When has humans in general only identify by just one definition.  If you identify as straight white male does that also mean you do not identify as an American.  The thing is DEI is not based on just race, you do understand that right.  DEI can be race, religion, gender, nationality, age, disability etc, or are you one of those people who only see the term fitting for someone of another race outside of white and that's it?

If that is the case then as always, the term DEI has been co-opted from its original definition and serve as just a tool to use for giving the appearance that someone of another race outside of being white was hired not for their skill but their race. The question is why is there such a policy or do you believe that their isn't discriminations for the list of individuals that fall under DEI.  Or is it that you believe that DEI is used for hiring equal representation for individuals within that group instead of hiring to combat discriminations within the workplace.

I'm not talking about how someone identifies him/herself. If you identify as a dog, does that make you a dog? Tomorrow you can be a cat. The day after a moose. 

I mean the DEI practices and diversity quotas. If you pick actors based on diversity, and not skill or how much money someone can bring in, there's something seriously wrong. If you think there aren't enough African representation in your movies, you should watch African movies. The same for Asians. And Europeans. What it does, is that it actually helps to make these actors and films known and financially viable and we get more of them. Or why not go watch women-focused films, instead of ones that were just gender swapped. If you think of the new Star Wars films, Rey was really shitty character, but Rogue One had Jyn who was excellent. Barbie was one of the best films of 2023, because it was well written and had lots of depht under the silly surface. 

Barbie, about the American toy product, portrayed by the Australian Margot Robbie, that Australian should stick to Australian films.

Here my point.  I wish people would only view judaism as a religion but history have shown me I don't get to think that way.

I have called myself Atheist since I was 13 years old.  Last time I went to a religious service was 25 years ago after that I was old enough that my parents could not make me anymore.  None of that matters through if there another Hitler.  They want me dead because my parents was jewish.  I have no doubt they would use DNA to target people if another Hitler ever had power in a country.  The person that just converted could pretend to not be jewish.  I who not practice the religion in over 25 years would be killed through.

When you say because it a choice it should not be considered a minority group but have you consider the person who may not hire me because they found out my parents jewish.  Who see my jewish last name and decide not to hire me.  Let me be clear I not asking for any special treatment or benefit but if it found someone don't hire someone for the sole and only reason that they are jewish or have a jewish ancestors I do think that should be included in anti discrimination laws.

Idearly Judaism is only a religion but history have shown there to many people in this world that would have me killed for a religion I have never followed so I don't get to think that way as matter of survival.

The thing is you seem to single DEI as being just about race but clearly its not about just race. What you are doing is only thinking that race is the only criteria or the only sol reason why the person is being picked but there is no company that just goes and pick based on that one item.  That is the narrative used so the status quo can continue to discriminate at will. 

How do you know that the diversity of the actor isn't important to the role.  Meaning what skill are you talking about when choosing the actor.  If you have two actors and the role doesn't care what race they are, what skill determines one actor over the other.  If its the main actor and you have Denzel Washington and Tom Cruise, who do you pick.  Each actor skill set is different and they both bring something different to the role.  Could Tom Cruise play "The Equalizer" just like Denzel Washington.  Yes, but clearly each actor brings something totally different to how the role would be acted.

As far as your whole, you should watch movies made by the race or gender that wants to see representation, that doesn't really fly when you are out to make money.  See, if you want to make money and do not do things that target a group that may feel not represented by your product then guess what, you will not get their money.  Your whole premise on that point ignores why in entertainment, they look for more diversity and its not because they are looking to meet a quota, they are looking to make money.  So yes, if a group feel that an industry isn't properly representing them, they lose that group and thus lose that money because the biggest movers of anything within the US is money.

As to your Star Wars Rey comparisons to Rogue one

Lets take another comparisons where a role that was played by a man was swapped by a woman which is Day of the Jackal.  So the original film as well as the book had a white male as the agent looking for the assassin while the new series has a black woman.  The show is getting pretty good reviews and the actress is getting a lot of praise for her depiction of the role.  Could it be that its not about the gender but the actor and the script/direction.

At the end of it all, it really seems that people who care if character was swapped with another gender or race is more fearful about not being the default for a role more than anything else.  If all roles that were not sterotypical to either gender or race were played by straight white males, we probably would never hear anything from that crowd.  Your whole point seems to scream, "Stay in your lane". 

Implying that diverse people can't be good at something? 

A lot of the same stuff would exist with or without the alleged "diversity quotas".

A lot of these alleged quotas are illegal even:

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, it’s illegal to consider any single candidate’s or employee’s race — even with the intention of creating a more diverse, equitable, or inclusive workforce — in any employment decision. Employers can’t create de facto hiring quotas (e.g., “50% of the employees hired in this department must be women”), or “reserve seats” for employees from certain groups, even in the interest of diversity.

How to Effectively — and Legally — Use Racial Data for DEI

False.

People are frequently more moral, because they're not being misled.

Obviously false. Babies become familiar with what is around them. They don't have any inherent context of what race they are. 

"Babies make a distinction between those who are more visually similar to people they are used to seeing and and those who are less similar.

A few studies have suggested that many babies develop a bias towards people apparently more like themselves over the first year of life. Newborns show no preference for faces from their own race as compared to another race and recognise all faces equally well. "

https://theconversation.com/how-young-children-can-develop-racial-biases-and-what-that-means-93150#:~:text=Babies%20make%20a%20distinction%20between,the%20first%20year%20of%20life.

There's no single answer. It depends on how those people decide to promote policy. 

She was great in "The Wolf of Wall Street" :)

One more thought, I can honestly say......this thread is........100% FUBAR......

Last thought to Jaicee, since your the OP in this thread, I would like to see your source for "the classic Political Compass Test" you mentioned in your OP.

My apologies if you have already listed your source.