[eudamoniac]

> Why did you vote for him if you were going to be unhappy with those policies?

I voted for him for his other signalled policies that I did agree with, obviously. I deemed those more important than the climate policy and tax policy.

> what did you vote for him for?

Primarily cultural issues, which he delivered on beyond what I expected. Examples include the EO to change university admission processes away from DEI, which will have a huge positive effect on my Asian children, and a reduction in immigration and H1Bs.

[adampunk]

Honey. Sugar. They’re not making this anti-DEI paradise for you or your kids. How do you not see that?

[eudamoniac]

What I've seen for the past several years is that Asian and White applicants to universities, medical schools, and various other high institutions and careers are admitted at disproportionately lower rates when adjusting for qualifications. This is racism. If the left wanted my vote, they should have stopped being constantly, concretely racist against Asian people. Not the kind of harmless racism on the right that says we're bad drivers, but the deep institutional racism that bars us from the life we've merited and gives it to someone else because their skin color matters more.

I'm not going to respond to you anymore, because you insist on commenting in a supercilious manner unbecoming.

[latexr]

I’m not American, so forgive my confusion, but are you really saying that you think DEI policies are not only racist, but more harmful and racist than profiling people based on the colour of the their skin or country of origin, then beating them into vans and throwing them into prison camps, including children?

And are you also saying you are Asian and yet somehow believe you and your children are going to be exempt from such profiling?

You said you care about “protecting your borders”, but if you’re Asian that means you’re neither a native American nor an original colonist. Someone in your family, at some point, had to migrate to the US. Why was it OK then but not OK now? Why exactly are you deserving of calling those your borders but other immigrants are not?

This is honestly confusing. You talked of “harmless racism” on the right, but refused to comment on ICE and seem to believe DEI is worse. Could you explain exactly which racism is harmful and which is harmless? Does it depend on the race? Why is DEI a bigger problem than ICE?

[eudamoniac]

Yes.

Yes.

I'm a citizen of the country, they are not. In how a nation should be run, preferences of citizens are more important than the preferences of the rest of the world. I don't make a claim about my ancestors' migration being OK or not. It's kind of like asking an Italian, "Why was it okay for your Roman ancestors to take this land, but it's not okay for Turkey to take it now?" I will say that it's strange that the same people who are often so vocal about how European colonists were so bad for the native Americans, are also vocally for immigration. I want to say to them, "How did that work out for the previous inhabitants?"

DEI is worse than ICE because the latter has huge effects on tens of millions of citizens, actually all of them due to cultural drift, while the latter has huge effects on at most hundreds of citizens so far.

[latexr]

> I'm a citizen of the country, they are not.

May I ask how you became a citizen? Was it by birth or are you first generation? For those without family who are already citizens, how are they supposed to become citizens without entering the country first and being targeted by ICE?

> I want to say to them, "How did that work out for the previous inhabitants?"

Then I take it that you are pro native American, and would agree they have more right to the land than yourself, and thus their preferences should be above yours? If not, why not?

> DEI is worse than ICE because

You skipped the most important questions there. I’ll ask again:

> Could you explain exactly which racism is harmful and which is harmless? Does it depend on the race?

[eudamoniac]

> > Could you explain exactly which racism is harmful and which is harmless? Does it depend on the race?

It's a utilitarian question. Degrees of harm, and what they achieve...

> Then I take it that you are pro native American, and would agree they have more right to the land than yourself, and thus their preferences should be above yours? If not, why not?

I don't understand how you got there from my comment. Native Americans are a cautionary tale of immigration. They certainly had more right to the land at the time they lost the land. But we aren't giving it back. They lost, they got fucked, it sucks for them. It doesn't follow that I should then be willing for my own self/people to lose and get fucked. I am not voting against my family's self interest because I currently benefit from some unrelated people getting fucked hundreds of years ago. This isn't a philosophy class. It's real stakes. It could be war. Nobody's preferences are above mine in the voting booth, that's what a vote is. I'm voting to not get fucked. You can vote to get yourself fucked if you want that, out of some guilt.