CDZ Diversity, What's Important?

[Mikeoxenormous]

Integration is more important than diversity.

Having pasta and marinara sauce on your plate is great. That is a diversity of food. Having them mixed together is much better. That is integration and it’s delicious!

Integration of races, cultures, religions, sexes, social classes, etc…. is important if, for no other reason, to break down stereotypes and destroy assumptions. For example, those who have never been up close to someone battling addiction are really quick to criticize those addicted to eating, drugs, alcohol, etc… What those who do not battle addiction do not understand is that folks who do battle addiction don’t have the “off” switch that others do who manage their desires. I have the opportunity, nay honor, of knowing some people who are highly accomplished in some walks of life but are addicted to various activities/things in other parts of their lives.

I’m better for knowing people who think differently than I do.

I could not agree more. The topic of integration is for another thread though, one which I debated starting with. I thought it prudent to start here, with diversity, first, so I could get a general feel for how people view the topic, and hopefully come to some sort of consensus on it's merit in general.

Okay, as long as the diversity isnt young, white, Christian, male, then it is okay to be diverse. But watch out if you fall into any of those 4 categories, then it becomes very bad, in liberal land.

 

[Pilot1]

The entire Diversity push from the Left is so people focus on our few differences instead of our vast similarities. It is purely to divide, keep us at odds, and weak.

 

[Leo123]

Diversity is a word that has been hijacked by the ultra-left, neo-marxists and therefore it's meaning has been polluted so, I marked not important.

 

[oldsoul]

Note: This is intended to be a non-political/non-partisan discussion.

"Diversity" has become a political term, so why are you trying to disguise it as something else? Otherwise, your OP is meaningless:

Another word for diversity | Synonyms for diversity

True, "diversity" has, indeed, become a largely political term. However, If one were able to put the present context aside, and look at what the word actually means, I believe one would find this discussion quite meaningful, and useful. Of course, sense we are a diverse group, you may well see it differently.

Diversity is a not a normative term, so why does you poll presuppose its importance?

Simple, It has been made important in society through political pressure. I am simply going with that because to debate it's importance would be both a waste of time, and has little chance of allowing me to gain further knowledge and understanding.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Diversity is simply a code word used by those who are attempting to end it.

The same people who prattle on about diversity are the same ones who oppose national sovereignty and want to flood all the diverse western cultures with hoards of those who wish to assert their own primitive ways, instead.

No more France. No more Britain. No more Sweden. All the diverse cultures will be replaced in a hundred year's time.

 

[pismoe]

To me diversity is a bad word. It means you have to accept the unacceptable.

---------------------------------- good post Mike . To me diversity among Western people is fine if it is naturally Occurring Mike .

 

[pismoe]

To me diversity is a bad word. It means you have to accept the unacceptable.

------------ yeah .

 

[there4eyeM]

There is no arguing against the advantage of having fresh, perhaps even objective inputs. Any person can learn from any other person. Imposed 'diversity' could easily deteriorate into another whole topic than seeking to further ourselves.

 

[Foxfyre]

I see nothing positive about 'embracing' failed cultures; most of that 'Diversity' rubbish is just whining losers sniveling about getting by passed by progress and far better cultural practices. Only total morons think we need to treat Aztec or Congo or Pakistani 'cultures' as something to 'admire' and encourage, just to name three; 'Diversity' is just a dog whistle word for black and brown racists and their infantile jealousies and bigotry.

Diversity is not the same thing as embracing though. So long as the Aztecs or a tribe in the Congo or the people of Pakistan do not do harm/evil to others, what difference does what they believe or practice in their culture make to us or anybody else? Yes, if they are doing harm to their own, we can say so and even try to persuade them to stop doing that. But if they do not allow any other point of view but their own to be expressed, then they continue in their narrow minded intolerance and harmful behavior.

So it is here. Not allowing diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs produces a narrow minded, intolerant society that is likely to do harm/evil to those who do not conform to it. We see it all the time in an American culture in which such narrow minded intolerance results in action, not just disapproval, and people form angry 'mobs' to attack people, their friends, their associates, their employers, their advertisers, their customers, etc. to punish them and/or drive them out of theaters or restaurants or harass them to prevent them from speaking in a public forum or harass those who want to hear them speak. Such protests all too often turn violent because protest of thought is itself violent in concept.

