Marianne Williamson

Rank 16 of 47
|
Score 69
5/29/2025, 9:41:15 PM
X
In reply to:
NandoTheRando
@NandoElRando
·
49d
@DeAngelisCorey @marwilliamson This is every university. I worked at several over the last 25 years. They just change the language but keep their DEI/ESG/identity politics religion. You can see the outcomes in HR policies, hirings and the continued emphasis on “equity” re-termed.
Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist
@DeAngelisCorey
·
49d
@marwilliamson Discuss whatever you want. Don't force taxpayers to fund racist indoctrination.
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
49d
@DeAngelisCorey So you think it’s basically OK for the government to tell people what they can and cannot discuss, and you think you’re doing the work of ethical journalism by “exposing” a fellow citizen for saying she’s going to talk about whatever she wants to talk about because this is a free
Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist
@DeAngelisCorey
·
50d
BREAKING: Undercover journalists caught an administrator at UNC bragging about pushing DEI despite it being banned.

She says staff just "FINESSE" the language.

They do "work that is COVERT."

The university provost RAN AWAY when confronted.

I have the video.
Buckle up 👇🧵

The statement 'So what?!?!' is a dismissive response in a conversation about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in universities. The tone is confrontational and dismissive, indicating a lack of engagement with the substantive issues being discussed. The intent seems to be to undermine or trivialize the concerns raised about DEI policies and their implementation.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The dismissive tone does not strive to do no harm, as it trivializes the concerns of others, potentially causing harm by dismissing their viewpoints. [-1]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but the dismissive nature could be seen as disrespectful to the dignity of others involved in the discussion. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it dismisses the ongoing conversation without contributing constructively. [-1]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it dismisses the conversation rather than addressing the points raised. [-1]