employees based on skin color is the definition of Racism. Employment must be performance driven. How many Asian Americans are in the NBA?

Simply saying "You can't decide NOT to hire someone because of his race" is not racist except to a racist.

 

[nikcers]

Simply saying "You can't decide NOT to hire someone because of his race" is not racist except to a racist.

Why does whenever you call out people for doing racist things they always accuse you of being racist?

"Accuse your enemy of what you are doing, as you are doing it, to create confusion."