The Good of a Diverse Society

[Purple Knight]

The good of a diverse society: What is it? Why should we pursue it above other benefits? Is there anything that can prevent us from having the benefit of a diverse society?

(That it's an end in an of itself is a fair answer.)

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

I say one word especially, to counter Xenophobia.
Like when Europeans encountered Africans and couldn't see them as equals. What happened? We dominated them and took them as slaves for the hardest work under the whip and the gun!
Nowadays we familiarize with other cultures by meeting people who have deep interests there, say ancestry and other.
I think the melting pot of the World is the most intelligent and polite! Re the Family of human beings.

God bless you. Merry Christmas and a happy New year to you.

[Kenisaw]

The good of a diverse society: What is it? Why should we pursue it above other benefits? Is there anything that can prevent us from having the benefit of a diverse society?

(That it's an end in an of itself is a fair answer.)

Diversity and society are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive words. Society is a group of people who share basic customs, laws, traditions, etc. Diversity is defined as including people of different customs and traditions. The clash is obvious and should be more apparent to people that throw out the phrase "diverse society", but it's one of those catch phrases that the masses regurgitate in a verbal show of virtue signaling.

That doesn't mean that societies can't or shouldn't change over time, but those changes shouldn't affect the core foundation of a society. Bringing in a bunch of young males into Western Europe who think it is OK to rape non Muslim women is a huge problem, and it obviously clashes with a basic Western value. Diversity is not always a good thing.

[nobspeople]

The good of a diverse society: What is it? Why should we pursue it above other benefits? Is there anything that can prevent us from having the benefit of a diverse society?

(That it's an end in an of itself is a fair answer.)

A divers society would seem to mean a society with people from other cultures and societies.
One reason to not prohibit a diverse society is to better understand fellow humans, their culture and ways of thinking - knowledge is power to quote GI Joe. All humans share the same planet and need to live together as peacefully as possible. This would tend to prevent hate among groups that's prevalent today (IMO).
The only way I can see to prevent it is to eliminate all humans from all other societies than your own.

[Purple Knight]

This would tend to prevent hate among groups that's prevalent today (IMO).
The only way I can see to prevent it is to eliminate all humans from all other societies than your own.

Or to let people live separately. I admit I'm losing my faith in diversity when we continue to have more and more racism, more and more discrimination, and more and more hate.

It's also pretty convenient that whites are the ones ruining society and they're the ones who seem to most want separation. If they think they're holding anything up, I say it's a good thing they're so deluded. Take advantage of that and let them go. If I'm right, they fail miserably and fall flat on their faces because in reality, they're the leeches and everyone else is holding them up. That would be good, right? Well what if I'm wrong and they're right? Then they succeed instead of failing and then they're happy, but if they're right that they're disproportionately contributing and others are disproportionately leeching, that's fair too, isn't it?

Basically I can't see a case where letting people go who want to go results in a less moral outcome.

Especially since whites are the ones driving racism, oppression, and inequality, and they're the ones who want to get away.

Society is a group of people who share basic customs, laws, traditions, etc.

That is the central question, isn't it? What happens when groups disagree about what the laws should be?

Let's take it to the extreme. Do we want people who think murder should be legal? Or do we concede that there are some ways of thinking that it's best to be separate from, since diversity on this point is either unfair to them (imprisoning them for something that, to them, isn't wrong), or unfair to us (letting us be murdered even though we think it's wrong)?

[Kenisaw]

This would tend to prevent hate among groups that's prevalent today (IMO).
The only way I can see to prevent it is to eliminate all humans from all other societies than your own.

Or to let people live separately. I admit I'm losing my faith in diversity when we continue to have more and more racism, more and more discrimination, and more and more hate.

Do you, by chance, have an autographed copy of the 1619 Project in your house? Because unless you've read that, and conveniently ignored every single measurable metric on racism, discrimination, etc, there is absolutely no way to logically conclude that we are more racist, more discriminatory, and more hateful.

But this is starting to ring a bell with me. The last time I perused this website, I recall we had a little chat about your racist views towards whites. You are a CRT junkie if I recall correctly. If I am misremembering, please correct me and I will offer up my apologies immediately.

It's also pretty convenient that whites are the ones ruining society and they're the ones who seem to most want separation.

