Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The problem I see is that all too often the political left is about silencing diverse opinions. It is hypocrisy.
I would like to see some concrete examples of people who vocally support multiculturalism/diversity while trying to silence diverse opinions. (This would, as you say, be hypocritical.) I'm not saying that this sort of thing never happens; I'd just like to look at some verifiable cases of it.
BTW: I would not count an act of merely disagreeing with someone as an example of trying to "silence diverse opinions." To voice a critical opinion is not the same thing as silencing someone. Hopefully we can all agree on at least this much.
Passing laws against certain types of speech would certainly count as silencing diverse opinions, so someone might suggest that laws against "hate speech" are examples of liberal hypocrisy. This is, admittedly, a puzzling problem and, indeed, it is sometimes referred to as "the paradox of tolerance." How should the tolerant person deal with intolerance? This somewhat relates to my OP question: Are there any underlying principles that can help us to identify the line between types of diversity that strengthen society and types of diversity that don't?
Personally, I am not a full-blown cultural relativist. I believe that some types of culturally-sanctioned practices are just plain bad, and I don't mind saying so. (E.g., female genital mutilation, slavery/trafficking, etc.) I wouldn't favor violating the freedom of speech of someone who wanted to defend these cultural practices, but I would favor international regulations that try to eliminate these types of practices. Some things really just do need to be illegal. Does this make me a hypocrite? I admit to not always knowing the best way to respond to these types of situations. I believe in the strength of diversity, but I think there are some limits beyond which even good things can become absurd and/or destructive.
None of these are ever considered by the idiots who espouse diversity. They are only focused on race and ethnicity.
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in Ohio that is simply not true. All of the Diversity statements and policies, etc., that I see around here always list at least: race, gender, ethnicity, creed, disabilities, sexual orientation, and lifestyles. I've found this to be highly consistent over the past several years.
I can't speak for the rest of the country, but here in Ohio that is simply not true. All of the Diversity statements and policies, etc., that I see around here always list at least: race, gender, ethnicity, creed, disabilities, sexual orientation, and lifestyles. I've found this to be highly consistent over the past several years.
I would like to see some concrete examples of people who vocally support multiculturalism/diversity while trying to silence diverse opinions. (This would, as you say, be hypocritical.) I'm not saying that this sort of thing never happens; I'd just like to look at some verifiable cases of it.
BTW: I would not count an act of merely disagreeing with someone as an example of trying to "silence diverse opinions." To voice a critical opinion is not the same thing as silencing someone. Hopefully we can all agree on at least this much.
Passing laws against certain types of speech would certainly count as silencing diverse opinions, so someone might suggest that laws against "hate speech" are examples of liberal hypocrisy. This is, admittedly, a puzzling problem and, indeed, it is sometimes referred to as "the paradox of tolerance." How should the tolerant person deal with intolerance? This somewhat relates to my OP question: Are there any underlying principles that can help us to identify the line between types of diversity that strengthen society and types of diversity that don't?
Personally, I am not a full-blown cultural relativist. I believe that some types of culturally-sanctioned practices are just plain bad, and I don't mind saying so. (E.g., female genital mutilation, slavery/trafficking, etc.) I wouldn't favor violating the freedom of speech of someone who wanted to defend these cultural practices, but I would favor international regulations that try to eliminate these types of practices. Some things really just do need to be illegal. Does this make me a hypocrite? I admit to not always knowing the best way to respond to these types of situations. I believe in the strength of diversity, but I think there are some limits beyond which even good things can become absurd and/or destructive.
The problem isn't so much what to do what hate speech or intolerance. If something is indeed hate speech, it is easier and simpler to cope with. The real problem is how something is defined and characterized as hate speech or intolerance. That's where the difficulty is. The way its practiced is often that disagreements are called hate speech.
Intolerance is subjective. Again, the hard part isn't the paradox of intolerance, but how to define intoerlance. Matter of the fact is the one cultures intolerance is another cultures norm. Cultural pluralism precisely has to deal with such differing norms. A communist can consider business a form of hate. An American may consider animal treatment elsewhere cruel. Cultural practices are just that. They sometimes cannot be considered by a universal standard. You mentioned international regulations. I don't think there will be and I don't think there should necessarily be. Porn is seen as bad for some people but freedom of expression for others.
This is why I disagree with your point that diversity should be fine if left alone. It won't be fine if there is no examination. Bigotry isn't the biggest enemy of diversity. Conflict comes from differences and these differences don't always perfectly find peace with one another, even iin a group of pro diversity people.
"Lifestyles" is a broad term. Everything is about lifestyles. You can interprete that very broadly.
Those on the left and right constantly belittle each other's lifestyles.
"Oh, you are a suburbanite! You hate minorities in the city. "
"You are promiscuous. No responsibility. When are you going to grow up"
"You trailer pqrk trash, voting against your interests. God, So stupid."
I have visited all of those cities. So you don't know the answer.
Oh, but I do know the answer. I was brought up in Toronto while it was a bastion of Anglo WASPness. It was a dull, boring and pretty much dead city. Every wave of new immigrants that came to the city brought many pluses with them. The city is now a vastly improved place in all respects. There are a huge variety of interesting neighbourhoods spread citywide. The arts have been transformed by all the different cultures represented. Just the vast improvement in cuisine alone makes the immigrants very welcome in my world.
The way that most of these culture strive to get ahead, the example of hard work and the importance of education to them has been a very good example to Canadians who have lived here for many generations. THese people have opened up thousand of businesses that never would have existed otherwise.
There is actually no down side to them at all. They become for the most part good citizens and from my own research and contacts they quickly adopt the shared values that are what makes this country the best in the world.
Long story short. Adaptation. Flexibility enables humanity to adapt to an ever changing environment.
Compared to many other species, human beings are weak & physically fragile. We haven’t developed fangs to fight predators or the combination of fangs & speed required to chase down prey. We haven’t developed fur or thick protective skins to shield us from extremes in the environment.
What we have developed are cultures, communities & societies which rely on critical thinking, communication skills, the sciences, medicine, technology, the arts, etc. to adapt to the ever-changing environment. All of these skills, traits, etc. are reflected by an evolving human nature. The art of medicine grows with knowledge. The art of science advances with discovery. Improved technologies replace the old. Products become better with improved design. Empires, countries, entire civilizations go through periods of renaissance & decay & sometimes even vanish completely. All of these things combined have resulted in our continued existence here.
All of these ‘adaptations’ have assisted us in our ability to protect ourselves, adapt to an ever-changing environment, & increased our ability to pass on these survival strategies to the next generation & the next & the next & so on.
If this diversity, or flexibility, or adaptation skills were not part of our makeup, it's likely we would've died out as a species long ago. As other, perhaps less adaptive, species have done so.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
