Is Diversity Evil?

[SDET]

They are the antithesis of diversity... C'mon now, this aint that difficult.

Diversity is easy as long as it's only people you like. You either accept everybody on some level or you don't.

 

[Bodi]

Diversity doesn't mean everybody is accepted no matter what. It means accepting everybody that is willing to try to accept others. Hatred is the exact opposite of diversity.

Diversity is easy as long as it's only people you like. You either accept everybody on some level or you don't.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Diversity is easy as long as it's only people you like. You either accept everybody on some level or you don't.

Yes, and I say this as someone who has been on this planet since 1962 and as someone who has always had the instinct to pay attention to what is going on around me....people these days suck at interacting with people that they dont agree with, with people who are different than them in any way that is more profound than just cosmetic only.

And they still think that they are the most accepting (read advanced) people to ever walk the Earth.

It is BS born and raised by ignorance.

 

[Bodi]

Yes, and I say this as someone who has been on this planet since 1962 and as someone who has always had the instinct to pay attention to what is going on around me....people these days suck at interacting with people that they dont agree with, with people who are different than them in any way that is more profound than just cosmetic only.

And they still think that they are the most excepting (read advanced) people to ever walk the Earth.

It is BS born and raised by ignorance.

I thanked you for the intent of the post and not the "excepting" cough cough (accepting)...

 

[SDET]

Diversity doesn't mean everybody is accepted no matter what. It means accepting everybody that is willing to try to accept others. Hatred is the exact opposite of diversity.

I have survived decades of highly politically correct environments. They way you do it is DON'T FRATERNIZE. Don't let people know you personally and don't get to know them personally. Back when I was single a team lead described it as "don't defecate where you eat." At the time it meant to never show a personal interest in a female coworker. I lived by that advice ever since and it has served me well. If everyone is dehumanized into a corporate resource, you have reached "equality".

 

[Bodi]

I have survived decades of highly politically correct environments. They way you do it is DON'T FRATERNIZE. Don't let people know you personally and don't get to know them personally. Back when I was single a team lead described it as "don't defecate where you eat." At the time it meant to never show a personal interest in a female coworker. I lived by that advice ever since and it has served me well. If everyone is dehumanized into a corporate resource, you have reached "equality".

I am not sure how that relates to diversity in society... accepting people for being different. Nobody is saying diversity means you should be doing anything other than being nice, accomodating and accepting of different people.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I thanked you for the intent of the post and not the "excepting" cough cough (accepting)...

Thanks.

 

[SDET]

I am not sure how that relates to diversity in society... accepting people for being different. Nobody is saying diversity means you should be doing anything other than being nice, accomodating and accepting of different people.

It means the opinions you're allowed to have are dictated. It's neither freedom nor liberty. Liberty is passe'.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I have survived decades of highly politically correct environments. They way you do it is DON'T FRATERNIZE. Don't let people know you personally and don't get to know them personally. Back when I was single a team lead described it as "don't defecate where you eat." At the time it meant to never show a personal interest in a female coworker. I lived by that advice ever since and it has served me well. If everyone is dehumanized into a corporate resource, you have reached "equality".

In other words " someone was likely to complain about my flower garden so I ran the lawnmower over it first, so that they could not".

That is not winning, that is what losing looks like, that is being an accomplice to fear ruining our lives.

No thanks.

 

[SDET]

In other words " someone was likely to complain about my flower garden so I ran the lawnmower over it first, so that they could not".

That is not winning, that is what losing looks like, that is being an accomplice to fear ruining our lives.

No thanks.

We still have freedom of the checkbook (to some extent).

 

[Bodi]

It means the opinions you're allowed to have are dictated. It's neither freedom nor liberty. Liberty is passe'.

Not sure that I agree with that for society but fair enough... for many it is true, at least.

 

[Socrates1]

Nope... it is a code for being accepting of everybody.

With "safe zones " ??? :lamo:lamo

 

[Removable Mind]

Hear me out.

I think there is a simple truth that as long as there is diversity there will be lines in the sand between culture, religion or lack thereof, economic class and the social circles they create, and many other facets in our day to day life.
As long as there is diversity there will be confrontation.

Do those who want to remove religion (or a lack thereof) or cultural "barriers", economic classes, various education levels, also want to destroy diversity?

And should diversity be destroyed?

Thank you for hearing out my abstract mind process.