Looks like I don't need to offer up that apology after all. I am remembering correctly.

If they think they're holding anything up, I say it's a good thing they're so deluded. Take advantage of that and let them go. If I'm right, they fail miserably and fall flat on their faces because in reality, they're the leeches and everyone else is holding them up. That would be good, right? Well what if I'm wrong and they're right? Then they succeed instead of failing and then they're happy, but if they're right that they're disproportionately contributing and others are disproportionately leeching, that's fair too, isn't it?

Race is such a convenient scapegoat, isn't it? It's so easy...so simple...to use immutable characteristics as the boundary limits on things. The fact that race cannot possibly define any one person's condition or circumstance, much less encompass an entire group's total condition or circumstance, has to be blatantly ignored in order to make such statements.

Basically I can't see a case where letting people go who want to go results in a less moral outcome.

Especially since whites are the ones driving racism, oppression, and inequality, and they're the ones who want to get away.

You, of course, have statistics, data, and empirical evidence to back up such claims obviously.....

Society is a group of people who share basic customs, laws, traditions, etc.

That is the central question, isn't it? What happens when groups disagree about what the laws should be?

Let's take it to the extreme. Do we want people who think murder should be legal? Or do we concede that there are some ways of thinking that it's best to be separate from, since diversity on this point is either unfair to them (imprisoning them for something that, to them, isn't wrong), or unfair to us (letting us be murdered even though we think it's wrong)?

My opinion? The laws and "ways of thinking" should always lean towards individual rights to the greatest extent possible. Murder is an obvious infringement on someone's individual rights. Raping women because they aren't Muslim is an infringement on someone's individual rights. Slave markets in Libya are an infringement on someone's individual rights. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist stops where my nose starts....

[historia]

Diversity and society are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive words. Society is a group of people who share basic customs, laws, traditions, etc. Diversity is defined as including people of different customs and traditions.

But surely this is putting things too simplistically. Would you not agree that some countries can successfully incorporate some of the customs of new peoples into the broader society?

The United States, for example, is fantastic at acculturating immigrants. Second and third generation European, Asian, African, and Hispanic immigrants are all but indistinguishable from their American-born counterparts.

And whatever unique culinary and cultural traditions that survive that acculturation process just add a little extra spice (both literally and metaphorically) to the broader American culture. That, in turn, enriches everyone's experiences. What's not to like?

That doesn't mean that societies can't or shouldn't change over time, but those changes shouldn't affect the core foundation of a society.

This seems like a more considered take, and I agree. I think that's precisely what many folks mean by a 'diverse' society, though -- that is, one where different ethnic groups have been incorporated into the 'melting pot' of the broader society.

[Kenisaw]

Diversity and society are, in my opinion, mutually exclusive words. Society is a group of people who share basic customs, laws, traditions, etc. Diversity is defined as including people of different customs and traditions.

But surely this is putting things too simplistically. Would you not agree that some countries can successfully incorporate some of the customs of new peoples into the broader society?

I never suggested otherwise. Have we incorporated anything that violates the Constitution though? No. The core of the country, as I mentioned, remains the same. We have Taco Tuesday and soccer now, but we still have freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.

The United States, for example, is fantastic at acculturating immigrants. Second and third generation European, Asian, African, and Hispanic immigrants are all but indistinguishable from their American-born counterparts.

Exactly my point. They became Americans, America didn't become Korea or Ghana. The core of American society remains the same.

And whatever unique culinary and cultural traditions that survive that acculturation process just add a little extra spice (both literally and metaphorically) to the broader American culture. That, in turn, enriches everyone's experiences. What's not to like?

Hence Taco Tuesdays.

That doesn't mean that societies can't or shouldn't change over time, but those changes shouldn't affect the core foundation of a society.

This seems like a more considered take, and I agree. I think that's precisely what many folks mean by a 'diverse' society, though -- that is, one where different ethnic groups have been incorporated into the 'melting pot' of the broader society.

I don't think that is what Purple meant, but I'll hash that out with him in a separate discussion. But I think you and I are on the same page mainly.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #5]

Or to let people live separately.

Might not be a bad idea if the world wasn't so interconnected.

admit I'm losing my faith in diversity when we continue to have more and more racism, more and more discrimination, and more and more hate.

