Diversity is not a good thing

Post Reply New Topic

That happens all the time.Two people with the same qualifications apply for the job,most attractive person will usually get it.

... most physically attractive and most sociable. Given the choice between a female A-grade technician who mumbles and scowls, and a female B-grade technician who smiles and makes the occasional joke, I'll hire the one with the biggest ... uh ... personality! Yes, personality is important...

It depends upon the needs of the position. But you would hope the A-grader doesn’t scowl too much.

I’d hire the A-grader, and seek to adjust her attitude if the job demands that sort of proficiency.

I wouldn’t want a B-grader to design/build my bridge.

Please allow me this bit of pedantry so that I can illustrate my point.

It is relavant because too many people give it a lot of importance, while it should never have been.

Lmao, good on you for keeping tabs.

Paraphrasing para a mi: Homogeneity by way of institutions usually has been caused by some form of discrimination, unlike the communal social homogeneity that OP's alluding to that isn't adversely a bad thing because it occurs naturally. Institutional homogeneity doesn't happen on accident or by any course of nature, it happens selectively and with bias.

OP says that diversity isn't bad but wanting diversity... Holy hell, that's pushing things. Premised on the idea that the benefactors(Old, White, males) of an "open" workforce should then be subjugated and discriminated against. To believe that things, the entire edifice on its' own, aren't good or bad but fair would mean to believe that we currently live in a meritocracy where good diversity's to be earned! Good women and minorities should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. They're making it sterotypically bad to be a white male by merely wanting. Should stop this silly notion of need

Red-lining was used as an example of how homogeneity has affected the entire infrastructure of American life by way of discrimination and not meritocratic ability. Sorry but I won't open that can of snakes, the history of it is ubiquitous. I can think of a decent peroration but I'm not hip for it.

False premise. No supportive evidence.No supportive evidence.Non-Sequitur.You just did.Sesquipedalianism for the sake of sesquipedelianism is both unbecoming and pedantic. Please refrain.

Okay, was nice conversing.

I think the reason we keep championing it is because people think stupid stuff like gender,and sexual orientation and stuff like that matter.

That's called diversity.

There's fewer of us.

(Perfectly symmetric face here)

It's said the "Nordic model"/"Scandinavian Socialism" works so well, because of the homogeneity of the citizens.

In America, a common argument ... "I don't want my tax money going to .. "LGBT", "homeless", "lazy", "illegals", "drug users", "foreigners", "people in another city", "bums", "white people", "black people", "Mexicans" .... I don't want my tax money going to anyone who isn't like me.



So, diversity may cause people to have less empathy for others.

The homogeneous socialism argument's always underhandedly led us back to the same conclusion, where conservatives try to project their attitudes on pragmatic "logic"


Instead of saying "I don't think minorites- which includes women- deserve the same liberties that the othersome were given" they're proud to say things like "diversity may cause people to have less empathy"

Same incendiary rhetoric just about follows any argument involving race in the states. We'll ignore any success of mixed-socialist countries to find our bane.

A few unstated assumptions here.

Firstly, you are assuming that there is a limited number of people who meet the requirements to be an MP. There aren't. There are 632 British MPs (excluding NI). If 1 in 1,000 people are capable of being an MP then that means there are 100 candidates for every seat. And let's face it, a lot of very, very average white men are MPs: Phillip Davies, Tim Farron, Jeremy Corbyn. I find it extraordinarily unlikely that there are not 316 women capable of making excellent MPs in this country.

Secondly, you are assuming that there is a "best" candidate. This simply isn't true in almost all circumstances. It is very hard to qualify a "best" candidate in almost any field once you get away from objective, quantifiable measures, or even once you introduce too many objective, quantifiable measures. This doesn't just apply to political candidates, but also job applicants, and indeed things that aren't people at all. What is the "best" album of all time? The best artwork? The best film? The best TV show? We cannot say. We have our opinions, sure, but I cannot confidently say that The Dark Side of the Moon is objectively better or worse than Modern Vampires of the City. In this day and age (let's say, since Blair, Cameron, and Kennedy began their leaderships of their respective parties), if you get on the shortlist for a seat for a major political party in a target seat then you are either well-connected very, very good, and probably essentially indistinguishable from the other candidates in terms of suitability. (There have, of course, been a few recent disasters where parties have rushed selection without vetting candidates in seats they didn't consider winnable).