Diversity isn't a big deal to me. Multiculturalism is a problem, in my opinion.

There's always been kind of the global perception that America was all about diversity and the land of opportunity. And there is a history of great things happening in America - that's been a product of diversity. However, in early America there were darker realities that still looms today in the background of our society.

"Diversity" emerged mostly from Europe and Africa during the 16 and 1700's. However, when the Framers put together our Constitution, it somehow only applied to white elitists, many of whom were slave owners. Women and people of color seemed to have been missing from the equation.

By the late 1800s the Statue of Liberty exhibit symbolized the universal message of hope and freedom for immigrants coming to America and people seeking freedom around the world. And during that time in America - it did flourish in a lot of ways, but amidst blatant racism, sexism, exploitation of children in factories, etc, etc, etc.

Obviously "diversity", in and of itself, hasn't always worked in ways that our world image has portrayed it to be. It was, is, and will be a political problem that politicians didn't and don't want to deal with.

In earlier societies, as long as everybody knew their place and acted accordingly...then all was good. In other words, those diverse members who somehow didn't make the Constitutional cut or who were ignored by various government bodies and enforcement agencies didn't make waves and accepted their place in society - than all was good.

Dunno, diversity, like everything else politically charged, doesn't matter to those who aren't somehow victims of a lesser accepted diverse populations.

 

[shrubnose]

Those who think that they can make diversity go away and want to try to do it are very evil.

 

[radcen]

Those who think that they can make diversity go away and want to try to do it are very evil.

...as are those who use "diversity" to segregate.

Actually, worse.

 

[fredmertzz]

Your explanation of the "no" keeps me from clicking "no". My answer is 'no', but I do not believe that "Differences between people may cause conflict"

The differences don't cause the conflict. Those who make conflict because of those differences, even when those differences don't infringe on the basic human rights of anybody else, are the problem. The thought "if there is diversity, there must be conflict" is extremely troubling.

 

[Hawkeye10]

Your explanation of the "no" keeps me from clicking "no". My answer is 'no', but I do not believe that "Differences between people may cause conflict"

The differences don't cause the conflict. Those who make conflict because of those differences, even when those differences don't infringe on the basic human rights of anybody else, are the problem. The thought "if there is diversity, there must be conflict" is extremely troubling.

No more so than is the idea "If I don't agree with you then I am morally obligated to "correct" you".

Or worse "If I dont agree with you then you cant be in my life".

Both of which we hear a lot of today, from the allegedly tolerant liberals at least as much as from anyone else.

 

[fredmertzz]

No more so than is the idea "If I don't agree with you then I am morally obligated to "correct" you".

Or worse "If I dont agree with you then you cant be in my life".

Both of which we hear a lot of today, from the allegedly tolerant liberals at least as much as from anyone else.

"correct you" vs "cause conflict". This can be a big difference. I understand that a conflict can literally be as simple as saying "I disagree". However, I read the statement in terms of violent conflict. We all disagree with everybody on some topics. The only way to truly eliminate conflict is to be alone on the world. I assumed the OP's statement went beyond simply disagreeing and debating with one another.

 

[Hawkeye10]

"correct you" vs "cause conflict". This can be a big difference. I understand that a conflict can literally be as simple as saying "I disagree". However, I read the statement in terms of violent conflict. We all disagree with everybody on some topics. The only way to truly eliminate conflict is to be alone on the world. I assumed the OP's statement went beyond simply disagreeing and debating with one another.

THe person who starts the conflict by objecting to another plays a part in the conflict, by definition. "live and let live" is the alternative, which we see damn little of now. A lot of people cant do it, and see know reason why it would be a good thing, because getting others to do what they want is more important to them than is trying to create a free society where people treat each other with respect.

 

[Bodi]

With "safe zones " ??? :lamo:lamo

That is not diversity... that is left wing *****'s being *****'s. It seems that you think what the left wing zealots call diversity is what diversity really is...

That is a shame.

 

[phattonez]

So you don't think cultures should exist, they should all throw out their culture when they have to come together, or that they should never intermingle at all?

If there is immigration, then migrants should assimilate.

I think this can go either way and the evils you describe could be curbed if people learn to not only accept but celebrate their differences.

I'm fine with different cultures existing. What I'm not fine with is multiculturalism, whereby a country has no culture of its own, but instead different people in the country have their own unique culture. Which leads to what you describe below:

Moral diversity is only evil when it begins to rip apart a society's fabric which definitely can happen. I agree with you there.

