Honest question and not trying to troll. Diversity is being shoved down our throats and I'm not sure I understand why. Why is diversity so important?
Diversity
- Thread starter fabknight
- Start date
Unless you believe in a superior race, the best of a diverse population will not come from a single race.
Diversity is good as long as there is assimilation. Diversity is awful when everyone just stays in their own bubbles, look at Europe. My great great grandparents came to the US as hated minorities and they assimilated to the culture of the US. That should be expected of every immigrant.
Liberals love diversity yet always reference Norway as a shining example for society. A country that is almost uniformly white and of the same heritage.
Diversity is great. It breeds new ideas and stronger fusions of cultures (as long as we take the best from the cultures and not the worst) and stronger genetics as well.
Unless you're a lefty, in which case you love all races, sexes, religions as long as they agree with you on every single ideological issue.
Unless you're a lefty, in which case you love all races, sexes, religions as long as they agree with you on every single ideological issue.
When are we going to make non-white countries "more diverse"?
Diversity is good, diversity is a strength!
Diversity is good, diversity is a strength!
Do you know what the demographic breakdown of Japan is?
99% Japanese
1% everyone else
99% Japanese
1% everyone else
Lets be honest about Korea though, both the Chinese and Japanese tried to breed them out of existence when they occupied them.
Also, if you really want to experience overt racism, go to Korea.
Under affirmative action, the best of a diverse population is prevented from rising
If Japan, South Korea, China, Canada, 85 and Bob agree.
Time to see this failed social experiment for what it really is. The biggest error in human history.
Time to see this failed social experiment for what it really is. The biggest error in human history.
Prior to affirmative action the best of a diverse population was also prevented from rising.
Okay. I like the sentiment of your statement but this isn't currently what is happening. It seems we're holding back the best of any race to make the average and/or worst feel better, all in the name of "fairness". Everyone may be created equal but levels in ability and talent would dictate otherwise, no matter how diverse a population.
I still don't think anyone has given an answer that supports the level of diversity being shoved down our throats. Is it simply an unobtainable, pie in the sky ideal in support of globalism?
Not to get off on a tangent, but much like unions, affirmative action has outlived it's usefulness and is now simply a sanctioned form of discrimination now. Mandated diversity creates division.
The Japanese are very racist.
I really didn't want this thread to be about racism though. Is it possible to have discussions on diversity without racism becoming the predominant discussion point? (this isn't directed at you or anyone in particular BTW)
I definitely agree about assimilation but you said diversity is good. Do you know of a compelling argument that says diversity is good?
Last edited:
Racism is a made up term to silence people & a sure sign you're winning an argument when someone resorts to calling you one
There are numerous studies that say diversity is good. The reasons are obvious when speaking about a diverse population, because to not be would be disenfranchising. When speaking about places like Japan or other homogeneous populations yes the people all have the same skin color but they don't see themselves as the same. People with a lighter complexion may be treated differently than those with a darker. People from the North may be treated differently than those from the South. Descendants of one group may be treated better than descendants from another.
On assimilation, I think some level assimilation is good. We have to remember that since this country was founded a good portion of the immigrants were simply coming for financial gain and so they could be themselves without being persecuted. They weren't looking to completely lose there culture and traditions, or looking to adopt new ones per se.
Agree. Affirmative action was created in the 60's to address racial discrimination. While there's still pockets of America where racial discrimination exists, the majority of the country does not discriminate on race. Just like most government programs, it's difficult to get rid of because those who benefit don't want to lose an advantage.
This is where I fall in line. If you move to another country, please realize why you are doing so. Try to bring with you the best parts of your culture with you. Leave the ones that are not as great behind and assimilate as best possible.
Unfortunately, the idea of assimilation got lost along the way here in the US. I believe we are strong because of diversity, but only when we all come together. Right now, we are not working together enough. We somehow got broken down into groups again, and that has held us back.
Mac's argument is sound. If you suppress a segment of the population, their most talented will not be able to contribute
Diversity in culture and mindset also lends to more holistic development and problem solving
Diversity is best left to investing. Folk still have the PC blinders on. Is there a similar push to "diversify" Japan, Meh hee co, Iran or Nigeria? Diversity is only this false noble goal in cucked white guilt indoctrinated Merica & Europe.
That doesn't validate affirmative action
Prior to enforcement of civil rights, the best of a diverse population was prevented from rising
I think I may be misunderstanding what you mean by diversity. When I think of diversity I think of the US and all the different races/ethnicities/cultures living peacefully and prospering together for the most part. That's a good thing but it only works with assimilation. Diversity without assimilation creates animosity and tension between groups.
Diversity without assimilation is why we have individual countries in the first place.
I agree, but I'm not sure what a better solution would have been at the time.
Unrelated, a co-worker told me he used to complain about the lack of African Americans in his department, now he complains about the lack of Americans.
US probably would be 80%+ white European, too had our forefathers not brought over all the slaves.
True, I was thinking of Eastern Europe where there's a melting pot of cultures that do not assimilate. See Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.
It's called ethnocentrism
The lib left likes the derogatory 'xenophobia' right now, which in almost all cases is inaccurate
Haiti had similar beginnings things went slightly different & have worked out swell there. I blame the French.
Okay, I can agree with both of your statements. However, suppression of a segment of the population really doesn't have anything to do with why diversity is a strength, it's simply a way to suppress diversity.
I still haven't seen any super compelling argument as to why diversity is considered such a strength.
Not to get political, but I think had Trump allowed a more diverse group weigh in on his "ban" it would have gone more smoothly. By more diverse I mean Mattis, Kelly, Tillerson, Spicer, etc. I think they would have offered up differing plans on how best to implement and communicate what they wanted to do, which would have led to a better solution. As such, the word ban would not have been used in any communications. All departments would have been communicated to about the new restricted travel policy for 7 nations as a result of their instability, prior to Spicer informing the public. There'd still be some complaints from the left and potentially some lawsuits, but nothing like what we have seen. imo
I agree 100% that the roll out was awful, but he's sticking to his word from the campaign. It would probably help though if he actually had more than 1/3 of his cabinet in place. Obama, W, Clinton, Reagan, Carter had more Secs in place on their first day than Trump has after two weeks.
Similar threads
