You were not talking about anything, you only joined to make an incorrect statement.
"We" (as in not you ) were talking about why NSF grants were removed and in some cases that was because they contained totally irrelevant DEI language.
But,sadly, that fact doesn't matter to people who lack reasoning skills.
You're unfortunately a bit off, likely due to bias from your prior involvement in this thread, or a feeling of being cornered from so many people pointing out that your claims are silly, unsubstantiated and logically inconsistent. Allow me to help you as an impartial observer of your interactions with others: "We", as in the people commenting on this HN post (perhaps excepting you), were talking about the post: republicans totally gutting science funding regardless of DEI (even if they _unconvincingly_ try to claim that as a pretext while failing to prove it).
Your confusion here might explain why your comments are apparently being viewed by so many others as low value (just observing here, not making that judgement myself), and why you're being so consistently corrected by others in this HN post. Try to take our constructive criticism constructively. Don't fall into the common right-wing trope-trap of thinking anyone who disagrees with you or downvotes you is an enemy plotting against you who must be defeated. Open yourself to changing your mind based on overwhelming feedback from many others. Don't "dig in"/"double down" like the current president of the usa [0].
I say "confusion" because I have good faith in you, and don't think you're engaging in tired whataboutism in an attempt to redirect criticism away from those at fault intentionally. I imagine the reason you're doing it, is likely just a mistake on your part, hence the helpful advice above.
we're talking about the story in the article: republicans totally gutting science funding regardless of presidential candidates or DEI