Colleges who condone students protesting somebody who has actually been invited to speak on campus are doing those students a huge disservice. They should be encouraging students to encourage and invite diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs and to think critically of which opposing view has greater merit.

 

[there4eyeM]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

 

[MacTheKnife]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

 

[Foxfyre]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

 

[there4eyeM]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

 

[Foxfyre]

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

 

[there4eyeM]

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

Perhaps, but American society is not based on dictates from other than the people, who included great variations of diversity.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Repressing women needs no 'diversity' that promotes it.

Explain please?

As a working woman working in many different field for a lot of decades now, I have never felt repressed except in situations in which I was perceived as the 'token woman' who was advanced or got the raise not because I earned and merited it, but because of diversity rules in an organization. And that really sucks. Many minorities in the same situation feel the same way.

Forced diversity always has many more downsides than good points.

Intellectual diversity is critical to a society embracing liberty, generating opportunity, and to advance.

You are coinfused.....diversity in and of itself or to promote diversity strictly in order to just claim we have diversity is ridiculous in and of itself....serving no purpose or any kind of merit whatsoever.

What you should be saying is that we need intellectual freedom....most especially in academia where p.c. has restricted it now for decades.

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

I do not think you understand what most ....especially liberals mean by diversity or what kind of diversity they want....basically their desire is to have more minorities....look at all the universities and their diversity programs-- what are their goals...more blacks enrolled mainly but they also now are interested in muslims...and they heavily discriminate in regards to what nationalities or races they promote for entrance into their prestigious institutions....mainly they discriminate against Asians...Harvard has recently been under fire for that.

 

[Foxfyre]

And where in my post do I disagree with that?

It is not that you disagree with it...just that you used a poor choice of words to promote Intellectual freedom.

Freedom is not diversity.....intellectual diversity is not intellectual freedom...you can have all kinds of diversity and still not have intellectual freedom.

In fact those so obsessed with diversity now would have no problem stripping you of all your freedoms just to be able to have more and more diversity.

You cannot have liberty without liberty to express thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs. Again intellectual liberty is the root/foundation of all liberty. And unless diversity of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs is allowed, even encouraged, we have a society so narrow minded, intolerant, and inflexible that liberty cannot exist and all manner of injustice and evil will flourish.

Liberty within society is dependent upon responsibility. That means responsibility for the consequences of pitting oneself against the society.
When the society insists that, before the law and in society women and men are equals, it is no longer a question of diversity to suggest changes to that. Other opinions and outlooks may be heard, but with no expectation of adoption. A culture that, for example, only accounts half the value of a man to a woman can only serve as an example of how not to do things.

Responsibility is important. I don't disagree with that. But a healthy society will put together laws, rules, regulations that accomplish order, decency, and ability to deal with the irresponsible and the aggressors who are harmful to the persons or property of others. But such a healthy society that is based on social contract instead of dictates of a dictator or dictatorial government cannot evolve unless it allows for differences/diversity of thoughts, opinion, ideas, concepts, beliefs.

Instead it will become narrow, fixated, intolerant to the point that the society itself will be unjust and oppressive.

Perhaps, but American society is not based on dictates from other than the people, who included great variations of diversity.

We have a history of societies that claimed superior responsibility, integrity, and righteousness and considered themselves morally superior in their laws, rules, regulations, and policies. But in spite of their claims or how they saw themselves, no diversity of thought, belief, or belief was tolerated. They formed themselves into tightly knit, judgmental, intolerant little theocracies that resulted in scarlet letters, putting people in public stocks, the Salem Witch Trials, etc.

It was not the dictates of others but rather the example displayed by others that softened the heart of these well intended but tyrannical people. By the end of the 18th Century, all those little theocracies had peacefully dissolved and, in the bright light of liberty of thought, ideas, concepts, beliefs, no new ones developed.

You cannot have liberty or much progress without liberty to be who you are and express what you think, hope, believe, envision. To deny or punish anybody for simply expressing a different or wrong or unpopular idea or belief is to exercise a tyranny that will do nothing but destroy liberty.