Why do proponents of "diversity" in America dislike socioeconomic diversity so much? (racism, revolution)

[BigCityDreamer]

We constantly hear how the left (and some people on the right) love diversity and want to promote diversity everywhere in the United States.

And yet, they seem to absolutely hate the one kind of diversity we cannot ever seem to eradicate - socioeconomic diversity, otherwise known as socioeconomic class stratification.

Why is this? What do all these people have against human nature and civilization?

[OpinionInOcala]

The form of diversity the left hates the most these days is of course diversity of thought. Gotta derange the children before you can starve them as adults, after all, otherwise they might not grow up to enjoy eating insects to control the weather.

[Volobjectitarian]

Proponents of diversity don't care about diversity in any way other than making a gathering of white liberals appear more cosmopolitan by adding non-white liberals to the event.

Diversity of thought? VERBOTEN!
Diversity of ideas and philosophies? VERBOTEN!
Diversity of ideology and religious belief? VERBOTEN!
Diversity of ACTUAL culture, not racially stereotyped assumed culture myths? VERBOTEN!

It is "diversity" of cosmetics ONLY, and the cosmetics MUST adhere to a specific political, cultural, ideological and philosophical aesthetic.

Examples of what I mean:

• Black/Hispanic conservative.
• Pro-life woman.
• Gay/lesbian Republican.
• Publicly acknowledged Christian public school teacher or university professor.
• Etc.

They pass the requisite cosmetic test, but do not adhere to the prescribed, specific political, cultural, ideological and philosophical aesthetic, so they are marginalized and reclassified as cis white males "on the inside" or simply "traitors" to the Diversity cabal's expectation based on tier outward appearance.

But those DEI chuckleheads don't want diversity of any sort. They want slightly different looking people wearing one uniform, singing one marching hymn, attacking/defending their cause in perfect formation, etc.

[ChrisC]

First, jealousy and covet. Second, it puts a major burr under their saddle that they have a harder time controlling and influencing the more affluent and economically independent citizen.

[swagger]

James Lindsay has a saying that I think he got from someone else but it's, "The thing is never about the thing. It's always about the revolution."

Stop listening to what they're saying. They're lying. Always. ALWAYS. Because the thing isn't about the thing. It's always about the revolution.

Look at the obvious impacts of their proposals. That's the thing they're after, as they tell you something else, and that thing will always be in support of the revolution because everything is.

Thinking like a Marxist isn't easy for sane people to grasp but we need to start doing it more because too many people take them at their word, and that's a strategy for societal suicide.

"Diversity" means "racism against white people." That's the net result of the ideology, right? That's what they're after. Because that's helpful to the revolution.

[Toxic Waltz]

If you are speaking of the middle class, the leaders of the various ideologies disdain it because those are people who are too poor to buy influence yet too prosperous to be bought off with cheap handouts. In other words, politically useless.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

We constantly hear how the left (and some people on the right) love diversity and want to promote diversity everywhere in the United States.

And yet, they seem to absolutely hate the one kind of diversity we cannot ever seem to eradicate - socioeconomic diversity, otherwise known as socioeconomic class stratification.

Why is this? What do all these people have against human nature and civilization?

Because the left are racists. They see skin color, and that's all. So a child from a poor white rural family has white privilege, and a black child boron to a wealthy family is a poor needy underprivileged, and under represented minority.

Fifty young people from Palo Alto, CA who have different skin color would be considered a diverse group by the Democratic Party left, even though they all went to the same schools, all vote Democrat, are all from wealthy families, and never had to work a day in their lives.

Meanwhile, fifty young people from places like Honolulu HI, Piti Guam, Portland OR, Homestead FL, Rudd IA, New York City NY, Nogales AZ, Fairbanks AK, and Beaufort SC, etc... would not be considered diverse if they were all white people. Why? Because all the left see is skin color. Even thought these fifty people obviously would come from completely different ways of life, family incomes, cultures, and have very different life experiences.

[Wapasha]

Originally Posted by Toxic Waltz

If you are speaking of the middle class, the leaders of the various ideologies disdain it because those are people who are too poor to buy influence yet too prosperous to be bought off with cheap handouts. In other words, politically useless.

Those would be the people the dems have given up on, because they cannot be bought. What to do? So they drive a wedge between parent and child, by teaching the children of these people to hate America, hate white people, be confused into believing male and female is a social construct and is fluid.

[Cape Cod Todd]

It is as others have said. If you are doing well and can take care of yourself and family then you have a lot less need for the Government to help you.

The Left doesn't like Independent Thought and they don't like Independence. That is why they are trying to wreck this country by flooding it with 3rd world people, being soft on crime so the streets become dangerous, convincing the kids that guns are evil and American History is shameful while confusing the kids to think if they are Trans or any part of the LGBQTIzxy crowd.



It is all about control. They want it at any cost.

[RandyHS]

Diversity is only good if it's based on gender and skin color.


Or so the left believes.