And that's exactly what's happening in the US.

 

[Hawkeye10]

If there is immigration, then migrants should assimilate.



I'm fine with different cultures existing. What I'm not fine with is multiculturalism, whereby a country has no culture of its own, but instead different people in the country have their own unique culture. Which leads to what you describe below:



And that's exactly what's happening in the US.

And should be forced to assimilate, and we can start with learning english.

It should not be optional.

And yes this county is coming apart, because the glue that holds us together as a peoples has been untended for a generation, and has been weakening the whole time.

 

[German guy]

Hear me out.

I think there is a simple truth that as long as there is diversity there will be lines in the sand between culture, religion or lack thereof, economic class and the social circles they create, and many other facets in our day to day life.
As long as there is diversity there will be confrontation.

Do those who want to remove religion (or a lack thereof) or cultural "barriers", economic classes, various education levels, also want to destroy diversity?

And should diversity be destroyed?

Thank you for hearing out my abstract mind process.

IMO:

Even if you wanted, you could not destroy diversity. Humans are just diverse, and will always be. That may be good or bad, but it doesn't matter, because it's just how things are.

So the good sides of diversity should be celebrated, encouraged and enjoyed, and the bad sides should be minimized.


When you look at the context of cultural diversity within a given state or society -- which is in which context this term is most often used, and which you probably are hinting at, too --, I'd say there had to be a frame, rules that allow the state and society to function, on which a maximum of people has to agree on.

Only when people are not diverse at all when it comes to agreement to this frame, diversity in all other fields can be a good thing, and one that can be embraced and celebrated.

This frame should IMO be constitutional, classically liberal values along the lines of "your freedom ends where the freedom of someone else begins". Neither the government nor any individual citizen or private actor must violate this principle: To each his own, as long as you don't harm someone else in the process.

It's nice to have a society as diverse as encompassing fundamentalist Christians, proud gays celebrating their gayness, faithful Muslims, leftist slackers, artists of all kinds, work-a-holics, right wing warmongers -- as long as they know that their rules only apply to themselves, and they have no right to force their idea of life on anybody else.

That means fundamentalist Christians and faithful Muslims have to learn that the government is not supposed to legislate morals binding even to non-believers, just like slackers have to learn they are welcome to just enjoy their lifes as they wish as long as they get their money by legal means, and people easily offended have to learn that a different opinion is no reason to feel rightfully offended, i.e. -- and that at any rate, violence is never justified to solve matters of politics or worldview within a society, but there are free and fair elections to do that.


This is the frame there must be no diversity on. A maximum of people has to agree on this frame. If not, diversity becomes chaos and violence.

 

[grip]

Evil merely means 'ignorant.' I don't think you can have all perfect creatures, with any variability, unless there's diversity. If we all had ultimate knowledge we'd all be identical.

 

[Mr Person]

Evil merely means 'ignorant.'

1. I confess to the sin of not reading the whole thread before responding.

2. I am excused because there is no quoted post so who knows what I'm jumping into.

3. "Evil" implies a moral decision, as well as objective or quasi-objective morality*

4. "Evil" never means merely ignorant. It means a decision that defies the morality from #3, an act, non-act, or otherwise defined thing that fits the bill.

5. The bill involves concepts of maliciousnes, sadism, intentionality, etc. It is the infliction of some form intentional discomfiture without purpose other than maliciousness (perhaps without purpose too, therefore banal).


I fail to see how an objective measurement such as diversity, in any thing, can be "evil" absent a creator.

I fail to see how diversity, subjectively, can be "evil" without intent such as described above, unless it is something akin to intentionally deporting Jews to Germany in 1944.

_____
* social contract, whether implied or explicit.

* evil necessarily assumes an intention or a reckless and wilful failure to consider consequences in which evil inheres.

Hear me out.

I think there is a simple truth that as long as there is diversity there will be lines in the sand between culture, religion or lack thereof, economic class and the social circles they create, and many other facets in our day to day life.
As long as there is diversity there will be confrontation.

Do those who want to remove religion (or a lack thereof) or cultural "barriers", economic classes, various education levels, also want to destroy diversity?

And should diversity be destroyed?

Thank you for hearing out my abstract mind process.

The allowance of there being diversity cannot possibly be evil by definition. The possibility of confrontation does not make diversity bad; it is a negative reflection on humanity in its current form.