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.
Again , diversity advocates often do exactly the kind of aggression that you describe. But they blame other people for their own hostility to different opinions. One poster said diversity is supposed to weed out bad cultural traits of groups, whatever that means. Who is here to define what's bad ? This is just a way to silence other people using extremely subjective measures. The system that respects diversity is the libertarian economic system. The political left preaches diversity in an attempt to build a uniform society of just their so called universal values. If you disagree then keep your heads down. Is this the aggression and bigotry that you refer to? Look people simply want to live their life, their style. But they can't in left wing politics. Their diversity must be eradicated in favor of a correct diversity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
So diversity eliminated slavery in the USA? Revisionist history at it's finest!
Diversity is the politically correct solution for those who want to control other people and set their values and tell them how to live.
& Costa & Road king seem to be the folks most interested in 'defining what's bad' & making the odd claim that acolytes of the libertarian economic system are the ones who 'respect diversity'? Are they the ONLY folks who respect diversity? Seems sortof controlling & totalitarian to me.
And like all previous experiments, this one shall fail too
The big picture is survival of the species. Long story short, humanity is winning. Communities of people are winning also. The solitary, isolated human being is a contradiction in terms.
& I hate to be so glum about things ... however here goes ... if humanity was wiped out, became extinct ... the Earth would still be here. Life goes on.
Diversity of what? Political ideology, marital status, level of education completed, knowledge of fine wines, home ownership, preference in automobiles? A few gazillion things make people different.
Does having a good mix of single and married people make an organization stronger? An equal mix of Republicans and Democrats. Should we hire on Harvard grad for every Yale grad, or do we instead say one JuCo associates holder for every Ivy Leaguer? Should we count cars in the parking and ensure a good mix of foreign and domestic, owned outright vs leased/payments? How about hair color, eye color, height and weight, if we are to assume physical characteristics are so singularly defining?
And what exactly is strengthened by having all of these magnificent differences in any organization of people besides the "sum total of observable differences" factor? How is it strengthened? If I ensure that I have a perfect rainbow coalition of workers, this benefits my organization in what way specifically? Say I am a project manager, and I have a 6 month project to deliver a new subject area to the data warehouse with say 50 different analytic reports. OK, explain how making sure my project team is racially inclusive will be the strengthening factor that ensures my project's success. I've always been curious about that. Old style management would use that whole antiquated notion of "best people for the job" nonsense, but I really want to understand new age thinking...so someone explain it to me...if instead of focusing primarily on talent/knowledge/experience, I focus primarily on diversity, specifically racial diversity, how does that ensure I build that data warehouse and those analytics on time and on budget?
I've always been curious about that. Can any of the diversity zealots explain it to me?
Yes, but diversity in nature is still a strength. In the wild, all the different species of plants, animals, insects, plankton in the oceans---each holds a special and valuable niche, and helps create a fragile balance. Yes, the shark will eat a smaller fish. But the smaller fish is also essential for the survival of the shark. Diversity in nature is essential. A planet on which only one species survived, would soon die out.
And would I like to live in a community only with people whom are like me?---no. I appreciate different ages, different lifestyles, different races, different socioeconomic classes. I don't want to live in a homogeneous community.
Yes, but diversity in nature is still a strength. In the wild, all the different species of plants, animals, insects, plankton in the oceans---each holds a special and valuable niche, and helps create a fragile balance. Yes, the shark will eat a smaller fish. But the smaller fish is also essential for the survival of the shark. Diversity in nature is essential. A planet on which only one species survived, would soon die out.
In nature, diversity evolves independent of government. Nature itself defines a need, and evolution fills that need. Symbiosis just happens, and nature - if left alone - makes adjustments to all symbiotic relationships.
Outside force screws it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint
And would I like to live in a community only with people whom are like me?---no. I appreciate different ages, different lifestyles, different races, different socioeconomic classes. I don't want to live in a homogeneous community.
So move to a community where nobody is like you? Why must government engineer a diverse solution for you? If you are white, move to a neighborhood that is majority black, Asian of Hispanic. If you are young, move to a retirement community in Florida. If you are a conservative VRWC nutjob, move to Austin, Portland or Berkeley. If you are a flaming liberal hippie, move to a Bible Belt right wing stronghold somewhere in flyover country. You are free to live wherever you want. Why must society be engineered to provide you a more diversified and personally gratifying experience once you've made your living choices? Why is it on me to make sure your neighborhood is diverse?
In nature, diversity evolves independent of government. Nature itself defines a need, and evolution fills that need. Symbiosis just happens, and nature - if left alone - makes adjustments to all symbiotic relationships.
Outside force screws it up.
So move to a community where nobody is like you? Why must government engineer a diverse solution for you? If you are white, move to a neighborhood that is majority black, Asian of Hispanic. If you are young, move to a retirement community in Florida. If you are a conservative VRWC nutjob, move to Austin, Portland or Berkeley. If you are a flaming liberal hippie, move to a Bible Belt right wing stronghold somewhere in flyover country. You are free to live wherever you want. Why must society be engineered to provide you a more diversified and personally gratifying experience once you've made your living choices? Why is it on me to make sure your neighborhood is diverse?
All good points. Those who espouse the wonderfulness of diversity should move to a diverse area then. No country or individual should have to espouse the same if they'd rather live in a more homogenous environment. To each his own I say.
All good points. Those who espouse the wonderfulness of diversity should move to a diverse area then. No country or individual should have to espouse the same if they'd rather live in a more homogenous environment. To each his own I say.
When tribalism occurs among humans...that IS NATURAL. When we decide that natural tribal separation is offensive to some absurd notion of societal self-actualization and apply force to dilute tribes and force association, that is unnatural.
If someone wants to be within their ethnicity, age group, etc...then why should society's social engineering goal trump their individual desire to freely associate? If on the other hand, someone wants to associate with only those they see as different from them, same thing? Why should society's notions trump an individual's freedom of association?
In what way does dictatorial and tyrannical forcing of associations make an allegedly free country - with a Bill of Rights and everything - stronger?
... Those who espouse the wonderfulness of diversity should move to a diverse area then. No country or individual should have to espouse the same if they'd rather live in a more homogenous environment. To each his own I say.
I agree. This is our reality. Personally, I prefer a diversified area. & in the United States of America? E pluribus unum although never codified by law, was considered to be the de facto motto of the US until 1956 when "In God We Trust" became the official motto.
In what way does dictatorial and tyrannical forcing of associations make an allegedly free country - with a Bill of Rights and everything - stronger?
I've seen a few references in this thread to this idea, but I'm not aware of much dictatorial forcing of diversity. Can anyone give me some specific examples of the government forcing diversity on people?
I suppose someone could suggest school busing as an example? Any other examples?
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.
