Hi John Daysh,
Yes, my comment was a bit of a mess, especially so posting them in the wrong order.

1. The point was we all experience discrimination in some form.
Some people get discriminated against just for being ugly.
And ethnic / gender / LGBT quotas discriminate against 'straight white males'.
Discrimination is not tolerated against some foreigner who just came here, but it's ok to discriminate against someone who was here for generations to make happy someone who was here for 5 minutes because of white privelidge? That's a racist ideology too btw.

And you can talk up inclusion, but if every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then the other side of that coin is increased disunity and conflict amongst the citizenry.

2 and 3. In the context of a religious right revival I'm just saying there's conflict between the religious and LGBT and there isn't any unity.
4. If wanting to put people out of work and lose their business such as Christian bakeries, it's snidely, shallow, petty and proves there's no love or unity to be had between sides. (sometimes I'll criticise a group, depending on the situation, other times I'll defend them)

5. 'health, safety, security, and opportunity', do you think these issues only concern minorities? They concern all individuals.

6. You may or may not have a valid point on 'broadening the candidate pool', but lets accept the pools now been broadened - if selections aren't based upon merit and given to the best candidate regardless it's still a race to the bottom. Quotas don't broaden the existing pool of applicants however, they merely discriminate in selection.

7. Your insinuating that laws aren't enough and that there's this other set of invisible laws we all must abide by.
Expecting people to self censor for the sake of keeping the peace so other peoples feelings aren't hurt, is denying some a voice on issues important to them.
Also a voted leader doesn't necessarily owe anything to those who oppose him.
The left can criticise the right, but the right can't criticise the left?

Hi Fester,
"Fortunately not as flawed as sources of your information."
- Which did you take issue with?

You may know that my entire geopolitical outlook stems from opposing sanctions (collective punishment) and overthrows (foreign interference and attempt to install puppet rulers, make nations vassal states)

You bring up Churchill's observation,
In the case of Miriam Adelson's 100m political donation to the Trump presidency, and the billions Israel has gotten in return, is democracy broken or just the laws for registering as foreign agents?

I'm not sure democracy is the best, or whether its just flawed, hasn't been fine tuned properly.
It gives us 2 idiots that never agree, except on loyalty to the US.
In leadership quality it's like the bar is lowered every time to someone even more hopeless than the last, that's not progress, it's regress.
Nothing ever gets done in a hurry, lies, cost blowouts, incompetency.
It's divisive in nature and they spend more time in disagreement achieving little.

And if the country is dancing to the tune of a foreign power it's not democracy at all, it's a captured nation acting in subservience.

Besides that, this whole idea of 'bringing democracy' to the world seems more thinly veiled imperialism, and has cost millions their lives in Western interference in sovereign nations affairs.

Max Blumenthal: Charlie Kirk BOMBSHELL Revelation | Middle East Faces Total COLLAPSE
http://www.youtube.com/live/pMZ202d8Auc

Armchair Critic,

Everyone faces hardship, yes, but let’s not pretend all discrimination is created equal. It's frustrating to be judged superficially when applying for a job, but it’s not the same as being systematically denied fundamental needs.

That’s the difference between everyday misfortune and structural inequality.

You mention quotas and suggest they disadvantage "straight white males." But for most of modern history, being a straight white male was the quota. It’s only when the playing field starts to level that some interpret fairness as an attack. In reality, quotas aim to counteract unconscious bias and open doors previously closed. Successful applicants still need to be unqualified, though.

On the surface, DEI just looks like another form of discrimination - only in the other direction. I get that. However, DEI measures:

- are a bias that we're actually conscious and in control of.
- surface overlooked talent.
- promote productivity, creativity and profitability.
- and most importantly, they aim to ultimately render quotas unnecessary and naturally render themselves increasingly obesolete over time as biases fade (whereas unconscious biases are self-perpetuating).

Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does. If the presence of different people - culturally, sexually, religiously - feels threatening, the problem isn't diversity. It’s fragility. Unity doesn’t require uniformity. It requires maturity - the ability to coexist with those who aren’t just like us.

Regarding religion, yes, there are conflicts between some views and LGBT rights. That’s why we differentiate between personal belief and public responsibility. We’re free to hold any religious beliefs we like, but that doesn't mean we should have the right to impose them on others in shared spaces.

As for free speech, being expected to not hurt others or incite division isn’t censorship - it’s civilisation. Expecting people to moderate their words in the public square isn’t about silencing them, it’s about choosing to live in a society where dignity and peace matter more some boofhead's freedom to announce their ignorance to the world.

You say you want unity, but it can only start with inclusion. That should actually be quite obvious, when you think about it.

American democrats and Australian Labor are two different identities.
There is no comparison.
To make out there are similarities is unjust.
Australia is allowed to have an opinion.
Trumps republican's and AU labour are more alike than many like to admit.
We have common enemies and we have enemies within. It's only the far right that are a problem. Australia is a very balanced society after 10 years of a non govt.

Unity -
I've often thought it impossible with a focus on personal identity.
We'd need to set that aside for some greater cause, something neutral.
Like 'Unity in self sufficiency'.

What do you mean by 'systematically denied fundamental needs'.
Who and what is being denied?
Often minorities get the lion share of assistance.

"You mention quotas and suggest they disadvantage 'straight white males'."
- I did. It makes me sound racist when I put 'straight white male' together, but maybe it's conditioning, societies expectations and narratives reinforced, but if the topic is discrimination, then any attempt to move away from the idea of 'the best person suited for the job should offered the job' is an attempt to discriminate.
Arguing that its for a good reason doesn't change that.

"It’s only when the playing field starts to level that some interpret fairness as an attack. In reality, quotas aim to counteract unconscious bias and open doors previously closed."

It's sounds like an attempt to psychologically reeducate people away from their own judgements, gut instincts and personal preferences when it comes to hiring employees, probably easier in a corporate environment when the person doing the hiring doesn't own the business.

"Inclusion doesn’t cause disunity. Exclusion does."
You touched on the religious aspects and conflict, but you didn't go deep enough.

Lets say churches or religious schools are forced to hire gay stayy and gender quotas, this won't bring unity, it will cause conflict and disunity.

Take a look at at those anti immigrant marches a few weeks back.
You think 'inclusion' isn't causing disunity?

[Cont.]

Lets say you have 100 white male Australians.
They all grew up the same, shared generally the same experiences, generally look the same, and have similar beliefs about how the country should be, share a tribal sense of belonging.
Now lets say we add in 20 Somalians, 20 Indians, 20 Chinese, 20 Muslims and 20 Jews.
Are you really going to try to tell me the group will now be more unified, I don't think they will be more unified, I think there will be far greater conflict between individuals, and the level of unification held prior just isn't possible now.

Change the people = Change the government.

Call it conspiritorial, (I don't care) but I've always thought that the multicultural agenda is in some ways nefarious.
A nation divided amongst itself with identity politics can never unify and rise up to overthrow a tyrannical government.
The populace will fight amongst themselves instead.

"As for free speech, being expected to not hurt others or incite division isn’t censorship - it’s civilisation."
- You miss the point, sometimes difficult discussions are essential.
And these discussions simply can't be had while others scream 'offense'.

I'll give an example:
How are you going to have a serious discussion with someone on the topic of Israel / Palestine, if the person you're talking to accuses you of being an 'anti-semite' with every point you make, it's not possible.

Likewise serious discussions about immigration when people scream 'racist', and every other catch word for every other topic there now seems to be to silence criticism and prevent any critical discussion.

Try to talk about Russia / Ukraine and the catch word there is 'Russian propaganda', these words and conditioning / bias make serious discussion impossible.