Someone explain to me why "diversity" is good.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by AAHZ
racism

If I am called racist for saying the oppresion of woman is immoral then I guess I am racist, I don't mind that much.

[ZEE]

i am glad we have determined, then, that you see all skin colors as equal

[Q Classic]

I don't, actually. Skintone 1143 isn't the same shade as Skintone 4410.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Theben
White is right, you rice chewer.

I always heard it as: "Either you're White, or you're wrong."

My dream is one day to have a comedic duo: White and Wong.

[Riesstiu IV]

Two Wongs don't make a white.

[ZEE]

[Combat Ingrid]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV
Two Wongs don't make a white.

[LordShiva]

Unbelievably, Vesayen seems to be outdoing himself.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by AAHZ
i am glad we have determined, then, that you see all skin colors as equal

Of course.

[aneeshm]

"Diversity", as the word is understood today - as a proportional, or sometimes disproportional representation of each race and ethnicity, not to speak of religion, within body of people - is fundamentally meaningless. In fact, it may act as a social inhibitor to the real diversity that we should cultivate - the diversity of ideas.

What would you rather have - a university of blacks, whites, and other assorted races, all together in a university, and every one thinking the same way, or an all-white (or overwhelmingly white) university (where the whiteness is not due to discrimination but a co-incidence) where each person is an original thinker, and the place itself is teeming with new ideas and the conflicts of old ones?

Having people of all races, religions, and ethnicities is meaningless if they all think alike, be the groupthink statist, liberal, conservative, or libertarian. In fact, unless controversial new ideas can be welcomed with reasoned debate instead of emotional condemnation if they do not fit with the norm, all the diversity in the world will not help your inbred little monoculture come crunch time.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Vesayen
It can be very difficult to rank cultures as superior to others on a lot of issues.

If you asked me which culture is superior, the culture of say, northern ireland and prague, that is a lot harder and something I cannot easily answer.

Some issues though, it is easy.

Any culture which treats women like property and slaves, is worthy of nothing but scorn and inferior to my culture.

Likewise, can we not agree that any culture which sacrafices children in religious ceremonies is also inferior?

Damn right!

Man, the world would be really better off without all those animal-carcass eating barbarians. I am supremely confident that my culture is totally superior to any which actually kills and then eats the dead bodies of animals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Damn right!

Man, the world would be really better off without all those animal-carcass eating barbarians. I am supremely confident that my culture is totally superior to any which actually kills and then eats the dead bodies of animals.

[Arrian]

Well played.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Lest that statement be misinterpreted - it was not meant to endorse what is commonly called "multiculturalism", but to emhpasise the idea of sovereignity, and how our emotional responses to other peoples' practices should not make us do rash things.

No matter how disgusting some practices of another culture may seem to us, it's still fundamentally their country, their state, and their business. As long as you don't try to invade and do anything to me, I'll leave you alone, too (but try to even touch me, and I'll bomb your sorry ass back to the stone age) - this is my preferred policy.

Another point is that a prohibition on the violation of another's sovereignity does not automatically mean that the culture that that sovereignity is protecting is inherently valuable. It may be something we are completely repulsed by, and we should be free to say so, and even attempt to change it using all the means that that culture permits us to use for this purpose (but, and this is important, no more), but never should we overstep our bounds and try to bring force into the equation in the pursuit of whatever our ideals are.

When I read the Islamic accounts of the conquest of India, and the descriptions the Muslim historians have left of the destruction of temples, I realise that they really, genuinely thought that they were doing a good thing. When I realised this, I also realised that judging the people was pointless - they were exactly like people today. In fact, to a great extent, even judging the ideas which they were trying to impose was equally pointless. The same attitudes, the same emotions, the same responses, just different ideas which they thought were good enough to force on others. Leaving aside the role of Islam in this whole sorry affair (for this example, it doesn't matter what caused this attitude, be it Islam or anything else, it only matters that it exists), I bring up this point only to illustrate a general principle - that no matter what we thing is good or bad, imposition of our ideas on another, specially another country, by means of force, is never, ever a good thing.

For them, it was Islam. For some today, it's communism, or socialism, or democracy, or liberalism, or whatever it is that is your pet meme. Usually, and unfortunately, the idea isn't as important as the zeal of the preacher.

[Imran Siddiqui]

NOOOOES! You ruined your joke!

That way we could have seen Ves sputter in responding to it rather than having a serious post to respond to .