I think that has a lot to do with indoctrination and education, both at home and in places of education. That said, hate will always be present - it's an emotion that's human. Diverse or not, hate is not going away.

It's also pretty convenient that whites are the ones ruining society and they're the ones who seem to most want separation.

'White' can be seen as ambiguous here, but, generally speaking, 'whites' have been less....accepting(?)...of other races throughout history. But let's not forget other societies have had the same issues no matter the race or skin color.

If I'm right, they fail miserably and fall flat on their faces because in reality, they're the leeches and everyone else is holding them up.

I hear the faint sounds of a superior race here, just in reverse. Very unbecoming IMO.

That would be good, right?

I don't see it 'good' that any person 'fails' due to their race or ethnicity.

Well what if I'm wrong and they're right? Then they succeed instead of failing and then they're happy, but if they're right that they're disproportionately contributing and others are disproportionately leeching, that's fair too, isn't it?

While there are differences in races, I don't think it 'fair' to see anyone succeed or fail simply due to their skin color, race, gender, sexual preference.... that seems rather elitist.

Basically I can't see a case where letting people go who want to go results in a less moral outcome.

What is this 'to go' issue?

Especially since whites are the ones driving racism, oppression, and inequality, and they're the ones who want to get away.

Is this true? Can you show whites are 'driving racism...'? And what does that even mean?

[Purple Knight]

I don't see it 'good' that any person 'fails' due to their race or ethnicity.

My point is, if some whites want to separate, because they think their group is disproportionately contributing, but they're wrong, then (let me rephrase) each individual that chose separation under that false premise fails and ends up with less because they were wrong.

Maybe they want to come back at that point, and they do so having learned a valuable lesson.

I'm for letting people test things even if I don't believe they're true because I could be wrong.

The last time I perused this website, I recall we had a little chat about your racist views towards whites.

I'm also not a definitionalist, so I won't point out that bias against the group with power is not technically racism. I think definitionalism is poor sport, doesn't belong on a debate site, harms discourse, and I every bit admit I think white people are bad news. (I'm only saying this much to drive home a point about definitionalism, which I think plagues this site.)

The beautiful part about letting whites separate if they want to is that it continues to be the morally correct decision even if I am wrong.

I'm simply wondering why groups like the American Redoubt in Idaho are being demonised. The way I see it, if whites are evil oppressors driving inequality, good...? They're gone. And if I'm wrong and they have any legitimate concerns then... also good...?

It just seems like the people doing the demonising and namecalling don't actually believe in the liberalism they're coming from. They seem to actually believe all the nastiest, most racist things that are said on Stormfront about white people being the backbone of American society. If they don't believe that, why not let them go? That, or they're caught in a Bugs Bunny gag nobody tried to trap them in because they're just going on their instinct to argue against evil when they should be agreeing with it.



I really don't want to believe my side is that stupid but it sure seems like it. And that's the generous interpretation. If they're not stupid, they're liars.

My opinion? The laws and "ways of thinking" should always lean towards individual rights to the greatest extent possible. Murder is an obvious infringement on someone's individual rights. Raping women because they aren't Muslim is an infringement on someone's individual rights. Slave markets in Libya are an infringement on someone's individual rights. As the saying goes, your right to swing your fist stops where my nose starts....

And I want you to live in the world you prefer.

Though I recognise individual rights as a highly Western concept.

You can construct other systems of rights. The highly religious Muslim sees a wrong - a rights violation - in insulting his religion. He sees this because his religion is actually sacred to him, not subordinate to peoples' right to say as they please. To him, the religion is higher. To the more conservative Westerner, the right to hold nothing sacred is the thing that's sacred (I... won't judge, especially considering that when they agree, it actually works well). I want him to live as he pleases as well, and the only way you and he can both get what you want is to not live in close proximity, where you both judge that you have violated one another's rights.

In other words, I don't see why we should put owls and crows in the same cage and just expect them to put their differences aside.

https://www.capeandislands.org/science- ... -by-nature
In a battle of enemies that dates back to before humans evolved, crows and owls have been at war with each other. Both families of birds are genetically imprinted with an intense, strong dislike of the other family. Without ever having seen an owl, a newly fledged crow instantly, aggressively, instinctually, knows in its being that it does not like the owl.



If it's not to be, then it's not to be.