User

No, just a man.

No, Israel is currently at war with Hamas in Gaza. They were not at war prior to October 7th last year. They had peace prior to that and peace repeatedly after the many other attacks by Hamas too. The Gaza strip was almost entirely left to their own devices. They chose to squander that on continuing their hate for the Jews instead. You didn't seem to understand why the Palestinians were where they are at today. I was explaining that to you. Israel has been more than willing to make peace with them, over and over again. They refuse, they reject it, they want to continue on hating Jews instead.

And? The point here is that Israel was not actually in Gaza "occupying" the territory. We are not playing some semantics game here. They lost a war... and lost continued wars and aggression. They have been conquered and continue to pose an ongoing threat. Yes, it is outrageous they went to war against Israel instead of focusing on their statehood. Um... no. This is a public forum, you post junk here, expect a response.

Because other countries have the right to let drug cartels run rampant and ship over drugs without much regard to any other country, killing hundreds of thousands of their people... There is nothing moral about sitting by and doing nothing as you know evil people are harming your own.

Yes, you found the technical loophole that I addressed in my response to you that he should have clarified with STRAIGHT white males. 🙄

That clearly says "racial minority"

Yes, yes... of course. You don't care so much that you have to come here and argue about not caring and trying to convince others not to care... LOL

You have not firmed up anything, this is another vague assertion. Give me one school in Canada where they give white males preference over a woman of any race as a matter of policy.

Within Gaza, Palestinians had freedom of movement. You just admitted Israel did not have boots on the ground... so they can't enforce movement restrictions if no one is there to enforce them. What was restricted was travel to the West Bank, as that required passage through Israel. People in Gaza could fish, the limit was on how far out, because they would smuggle weapons otherwise. Israel was not going to just sit there and let Hamas import as much weaponry as they could so they could kill even more Israeli people. Duh. No, Gaza was not 100% free, but they could control much of their own destiny and chose to squander billions in aid given to them on building tunnels and military infrastructure to wage war against Israel. They could have lived in peace, but chose instead to constantly probe and attack Israel, to dig tunnels to try to kidnap Israeli people and to conduct terrorism on Israeli people.

1. Yes, obviously so... this thread is an example of it happening. You claimed white men BENEFIT from DEI, how so? 2. Where are White men a part of it? "The list currently names women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities." 4. So... you are now saying that white men do not benefit from being hired because they are white men... 5. This is not an example, its just another vague assertion. At this point, I have given you repeated opportunities to explain yourself and you have not done so. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but it is clear you are just obfuscating because you can offer nothing to back up your assertion or explain yourself when you claimed white men benefit from DEI.

I already told you, I don't expect much of anything from you.

Clearly, you do, and so did USA Today... when you have to try to devise some silly way to discredit him like this.

Where do you get that any of that applies to white men? I am no expert on Canadian law here, but the link you provided: "The task force recommended that Black and 2SLGBT+ employees be added to the list of designated groups targeted for EDI policy by the Act. The list currently names women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities." These laws are targeting minority groups, not white men. You said white men benefit from DEI, in a thread about hiring practices. Can you point to any examples for where any hiring entity has benefited white men by stipulating that they would only consider hiring them for a position? If not, what exactly did you mean by benefit white men and what examples do you have?

Yes, I have issues with the nonsense you post. Keep posting it, I will likely keep responding if I see it.

So, to be clear, in Canada, a company can hire someone based on race, including that they only apply if they are a white person? I find that hard to believe. The second part of my question was, are you aware of any "hiring entity" that does hire someone only if they are a white male? You claimed white men benefit from DEI. This was a thread about hiring practices. So... where are they benefiting like this? Yet again: "Therefore, only applicants who self-identify as members of gender equity deserving groups (including cisgender women, transgender women, transgender men, two-spirit, and non-binary) and/or as racialized individuals will be considered for this opportunity. We encourage those with intersecting identities to apply (for example, women who identify as racialized individuals, Indigenous, and/or persons with disabilities)."

You claimed white men also benefit from DEI. This is a thread about hiring practices. My question to you was if you could point to a company that is hiring people based on their being white men and if they were even allowed to. I did not ask you if such things were forced on a business. I also made my question general enough to apply to more than just private business when I said "or hiring entity" So, where are white men benefiting from DEI through hiring practices like this? What were you talking about?

That was not my question.

Is there a company or business or hiring entity in Canada that is not only allowed to hire a position for only a white man but is doing so?

Are you for real? You can't possibly post something this dishonest... no way. The link said: "Therefore, only applicants who self-identify as members of gender equity deserving groups (including cisgender women, transgender women, transgender men, two-spirit, and non-binary) and/or as racialized individuals will be considered for this opportunity. We encourage those with intersecting identities to apply (for example, women who identify as racialized individuals, Indigenous, and/or persons with disabilities)." They don't need to say White Men do not apply when they clearly outline who can apply that doesn't include white men. Perhaps he could have been a bit more explicit in saying straight white men need not apply.

All these leaks on discussions are so silly. Trump is a businessman who spent his life in boardrooms throwing ideas at the wall. So, of course, as President, he is going to do something similar, challenge people, and throw ideas out there... talking about how to do something and finding out it is illegal or working through the legalities is good. This is just silly fear-mongering.

The point was, why are you so focused on Africa? The point behind Black History Month now is to teach about prominent figures and happenings that impacted Black people... that is not limited to Africa, nor does it even have anything to do with Africa. Teaching about someone like Rosa Parks, King, or atrocities like those in Tulsa have zero to do with teaching about African history. Not all Black people came here in chains, nor does all Black history derive from being slaves.

Are you OK? There is clearly some kind of comprehension barrier here. I don't expect much of anything from you at this point. So...

First, you say she apologized for misspeaking... then you defend her comment. LOL The point is not that there might be a few black kids in the Bronx who have not been introduced to computers, its the presumption that they are BLACK kids: "They don't know these things." Not kids in general, but specifically BLACK kids, "THEY" don't know these things. Its a generalization focused on BLACK kids. And you are here defending it. For crying out loud...

I have been clear that if you post nonsense, I will call you out. You are the one who keeps complaining about posting. Feel free to stop anytime. So... you are admitting you are insane because you keep complaining about posting and then... keep posting?

No one made you respond to me, yet you keep doing it. I will gladly refute your nonsense and not have to deal with your obfuscation. Well, this is the first you have told me that you would make it conditional to elections. Where else did you say that in this thread? What happens when Hamas says no to your terms? What happens if they win the elections and resume trying to kill Israeli people? You give enough crap to continue posting your nonsense here about it.