Thirdly, you are assuming that open competition necessarily leads to better results. We've already talked about the disappointing quality of many MPs elected under open competition in times gone by. Open competition also seems to systematically discriminate against women. The Labour Party recently selected 25 PPCs, 17 through AWS and 8 through open shortlists. All 8 candidates selected through open shortlists were men. Similarly, when the Conservatives tried open primaries, only 15% of candidates nominated were women. The Conservatives have historically attracted more votes from women than the Labour Party, but the Labour Party returns more women MPs.

Fourthly, you are assuming that there is no inherent benefit to nominating more women to Parliament. Our Parliament has often shown a poor understanding of women's issues. We retain extremely strict restrictions upon abortion, for example. Issues like upskirting and period poverty have been neglected for a long time. The various fiascos surrounding Child Maintenance could also be put in this category, but that's more an issue of class (men can have experience of these issues but rich men largely don't). After the last election, there were two misogynists on the Women and Equalities Select Committee.

Fifthly, when you speak of men making up the "majority of candidates", you are assuming that levels of ability and suitability are evenly distributed. This may be the case, but I would argue that instead it reflects that women are deterred from standing for election even if they're good enough. Those women who do stand have had more to overcome than most men who stand; they're likely to be stronger than the average male candidate.

Sixthly, a very minor point but it's worth noting that no Lib Dem MP has ever been elected on an AWS, nor have major candidates like Laura Gordon or Liz Riches been selected on them. They Lib Dems have, however, implemented the only successful disabled-only shortlist when they re-elected Stephen Lloyd in 2017. Lloyd's extreme popularity locally means that he'd probably have won regardless of whether the list had been open to everyone. Just because he was selected on a limited shortlist doesn't mean he isn't "there on merit".

Finally, it's important to remember that very few people want these measures in the long run. Tony Blair described them as "not at all ideal". Nick Clegg was opposed until the 2010 GE had little impact on the numbers of women elected as LD MPs, when he saw them as a possible short-term solution. David Cameron has expressed similar conditional support when extending the legality of the practice for another 15 years. The Institute for Government said they were useful but flawed. Ultimately, other methods for addressing the gender imbalance would theoretically be better, but have practically failed, so in the short term we need this solution. Hopefully by 2030 (or 2032) we won't need them any more, but right now we do.

That's probably vitiligo. The opposite issue is hyperpigmentation disorders of various types - Addison's being a famous one. JFK had it, and it causes a false tan in some people (it did in him).

I would argue that an uncontrollable pigmentation disorder, affecting one's outward appearance and impossible to conceal, will very much affect who you are inside because human beings are so averse to difference of any kind but I don't think that's what you had in mind.

It's mostly all humans, not only conservatives.

Here's a minority group complaining that "whites" are getting too much of the Trump tax cut money.

How Trump’s tax cuts favor whites over minorities
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/08 ... minorities

While it was probably unintentional, whites are in fact benefiting more from the Trump tax cuts because said tax cuts were intended to help the wealthy, who are mostly white.

Yes, all humans have their cultural biases, but that's not a reason socialism wouldn't work- that's the reason socialism spanning over to minorities have been resisted. We're in agreement.

The rich have ample reason to want to keep up the status quo of capitalism but so do their ethnonational apparent who've been goaded into believing that their commonwealth's directly connected- Just as any reluctance to preserve said status quo should lead them to their disparagement.

Diversity 'not being good' is based more on fears of losing power than it is of any real fears of sexism.racism.ageism. Especially the type of it that has persisted beforehand but by your previous posts I see that you understand that