DEI means hiring a diverse pool of qualified employees. But you know that. You’re just arguing in bad faith.

No, I don’t know that, because it’s wrong, or misleading at best. “Qualified” is a spectrum, unless you’re talking about the low bar of simply having a medical degree/license.

If you’re looking for a lawyer to represent you, are you looking for “black woman” as a qualification, reassured by the fact that she is at least bar certified? That would be stupid. You’d want the person who you felt could best represent you. Which could end up being a black woman, but not necessarily.

Joe Biden literally said he was going to pick a black woman to sit in the SCOTUS before he had even made a shortlist of potential candidates. Jackson is a DEI hire. Sure, she is a “qualified” judge, most acting judges technically are, but it’s unlikely that she’s the most qualified. That’s the problem with DEI, people will assume that women or minorities may not be qualified, even when they are. Jackson could very well be the best for that position, but that would be quite the statistical coincidence considering Biden started his search with narrow racial/gender qualifications.

Like Charlie was when he was shot, trying to pretend that the majority of mass murderers aren’t straight cis white men.

He was discussing whether to exclude gang violence when discussing mass shootings, because those are overwhelmingly from gangs. So much so, that people typically exclude gang violence from stats. So if you’re including gang violence, white men would not commit the majority of “mass murder.” However, most people don’t care about gangsters killing each other, they care about innocent people killed/shot.

So, how would someone debate “kill homosexuals”? What’s the counter argument?

He never advocated for instituting laws to kill homosexuals. Neither did he support killing adulterers and people who worship false gods. So a counter argument is pointless unless he actively wanted to enforce Biblical law in the US.