The parent said their boss didn't want to hire Indians. The seem to support DEI with that company as evidence that (white?) systematically discriminate against Indians. That power and status stay within one group those people werent allowed to join.
I posted a counter-example showing Indians systematically discriminate against non-Indians and shift almost all money to Indians across an entire, industry segment. So, they're no different.
Also, the intersectionality (DEI) proponents strictly focus on whites as the problem, but non-whites as the opposite, when non-whites do the same things structurally when in power and should be talked about the same way. That DEI proponents never treat non-whites as advantaged and whites as disadvantaged, even when company or industry data supports it, shows they're actually racists who are anti-white. They'll be inconsistent with their own principles to work against white people.
If called on it, like that whites can't get hired in company X or no power in industry Y, they start making excuses or denying a disadvantage or they deny that they even give advantages to non-whites like in this tthread. They certainly don't follow standard DEI or intersectionality principles to support shifting jobs or power to white people from the non-white majorities like they would if white people were the majority. We noticed the double standards. Their principles are therefore lies if specific groups can never benefit from them.
